The Original African Heritage Study Bible (edited by the late Dr. Cain Hope Felder, the renowned biblical scholar) simply highlighted the biblical figures of African descent.  I intent to proceed from where the illustrious Dr. left off, amplifying the great work by providing actual, historical images of the kings whose biographies contributed to the persona of the biblical Moses, and demonstrate that Moses was a fictional composite based upon the religious and military exploits of BLACK historical prototypes!  

 

The present lectures follow the Jadeistic framework.   Its immediate purpose is to demonstrate the proper use of my Bible Study Guide.   The Biblical Moses remains viewed through the lens of Historical Fiction, and still a composite of Egyptian royalty bearing distinct lunar theophorics.  The pivotal figure of this study, and who will also serve as a chronological anchor, is Ahmose I, whom I have designated as Moses III (M3).  

​

We adhere to a fixed, standard measurement of the Egyptian timeline as set by the consensus of academic chronologists, and under no circumstances attempt to modify this system in order to put Egyptian history in alignment with the biblical narrative.  We can calculate no honest, scientific advantage of altering facts to conform to non-facts.  Our timeframe of reference will be Egypt's New Kingdom, traditionally computed to c. 1550 BC - 1070 BC.  It is within this interval of time that the biblical Exodus, conquest of Canaan, and period of the judges take place.  While applying the principles of Historical Science to this period, we will acknowledge 3 fundamental laws of physics:  (1) No 2 separate events can occur in the same space at the same time; (2) No singular event can be and not  be at the same time; and (3) No singular event can happen in 1 particular place at 2 different times [e.g., the conquest of Sharuhen by Ahmose I (c. 1550 BC), then the conquest of the same (destroyed) city by Joshua more than 150 years later.  As was the similar case with Jericho which, according to archaeology, was also  destroyed c. 1550].  By these 3 laws we will compare the Egyptian and biblical narratives against each other to determine which were possible, impossible, or highly probable. 

 

This deliberate effort to separate truth from un-truth is the definition of science:​

< Lat. scientia  "knowledge" or "awareness".  To Lat. verb scire  ("to know"), linguistically to PIE roots "to cut" or "to separate", implying a process of discerning or splitting facts from fiction.  The original notion in the Lat. verb is "to separate 1 thing from another, to distinguish," or else to "incise".  This is related to scindere  "to cut, divide" (from PIE root  *skei-  "to cut, split," source also of Grk skhizein  "to split, rend, cleave,"  Gothic  skeidan, O.E. sceadan  "to divide, separate").

​

What is this but Dividing The Word!  What is this but SQUARING THE LIGHT!

To "square" something means to reconcile inconsistencies, ensuring 2/more ideas, facts, or actions align so they are logical, consistent, and coherent.  It comes from Geometry, where squaring corners creates a true, balanced structure.  And are not Egyptian history and the O.T. narrative contradictory in many aspects?  My Theophoric Theory resolves most of these contradictions.

​

My Theophoric Theory has been labeled (sometimes unjustly & inappropriately) as a "Fringe," "Revisionist," and/or "Speculative" Framework.  And while I diligently applied the Scientific Method every step of the way, I couldn't understand why my critics failed to do the same.  Bearing in mind that absolutely no artifacts were uncovered that directly proved the existence of Moses, upon what exactly is it that scholars base their argument for his existence? It's based upon the biblical narrative itself.  My arguments, however, are based upon physical [biblically-] contemporaneous artifacts.  My resulting hypotheses were precipitated by unsettling observations, and the need to answer the questions:  

Why do these so-called main-stream scholars persist in asserting the existence of people who can't be mathematically located on the timelines to which they have been variously ascribed?  And why is such unprofessional conduct even tolerated by 'whomever' are vested with the authority to check it?  

 

Chronology is supposed to be a science of measuring time, determining the true dates of past events, and arranging them in their correct sequential order.  It's supposed to ENSURE that occurrences are placed within a proper VERIFIED timeline.  What's more --- and what these mainstream scholars appear to ignore --- is that specific aspects of chronology are directly governed and correlated by fundamental laws of physics (stated above) which dictate what sequence of events are possible, impossible, or merely probable, ensuring that the universe operates in a logical, non-contradictory manner (or as we say, "according to Ma'at").  I must include a 4th law as well:  For causally linked events, the cause must precede the effect.  

 

Thus far, most of the consensuses on the historicity of the O.T.  narrative have reflected a blatant disregard for these laws.  
[Case in point:  When Josephus cited Manetho, then explicitly  identified the Hyksos as the "Ancestors" of the Israelites, this identification became the 'consensus' --- even though Manetho's account was in sharp contrast to EVERY Biblical narrative of the bondage and subsequent exodus of Israel!  And it REMAINED a consensus for approximately 1,800 years!  Until the tomb of Admiral Ahmose, Son of Ebana, was discovered and the 'contradictions' were afterwards too publicized to deny. My hypothesis was supported by the biography of Ahmose, Son of Ebana).  But why did it have to take the academic community that long to realize they had made an error?  Because certain people just couldn't accept the possibility that the Bible story was a myth?  That's a rabid kind of desperation, extending far beyond the point of patheticism.  Yet, even after the tomb of Ahmose, Son of Ebana, was deciphered, those so-called scholars STILL failed to make a cognitive connection between the CONTEXTUAL similarity of the 2 narratives: Both containing an emphasis on the names "Yah" and "Mose(s)"!  
All they had to do was apply the rules of chronology and determine if the resulting series of events possessed logical contiguity: 

​

​

(1) A man called Jacob is renamed Israel. [NOTE: The first 'coincident' (or highly probable Empirical Nexus) is the attestation of a S.I.P. King by the name of Yakub-Har].  (2) He sought after God at Bethel (Gen. 28:10); or he found him in "The house of On" (Hosea 12:4 LXX).  (3) His son, Joseph, is thrown into a pit by jealous brothers. He's eventually pulled from the pit by Midianites (Gen. 37:28) who sold him for 20 pieces of silver to Ishmaelites, who in turn transport him by camel to Egypt, where he is sold to Potiphar.  (4) A Hebrew clan of 70 souls seek refuge in Egypt during a famine (Gen. 46:27; Ex. 1:5. From the expulsion of the Hyksos to the arrival of the 3600 Hebrew prisoners of war, is approximately 4/5 generations.  "But in the 4th generation they shall come hither again; for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full." (Gen. 15:16)).  [NOTE: The second 'coincident' (or highly probable Empirical Nexus) is a contemporary inscription describing the "taking of 70 prisoners to the stronghold of Amun". Amun's stronghold was located in Thebes, which is also known as the Southern On.  And Amenhotep II was its God & Ruler!  Clearly, the Joseph story is a complete fiction,* contrived only as a transitional episode to explain how characters got from Point A (the "Yakub-Har" story) to Point B (the "Bondage" story) --- which was actually a "Prisoners of War" story; then to Point C (an Exodus) that was contemporaneous with the Amarna Period --- which I intend to prove]. 

​

At first glance, can you make sense of the above?  Is it a wonder that there has been a shift in scholarly consensus concerning the historicity of Moses and the exodus?  However, the main issue has yet to be completely  resolved: the origin of the Moses character.  Now, modern scholarship generally views the Moses narrative as a "theologized history" rather than a strict, journalistic record.  And they continue to treat the exodus as a foundational cultural memory --- perhaps involving a much smaller group of people ( a proto-Israelite or Levite tribe) leaving Egypt under the guidance of a charismatic leader --- which was later expanded upon to unify the broader nation of Israel.  So who was this charismatic leader, and when did he live?  The Bible scholars are no closer to answering these questions.  My Theophoric Theory offers the most plausible solution.

​​

​