So, a (possibly) very detailed life of the pharaohs is not “very well documented”, it’s mostly a “greatest hits”.
You seem to be conflating, as Peter Morris said, Joseph and Moses.
Rome, yeah, Gallic wars not so much.
Appian was born more than a century after Caesar died.
Cassius Dio: two centuries
Plutarch: a century
Suetonius: a century
None was alive when Caesar was and many did not write a thing while anyone who met Caesar was alive.
If you don’t approve of the available documentation, you shouldn’t say anything at all about the ancient world. You can’t have it both ways.
Looking back, I see I did use the word advisor. That’s wrong, and I apologize. However, every other reference I made was obviously to Moses, whom I mention by name and who was implied by the OP.
You don’t get to disparage part of one sentence and then ignore the rest of it as well as the very next one. “and some of their sources still exist. Not to mention the correspondence of Cicero, a contemporary, and references in works by other contemporaries.” I don’t like this game you’re playing and if I see it again, I’m out of here.
Where did you get “don’t approve”?
I simply say that even for the best documented periods of classical and pre-classical times there are, in most cases, only one or two documents about something no matter how important. My example of the Gallic wars is clear, whatever some other guys wrote is normally based on that book or on other secondary or tertiary sources more than a century removed.
Of course, for that period, a secondary source a century later is pure historical gold.
No prob.
Cicero is always a kick-ass source. However my main point stands. Even for an eight-year conflict of about a million people you still get information from few sources, usually drinking from the same fountain.
My “ten names, ten tentative dates” was in reference to the 18th dynasty.
Can you provide your basis for this? Usually Caucasians are thought to include the Semitic peoples.
Since the whole thing is concentrated essence of foolishness, it has naturally tended to be fluid. I honestly don’t recall where I hit upon this one, but it was in the last couple of years.
Note, it isn’t HIS claim. JWK is reporting on medieval ethnography. He is not agreeing with the claim, he describes it as bollux, and therefore does not need to provide a basis for it.
But if you want to see the original claim in more detail, look here.
Not in medieval ethnography.
I’m nitpicking here, but that’s not true. There are five Pharaohs named in the Old Testament. Of them, 3 have names that match names from secular history.
" Now Sennacherib received a report that Tirhakah, the king of Cush, was marching out to fight against him."-2 Kings 19:9. Tirharkah (usually spelled Taharqa) was the fifth Pharaoh of the 25th Dynasty.
"While Josiah was king, Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt went up to the Euphrates River to help the king of Assyria. King Josiah marched out to meet him in battle, but Necho faced him and killed him at Megiddo. . . . Pharaoh Necho put [Jehoahaz, Josiah’s son] in chains at Riblah in the land of Hamath so that he might not reign in Jerusalem, and he imposed on Judah a levy of a hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold. Pharaoh Necho made Eliakim son of Josiah king in place of his father Josiah and changed Eliakim’s name to Jehoiakim. But he took Jehoahaz and carried him off to Egypt, and there he died. "-2 Kings 23:29, 33-34 Necho II was a Pharaoh of the 26th Dynasty.
"This is what the Lord says: ‘I am going to deliver Pharaoh Hophra king of Egypt into the hands of his enemies who want to kill him, just as I gave Zedekiah king of Judah into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, the enemy who wanted to kill him.’”-Jeremiah 44:30. Hophra is the Pharaoh Wahibre Haaibre, more commonly known as Apries, Necho II’s grandson.
There are also two Pharaohs named in the bible whose names don’t match with the secular lists: Shishak and So. Shishak is recorded as allying with the Kingdom of Israel and attacking the Kingdom of Judah, and he’s usually connected with Sheshonk I, because the name is close, and because Sheshonk did attack into Canaan in his reign.
So is more mysterious (and all the bible says is that Hosea sent envoys to him, which pissed off the Assyrians), and could either be Osorkon IV or his rival Tefnakht. So could be short for Osorkon, or, since Egypt was in the middle of a civil war at that point with rival claimants for Pharaoh, So could be a version of Sais, which was the city that Tefnakht ruled from.
Medieval ethnography didn’t use the term Caucasian. It wasn’t used as a racial term until the 1780s, and the work that popularized it was Johan Blumenbach’s “On the Natural Variety of Mankind”, and Blumenbach uses the term “Caucasian” because he says that the Georgians are the most perfect and beautiful examples of the race.
In his first edition of the book, he defines the Caucasian racial grouping as being made of those people from “Europe, Asia this side of the Ganges and all the country situated to the north of the Amoor, together with that part of North America, which is nearest both in position and character of the inhabitants.”
Then the second edition, he raises the number of races from 4 to 5, and he amends his description of the first race, defining it as “the whole of Europe, including the Lapps, who I cannot in any way separate from the rest of the Europeans, when their appearance and their language bear such testimony to their Finnish origin; and that western part of Asia that lies toward us, this side of the Obi, the Caspian Sea, Mount Taurus and the Ganges, also Northern Africa, and in America, the Greenlanders and the Esquimaux, for I see in these peoples a wonderous difference from the other inhabitants of America, and unless I am altogether deceived, I think they must be derived from the Finns. All these nations regarded as a whole are white in color and, if compared with the rest, beautiful in form.”