The Sphinx to the Jews
Author : Zenon Kelper
PURPOSE and STRUCTURE of this PAGE
first part of this page is not a demonstration but
an interpretation. It is based on a demonstration
which is made by A.Osman and E.L.People. Together they have made a reading
of the Egyptological data and the latter has added the Oedipian information
in their former report. Myself, Z.Kelper, intervenes at this point. I suggest
how these discovery stages can be understood, and how E.People's report can
be illustrated by the Lacanian formula.
The second part of this page is its 1st Edition, when akhnaton.net web site began as one of the few and limited essays and reports (re: the pages about Akhnaton, Oedipus, Trismegistus, Freud, etc... ) which present the major characters of Akhnaton's identity and identification.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MOSES PAGE - FIRST PART = Update and 2nd Edition
This First Part begins with a description of the end of the 18th Dynasty 1300 B.C., including a farfetched hypothesis on its solid base. What we know for sure is that this period stands at the peak of the History of Ancient Egypt. At that moment, the African Egypt seems to have exploded in covering an 'Aton' territory . Ramses II who follows may be magnificent, he is yet like the grandiose super-nova after the explosion: the start of the decline indeed. Only much later, the 'Aton' Egypt will cross a shallow and temporary restoration under the Ptolemena Dynasty 400 B.C. which will eventually give way to Rome.
What is the constitution of events which combined upon the Aton territory ?
hypothesis describes a plausible deduction which results after Egyptological
studies (Osman, E.People). Actually, this post-Egyptological plausible
deduction presents a series of incoherence which suggests what Psychoanalysis
recognizes as a symptom (A.Osman presents the form of a dream
, E.People the form of a symptom). The logic
of Psychoanalysis is clear on this point :
Before the interpretation of a symptom, one must reveal first the reality from which the symptom is explain. Then after, in the form of a loop, the interpreted symptom confirms the former anticipated assertion of certainty .
TFM stands for Trojan Family of
Mari - it is an invention which supports the still
mysterious origins of Nefertiti.
There is a childish way of seeing Akhnaton sole responsible
Amarna represents the cross-road of the countries that the Aton project aims
It is the moment when Amenophis III dies.
I call an experiment the experience of Akhnaton at this time in
While South Thebes oppose his edits, East and beyond, cities dissociate,
During his absence the Theban opposition has infiltrated Amarna's
Akhnaton must leave Amarna. He moves to the Sinai with
part of the population.
While Akhnaton has begun to understand what is his implication in his mother's
Tiye has kept a position for negotiating the Amonization of Tutankhaton
The Non-Thebean part of the Aton project persists in hope of keeping
their Northern domain
Yet, eventually, Nefertiti and/or her House have found only impossibilities
This is Oedipus at Colonus, when he manages for having his body away from all Thebean exploitation
ANALYSIS of the Late 18th Dynasty Memory
The above story is viewed from the objective - alias de-subjectived perspective which can be illustrated with the Lacanian Optical Model when it applies to the historical identity of Akhnaton.
Leaving a subjective place, Akhnaton move towards Moses' objectivity
visit the animated
Pic.10 shows how the migration of Akhnaton created a divided space
where the Jewish record mirrors the Egyptian event.
Hence, Moses' perspective occupies the space beyond the mirror, which
objectively manifests itself when a rotation like in Pic.20 below
Although a correct record of History, Akhnaton's conversion in Moses implies a change of perspective. History - and symptom - shows what and how it is seen from the other 'point of view'. The second position of the Optical Model illustrates the 'other-side' perspective, when the beyond-the-mirror space become the place of reality's perspective :
Pic.20 allows a representation of Akhnaton's familial complex.
As the naming (of the Father) processes form one side (left) to the other (beyond the mirror),
the symbols of the family and lineage members show their constitution
The optical model (Pic.20) illustrates how from its subjective point of view, A does not see the red condensation created in the concave mirror , but by the mean of its reflection after it had taken place beyond the plan mirror when vertical. This illustrates how objectivation process occurs, beginning with a de-subjectivation which now manifests from the reflected point of view: M.
From Moses, the real image (the red condensation) represents the manifestation that is left of him at the former subjective place (the yellow object - which is superimposed however with the former blue reflection which has come to its place).
There we sees the fusion of Oedipus' two sons, Tutankhamon and Semenkhare, as it is expressed by E.People in the symptom that our analysis deciphers. Such modelization proves to be very efficient too in the way it shows how Nefertiti appears - and disappears in correspondence with Tiye similar real status, which is attested in the Bible through the precarity of their representation (in comparison with the male characters). The actual Pic.20 can be read with the following correspondences:
A = Akhnaton
red dot = Nefertiti
dark blue dot = Tiye
yellow dot = Tutankhamon
light blue dot = Semenkhare
green dot = when Tutankhamon (yellow) and Semenkhare (blue) coincide
Moses is not represented but as the de-subjectived perspective of position.2
Oedipus is manifested as the mirror's hub or grain - i.e. the meme or semblant, awl point
In the Hebrew
record, the two 'sons' of Moses are not mentioned obviously (objectively),
nor Nefertiti of Tiye - the re-subjectivity of Oedipus comes after
Moses. Moses may be more objective and realistic, in regards with a
questionable filiation. These varied form of truth are taken in charge by
the complexity of a symptom, which manifests their artifice.
If this analysis
is correct, it perfectly explains the symptom as it is expressed in E.People's
account of the Ancient East-Mediterranean - and reciprocally, if
this is explaining so well E.People's symptom, there is a good probability
that the above description of the late 18th dynasty events is correct.
Acknowledging these probabilities, we may find usefully, from a
symptom, the plus-meaning (see plus-value) that it offers :
In a short intermediary passage which stands for a confession,
E.People reveals the key perspective of his message. He says "why do we
identify with Moses?"
to Sophocles' point of view, Laios is clearly Oedipus' father - but after
being removed from his father's house, Oedipus is adopted and educated
in Corinth. There, he is educated with a lie which fools him about his real
father; he will believe that his father is the impotent Polybe (King of Corinth).
From this mis-placement, he then believes that Polybe's wife was
impregnated with the seed of an anonymous servant. In the Oedipian play,
Moses is this identity who grew and away from his father's house and
knowledge. In the Bible, Moses is Moses who questions who stands for
From an identification with Moses, E.People does no search for the identity of the child who has disappeared from Thebes. He starts with the appearing perspective based on the virtual character. Hence, he testifies for the belief that this position induces.
More obviously that dreams - which can use surrealism
as they are spared from addressing reality - symptoms are tied to
the context of realism; they present direct forms of absurd.
The first optical illusion comes when Oedipus must answer for the murder
of his father - in E.People's view, it is Polybus who is the victim and it
is with his adoptive mother that he is thought to be incestuous.
While the incoherence of the father's identification in E.People's
reading is drawn from Oedipus Rex - the confusion between the sons of Oedipus
follows his reading of Antigone.
Evidently we face a farfetched and intolerable deduction - the woman Nefertiti would have stand for Moses in Israel's fate !! This is something which can make the entire study, a delictuous object for good sake. So here I am, at that point - with not much more to say about the civilization symptom that this reading of E.People's session.
There are other attempts of alteration in the scene where the identification of Moses as Oedipus and Akhnaton may take place. One of them is Velikovsky's who has been looking for changing the whole date scale of Egyptology . For Velikovsky and Damien McKey, it is a mean for moving Moses away from Akhnaton's period (that he was encountering when he identified Oedipus with Akhnaton). Other authors, as David Rohl, show that a slide in the datation scale (of Egypt/Bible correspondence) reinforces the thesis which identify Akhnaton, Moses, Oedipus etc...
|The present edition of this page gives me the opportunity to mention my gradual acceptation of this possible dating modification. All date references (all pages as well as the 1st edition below) prior to this present notice, follow the usual dating of the 20th century Egyptology. Certain statements - as for instance regarding Velikovsky may be incorrect. Yet, I rely on null certainty either on the classical or the possible new one, and, as a Psychoanalytic approach abstracts in principle the usually-called 'historical datation', there may be little modification in the positions of the overall thesis of www.akhnaton.net.|
This is the time for completing this page with its first edition :
Moses is one of the greatest Hebrew prophets. He guided his people to freedom from Egypt and gave them the written Laws which allowed the foundation of the state of Israel. He is largely acknowledged to be an historical figure who lived between 1400 and 1200 B.C., yet major dimensions of his story are kept secret by the Jewish Tradition. Firstly `his face must be kept veiled` - meaning that his identity must not be revealed to the people of Israel, or even to mankind, according to the Ancient Alliance; second, `his end - or his disappearance - must remain secret`. Those measures aim to protect his soul and his work from misuse by his enemies (Satan, alias Seth, see also the pharaoh Seti).
The first secret has probably been disclosed by Jesus who presented Moses unveiled (see Transfiguration / New Alliance) to his disciples while he explained to them his major disagreement with the rabbis. Nevertheless, the Bible gives many clues which depict the history of Moses. We shall underline some of the similarities which support the historical coincidences of Akhnaton and Oedipus.
Being groomed to become an important representative in Egypt is a basic similarity between Akhnaton and Moses. But recently it became more striking when the egyptologist Osman showed the highest probability that the lineage of pharaoh Akhnaton was linked to the Hebrew people through his mother. Thus the similarity between the Hebrew Akhnaton and the Hebrew Moses reaches a degree which compares with their end: they both disappeared to the point where their traces suddenly vanished...
To be precise: at a certain point, the ruler Akhnaton disappears from all egyptological records and, while his successors launch increasing attacks against his memory, his tomb and his sarcophagus remain unoccupied by his mummy. Similarly Moses, at a certain point, which is the time of his alleged natural death, decided to step aside and leave his Hebrew people in secret. Both moves are either identical or repetitive.
There is a good description of the behavior of the fugitive in the play Oedipus at Colonus, when the former King of Thebes is warned that his pursuers intend to use his corpse if they arrest him. He therefore decides to run away, in secret - which was exactly the situation of Akhnaton. Moses behaved this same way: he quits Egypt and later disappeared to avoid his pursuers' intent to use his corpse or his memory.
Beside this sound and logical behavior, clearly indicated by many clues, I discovered interesting notions about Moses and his other postulated identities.
A first excerpt is from a major Egyptian reference, the Historian Manetho:
<<Moses, a son of the tribe of Levi, educated in Egypt and initiated at Heliopolis, became a High Priest of the Brotherhood under the reign of Pharaoh Amenhotep [Akhnaton]. He was elected by the Hebrews as their chief, and he adapted to the ideas of his people the science and philosophy which he had obtained in the Egyptian mysteries; proofs of this are to be found in the symbols, in the Initiations, and in his precepts and commandments....The dogma of an 'only god' which he taught, was the Egyptian Brotherhood interpretation and teaching of the Pharaoh, who established the first monotheistic religion known to man.>>
- Egyptian High Priest Manetho (3rd Century b.c.)
In this excerpt, Manetho brings Moses close to Akhnaton; but this relation becomes more precise with another famous historian, Strabon 58 b.c - 25 a.d., in the moment when Rome took possession of the Ptolemaic Egypt. This is Strabon's report, according to an excerpt from St Y.d'Alveydres (see excerpt in French in Akhenaton_ou_la_Veritable_identite_de_Moise_et_d'Oedipe ) :
<< I will leave it to the Egyptian priests to tell themselves the history of Moses, such that they relayed it to foreigners, especially to Romans:
Since Strabon describes Moses so precisely as a pharaoh (displaying Akhnaton's distinct feature), it is difficult to imagine that oncoming Christianity would not have been interested in this report. Studies of Christianity show, indeed, that the first Christians referred to an enigmatic Egyptian King who was closely related to Moses.
Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactance, St Augustin, Cyril d'Alexandrie, Suidas, and others, as well as the philosophers Zosimus, Jamblichus, Julian the Emperor, Fulgentius the mythographer, and others, called him Hermes Trismegistus .
So his legend continued until the Renaissance; at that time European Christianity considered Moses' identification as an Egyptian administrator to the point of probably being the King himself. That matches today's paradigm of Akhnaton.
We can therefore see the deep relation which ties Moses-Akhnaton with Egypt's Royal Family and its policies. Since the Renaissance understood the pharaonic identity of Moses, it reacted in a regressive investment in the Egyptian background of Moses, and accused Christianity of hiding it. Concurrently the lack of elucidation of his Hellenic foreground proves that the international context of Akhnaton's time must be considered - e.g. the Minoan and Hittite interests (people from the North, located by the Aegean Sea, before the foundation of Athens).
This political context adds to the mysteries of Moses' birth and death. While leading the Exodus, Mose-Akhnaton prepares, between these two fundamental secrets, an organization that compels our attention: it plans what appeared, less than a century later, as "The First International Organization in Human History" - known also as Quadesh which determined the settlement of Israel at the completion of Akhnaton's revolution and flight.
Besides detailed examination of this question, written in French,
I abstracted some positions stating, in English, the understanding of the
allocation to Israel of the Promised Land.
In this series you can also find:
NOTE 10 : The evocation of the Kingdom of Mari leaves largely open the Northern identification of Nefertiti's origin. <back to text>
NOTE 20 : During Antiquity, Secret was a common tool, in use for the management of collective knowledge. After Akhnaton's episode for instance in Greece, the so-called Schools could ask for death penalty or exile when their members had divulged certain informations as the code of certain legends (for this reason many intellectuals were able to gather in Sicily...). In Akhnaton's time knowledge of certain codes of writing was secret for certain part of the population - such restricted access may be justified if a knowledge cannot be received in its integrality. In his writings, Fabre d'Olivet mention that Moses had delivered the Secret Hieroglyph to the Hebrew people.. <back to text>
NOTE 40 : I associate Nefertiti and Tiye in respect with their common motivation as being both excluded from Thebes. Their Houses must have work together, up to a certain extend which must have been expressed at the end of the break down of the Aton project.<back to text>
NOTE 50 : Pa-Nehesy would have followed the order of Nefertiti - this would explain the displacement of his name <back to text>
NOTE 60 : According to its logic the symptom status in general will heal into the ability to speak to a clone (a same). This degree zero of altruism to come establishes the base for a later reproduction of the Ideal fellowship where subjectivity may then count, and address a non linear plural. A dynamic picture illustrates the reduction phase of the absolute narcicissm (Church ideal) before an alter-ego subjectivity . <back to text>
END OF THE PAGE
EXCHANGE IDEAS, IMPROVE KNOWLEDGE
Registration to a
time $15 fee
All transactions are secured
© William Theaux 1949-1999