Pharaohs Never Existed

gregory5564

Active member
Messages
38
Reactions
186
I recently read a book which I purchased from Amazon called Egypt Knew No Pharaohs (2015). It is similar to the works of Dr Fomenko in that it challenges commonly held assumptions about historical events based on the reexamination of primary sources. Unlike the New Chronology, however, Dr Ezzat largely adheres to consensual chronology, though with a few notable departures. More of his contentions are centered around the locations where the events occurred, rather than the time. In any case, I feel that very few books have addressed so many historical problems so concisely and elegantly, and I wanted to share the major theories and their evidence which Dr Ezzat has set forth.

Friedrich_Overbeck_002.jpg

1. Did Egypt ever have Pharaohs?
Never in the ancient Egyptians' own records do they call their ruler a Pharoah. Instead, they refer to their ruler as a king like every other civilization. We get the word Pharoah purely from the ancient book called the Old Testament, also known as the Tanakh, or Jewish Bible. A man named Abraham goes to Egypt with his wife, and they are invited to stay with the Pharaoh. Later on, the children of Jacob, Abraham's grandson, leave the Promised Land and settle in Egypt owing to a famine. In both episodes, the ruler of Egypt is called Pharoah. The only substantial argument which is employed by scholars to justify the existence of "Pharaohs" is that the Egyptian word for "royal palace" is Pr Aa, which sounds to some degree like "Pharaoh." However, as Dr Ezzat points out, not only do the Egyptians never once use Pr Aa in their own records as a synonym of "king," the word Pr Aa does not mean "royal court." There is a different word for that. Furthermore, the word Pharaoh, in the original Hebrew, is Faraon, which sounds even more distant from Pr Aa than "Pharaoh." The fact is, the word Egypt doesn't even occur in the Old Testament. Instead, the original Hebrew uses the name Mizraim. It was during the Hellenistic Age, around 300 BC, that the consensus emerged that Mizraim and Egypt were the same place, thus leading to the tradition that we translate Mizraim to Egypt. Combined with the repeated archaeological failures to discover evidence of the Moses and the Israelites in Egyptian captivity, along with their massive exodus which should have left behind historical traces, the only logical conclusion is that the Mizraim of the Old Testament is not, in fact, Egypt, but some other place.

2. Where was Mizraim, in that case?
The major figures of Judaism such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are believed in, not just by Jews, but also by Muslims. In fact, not only do the Muslims revere these figures, but they also have their own versions and extensions to the Jewish stories. Many people, including scholars, assume that this is because Islam as a religion was based upon Judaism and Christianity and used their narratives as a base. However, several modern Egyptian and Arab scholars which Dr Ezzat cites (I will add citations later) have argued that the connection between Arabs and Jews is far closer than one would think. In reality, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were already heroes to the residents of the Arabian peninsula before the religion of Islam emerged. They were characters in old Arabian myths passed down through oral tradition. Islam did not invent many religious practices anew, but simply reorganized and consoldiated the mass of preexisting Arabian oral traditions and religious habits. Arabs and Jews have many features in common, including their religious codes, dietary codes, circumcision, subjugation of women, and tribalistic mentality. It is not a stretch to suppose that the Israelites were, in fact, one among the many competing Arabian tribes. The similarities between the Hebrew and Arabic languages are already well known. In addition, many of the names in the Old Testament seem even more immediately derived from the Arabic tongue. For example, the name of the king of the Philistines, Abimelech, is an alternate spelling of Abu Malik. The name Mizraim itself derives from an Arabic word meaning "town." Since the Old Testament says that the Israelites while in Egyptian captivity were tasked with building storehouses, and that the Egyptians suffered from famine, it makes more sense that Mizraim was a trading city within the Arabian peninsula. Numerous locations within the Old Testament were really just minor Arabian towns. The constant battles fought between the Israelites and other groups closely resemble the intertribal conflicts of the Arabians. In fact, the Jewish community of Yemen had long been considered one of the most ancient centers of Judaism. However, after the founding of the State of Israel they were transported by the British as part of Operation Magic Carpet. The Jewish Yemeni have implicitly admitted in the past that they are the origin of Judaism. Certain Muslims scholars in the modern age have discovered small villages within the Arabian peninsula with similar names to Biblical cities, including the possible site of Jerusalem. The title "Faraon" is even used to mean the local leader of a village.

3. How did the Israelites split off from the Arabs?
It says in the Old Testament that Jerusalem was built on a mountain. However, the site of modern-day Jerusalem has no mountain, only small hills. Dr Ezzat contends that the modern-day Jerusalem is not the historical site of the city. Rather, it was during the Hasmonean Dynasty and the Maccabean Revolt that the capital was moved out of the Arabian peninsula and into the north in order to enjoy the more fertile land. The Jews are distinguished from the Arabs mainly because they had a completely assembled holy book known as the Tanakh (or Old Testament) which formed the basis of their religion. However, there is no evidence that this book existed before the Jews came into contact with the Hellenistic civilizations. If you may recall from your history lessons, the classical age of Greece ended with the conquests of Philip II of Macedon and his son, Alexander the Great. The latter managed to conquer Greece, Turkey, Egypt, Syria, and other areas of the Middle East and Central Asia. In the lands that he conquered, he introduced Greek as the language of government and education, and established a Greek-speaking upper-class. After he died, his empire divided into factions and started to fight each other. Thus, you had Egypt and Syria, two originally non-Greek civilizations, which have been reformed in a Greek mold and are ruled by people speaking Greek (and largely of Greek descent). Up to that point, the Jews, like the Arabs, preserved their religious beliefs and customs through oral tradition and fragmentary writings. There had not been a comprehensive effort to assemble everything into a single, standardized book. It was only after meeting the Greeks and seeing their advanced state of culture and literacy that the ideas occurred to the Jews. Throughout latter history, there were two major manuscripts of the Old Testament. One was written in Greek and called the Steptuagint. The other was written in Hebrew and called the Masoretic Text. While most historians believe that the Masoretic Text, or some other Hebrew text, came first, and then was translated into the Septuagint, Dr Ezzat points out that the primary sources more strongly suggest another scenario: upon the commissioning of the Septuagint by the Hellenistic dictator of Egypt, Ptolemy II Soter, the Jews who did not possess a complete book at that point decided to compile one. Thus, the Masoretic Text was assembled over several years, and at the same time, the Jews worked on translating it into Greek. This is why, in the original story of the creation of the Septuagint, Ptolemy II Soter says "write for me your laws," not "translate your book." There was not a book at the time, only a large body of oral laws, which was the typical means that many cultures preserved their knowledge. Even the Odyssey and Iliad were passed down by speech for hundreds of years, undoubtedly changing to some degree along the way, before Homer wrote them down.

4. Where do the stories of the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark come from?
These are not old Arabian myths, but instead, Sumerian or Babylonian myths. It is accepted history that the Israelites were invaded and crushed by Nebuchadnezzar II, the king of the Chaldean Empire, in 588 BC. This was well before the Hasmonean Dynasty, so according to Dr Ezzat, it was actually Arabia, not Palestine, which was invaded by this king. There are various pieces of evidence including ancient writings which support this fact, which I recommend that you read the book in order to assess. It so happens, this area, the Arabian peninsula, is also accepted by historians to have been the site of a major trading route, specifically for spices and incense. It is common knowledge that Arabia was the ancient center for spice-production, and also that the Arabian tribes frequently engaged in banditry against traders and caravans. In fact, numerous Arabians made a living off doing so, making the Arabian peninsula one of the more dangerous places of antiquity. Many people such as Christians studying the Old Testament have wondered why Nebuchadnezzar II, upon conquering the Israelites (which people assume were in Palestine, but as we are suggesting, were in Arabia) decided, as the official story goes, to kidnap nearly all of them, and send them work in Babylon. This was a rather unusual move in ancient times when the norm for a ruler conquering a territory was to plunder the area, and then to impose taxes and yearly tributes. However, putting these pieces of information together, another picture emerges: both the Israelites and the Arabs were plundering caravans, and thus Nebuchadnezzar II was moved to kidnap nearly all of the indigenous people of Arabia, not just the Israelites, and to forcibly deport them in order to increase the safety and thereby the economic gain of the caravan route. It is already accepted by historians that the Babylonians had similar myths to the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark. Thus, it is not surprising that during their time in Babylon, the Israelites learned of these legends. The influence of Babylon on the Israelites is very obvious. As the official story admits, after several generations when the Israelites were allowed to leave Babylon, they had already adopted Aramaic, the official language of Babylon, as their native tongue, and retained Hebrew only for religious purposes. After their return from Babylon, the Israelites became known as the Jews, and they ostracized the fraction of Israelites who had not been kidnapped and had stayed in Jerusalem during all those generations. The latter became the Samaritans.

5. Why did Egypt get confused with Mizraim?
How could Egypt get confused with Mizraim if the Biblical depictions of Mizraim fail to mention any of the particular features of Egypt, such as the pyramids and sphinxes? Not to mention, Egyptian records don't record the arrival, captivity, and exodus of the Israelites? Scholars may claim that the Egyptians felt defeated by the Israelites and therefore blotted the episode out from their history. However, this fails to explain the lack of archaeological evidence, and furthermore, the Egyptians are well known to have kept at least one major embarassing episode within their history rather than trying to censor the record of events: namely, the civil strife caused by the religious reforms of Akhenaten. The truth is that, during the Hellenistic Era, Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucid Syria were frequently at war with each other, and the dictator of Egypt decided to settle the Jews in the Sinai peninsula, where they could act as a buffer zone to defend the Egyptian heartland. It was through the strategic partnership with the Jews that the agreement emerged to identify Egypt, which had been an illustrious civilization both well in advance of Greek rule, and during that period, as the land where the events involving Abraham, Jacob, and Moses took place. Furthermore, Alexandria was already called Mizr by the Arabians because the word Mizr simply means "town," and Alexandria being a large and illustrious city was termed the "town of towns." The author rightly points out that the implications of this partnership were huge. If the Old Testament stories had not been linked to Egypt, then the intellectuals and ordinary citizens of the Roman Empire would not have felt the stories to have any relevance to them, and thus, the subsequent adoption of Christianity would have been hindered.

Problems with Dr Ezzat's Theory

I can name only two major problems with the theory. The first is that when God cursed the Egyptians prior to the exodus of Israelites, the various kinds of curses have a correspondence to the Egyptian gods. For example, the lack of sunlight was a symbol of the defeat of Ra. However, Dr Ezzat may wish to explain this away as the subsequent embellishments of the Jewish scribes who worked with the Hellenistic Egyptians under Ptolemy II Soter.

The second problem is that, while Dr Ezzat complains that the Jewish religion is curiously absent of Egyptian cultural influence, which would have occurred if the Israelites really were captive in Egypt for a long period, he overlooks the fact that the Ten Commandments may have been based upon the Forty Two Commandments of Egyptian religion.
 
Last edited:

BStankman

Well-known member
Messages
609
Reactions
2,823
Hebrew scholors have made similar conclusions of the Israelites split from the Arabs .

51YZH0SHK1L._SX302_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
A provocative thesis: Not only was Moses an Egyptian but so were the Hebrew people who followed him to Canaan. Through linguistic, philologic, and religious explorations, the authors prove that the "Chosen People" were not slaves from a foreign country but high-ranking Egyptian priests and the adherents of the monothiest pharaoh Akhenaton. During a counterrevolution against monotheism, his followers were forced to move to the Egyptian province of Canaan.

Abraham
abraham.jpg
 

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,019
Reactions
15,694
I think the Rosetta stone was a very convenient discovery to hand us the desired translation of things. Almost too good to be true.

Rosetta_Stone.JPG

Wondering what the history of Egypt would be like without this Rosetta stone. Something tells me it would be exactly the same, and not for the reasons of authenticity of the events of the past. That’s just the storyline which had to be relayed to us, imho.
 

kentucky

Well-known member
Messages
66
Reactions
271
Hebrew scholors have made similar conclusions of the Israelites split from the Arabs.
Sigmund Freud's last book Moses and Monotheism posits a similar thing. Many discounted the work by saying that he was getting a little nutty in his later years, or something to that effect, if I recall correctly. There's also a book called The Hebrew Pharoahs of Egypt that ascribe the Pharaoh to the Hebrew kings. One of those to books reveals Moses as Akhenaton, I believe it was Freud's but can't remember at the moment.

Of course, the truth is likely something else entirely, but likely definitely rhymes with all of this.
 
OP
G

gregory5564

Active member
Messages
38
Reactions
186
Additionally, the Egyptians called themselves "Gopta," from which we get the latter term Copt, referring to a Christian Egyptian.

It would be a fascinating avenue of exploration to combine the theses of Dr Ezzat with the New Chronology of Dr Fomenko, in particular to analyze the evidence of the former in the context of Dr Fomenko's claim that the Middle East and Northern Africa were largely unknown to Europeans before Napoleon. The partnership between the Hellenistic (ie. Ptolemaic) Egyptians and the Hellenistic Jews according to Dr Fomenko's revelations may have happened far more recently than circa 250 BC.
 

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,019
Reactions
15,694
And here we end up with Ancient Egyptians being related Cossacs. Not sure who those Scuths are, but have a feeling they are talking about Scythians. And Scythians ended up being Tartarians as far as I understand.

Essentially it sounds like an Ancient Egyptian Tartarian connection.


Cossacks - Wikipedia

KD: every time we end up within this vicious circle of confusion. This shepherd stuff just sounds so mainstream. Shepherds did not build, did not carve all the goodies.
 

BStankman

Well-known member
Messages
609
Reactions
2,823
Last edited:

Jef Demolder

Active member
Messages
39
Reactions
199
I think that some elementary clarifications are necessary concerning publications like that of Ashraf Ezzat. It seems to me that relevant history criticism is not possible without chronology criticism. Judaism as a separate religion, profiled itself in relation to Christianity, both in the Renaissance. In that time the New Testament was fixed, the Old Testament in Greek, and the Jewish Bible in Hebrew, in this order. In the Old Testament and the Jewish Bible existing texts were used which belonged to the testamentary tradition and had a Greek and a Hebrew version. This tradition is pre-Jewish. This is the reason why in the Jewish Bible and in the Old Testament the terms "Jew" and "Jewish" do not even occur. The interpretation of this texts as Jewish has been realised in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (Jewish historian who also has been invented).

Ancient Egypt, the Greco-Roman civilization, and the original testamentary tradition are three parallel traditions belonging to the Ancient World which existed before 1350. The Ancient World is to be considered as a universal Commonwealth with high level cultural interaction. We have no idea how they were organised. In relation to the Ancient World, terms as "Jews" and "Arabs" have no sense. The idea of "Egypt" or whatelse being 1 country having 1 king, called pharao or whatever, belongs to the typical presuppositions of false history. Egypt was in Egypt, but also in Rome (with the obelisks). Greece was in Greece but also in Egypt (Alexander's Alexandria). Gallia was in Gallia but also in Galatia. Moses or the great prophet/messenger (in the testamentary tradition) is the same mythical figure as Osiris and his ramification Toth in Egypt, Hermes and his ramification Hermes Trismegistus in Greece, Mercurius but also Jan (Janus) in Rome, and Jan (John the Bapist) in the neotestamentary tradition. The god Yahweh of Jahve of the Bible (or Ja), is the same as Iovis in Rome, or Ju (in Ju-piter, God the father), and from there the same as Deus, Theos (God in Greek), Zeus, Dios (God in Spanish, and Jupiter in Greek). And there is NO historical path (in this spacetime) leading from the one to the other.

Books like that of Ashraf Ezzat are not really helping the community of history criticism.
As said by Kentucky here above, the truth is likely something else entirely.

Korben, an examination of the supposition that thanks to Champollion and the Rosetta stone we are capable to translate hieroglyphical writings (or perhaps are acting as if we are capable to translate), would indeed be a nice subject for this site.
 

mythstifieD

Well-known member
Messages
219
Reactions
952
If you flip a map horizontal and vertical, then being captured by Babylon in the east quite likely becomes Ciaro, aka Babylon according to many old maps. They say ancient Egypt has no evidence of Hebrew slaves ala Moses, but perhaps the tale is far more recent.
 

WildFire2000

Well-known member
Messages
148
Reactions
690
Coming from an upbringing heavily involved in Christianity that also intently focused on the Old Testament of the Bible, I -really- like Jef Demolder's assertion of the 'ancient world' as we knew it, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Hebrew et all being all 'pre-cataclysm' or even, 'pre-flood' It would help A LOT of things merge together in a way, to me, that helps support each other and explains the overlap of the deities we find in history. We're already told that most cultures had an analog of the various gods that matched, they already even tell us that the Romans just stole and renamed the Greek gods, but if they were actually all contemporaries of one another in a way that they shared a great similarities of culture, and were indeed the ones responsible for the world-wide architecture we have been studying about ... that fixes a lot of problems doesn't it?

I don't know, it just kinda clicked.
 

Tonep

Active member
Messages
84
Reactions
241
Coming from an upbringing heavily involved in Christianity that also intently focused on the Old Testament of the Bible, I -really- like Jef Demolder's assertion of the 'ancient world' as we knew it, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Hebrew et all being all 'pre-cataclysm' or even, 'pre-flood' It would help A LOT of things merge together in a way, to me, that helps support each other and explains the overlap of the deities we find in history. We're already told that most cultures had an analog of the various gods that matched, they already even tell us that the Romans just stole and renamed the Greek gods, but if they were actually all contemporaries of one another in a way that they shared a great similarities of culture, and were indeed the ones responsible for the world-wide architecture we have been studying about ... that fixes a lot of problems doesn't it?

I don't know, it just kinda clicked.
That makes a lot of sense
 

Musashi

Active member
Messages
13
Reactions
84
And here we end up with Ancient Egyptians being related Cossacs. Not sure who those Scuths are, but have a feeling they are talking about Scythians. And Scythians ended up being Tartarians as far as I understand.
I also suspect it means Scythians.

There's some fun noises and threads out there regarding a Egyptian / Scythian / Irish / Scottish connection.

This probably merits its own thread but I'll leave it here for now since it's relevant.
During the 1440s, a Scottish chronicler, Walter Bower, sought to trace the history of the Scottish people from the earliest times. The result of his endeavour was the creation of a compendium of Scottish history, the Scotichronicon. Perhaps one of the most astonishing claims made by Bower in his Scotichronicon is that the Scottish people were actually descendants of the ancient Egyptians, and could trace their ancestry to the daughter of an Egyptian pharaoh, Scota.

The story of Scota begins with a Greek king by the name of Gaythelos. In one version of the story which involves Ireland, Gaythelos is known as Gaodhal Glas (the word ‘Gael’ is said to be derived from his name), and was originally from the region of Scythia. It is also said that Gaodhal Glas lived during the time of Moses, and the latter is said to have cured the former when he was bitten by a serpent.

Gaodhal Glas was also promised by Moses that no serpent or other poisonous creature will inhabit the western island that his posterity would inhabit one day. One of Gaodhal Glas’ grandsons, Niul, was invited into Egypt as an instructor by a pharaoh, and eventually married one of his daughters, Scota (Both ‘Scotland’ and the Roman name for Ireland, ‘Scotia’, are said to be derived from her name).Niul and Scota’s people were later driven from Egypt by a later pharaoh, and wandered around the Mediterranean until they reached Spain.
This legendary origin of the Irish people is also shared by the Scots. For the Scots, however, the story did not end in Ireland. From Ireland, the descendants of Niul and Scota travelled to the west coast of Scotland, battled and defeated the Picts, and became the Scottish people. This version of Scottish lineage can also be found in the Declaration of Arbroath, an important document written in 1320 by the barons and noblemen of Scotland requesting the intervention of the Pope on their behalf during the Wars of Independence. In the second paragraph of the document, it is written:

Most Holy Father, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. It journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage peoples, but nowhere could it be subdued by any people, however barbarous. Thence it came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to its home in the west where it still lives today.
Not everyone agrees that the Scots originated from Scythia, however. One writer, for instance, speculated that Gaythelos / Gaodhal Glas was neither a Greek king, nor a Scythian, but an Egyptian pharaoh himself. In Scota, Egyptian Queen of the Scots , Ralph Ellis traces the story of Scota and Gaythelos to a 3rd century BC source, Manetho’s Aegyptiaca.
Using this ancient source, it has been argued that Scota was actually Ankhesenamun, the widow of Tutankhamen. Gaythelos, on the other hand, has been argued to be Ay, the successor, and according to Ellis, also the father of Tutankhamen. Due to religious conflict, Ay’s reign was cut short, and the pharaoh and his court were soon forced into exile. Like the Irish legends, Ay and Ankhesenamun wandered around before settling in Spain. Several generations later, there was a migration to Ireland, and thence to Scotland.
source

I saw an abandoned thread here started about redheaded and blonde Pharaohs.
I'd agree. There's a lot of evidence that those guys definitely were not Egyptian in origin.
Red hair. Blue eyes. RH negative blood.

Call them what you want, redheads, gingers, alien hybrids... they seem to occupy a special place in the historical mystery and pop up in odd places.

Personally I think the Pharaohs did exist but I find it unlikely they started off in Egypt.

Another article - good pictures
Article by Robert Sepehr

 
Last edited:

Whaduzitake

Member
Messages
15
Reactions
53
It says Abram was from Ur. There are various ideas floating out there as to where "Ur" is actually located, but a lot speculate it would have been in what is now present day Iraq. Because of this, and assuming this is accurate, it would therefore be no surprise the creation narrative in Genesis would be very similar to Babylonian, Sumerian, etc. stories and would not necessarily be attributed to their adopting it later during the Babylonian captivity.

I'm not sure if this is relevant or not, but the term "Jews" refers to the tribe of Judah. It sounds like the author is using that term for all Israelites, but maybe I misinterpreted what I just read above. I haven't read the book. I think it is possible that the ancient Israelites actually spread out and eventually occupied Turkey, parts of Russia and eventually parts of Europe. I have seen documentaries saying the ancient ancestors of the Irish were from the tribe of Dan and the Scythians could possibly have been Dananites. The prefix "Dan" is found in a lot of places, for example, the Danube River.

Interesting stuff, whatever the truth is.
 

Jacob

Member
Messages
11
Reactions
33
Guys, when I saw this video, your idea came into my mind.

Here is the video:

Cify commented: The name of the black box the jews put on their foreheads "Totafot", but they left the original word for no reason they changed it to "Tefillin", many jews asking why we left the original word ! in the Torah they're called Totafot, so why do we call them Tefilin ? because according to many jewish scholars Totafot derives from the Arabic Tafa or to "go around encircle" طواف.

I hope this video is hopefull in someway @gregory5564
 
Last edited:
OP
G

gregory5564

Active member
Messages
38
Reactions
186
Here is the Amazon link:


The book contains references to several other scholars who argue in favor of the Jewish-Arab connection. I fear that I no longer have access to the book, so I am not able to list their names here.
 

Top