Pharaohs and the Bible. David Rohl's chronology untenable

In the accepted chronology of ancient Egypt the 21st dynasty ran from 1069 to 945 B.C. and the 22nd from 945 to 715 B.C.. In the view of David Rohl however this is not correct: the phara­ohs from the 21st dynasty, who reig­ned during 124 years, were contemporaries of those from the 22nd dynasty. The beginning of the 22nd dynasty is moved by Rohl some 150 years, while he shortens the period of the 22th dynasty. The overall result is that the whole 19th dynasty, which included pharaoh Rames­ses II, is moved forward some 350 years.

Some Egyptian pharaohs fought battles against kings of other countries, wrote letters to them, or married their daughters. Such events linked the history of Egypt to that of Assyria, Babylon and the Hittite empire on more than one occasion. Any shift in ancient Egyptian chronology will therefore have far-reaching consequences for the ancient history of the whole Near East before 664 B.C.. If Rohl's view were cor­rect the ancient Near Eas­tern history would have to be rewritten.

There is concensus of opinion about dating the Egyptian histo­ry from 715 B.C. onwards. The pharaohs of the 25th dynasty, who came from Nubia, ruled over Egypt starting from 715 B.C.. One of them was Tirhakah or Taharqa (690-664 B.C.) who is mentioned in 2 Kings 19:9. In 701 B.C., when he was still a prince, Tirha­kah was the general of the Nubian-Egyptian army that came to the assistance of king Hizkiah and his Philistine allies, who were threate­ned by the Assyrian army of Sanhe­rib.

Consequences

The big shifts proposed by Rohl would lead to apparent soluti­ons to a few problems, but would give rise also to insoluble problems concerning the history of Israel and Biblical data.

Pharaoh Seti I (1294-1279 B.C.), the father of Ramesses II, would become a contemporary of king Solomon (972-931 B.C.) and would have led his army through the latter's kingdom several times, capturing cities on his way.

The Late Bronze period too would be moved forward some 350 years, to end around 850 B.C. The Philistines settled in Ashkelon and Ashdod only after Late Bronze. The proposed new chronology would place this event about a century after king Solomon, despite the fact that both cities had already been inhabited for over a century before Solomon (1 Sam.6:17).

In order to gain support for his theory, Rohl interviewed the well-known egyptologist prof. dr. K.A. Kitchen. During the inter­view, which took no less than seven hours, prof. Kitchen drew the attention to genealogical evidence that proved the incorrectness of Rohl's theory beyond any doubt.

However, in the TV documentary "Pharaohs and the Bible" that followed, many of prof. Kitchen's arguments were not mentioned. All the impor­tant informa­tion he had brought forward was reduced to no more than a three minutes' account of lesser points.1

It will be demonstrated in the article below that Rohl's theory is incompa­tible with data from ancient inscripti­ons and the results of archaeological re­search.

The reasons for the new Chronology

Rohl bases his proposition that the 22nd dynasty was simulta­neous with the 21st on three points.

1. During the 21st and the beginning of the 22nd dynasties no tombs were made for sacred Apis bulls in the Serapeum.

In the Serapeum and Saqqara, the large cemetary near Memphis, are the tombs were the sacred Apis bulls, worshiped in Memp­his, were buried after being mummified. Priestly stelas show the year of reign of the pharaoh when a particular bull was buried. The inscriptions on thes stelas are an impor­tant source of chronological evidence. An uninterrupted series of buried Apis bulls from the 30th year of Ramesses II (c.1250 B.C.) to Ramesses XI (1098-1069 B.C.), the last pharaoh of the 20th dynasty, is available. No Apis tombs have been found that rela­te to the pharaohs of the 21st dynasty and the first three of the 22nd dynasty. Apis tombs reappea­red in 852 B.C. and remained in use till the rise of the Roman Empire. The interim period without Apis tombs might be an indication that the phara­ohs in question ruled together with other pharaohs, and should there­fore not take up space of their own in Egyptian chrono­logy.

2. The mysterious burial of a priest mummy from the 22nd dynasty of phara­ohs in a crypt that was sealed during the 21st dynasty

On July 5 1881 a crypt containing 40 mummies was opened in Deir l-Bahri, close to the famous funeral temple of pharaoh Hatshepsut. Among the mummies were those of the pharaohs Tuthmosis III, Seti I and Ramesses II. They had been brought to safety by priests during the burial of the high priest Pinodjem II, in order to prevent them from being violated by robbers. According to an inscription the hiding place was sealed in the 10th year of reign of pharaoh Siamun (969 B.C.).

The same hiding place also contained the mummy of priest Djed-ptah-ef-ankh. An inscription revealed that he was buried in the 11th year of pharaoh Sheshonk I (935 B.C.). In the accep­ted chronology this was 34 years after the sealing of the crypt. Notes that were made when the mummies were taken out of the crypt and transferred to the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, suggest that the shrine of the priest was found in the back of the crypt. The obvious explanation seems to be that Sheshonk I, the first pharaoh of the 22nd dynasty, ruled before Siamun, the last pharaoh but one of the 21st dynasty.

3. Pharaoh Osorkon II, who belonged to the 22nd dynasty, was buried in Tanis in a tomb that was older than the adjacent crypt which contained the tombs of pharaohs Psoennes I and Amenemope of the 21st dynasty.

In the accepted chronology Osorkon II died 141 years after Psoennes I: Psoennes' funeral is dated to 991 B.C., and Osor­kon's to 850 B.C. Here too the accepted dates for the pharaohs of the 21st and 22nd dynasties seem to be incorrect.

Solutions to the problems

The above three points do not immediately present proof that the accepted Egyptian chronology is incorrect. The peculiar observations can be explai­ned in a rational way.

1. The missing Apis bulls

No tombs of Apis bulls buried in the Serapeum between 1080 and 852 B.C. have been found. There is evidence however that an Apis bull was mummified during that period. An inscription states that the high priest of the Ptah temple in Memphis, where the Apis bull was venerated, had a new table made for embalming sacred Apis bulls during the reign of Sheshonk I (945-921 B.C.). At least one Apis bull must therefore have been mummified under Sheshonk I, but no tomb of it has been found in the Serapeum.2

Under pharaoh Ramesses XI (1098-1069 B.C.), the last pharaoh of the 20th dynasty, an Apis bull was ceremonially buried. Any evidence of Apis bulls being buried in the Serapeum in the next (21th) dynasty is lacking. Smendes (1069-1043 B.C.), the first pharaoh of this dynasty, established his new capitol in Tanis, in the north-east of the Nile delta. He also broke with the age-old tradition of burying the deceased pharaohs in caves in the Valley of the Kings, near Thebes in the south of Egypt. Tombs of 21st dynasty pharaohs were placed in modestly decorated crypts in the temple area of Tanis. Very likely one of these pharaohs also introduced a diffe­rent place for the burial of Apis bulls.

In 852 B.C., the 23rd year of Osorkon II - he was the fourth pharaoh of the 22nd dynasty - again an Apis bull was buried in a tomb in the Serapeum, and from then on the old tradition was restored, as shown by inscriptions on stelas.3

2. The later burial of a mummy in the sealed crypt in Deir el‑Bahri

There are two other possible explanations, beside the one mentioned above, for the fact that the mummy of a priest from the 22nd dynasty has been found in a crypt that was sealed during the 21st dynasty.

First: the crypt could have been reopened afterwards for the burial of another mummy.

Second: when the contents of the crypt were removed in 1881, this had to be done in a hurry so as to bring the mummies into safety as quickly as possi­ble. As a result the location where the coffin of Djed-ptah-ef-ankh had been found may easily have been stated erroneously.

3. The age of the crypt containing the tomb of pharaoh Osor­kon II

Crypt no.I (see figure), where the tomb of Osorkon II was found, was built earlier than no.III north of no.I, where pharaohs were buried who lived earlier than Osorkon II. It is easy to see that parts of crypt no.I, which already existed, were cut away to make room for the south wall of crypt no.III when the latter was under construction. In this more recent crypt no.III were the tombs of pharaohs Psoennes I (died 991 B.C.) and Amenemope (died 984 B.C.). In the accepted chronolo­gy they lived well before Osorkon II (died 850 B.C.).

Most rational explanation for the findings is that crypt I was originally built for the burial of pharao Smendes (died 1043 B.C.) and that Osorkon II nearly 200 years later had ordered it emptied to obtain a crypt for his family members. The place where the tomb of Smendes was brought to is not known. Crypt I appeared to contain the tombs of Osorkon II, his son and successor Takelot II (850-825 B.C.), and prince Hamakht, another son, who had died early; in addition a tomb that probably contained pharaoh Shoshenk V and a tomb of an uniden­tified pharaoh. Takelot II was buried in a coffin that had already been used in the Middle Kingdom (before 1800 B.C.). His tomb was in the ante-room of his father's crypt.

The period of the 22nd dynasty

Sheshonk I (945-924 B.C.), the first pharaoh of the 22nd dynasty, is almost unanimously identified with pharaoh Shishak who launched a campain against Palestine during king Rehabeam of Judah. Rohl rejects this identification. He thinks that Sheshonk I did not ascend the throne until about 800 B.C. However moving the start of the 22nd dynasty towards 800 B.C. would produce an irresolvable problem. The nine generations of the 22nd dynasty would have to be pressed together in about 85 years, since the 22nd dynasty ended in 715 B.C..

The order of the pharaohs and the number of generations in the 22nd dynasty have been established beyond question with the aid of data on stelas in the Serapeum and other inscriptions. One chronological key text is an inscrip­tion in a stela of the priest Pasenhor, concerning the burial of an Apis bull in the 37th year of a certain pharaoh Usimare Sheshonk. Here Pasenhor presents a genealogy of the first four pharaohs of the 22nd dynasty.4A statue of the Nile god moreover bears an inscrip­tion concerning a high priest by the name of Shoshenk, son of pharaoh Sekhem-kheper-re Osorkon "whose mother is Maatkare, king's daughter of Har-Psoennes". The high priest Sheshonk therefore was a son of Osorkon I. Har-Psoennes is pharaoh Psoennes II, and his daughter, the last pharaoh of the 21st dynasty, mar­ried Osorkon I, son of Sheshonk I, the first pharaoh of the 22nd dynasty.5

The possible duration of the 22nd dynasty

The ten pharaohs of the 22nd dynasty ruled from 945 till 715 B.C. Together they comprised nine generations, which is in perfect agreement with a period of 230 years. The number of years attributed to the reign of a pharaoh of this dynasty in most cases is the highest number known of in­scriptions. Never­theless an uncertainty exists about the years of reign of Osorkon I, Takelot I and Osorkon IV, so that the total span of the 22nd dynasty might be reduced by 40 years at most, to about 190 years.

According to Rohl the 22nd dynasty started about 800 B.C. It came to an end in 715 B.C., so the complete dynasty of nine generations and at least 190 years would have to be pressed together in a mere 85 years.

The 23rd dynasty

From 818 B.C., the eighth year of his reign, Sheshonk III was accompanied as pharaoh by his younger brother Pedubast.6 The latter established the 23rd dynasty, which ran simultaneously with the last four pharaohs of the 22nd dynasty, in Leontopo­lis or Taremu. In this city, located in the centre of the Egyptian delta, a bronze hinge was found with on it the name of pharaoh Iuput I, a son of Pedubast.7

In 728 B.C. the Nubian pharaoh Pianch, who had taken control over southern Egypt, marched against fout pharaohs who ruled simultaneously in the middle and north of Egypt and who had formed an alliance. Pianch gained a victory over them, and following this campaign he withdrew to Nubia.

An inscription on a stela erected in the Nubian capital Napata during Pianch's 21st year of reign (727 B.C.) describes his victory over the four pharaohs. One pharaoh mentioned is Osorkon who reigned in Ro-nefer, the eastern part of the delta. The pharaoh meant here cannot have been Osorkon III of the 23rd dynasty, since he had his residence in Leontopolis, in the middle of the delta. Another mentioned on the stela is Iuput of Taremu (Leontopolis). This pharaoh belonged to the 23rd dynasty.8 The Osorkon on Pianch's stela must have been Osorkon IV, the last pharaoh of the 22nd dynasty.

Pianch died in 716 B.C. and was succeeded by his brother Shabako, who conquered northern Egypt in 715 B.C. He was the first pharaoh of the 25th dynasty and the first to rule over all Egypt. The 22nd and 23rd dynasties both ended in 715 B.C.

Highpriests in Karnak

We know the names and the order of appearance of all high priests of the Amon temple in Karnak for the 21st dynasty. Herihor was high priest by the end of the reign of Ramesses XI, the last pharaoh of the 20th dynasty. Herihor's successor was his son Pianch (1074-1070 B.C.), who in his turn was succeeded by his son Pinodjem I. Next came six successive high priests covering three generations. In most cases an inscrip­tion tells us under which pharaoh and in which year of his reign a new high priest was instal­led.9

The same applies to the high priests who were in power under the first seven pharaohs of the 22nd dynasty. The uninterrup­ted succession of high priests during the 21st dynasty leaves no room for inserting high priests from the 22nd dynasty of pharaohs. The men who were high priests during the 21st dyna­sty were different from those who were in office under the first seven pharaohs of the 22nd dynasty.

Thes facts make it impossible for the two dynasties to have the same dates.

Shishak's campaign

Shishak launched a campaign against Canaan in the fifth year of king Reha­beam of Judah (925 B.C.). In 1 Kings 14:25-28 and 2 Chronicles 12:2-9 only the attack on Judah is mentioned, as the authors were only interrested in the history of this kingdom. Shishak is almost unanimously identified with Shes­honk I. The Egyptian name Sheshonk and Hebrew Shishak are linguis­tical equivalents.

In the opinion of David Rohl, they were not the same men, because the report on Sheshonk's campaign does not match the Biblical report on Shis­hak's campaign. Shoshenk had his cam­paign against Canaan depicted on a wall of the Bubastis gate in the Amon temple at Karnak. The captured cities were depic­ted as prisoners, each having an oval on his body with the name of a city. The total number of captured cities and for­tresses so depicted was about 150. Within the lines many city names have become illegible, but the line of city names refer­ring to the area of Jerusalem - including, e.g., Ayalon, Beth-Horon and Gibeon - is completely legible; Jerusalem is lacking however.

Does this fact prove that Shoshenk I and Shishak were diffe­rent persons? By no means. In fact, Jerusalem was not captured by Shishak. Shoshenk's report enumerates dozens of Judean fortresses in the Negev, as well as the Judean cities Gezer, Ayalon, Beth-Horon and Gibeon. Seeing that numerous fortres­ses and cities in his kingdom were taken, Rehabeam decided to give in to Shishak's demand and pay tribu­te. He handed over all the gold and silver from the store­houses of the temple and his palace, in order that Shis­hak would change his mind and not besiege Jerusalem.

After Rehabeam's repentance the profet Shemaiah brought him the following message from God: "Since they have humbled themselves, I will not destroy them but will soon give them deliverance. My wrath will not be poured on Jerusalem through Shishak" (2 Chron.12:7). This is clear evidence that Shoshenk I did not capture Jerusalem. He correctly omitted Jerusalem from his list of captured cities.

Did Ramesses II capture Jerusalem?

According to Rohl, pharaoh Shishak from the Bible was Ramesses II. In the proposed new chronology Ramesses II would have reig­ned from 932 to 866 B.C. The campaign he made in his eighth year would be Shishak's campaign descri­bed in the Bible. The report on Ramesses' campaign includes, e.g., the taking of Shalem, which must have been Jerusalem in Rohl's view.

The facts are howevere that the taking of Shalem in Ramesses' report is preceded by Merom and that the other cities mentio­ned are Kerep, in the mountains of Beth-Anath, Akko, Kana and Yenoam. The geographic context clearly locates the city of Shalem in Galilee. Indeed the aim of the cam­paign was to subject a few rebellious cities in Galilee. Ramesses II then proceeded further to the north and captured the cities Dapur and Tunip, both lying west of Hamath on the middle course of the river Orontes in western Syria.10

Pharaoh Seti I, the father of Ramesses II, would have reig­ned, by the new chronology, from 947 to 932 B.C. In the first year of his reign he made a campaign to Canaan and had a stela erected in Beth-Sean, which stated that the govenor of Hamath had taken Beth-Sean and, assisted by the city of Pella, had surrounded Rehob, a city south of Beth-Sean. Egyptian armed forces captured Hamath, Beth-Sean and Yenoam.11

On another stela, erected in Beth-Sean in the second or third year of Seti I, it is stated that he fought against Habiru. Thereafter he restored Egyptian rule in Damascus and Kumidi, a city in the Beqaa valley between the Libanon and Antilibanon mountains. On his way back to Beth-Sean he had a stela erected in Tell-es-Shihab, south-west of Asteroth-Quarnaim.12

If the new chronology would be correct, then Seti I would have made his campaigns during the reign of Salomo and would have taken cities from him.

Comsequences for other countries

If the reign of Ramesses II would be shifted some 350 years, then this would have to apply also to the kings of Assyria, Babylon and the Hittite empire, because of their numerous contacts with Ramesses II.

Ramesses II fought against the army of Hittite king Muwatallis II (c. 1295-1272 B.C.) near Kadesh, a city on the Orontes, in 1275 B.C. After the death of Muwatallis his son Mursilis III came in power, but seven years later his oncle Hattusilis III (c. 1265-1235 B.C.), a younger brother of Muwatallis II, took power and exiled Mursilis from the court. Hattusilis allied him­self to king Kadashman-Turgu of Babylon. Mursilis fled to Egypt in the 18th year of Ramesses II (1262 B.C.). Hattusilis requested extradition of his nephew, but Ramesses refused. Kadahman-Turgu of Babylon broke off relations with Egypt and proposed that Hattusilis and he should march together against Egypt; which Hattusilis refused. This caused a serious crisis. Ramesses II mobilized his army and marched to the north of Canaan. In memory of this he had a stela erected in Beth-Sean in early 1261 B.C.13

Hattu­silis started peace negotiations, and in the 21st year of Ramesses II (1259 B.C.) the two made peace. After this, Rames­ses II wrote numerous letters to Hattusilis. In the 34th year of Ramesses II the peace treaty was sealed by a marriage between him and a daughter of Hattusilis III.14

These facts are stated both in Egyptian inscriptions and on clay tablets found in Hattusas, the capital of the Hittite empire.

A son of Hattusilis III wrote a letter to the Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta I (1235-1198 B.C.). The letter states that Mursilis III had written a letter to Salmanassar I of Assyria, Tukulti-Ninurta's father.15

Kadashman-Turgu of Babylon corres­ponded with Hattusilis III, and the latter wrote to Kadash­man‑Enlil, the successor of Kadahman-Turgu.16

Apparently the histories of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon and the Hittite empire were closely interconnected. A 350 years' shift in Egyptian chronology would inevitably cause a simular shift in the dates of the kings of the other states. If we examen the consequences of such a shift it will simply show to be impossible.

Assyrian chronology

For the Assyrian chronology a 300 years' shift of all data would mean that a period of hundreds of years would vanish from history. The proposed new chronology would imply that Adadnirari I had reigned from 950 to 918 B.C., his son Salma­nassar I from 918 to 888 B.C., and the latter's son Tukulti-Ninurta I from 888 to 851 B.C. They were contemporaries of Ramesses II. After Tukulti-Ninurta I an 80 years' period of weakening followed, in which seven kings appeared. A few of them ruled at the same time and the length of reign of some of these kings is not certain.

This period was followed by a remarkable recovery of Assyria under Tiglath-Pileser I (1116-1077 B.C.), who reigned for 39 years and organized numerous campaigns. The period of weaken­ing that occurred previous to his reign cannot possibly be compressed to less than 30 years. Tiglath-Pileser I would thus have reigned from 820 to 780 B.C. It has firmly been establis­hed however that Assyria was ruled by other kings then. There is no doubt about Assyrian chronology as from 912 B.C..

Adadnirari II (912-891 B.C.) started to reign in that year. His father, Assurdan II, had reigned from 935 to 912 B.C. From 935 B.C. Assyria was ruled by other kings than the new chrono­logy would suggest.

Assyrian chronology from 912 B.C.

From 912 B.C. Assyrian chronology is certain, thanks to 'lim­mu' lists, which for each year state the name of the highest-ranking official (limmu) in Assyria, sometimes together with an impor­tant event that took place at the same time. The limmu lists known run from 911 through 631 B.C. The lists can be dated with the aid of the Canon of Ptolemaeus (second centu­ry A.D.), and coincide with dates from the Canon between 747 and 631 B.C..17

The Canon begins with the dates of the kings who ruled over Babylon as from 747 B.C. Among them were some Assyrian kings too, for instance Sargon II. In his 'Almagest', Ptolemaeus presents 80 astronomical data, such as solar and lunar eclip­ses, in connection with the year of reign of the respective king.

Backward calculation has proved that Ptolemaeus' statements are correct.18 At the tenth year of Assurdan II a limmu list states that a solar eclipse occurred in the month Shivan (May/June). On account of Canon data the tenth year of Assur­dan III was dated to 763 B.C., and a solar eclipse did actual­ly occur in Mesopotamia on 15th June, 763 B.C..

Rohl' proposed new chronology leaves no room for the Assyrian kings Salma­nassar I, Tukulti-Ninurta I and Tiglath-Pileser I, who together covered a period of 106 years. In the years attributed to them by the new chronology Assyria was ruled by other kings. From Tiglath-Pileser I till Assurdan II the Assyrian royal list names nine other kings, for whom no room is left. Most of them were succeeded by their sons; at least there were six genera­tions of kings, who in the official chronology ruled from 1077 to 935 B.C., i.e. 142 years. This period could perhaps be reduced to a minimum of 130 years. In all, the new chronology fails to fill in a period of 270 years for Assyria.

The Amarna Letters

The Amarna letters too are redated by Rohl. Clay tablets containing the letters were found in Tell el-Amarna in Middle Egypt, the ruins of Egypt's capital Achet Aton at the time of pharaoh Amenhotep IV (Achnaton, 1353-1337 B.C.). The letters, about 380 in all, had been sent to the pharaoh by kings of large kingdoms in the Near East and by governors of cities in Can­aan, Phoenicia and Syria, which were under Egyptian rule.

Amenhotep IV also had letters from the last years of his father transferred to Achet Aton. Some letters were addressed to Amenhotep III, others to Amenhotep IV and a few probably to Tutanchamon. Almost all Amarna letters were written in Assyri­an-Babylonian (Akkadian), the international diploma­tic langua­ge of the 14th century B.C..

The Amarna letters include those sent from some 20 cities in Canaan. In many letters the pharaoh was asked for help, as cities were being threate­ned by 'Habiru' or by collaborating governors of other cities. The letters are believed to have been written between c. 1360 and 1335 B.C..

In Rohl's proposed new chronology Amenhotep IV was pharaoh from 1006 to 990 B.C. and the Amarna letters were written between 1015 and 990, i.e. during the last years of king Saul (1042-1011 B.C.) and the first half of the reign of David (1011-971 B.C.).

Labayu identical with King Saul?

A few Armarna letters were written by Labayu, governor of Shichem, who ruled over a vast area in the hills north of Jerusalem. Saul ruled over approximately the same area and was therefore, in the view of Rohl, exactly the same man. However, what Labayu wrote to pharaoh Amenhotep III clearly shows that the equation cannot be valid.

In the first of Labayu's letters we know (no. 252), he defended himself against complaints of other city rulers about him.20 Labayu admitted that he had invaded Gezer. He wrote he didn't know that his son collaborated with the Habiru (letter no. 254). Labayu captured cities that were under protection of the pharaoh, and he besieged Megiddo. Abdi-Heba, governor of Jerusalem, complained that Labayu had given the entire region of Shichem to the Habiru (letter no. 289). The pharaoh finally ordered some city rulers to take Labayu prisoner and bring him to Egypt.

Biridiya, governor of Megiddo, wrote to the pharaoh that Zurata, governor of Akko, was to take Labayu, once he was captured, to Akko and from there by ship to Egypt. However, Labayu payed Zurata bribe money and was released (letter no. 245). Later Labayu was killed by citizens of Gina, probably the city of Beth-Hagan (Jenin) in the northern part of the central hill coun­try. This was reported to Balu-Ur.Sag by Labayu's two sons. Balu-Ur.Sag informed the pharaoh that Labayu's two sons continued to invade the coun­try, and asked him to send a high official to Biryawaza, king of Damascus, and order the latter to take armed action against Labayu's sons (letter no. 250).

The picture of both Labayu and the situation in Canaan that is drawn in the Amarna letters is totally different from what is reported in the Bible about king Saul and the situation in Israel under his rule. Labayu was governor of Shichem, whereas Saul lived in the vicinity of Gibeon. Labayu was killed by citizens of Gina, Saul committed suicide after being defeated by the Philistines at the foot of the Gilboa mountains (1 Sam. 31:4). Three of his four sons died in the same battle (1 Sam. 31:2). Several let­ters dating from after Labayu's death speak about his two sons who collaborated with the Habiru and gave them pieces of land (letter no. 287).

Mut-Balu, one of Labayu's sons, was governor of Pella (letter no. 255). After Saul's death his only son alive, Ishboset, became king in Mahanaim (2 Sam. 2:8). Biridiya wrote that the sons of Labayu had offered money to the Habiru in order that they would wage war against him (letter no. 246). Thus, more than one letter shows that two sons of Labayu played a role after his death.

Under pharaoh Amenhotep IV Egyptian high officials were stati­oned in Can­aan. However, when Saul was king, the situation was completely different. The Amarna letters don't mention the Philistines, whereas Saul had to fight the Philistines throu­ghout his reign (1 Sam. 14:52).

Results of excavations

Excavated strata are usually dated on the basis of pottery and other ob­jects present. In the case of Egyptian objects dating is dependent on Egyptian chronology. In Rohl's proposed new chronology this means that the archaeological eras are shifted about 350 years, so that Late Bronze lasted from about 1150 to 850 B.C. The data of the Israelite kings however remain un­changed, and this leads to unsoluble problems, as will be shown below.

Hazor

The last Canaanite city of Hazor was destroyed at the end of the Late Bronze era, in about 1200 B.C.. A minor part of Hazor was located on the tell, above a large lower town. The youn­gest Canaanite stratum in this lower town is stratum 1a, from the 13th century B.C.; the previous stratum, 1b, dates from the 14th century B.C. Canaanite religious objects found in the two strata prove that both belonged to the Canaanite period.

In the city of stratum 1b a temple was built, and after the destruction of the city it was built again (stratum 1a). In the temple an altar was found having a cross within a circle, symbol of the Canaanite storm god, on one side. Parts of a statue having the same symbol on its breast were found outside the temple.21

The youngest Canaanite stratum in the upper town is stratum XIII, dating from the same time as stratum 1a in the lower town. Stratum XIII too was destroyed at the end of Late Bron­ze. On top of this stratum there are two younger strata which contain remnants of small Israelite villages (strata XII and XI). These two are covered by a younger stratum in which remnants of the first Israelite city have been found; it was reinforced all around by a heavy wall which is dated back to the times of king Solomon (972-931 B.C.), who ordered Hazor rebuilt (1 Kings 9:15).22

Following the new chrono­logy howe­ver Hazor would have remained a Canaan­ite city till about 850 B.C. and would not have been rebuilt under king Solo­mon.

Megiddo

In the remains of stratum VII B in Megiddo a plinth of a bronze statue of Ramesses VI (1143-1136 B.C.) has been disco­vered. It must have been buried there shortly before the city of stratum VII A was destroyed.23 Everywhere else the Iron Age had already begun, but in Canaanite cities Late Bronze culture still continued to exist together with Iron I for about half a century.24

The statue plinth and objects of Egyptian origin found in stratum VII A show that Megiddo, in the accepted chronology, was under Egyptian rule till about 1140 B.C. In the proposed new chronology Megiddo would have remained under Egyptian rule till about 840 B.C., and could never have been rebuilt by king Solomon as it is stated in 1 Kings 9:15.

Dor

Dor was a Canaanite city till the end of Late Bronze. In the early 12th century B.C. it was captured by the Tjeker (or Sikels), who belonged to the Sea Peoples and were related to the Philistines.25 In stratum XII (c.1180-1050 B.C.) the same type of pottery was found that was also excavated from Philis­tine cities, but other types of pottery were found as well.

The Tjeker formed no more than a small part of the total population.26 The city of the Tjeker was destroyed by a major conflagration, judging by a thick ash layer found directly below stratum XI.

In about 1050 the city was probably captured by Phoenicians, who settled in Dor in the second half of the 11th century B.C. Pottery found in strata IX, X and XI (c. 1050-1000 B.C.) indi­cates that the majority of the population then was made up by Phoenicians.27

In about 1000 B.C. the city was captured by king David and turned into an Israelite city (stratum VIII). A travel report of Wen-Amon, an Egyptian official, informs us that Dor was ruled by Tjeker (or Sikels) until the arrival of the Phoenicians. Wen-Amon was sent to Byblos in the 23rd year of Ramesses XI (1075 B.C.) to buy cedar wood for the construc­tion of a sacred ship for the god Amon. Wen-Amon first sailed to Dor, where the Tjeker were in power. Here he was robbed of his money by one of the sailors, who then jumped overboard. The king of Dor refused his cooperation in catching the thief.­28

The proposed new chronology dates Ramesses XI to c.830-800 B.C. In that period there would still have been Tjeker kings in Dor. The next 50 years would have been a Phoenician period, so that Dor would not have turned into an Israelite city until about 750 B.C. However, Dor and surroundings were an Israelite district under a governor already in Solomon's days (1Kings 4:11).

Ashkelon and Asdod

In Ashkelon the excavation stratum dating from the end of the Late Bronze period contains no trace of Philistine pottery. The last Canaanite stratum in Ashkelon (XIV) dates back to the time previous to pharaoh Ramesses III (1184-1153 B.C.). It was destroyed some 20 years earlier. Then follows a stratum (XIII B) from the early reign of Ramesses III, where the first Philistine pottery appears.29

Ashdod very likely was inhabited by a small group of Philisti­nes already before Ramesses III.30

Ramesses III fought against the Sea Peoples, including the Philistines, in the east of the Egyptian delta in 1177 B.C., his eighth year of reign. He had this battle depicted on a wall in the temple at Medinet Habu.

In the new chronology Ramesses III would have been pharaoh from about 850 B.C. The Philistines, then, would not have settled in Ashkelon and Ashdod until that same year, whereas it is known from the Bible that these cities were already inhabited by Philistines in the days of Samuel, 200 years earlier (1 Sam. 6:17).

Conclusion

Still other results of excavatiions could be presented here to demonstrate that moving the dates of the Egyptian archaeologi­cal periods some 350 years is an impossibility. The evidence produced will however be sufficient. Rohl's propositi­on that the accepted Egyptian chronology is not correct - implying that excavations so far have not provided a firm scientific basis for the Biblical account of Israel's earliest history - proves to be unte­nable.

The accepted chronology still leaves room for changes, but inscrip­tions, astronomical data and a number of synchro­nisms between the histories of Egypt and other Near Eastern coun­tries will necessarily restrict any change to no more than a small refine­ment.

J.G. van der Land

Notes

1. G. Byers, Pharaohs and Kings Confused. David Rohl's New Chronology, Bible and Spade 10, 1997, 2/3, p. 50-52.

2. K.A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, 1100-650 B.C., Warminster 1973, p. 291.

3. Idem, p. 201, 325.

4. Idem, p. 100.

5. Idem, p. 60.

6. Idem, p. 129-130, p. 134-135.

7. Idem, p. 129.

8. Idem, p. 129, p. 363-368.

9. Idem, p. 10-28.

10. K.A. Kitchen, Pharaoh Triumphant. The Life and Times of Ramesses II, King of Egypt, Warminster 1952, p. 68.

11. J.B. Pritchard, ANET, Princeton 1969, p. 253.

12. Kitchen, Ramesses a.w, p. 21-22.

13. Idem, p. 73-74.

14. Idem, p. 75.

15. H. Otten, Archiv für Orientforschung, Beiheft 12, 1978, p. 67-68.

16. O.R. Gurney, The Hittites, Harmondsworth 1990, p. 29-30.

17. G. Roux, Ancient Iraq, Harmondsworth 1992, p. 25.

18. E.R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, Grand rapids 1977, p. 70-71.

19. Idem, p. 69.

20. W.L. Moran, Les lettres d' El-Amarna. Correspondence diplomatique, Paris 1987.

21. Y. Yadin, Hazor, NEAEHL, vol. 2, p. 597-599.

22. Idem, p. 599-601.

23. G.I. Davies, Megiddo, Cambridge 1986, p. 68.

24. Idem, p. 70-72; A. Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 10.000-586 B.C., Jerusalem 1990, p. 269, 290, 298.

25. E. Stern, Phoenicians, Sikils and Israelites in the Light of recent Excavations at Tel Dor, in: E. Lipin­ski, Phoenicia and the Bible, Studia Phoenicia XI, Leuven 1991, p. 85-89.

26. E. Stem, The Many Masters of Dor, I, When the Canaan­ites became Sailors, Bar 19, 1993, p. 29-30.

27. Stern, Phoenicians, a.w., p. 91-92.

28. Pritchard, ANET, a.w., p. 25-29.; Y Aharoni, The Land of the Bible. A historical Geography, Philadelphia 1979, p. 269.

29. L.E. Stager, Ashkelon, NEAEHL, vol. 1, p. 103, 107.

30. M. Dothan, Ashdod, NEAEHL, vol. 1, p. 96; Mazar a.w., p. 307-308.

Last update: August 4, 2000

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BGA

Articles

Discussion

Feedback

About BGA

Links

Dutch (Nederlands)

Copyright © 2000 Stichting Bijbel, Geschiedenis en Archeologie

....

Taken from: http://www.bga.nl/en/discussion/echroroh.html


King Joash of Judah: Sin Does Not Pay

Murder of Prophet Zechariah

[The AMAIC suspects that King Joash was the same as Pharaoh Setinakhte, or Setnakht,

the founder of Egypt's 20th Dynasty]

Saturday of week 11 of Ordinary Time – First Reading


Commentary on 2 Chr 24:17-25

“We turn today to Second Chronicles for a further unhappy episode in the history of Judah. The zealous high priest Zechariah, son of the same Jehoiada who had saved King Joash, is murdered in the Temple area. Jesus referred to this sad story (Matt 23:31).” (Vatican II Missal)

Our reading is taken from the Second Book of Chronicles but, chronologically, it follows on the events of yesterday’s reading where we saw the young Joash, who had been rescued from certain death at the hands of his murderous grandmother, Athalia, and made king through the instrumentation of Jehoiada, the high priest. Sadly however, as happens so often in these accounts, treachery again takes over.

When Jehoiada died, officials began to work on King Joash who listened to what they had to say.

As a result, the people of Judah began to abandon worship in the Temple and turned to various forms of idolatry. As a result “wrath [i.e. God's anger] came upon Judah and Jerusalem” – the southern kingdom and its capital. The Hebrew word for ‘abandon’ or ‘forsake’ is repeated three times in the passage, indicating the reason for the divine punishment which follows. There are many similar examples in other parts of the Old Testament.

When prophets were sent to bring them back to their senses and to God’s ways, the people refused to listen. Their rejection of these prophets was a rejection of Yahweh himself and thus sowing the seeds of the destruction to follow.

Then Zechariah, the son of the former high priest Jehoiada, was inspired to call the people back to the worship of Yahweh. “Because you have abandoned the Lord, he has abandoned you,” he told them. But instead of listening to his appeals, they plotted against him and, at the orders of the king, stoned him to death right there in the Lord’s Temple. A terrible sacrilege had taken place.

The blame is laid fairly and squarely on King Joash. It was an extraordinary act of ingratitude to the son of the man who had rescued the king as a young child from the same fate. As he died, Zechariah cried out, “The Lord sees and he will avenge.” The cry is a contrast to the words of Jesus on the cross and of Stephen before his martyrdom. In the Old Testament justice is often achieved through vengeance, violence met with violence. In the New Testament, violence is not the way.

This cruel death is referred to indirectly by Jesus: Speaking to the Pharisees, Jesus says “You testify against yourselves that you are descendants of those who murder the prophets” (Matt 23:31).

The retribution was not long in coming. A year later an army of Aramaeans attacked King Joash and executed his officials, perhaps those very ones who had led him and the people astray to the worship of idols.

Although the Aramaean forces were not large in number, they were, by God’s power, able to overcome the much larger army of the Joash and the Judeans for deserting their God. Just as God had helped the small army of Judah against overwhelming odds when the king and people were faithful to him (14:8-9; 20:2,12), so now in their unfaithfulness they are defeated by a much smaller force of invaders.

Joash was treated as, in the thinking of the time, his royal status deserved but they left him a very sick man. Finally, his own officers, the ones perhaps who had helped Jehoiada engineer the coup against Athalia, moved to avenge the death of the high priest’s son Zechariah, and murdered the king in his bed. He was buried in the citadel of David but not in the tombs of the kings.

Once again, sin does not pay.

....


Taken from: http://livingspace.sacredspace.ie/o2117r/

2 Kings 14 - The Reigns of Amaziah and Jeroboam II

[The AMAIC has situated Ramses III, Seti I and Ramses II in this historical period]

A. The reign of Amaziah over Judah. 1. (1-4) A summary of his reign. In the second year of Joash the son of Jehoahaz, king of Israel, Amaziah the son of Joash, king of Judah, became king. He was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Jehoaddan of Jerusalem. And he did what was right in the sight of the Lord, yet not like his father David; he did everything as his father Joash had done. However the high places were not taken away, and the people still sacrificed and burned incense on the high places. a. He did what was right in the sight of the Lord: Amaziah, son of the great reformer Joash, continued the generally godly reign began by his father. i. “He made a good beginning in thus adhering closely to the law. Happy would it have been for him and for his kingdom had he continued as he began.” (Knapp) b. Yet not like his father David; he did everything as his father Joash had done: Compared to Joash, Amaziah faithfully continued his policies. Yet some of those policies allowed compromises, such as the allowing of continued sacrifices and incense offerings on the high places. Compared to David – the greatest merely human king to reign over the people of God – Amaziah did not match up favorably. i. “The constantly repeated story of limitation in loyalty is told again.” (Morgan) 2. (5-6) An example of Amaziah’s obedience. Now it happened, as soon as the kingdom was established in his hand, that he executed his servants who had murdered his father the king. But the children of the murderers he did not execute, according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, in which the Lord commanded, saying, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; but a person shall be put to death for his own sin." a. He executed his servants who had murdered his father the king: This was both just and in the best interest of Amaziah. It was good for him to eliminate those who found the assassination of the king a reasonable way to change the kingdom. i. It also fulfilled God’s command to punish murderers with execution, first given in Genesis 9:5-7. b. But the children of the murderers he did not execute, according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses: It was the standard practice of the ancient world to execute not only the guilty party in such a murder, but also their family. Amaziah went against the conventional practice of his day and obeyed the word of God instead (Deuteronomy 24:16). i. “Wherein he showed some faith and courage, that he would obey this command of God, though it was very hazardous to himself, such persons being likely to seek revenge for their father’s death.” (Poole) 2. (7) His victory over the Edomites He killed ten thousand Edomites in the Valley of Salt, and took Sela by war, and called its name Joktheel to this day. a. He killed ten thousand Edomites: This shows the military might of Amaziah, and that he successfully subdued the weaker nations surrounding Judah. b. And took Sela by war: Some believe this was the ancient rock city in the desert also known as Petra; others believe it was a different place. One way or another, this was a significant victory for Amaziah. i. 2 Chronicles 25:5-16 gives more background to this event. Amaziah gathered a huge army in Judah to go against Edom - three hundred thousand choice men, able to go to war, who could handle spear and shield. He also hired 100,000 mercenary soldiers from Israel. But a prophet came and warned him to not use the soldiers from Israel, because God was not with that rebellious and idolatrous kingdom. Amaziah was convinced to trust God, send the mercenaries from Israel away, and accept the loss of the money used to hire them. God blessed this step of faith, and gave them a convincing victory over the Edomites. ii. Amaziah trusted God for the victory over Edom; but immediately after the victory his heart turned from God: Now it was so, after Amaziah came from the slaughter of the Edomites, that he brought the gods of the people of Seir, set them up to be his gods, and bowed down before them and burned incense to them. (2 Chronicles 25:14) 3. (8-12) His defeat at the hands of Jehoash of Israel Then Amaziah sent messengers to Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz, the son of Jehu, king of Israel, saying, “Come, let us face one another in battle.” And Jehoash king of Israel sent to Amaziah king of Judah, saying, “The thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon, saying, ‘Give your daughter to my son as wife’; and a wild beast that was in Lebanon passed by and trampled the thistle. You have indeed defeated Edom, and your heart has lifted you up. Glory in that, and stay at home; for why should you meddle with trouble so that you fall; you and Judah with you?” But Amaziah would not heed. Therefore Jehoash king of Israel went out; so he and Amaziah king of Judah faced one another at Beth Shemesh, which belongs to Judah. And Judah was defeated by Israel, and every man fled to his tent. a. Come, let us face one another in battle: Proud from his success against Edom, Amaziah decided to make war against the northern kingdom of Israel. i. Again, 2 Chronicles 25:5-16 gives more background to this event. When Amaziah sent away the Israelite mercenaries, they were not happy – even though he paid them for not fighting against Edom (they probably counted on receiving much more from the spoil of battle). As they returned to Israel, they raided the cities of Judah from Samaria to Beth Horon, killed three thousand in them, and took much spoil (2 Chronicles 25:13). This was the political motivation for Amaziah’s attack against Israel. ii. He had reason to believe he would be successful. He had recently assembled a 300,000 man army that killed 20,000 Edomites in a victory over Edom (2 Chronicles 25:5, 11-12). Jehoahaz seemed very weak, having only 50 horsemen, 10 chariots, and 10,000 foot soldiers after being defeated by the Syrians (2 Kings 13:7). b. The thistle that was in Lebanon: The reply of Jehoash king of Israel was both wise and diplomatic. With this little story and its application, he counseled Amaziah to glory in his previous victory over Edom but then to stay at home. i. “The thistle, imagining himself to be equal with the cedar, presumptuously suggested a marriage alliance between them. The difference between the two was made obvious when a wild beast passed through and crushed the thistle underfoot. Of course the beast was powerless to injure the cedar.” (Dilday) c. Why should you meddle with trouble so that you fall; you and Judah with you? Amaziah should have listened to this word from Jehoash, but he didn’t. He provoked a fight he should have avoided, and did not consider both the likelihood of success and the effect his defeat would have on the whole kingdom of Judah. 4. (13-14) The result of Amaziah's foolish war against Israel. Then Jehoash king of Israel captured Amaziah king of Judah, the son of Jehoash, the son of Ahaziah, at Beth Shemesh; and he went to Jerusalem, and broke down the wall of Jerusalem from the Gate of Ephraim to the Corner Gate; four hundred cubits. And he took all the gold and silver, all the articles that were found in the house of the Lord and in the treasuries of the king's house, and hostages, and returned to Samaria. a. Israel captured Amaziah king of Judah: Because of his foolish attack against Israel, Amaziah lost his freedom and for a time became a prisoner of the king of Israel. i. Amaziah had a mighty army and Jehoash had a weak army. Yet God gave Israel the victory over Judah to rebuke the idolatry of Amaziah. It came from God, that He might give them into the hand of their enemies, because they sought the gods of Edom. (2 Chronicles 25:20) ii. “His name means ‘strength of Jah’; but we read, ‘he strengthened himself’ (2 Chronicles 25:11); his character of self-sufficiency thus belying his name – a thing not uncommon in our day.” (Knapp) b. He went to Jerusalem, and broke down the wall of Jerusalem: Because of his foolish attack against Israel, Amaziah saw the defenses of Jerusalem broken down. Not only did they lose the battle at Beth Shemesh, but they were also in a weaker position to face future attacks. c. And he took all the gold and silver: Because of his foolish attack against Israel, Amaziah lost the treasure of the people of God. It wasn’t just a loss of his personal wealth (the treasuries of the king’s house), but also of the gold and silver of God’s people. Amaziah didn’t have the wisdom to see how losing this battle would hurt others as well as himself. i. This even extended to hostages who were taken from Jerusalem to Samaria. The decision to attack Israel was his alone, but the price paid for the foolish attack was paid by the whole kingdom of Judah. It is a sober warning to all leaders, to consider how their foolish decisions affect many other people. ii. “The quarrel of Amaziah was certainly just, yet he was put to the rout; he did meddle to his hurt; he fell, and Judah fell with him, as Jehoash had said.” (Clarke) 5. (15-22) Amaziah is rejected as king over Judah for his son. Now the rest of the acts of Jehoash which he did; his might, and how he fought with Amaziah king of Judah; are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? So Jehoash rested with his fathers, and was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel. Then Jeroboam his son reigned in his place. Amaziah the son of Joash, king of Judah, lived fifteen years after the death of Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz, king of Israel. Now the rest of the acts of Amaziah, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? And they formed a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem, and he fled to Lachish; but they sent after him to Lachish and killed him there. Then they brought him on horses, and he was buried at Jerusalem with his fathers in the City of David. And all the people of Judah took Azariah, who was sixteen years old, and made him king instead of his father Amaziah. He built Elath and restored it to Judah, after the king rested with his fathers. a. They formed a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem: The embarrassing loss against Israel undermined Amaziah’s support among the leaders of Judah. i. He lived fifteen years after the death of Jehoash (which probably prompted his release from imprisonment in Israel), “But it was a kind of a lifeless life . . . He lay all the while under the hatred and contempt of his subjects.” (Trapp) b. He fled to Lachish; but they sent after him to Lachish and killed him there: Amaziah tried but was unable to escape the conspirators. He was assassinated, just like his father was (2 Kings 12:20-21). i. “Lachish was the first of the cities of Judah to adopt the idolatries of the kingdom of Israel (‘the beginning of the sin to the daughter of Zion: for the transgressions of Israel were found in thee,’ Micah 1:13), and it was natural for the idolatrous Amaziah to seek an asylum there.” (Knapp) ii. “Some commentators believe the assassins who put Amaziah to death in verse 19 may have been the very children whom Amaziah had spared. They, in turn, were exacting vengeance for Amaziah’s executions.” (Dilday) c. And all the people of Judah took Azariah, who was sixteen years old, and made him king instead of his father: This was the start of the illustrious reign of Azariah (also known as Uzziah). He was the greatest king of Judah after David. i. “The election of Amaziah’s son Azariah may refer to an earlier time when ‘all the people had taken Azariah, when he was sixteen years old, and made him king while Azariah had been a prisoner.” (Wiseman) B. The reign of Jeroboam II in Israel. 1. (23-27) A summary of his reign and God's assistance to Jeroboam. In the fifteenth year of Amaziah the son of Joash, king of Judah, Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel, became king in Samaria, and reigned forty-one years. And he did evil in the sight of the Lord; he did not depart from all the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who had made Israel sin. He restored the territory of Israel from the entrance of Hamath to the Sea of the Arabah, according to the word of the Lord God of Israel, which He had spoken through His servant Jonah the son of Amittai, the prophet who was from Gath Hepher. For the Lord saw that the affliction of Israel was very bitter; and whether bond or free, there was no helper for Israel. And the Lord did not say that He would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven; but He saved them by the hand of Jeroboam the son of Joash. a. He did evil in the sight of the Lord: Jeroboam II was a wicked king, who continued the politically-motivated idolatry of his namesake Jeroboam the son of Nebat. During his reign the prophets Jonah and Amos spoke for God. b. He restored the territory of Israel . . . for the Lord saw that the affliction of Israel was very bitter: Out of great mercy, God showed kindness to a disobedient Israel ruled by an evil king. i. “It seems to suggest amazement in his mind as he contemplated the patience of Jehovah with the sinning nation.” (Morgan) c. According to the word of the Lord God of Israel, which He had spoke through His servant Jonah the son of Amittai, the prophet: This is almost certainly the same Jonah who is famous for his missionary trip to Nineveh. Apparently he also had a ministry among his own people, not only among the people of Nineveh. i. “God sent them Jonah to encourage them, and to assure them of better days.” (Clarke) 2. (28-29) Summary of the reign of Jeroboam II. Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, and all that he did; his might, how he made war, and how he recaptured for Israel, from Damascus and Hamath, what had belonged to Judah; are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? So Jeroboam rested with his fathers, the kings of Israel. Then Zechariah his son reigned in his place. a. His might, how he made war, and how he recaptured for Israel, from Damascus and Hamath, what had belonged to Judah: The reign of Jeroboam II was a time of economic, political, and material prosperity for Israel. Yet it was not because of their own merit or goodness, but because of God’s great mercy to Israel. i. Archaeology confirms the economic might of Jeroboam II. In the age prior to Jeroboam II, the houses in Israel’s cities were roughly the same size. But archaeologists find a change starting in the eighth century b.c. - ancient cities like Tirzah have a neighborhood of large, expensive houses and another neighborhood of small, crowded structures, smaller than the houses from previous years. The larger houses are filled with the marks of prosperity, and the oppressive rich of Israel thought they could find safety there - but God’s judgment came against those houses as well (Amos 3:13-15). ii. “The resultant prosperity, however, which ended in the wrong use of power in luxury and the oppression of the poor, was denounced by the contemporary prophets, especially Amos (2:6-7; 8:4-6); Isaiah (3:18-26; 5:8-13) and Micah (2:2).” (Wiseman) iii. In the days of King Jehoahaz of Israel God promised to send a deliverer to Israel, one who helped them to escape from under the hand of the Syrians (2 Kings 13:4-5). It is likely that Jeroboam II was this promised deliverer. b. From Damascus: Though the hand of the Lord was behind these events, God used the strength of the Assyrian Empire to bless Israel. For most of its history, the northern kingdom of Israel struggled against Syria - her neighbor to the north. But around the year 800, the mighty Assyrian Empire defeated Syria, and neutralized this power that hindered Israel’s expansion and prosperity. With Syria in check, Israel enjoyed great prosperity during the reign of Jeroboam II. i. The Book of Amos shows that Israel did not handle this prosperity well, and the wickedness under the prosperity of Jeroboam II heaped judgment up for themselves. ii. “Israel was blessed with the ministries of both Hosea and Amos during Jeroboam’s reign. From their writings it will readily be seen that though there was political revival under his rule, there was no real moral or spiritual awakening among the people.” (Knapp) iii. “When Jeroboam II died in 752 b.c., he left behind a strong kingdom but, unfortunately, one whose core foundation was so spiritually rotten that the edifice of state would not long withstand the rising tides of international intrigue and pressure.” (Patterson and Austel) c. Then Zechariah his son reigned in his place: Zechariah was the fourth generation of the Jehu dynasty, and it was prophesied that the dynasty of Jehu would continue for four generations (2 Kings 10:30). i. “From the time of Jeroboam’s death, declension set it, ending, less than seventy years later, in its final overthrow and dissolution. Prophetic ministry was from this time greatly increased. ‘Such is the way of our gracious God,’ and unknown writer says, ‘that when judgment is near to approach, then testimony is multiplied.’”

(Knapp) © 2006 David Guzik - No distribution beyond personal use without permission



Taken from: http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/1214.htm








Tobit a High Official of King Hoshea of Israel

by

Damien F. Mackey



King Hoshea of Israel was politically active during the reign of king Shalmaneser [V] of Assyria, whose kingdom the latter eventually destroyed. It would be fitting, then, that Tobit, the father of Tobias (= Job), who was taken into captivity by this same Shalmaneser, and who was from the northern kingdom of Israel (tribe of Naphtali), would once have served as a high official also for Hoshea.

Why?

Because Tobit himself tells us that he had been given a ‘roving commission’ by king “Shalmaneser” of Assyria, who “gave him leave to go whithersoever he would, with liberty to do whatever he had in mind” (Tobit 1:14, Douay version). In other words, Tobit was a great man of that time.

Now, given my argument that the name ‘Tobit’ is just a variant of the name, ‘Obadiah,

see post for Nov 2, 2009 at:

http://bookofjob-amaic.blogspot.com.au/2009/11/possible-hebrew-origin-of-names-tobit.html

 

then Tobit becomes the standout candidate, I think, for the official of king Hoshea, ‘Abdi, who owned the king’s seal (see BAR 21:06, Nov/Dec 1995):

“The minister’s name inscribed on the seal is Abdi (‘BDY), or, to use his full name in English, Obadiah (again, the name of a prophet, but a different person)”.

See also post for May 1, 2012, at:

http://houseofgold-amaic.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/historical-evidence-for-king-hoshea-of.html

The name, ‘Obadiah, is the same as the name of Mohammed’s father, ‘Abdullah. For, according to wikipedia (article “Obadiah”) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obadiah

Obadiah is a Biblical theophorical name, meaning "servant of Yahweh" or "worshipper of Yahweh."[1] It is cognate to the Arabic name ‘Abdullah. The form of his name used in the Septuagint is Obdios; in Latin it is Abdias.

What adds further intrigue to all this is that Mohammed’s mother was Amina, whilst Tobit’s wife was Anna. So the parents of young Tobias were ‘Obadiah (= ‘Abdullah) and Anna, whilst those of Mohammed were ‘Abdullah and Amina.

Tobit is the standout for ‘Abdi, the high minister of king Hoshea of Israel.



Historical Evidence for King Hoshea of Israel

BAR 21:06, Nov/Dec 1995




Royal Signature: Name of Israel’s Last King Surfaces in a Private Collection


By André Lemaire

The name of the northern kingdom of Israel’s last king has turned up on a beautiful seal from the eighth century B.C.E.! Although the seal did not belong to the king himself, it was the property of one of his high-ranking ministers.

The king is Hoshea (HWSû‘ in Hebrew; the same name as that of the prophet Hosea, but referring to a different person).a Hoshea ruled Israel from 732 or 731 B.C.E. to 722 B.C.E., just before it was destroyed by Assyrian conquest. The minister’s name inscribed on the seal is Abdi (‘BDY), or, to use his full name in English, Obadiah (again, the name of a prophet, but a different person).

....



Taken from:

http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=21&Issue=6&ArticleID=3



Distancing Oneself from Velikovsky

In answer to a reader's comment on Velikovsky:

.... I think [Velikovsky] is appreciated because he thought of the idea of re-jigging the Egyptian chronology but seems to be rather crazy overall. Sounds as though these fellows are wise to distance themselves from him. ....

I wrote:

Distancing Oneself

from Velikovsky

by

Damien F. Mackey

--------------------------------------------------------------------
…. the point of this little article is that revisionists, even if now they have adopted quite a different system, owe their beginning to Immanuel Velikovsky. For whatever reason, God allowed him, and him only, a man who may not even have believed in God, to be the one to determine that 18th dynasty Egyptian history needed to be brought down the time scale by a multiplicity of centuries.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Let us get one thing very clear. The revision of ancient history as pursued by groups such as the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (UK) and Catastrophism and Ancient History (Los Angeles, CA), and now by many other individuals and groups using various forms of social media, would never have seen the light of day but for the efforts of Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky, a Russian Jew. Even Dr. Courville’s worthy early effort, The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, I & II (Loma Linda Ca, 1971), though largely an original contribution, based itself on Velikovsky’s important 500-year shift of the 18th Egyptian dynasty to the time of the kingdom of Israel (Saul, David and Solomon).

Here I am interested only in Velikovsky’s historical revision, not his scientific interpretations, which involve some dramatic planetary catastrophism supposedly affecting the biblical Exodus and the destruction of Sennacherib’s Assyrian army of 185,000. These, which I do not personally favour, make for some terrific reading, nevertheless, and would be exciting movie viewing.

Whilst some still follow Velikovsky slavishly, both his history and his science, it was the UK branch, including some very talented individuals, who, as early as the late 70’s, tended to watch critically his historical outputs, finally rebelling outright - as well they should, I think - when confronted with his location of the 19th Egyptian (Ramesside) dynasty: Ramses II and His Time and Peoples of the Sea.

But it needs to be noted that, until that time, the UK revisionists were ‘Velikovskian’ in their acceptance of the important 500-year downward shift of Egyptian history, with the talented ‘Glasgow School’ slightly modifying Velikovsky (as we shall read) and bringing the revision to something of a peak. From that happy moment in time it has generally been a free-fall down the mountain.

So the point of this little article is that revisionists, even if now they have adopted quite a different system, owe their beginning to Immanuel Velikovsky. For whatever reason, God allowed him, and him only, a man who may not even have believed in God, to be the one to determine that 18th dynasty Egyptian history needed to be brought down the time scale by a multiplicity of centuries.

But the UK (in particular) revisionists, aware that Velikovsky was regarded with contempt by the conventional scholars, whose system they themselves were completely undermining - though perhaps also seeking some academic respectability - and aware that Velikovsky’s latter phase revision, e.g. the 19th dynasty of Egypt, was archaeologically untenable (though loyal Velikovskians have clung to it), sought to distance themselves from Velikovsky completely, they hardly at all, or at least very scarcely, even mentioning him in their later books and publications. And when they did mention him, they laughed him off as a “wayward polymath”, or “maverick”. Now, whilst these epithets can be appropriate in the right context, they are mean and miserable when revisionists fail to admit their owing a debt to Velikovsky.

The most arrogant example of this, which is not only unjust to Velikovsky but which demeans all those others who have put a lot of effort into a revision of ancient history - as well as the writings of ‘Creationists’ - was this piece in the flyleaf introducing David Rohl’s The Lost Testament (Century, 2002) as if the revision recognizing the over-extension of chronology by modern researchers had begun with him in 1995 (forgetting Velikovsky’s beginnings in the 1940’s):

The earliest part of the bible is recognised as the foundation-stone of three great religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – yet over the last century archaeologists and historians have signally failed to find any evidence to confirm the events described in the ‘book of books’. As a consequence, many scholars took the view that the Old Testament was little more than a work or fiction. The testimony of biblical history had, in effect, been lost.

Then, in 1995, this scholarly skepticism over the historicity of the Bible was suddenly challenged when Egyptologist and historian, David Rohl, burst onto the scene with a new theory. He suggested that modern researchers had constructed an artificially long chronology for the ancient world - a false time-line which had dislocated the Old Testament events from their real historical setting. The alternative ‘New Chronology’ - first published in A Test of Time: The Bible From Myth to History - created a world-wide sensation and was fiercely resisted by the more conservative elements within academia. Seven years on, however, the chronological reconstruction has developed apace and numerous new discoveries have been made.

Now, in his new book, The Lost Testament, David Rohl reveals the entire story of the Children of Yahweh - set in its true historical context. An astounding number of references in the literature of neighbouring civilizations are shown to synchronise with the Old Testament accounts, confirming events which had previously been dismissed as mythical. In addition, this contemporary literature - combined with the archaeological record - reveals new information and new stories about personalities such as Enoch, Noah, Nimrod, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Sau1, David and Solomon.

The Bible has at last been recovered from the ruins of the ancient past as the ‘when’, ‘where’ and ‘who’ are explained - throwing unforeseen and fascinating new light on the world's most treasured book.

[End of quote]

Rohl was one of those more talented and qualified UK revisionists, along with Dr. John Bimson and Peter James, the latter two being an integral part of the ‘Glasgow School’ which included Martin Sieff. Rohl is a brilliant presenter and good writer and his books are sumptuously and colourfully presented. And I strongly recommend his account of Nimrod in Chapter Four of The Lost Testament. And I also recommend, for its work of exposing the conventional chronology and archaeology, but not for its rebuilding efforts, Peter James’s (et al.) Centuries of Darkness, which has become something of a classic. But I personally believe that the so-called ‘New Chronology’ of Rohl, somewhat similar to James’s, which has come to dominate the revision, lying halfway between convention and Velikovsky, fails at virtually every point despite the optimistic advertisements. It is far inferior to Courville’s and Sieff’s respective revisions, with Sieff tending to persevere with the promising ‘Glasgow’ line, but with modifications of his own.

Sieff, in fact, adopted the perfect approach to Velikovsky, by building upon his solid foundations, but also, in the best ‘Glasgow’ fashion, modifying where there were problems, and rejecting outright Velikovsky’s glaring mistakes. He even wrote by far the best account of the psychology of Velikovsky (who was a psychiatrist), the fascinating “Velikovsky and His Heroes” (SIS Review, vol. v, no. 4, 1980/81, pp. 112-120).

I, in my 1993 university thesis,

A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background

(accessible at: http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/5973)

once again paid my dues to this amazing and enigmatic scholar, Velikovsky, right at the beginning in my Preface (but in many other places as well).

‘You are the glory of Jerusalem!

You are the great pride of Israel!

You are the highest honour of our race!’

(Judith 15:9)

Preface

This thesis, as it stands, would most definitely never have seen the light of day had it not been for my having come across, in the early 1980’s, the revised historical systems of Drs. Immanuel Velikovsky and Donovan Courville (published between the early 1950’s to 1970’s), with their proposed radical lowering of the important 18th Egyptian dynasty by 500 years on the time scale, and their subsequent stratigraphical realignments. After that, the work was continued in the U.S. and Canada with some genuine developments, and certain necessary modifications, by the contributors to Pensée, founded by David Talbott - a journal important for, amongst other things, its scholarly treatment of Sothic dating, including specialized pieces by Velikovsky - and Kronos, edited by Professor Lewis M. Greenberg, and spanning thirteen years (1975-1988), with its highly important contributions towards bringing art history into a proper perspective. The Associate Editor of Kronos, Ev Cochrane, would go on (since 1988) to publish the important journal Aeon, still functioning today, with its relevant publications in history, comparative mythology, and archaeoastronomy; whilst Dwardu Cardona, the founder of the Canadian Society for Interdisciplinary Studies, would become Aeon’s senior editor. The Los Angeles based journal of the later 1970’s and early 1980’s, Catastrophism & Ancient History, edited by Marvin Luckerman, featured some useful and wide-ranging contributions - particularly of an historical nature - from both the U.S. and the U.K.

In the U.K, the Velikovskian-based (initially, at least) revision was championed especially by the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies, particularly by what became known as the ‘Glasgow School’, in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, some of whose modifications of Velikovsky I think have been highly impressive.

There have also arisen, in the more recent decades, certain fine individual contributions of a multidisciplinary (or transdisciplinary) nature from members of some of the abovementioned journals and/or schools, who may have decided to branch out on their own and develop their idiosyncratic systems of revision.

Overall, I have endeavoured to take into account what I consider to be the best and most historically plausible contributions of this growing body of scholarship, always with due acknowledgement, and to synthesise these, as far as possible, into a coherent whole: historical, stratigraphical (including art history) and archaeo-astronomical.

Apart from the absolute chronological factor of the Velikovskian (taken up by Courville) downward shift in time of 500 years, as referred to above, there is another more specific aspect of Velikovsky’s revision upon which I shall be most heavily dependent throughout chiefly VOLUME ONE of this thesis, A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background. I refer to Velikovsky’s identification - one formerly approved and supported by competent revisionists from the ‘Glasgow School’ - of two successive ‘Amorite’ kings in the el-Amarna correspondence (conventionally dated to the C14th BC) with successive ‘Syrian’ (biblical) kings of the C9th BC: namely, Velikovsky’s identification of el-Amarna’s Abdi-ashirta and Aziru, with, respectively, Ben-Hadad [I] and Hazael.

Whilst, on the one hand, fully embracing this particular cross-identification by Velikovsky of these two ‘Syrian’ kings (i.e. their el-Amarna and C9th BC alter egos) - with the added support of the ‘Glasgow School’ - I shall, however, also be significantly expanding them:

(i) by tracing their origins back to foreign immigrants (‘Indo-Europeans’) to the region, and

(ii) by even further multi-identifying them.

It will in fact be owing to the results obtained from my filling out of these two kings that I shall be able to, as I see it, propose a solution to ‘The Assuruballit Problem’: that is, the historical bottleneck that has arisen, particularly in neo-Assyrian chronology, due to Velikovsky’s re-locating of el-Amarna’s “king of Assyria”, Assuruballit, to the precise time of the mid-C9th BC king of Assyria, Shalmaneser III. But these two ‘Syrian’ kings will be, despite their major importance in the context of any Velikovskian-based revision, serving in this thesis mainly as a firm and well-established starting-point for my attempted reconstruction of the background to the era of Hezekiah. ….

[End of quote]

The bottom line?

Out of a sense of justice - give credit where credit is due.

Easter 2012 (“He is risen!”)

Pharaoh Amenhotep III was King Solomon's Descendant



We have argued for pharaoh Amenhotep III being the mighty Judaean king, Asa, a descendant of Solomon. So, we believe that those who think that the pharaoh was actually Solomon (e.g. see following article) are close, but not correct.



Following article taken from: http://www.perankhgroup.com/abraham,_joseph,_solomon_and_david.htm

King Solomon Pharaoh Amenhotep III

In the Bible,(1) King Solomon is said to have:



1. Inherited a vast empire conquered by his father David that extended from the Nile in Egypt to the Euphrates River in Mesopotamia (1 Kings 4:21; Gen. 15:18; Deut. 1:7,11:24; Joshua 1:4; 2 Sam. 8:3; 1 Chron. 18:3).



2. Accumulated great wealth and wisdom (1 Kings 10:23).



3. Administered his kingdom through a system of 12 districts (1 Kings 4:7).



4. Possessed a large harem, which included "the daughter of Pharaoh" (1 Kings 3:1; 1 Kings 11:1,3; 1 Kings 9:16).



5. Honored other gods in his old age (1 Kings 11:1-2,4-5).



6. Devoted his reign to great building projects (1 Kings 9:15,17-19), including:



a. the Temple (1 Kings 6).



b. the Royal Palace (1 Kings 7:2-12).



c. the walls of Jerusalem,



d. the Millo (an earthen fill made to enlarge Jerusalem) (1 Kings 11:27)



e. the royal cities of Megiddo, Hazor, and Gezer



f. the store cities, the cities for his horsemen and the cities for his chariots throughout his empire.



To be consistent with the pattern of other great Bronze and Iron Age cultures in the ancient Near East (Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian, and Hittite), it would be expected that numerous documents, art, and inscriptions on buildings or public monuments would have been left by such a great king or by his descendants later in honor of him.(2) Yet no article of any kind bearing his name has ever been found.(3)



The cities of Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer have now been extensively excavated. A stratum containing large palaces, temples and strong fortifications was found in each of these cities. The name of Solomon was not found, but the cartouche of the 18th Dynasty Pharaoh Amenhotep III instead.(4) In Jerusalem, it has not been possible to excavate the temple mount, however, extensive excavations in the city, including the areas adjacent to the temple mount have not revealed the existence of a Solomaic palace complex.(5) Moreover, excavation of the Millo has revealed (due to pottery found in the Millo) that its original construction was also contemporary with the Egyptian 18th Dynasty of Amenhotep III.(6)



Amenhotep III, known in ancient times as the "King of Kings" and "Ruler of Ruler's,"(7) was a Pharaoh of Egypt's glorious 18th Dynasty. He, like Solomon, inherited a vast empire whose influence extended quite literally from the Nile to the Euphrates.(8) In contrast to the empire of Solomon, the empire of Amenhotep is indisputable.(9) The buildings, monuments, documents, art, and numerous other vestiges of his reign are ubiquitous and unparalleled (with the possible exception being those left by the 19th Dynasty Pharaoh, Ramses II).



The entire reign of Amenhotep III was devoted to monumental construction throughout Egypt, Canaan, and Syria.(10) In addition to the ancient world's most glorious temple at Luxor,(11) he built many other temples of similar design throughout Egypt and in the rest of his empire,(12)including the Canaanite garrison cities of Hazor, Megiddo, Gezer,(13) Lachish and Beth-shean.(14)



According to Egyptian records, Amenhotep's father Thutmose IV and grandfather Amenhotep II deported over 80,000 Canaanites. TheCanaanite inhabitants of Gezer were specifically included in this deportation.(15) It was during Amenhotep III's reign that Gezer and other major Palestine cities were refortified as royal Egyptian garrisons, and endowed with fine temples and palaces.



The Bible states that in Solomon's day, the Pharaoh of Egypt captured the Canaanite city of Gezer and presented it to his daughter as a dowry upon her marriage to Solomon (1 Kings 9:16-17).(16)



It was customary and obligatory for Amenhotep III to marry "the daughter of Pharaoh" in order to secure the throne.(17) This is precisely what was done when he was married to Sitamun, the daughter of his father, Pharaoh Thutmose IV.



The network of Egyptian 18th Dynasty garrison cities also included Jerusalem. If construction by Amenhotep III at Gezer, Hazor, Megiddo and other garrison cities is any indication, then a magnificent temple undoubtedly was also built by Amenhotep on Jerusalem's venerated Temple Mount.(18) The structure adjacent to Jerusalem's Temple Mount, known traditionally as "Solomon's stables," is consistent with the architecture of Amenhotep's garrison cities.(19) Archaeology has also confirmed that chariots were kept in these cities during his reign in groups of between thirty to one hundred and fifty each.(20)



The ancient mining operations at Timna in the Negev desert, known as "Solomon's mines," "are earlier than Solomon by some three hundred years [in the conventional chronology],"(21) dating once again to the time of Amenhotep III. Copper from Timna, gold from the Sudan,(22) other precious metals, jewels and high quality stone were used in great abundance in Amenhotep's temples, just as they were in Solomon's.(23) A stela from Amenhotep's mortuary temple boasts that the temple was "embellished with gold throughout, its floor shining with silver ... with royal statues of granite, of quartzite and precious stones."(24) The list of materials used in another temple built by Amenhotep is also "staggering: 3.25 tons of electrum [an alloy of silver and gold], 2.5 tons of gold, 944 tons of copper..."(25)



The Biblical Solomon's greatest satisfaction is said to have been the challenge of completing grand projects (Ecclesiastes 2:4-11). The same was said of Amenhotep III. A royal Egyptian text of the period reads, "Lo, His Majesty's heart was satisfied with making very great monuments, the like of which had never come into being since the primeval age of the Two Lands."(26) Only an enormously wealthy king of a long established empire could have built so splendidly and in so many widely distributed locations in the ancient world. Amenhotep III was arguably the ancient world's wealthiest king. The completion of such magnificent projects required management of a considerable and constant source of labor and revenue extending over a period of many decades.



The administration and taxation system of Amenhotep with its 12 districts(27) is identical to that of Solomon as described in the Bible (1 Kings 4:2-7,27; 5:13; 9:23). Amenhotep also dedicated himself to rediscovering the wisdom, mysteries and traditions of earlier Egyptian Dynasties.(28) A strong relationship has been established between the "Proverbs of Solomon" in the Bible and the "Maxims of Amenhotep III" found in Egypt.(29)



In addition to the projects already mentioned, Amenhotep also built a completely new palace complex in Thebes. The new royal residence included all of the elements contained in the palace complex of Solomon which are described in the Bible (1 Kings 7:2-12),(30) namely:



1. a house made almost entirely out of cedars of Lebanon (built for Amenhotep's Jubilee festival);(31)



2. a colonnade (hall of columns) fronted by a portico (porch) and surrounded by a column-lined courtyard;(32)



3. a throne room built with many wooden columns and whose floor was a painted lake scene (identical to the one crossed in wonder by the Queen of Sheba when she approached the throne of Solomon, as described in the Koran);(33)



4. a separate palace built for Sitamun, "the daughter of Pharaoh;"(34)



5. a royal palace (consisting of his own residence, the residence of his Great Wife, Tiye, and a residence for the royal harem).(35)



Amenhotep, like Solomon, was relentless in his pursuit of women for his harem, especially beautiful foreign women of both royal and common backgrounds alike.(36) Amenhotep's harem included two princesses from Babylon,(37) two princesses from Syria, two princesses from Mitanni, and like Solomon's harem, it included a princess from each of the seven nations listed in 1 Kings 11:1.(38) As the mightiest king of the Middle East, Amenhotep did not send any of his own daughters to other kings in exchange, nor did any other Pharaoh of this dynasty (or likely any other throughout Egypt's history).(39) He specifically denied a request by the king of Babylon for an Egyptian wife.(40) Importantly, the Bible emphasizes Solomon's Egyptian bride, but does not mention that Solomon had any Hebrew wives.(41) Rehoboam, who is said to have succeeded Solomon, was the son of an Ammonite princess.(42)



Palace of Amenhotep III in Thebes, wher (queen shebawalked with her dress raised from the tiles that looked like a pond) and where it housed over five hundred wives of the king



The court of Amenhotep III was an extremely liberal one, and reflected every possible excess of an affluent and secure kingdom.(43) Eroticism in art and court life reached its height during the reign of Amenhotep.(44) The famous "nude dancing girls" mural dates to Amenhotep's reign.(45)As with Solomon, Amenhotep denied himself nothing "his eyes desired" and "refused his heart no pleasure" (Ecclesiastes 2:10). However, the last years of Amenhotep's thirty-eight year reign were not pleasant ones. The long years of indulgence had taken their toll and he had many ailments. As a compassionate gesture, his Mitanni brother-in-law(46) sent him an idol of the goddess Ishtar (i.e., Asherah)(1 Kings 11:5).



The King Amenhotep III bedroom in Malkata Palace



The "inescapable conclusion"(47) is that the story of Solomon was patterned specifically after the life of Amenhotep III. The name Solomon itself, which literally means "peace" or "safety" points to Amenhotep III whose long and pervasive reign in the 14th Century B.C. did not include any major military campaigns, but was characterized by unprecedented stability throughout the Near East.(48) After the Egyptian 18th Dynasty, the region between the two great rivers was not controlled by a single power again until the Assyrian empire of Ashurbanipal (the grandson of Sennacherib) who invaded Egypt and pillaged Thebes in the 7th Century B.C.,(49) and the 6th Century B.C. empire of Cyrus, who also conquered Egypt and made it a Persian province.(50) There is no evidence of any empire at any time controlling this region whose capital was Jerusalem.(51)



Solomon is said to have had "a thousand and four hundred" chariots (1 Kings 1:26). This represents a prodigious army by ancient standards, and one which could only have been amassed over a long period of time by an established civilization.(52) Yet we are told that only five years after the great King Solomon's death, the Egyptian Pharaoh Shishak and his allies invaded Judah and captured its fortified cities with little or no military resistance (2 Chron. 12). The Bible adds that Jerusalem itself was spared only after delivering up the entirety of King Solomon's accumulated wealth to Shishak.



The rapidness with which Solomon's empire was established, as described by the Bible, and the ease with which it shortly thereafter submitted to a foreign power is also not consistent with the pattern set by other great ancient civilizations.



In the New Chronology model, the Pharaoh Seti I ascends in Egypt around the middle of the fourty year reign attributed to Solomon. Shortly after his coronation, Seti I and the Egyptian army set out to deal with a crisis in Palestine. The Karnak account states, "their chiefs are gathered... on the hills of Palestine,"(2) and that "Beth Shean was under attack from a Canaanite king and could not get help."(3) Beth Shean is listed as one of the most important Solomonic cities, and yet it is Seti I who is taking action to defend Egyptian interests there.



The Bible does not mention this Egyptian military intervention. However, it does mention the capture of Gezer by the army of Egypt during the reign of Solomon. The Bible also records that Solomon had troubling adversaries, e.g., Jeroboam who is said to have fled from Solomon to the Pharaoh Shishak in Egypt; Rezon, the former minister of Hadadezer (identified by Rohl as Aziru of the Amarna letters) in Damascus; and Hadad in Edom (I Kings 11:14-40). Osman notes that both the Bible and the Talmud agree that Solomon was not the original name of the local monarch, but perhaps Jedediah.(4)



It is too obvious that the fictional Solomon Stories were Taken from the life of Pharaoh Amenhotep III, since he was always referred to as the King of Peaceful Times.



One of the most amazing discoveries of all time occurred in 1999 in Egypt. In 1999 Archaeologist Edgar Pusch of the Roemer and Pelizaeus Museum in Hildesheim, Germany discovered the floor remains of an immense temple ruin with the gold dust floors still intact under nearly sixty centimeters of Nile mud about 100 kilometers north of Cairo, Egypt, in the area assigned by Biblical literature to the dwelling place of the Hebrews in Egypt.



Nothing like it has ever been found in Egypt before. Because the cartouche (hieroglyphic insignia of the king) of Ramses II has been found there, the Temple has been assigned to Ramses II.



As shown in other pages of LexiLine and from the revised dating of the birth of Moses to ca. 1700 BC on the authority of Artapanus, Ramses II can only have been the famed King Solomon. Hence the temple floors discovered by Pusch belonged to the destroyed FIRST Temple of Solomon.



It is the temple in which Solomon kept the Ark of the Covenant. The floors are made of a substance into which great amounts of gold dust were mixed. When one walks on them, the shoes leave a trail of gold dust in the air behind, verifying the legend of the wealth of Solomon, according to which even the dust of the streets in Per-Ramses (Pi-Ramesse) was of gold.



The legendary king of Israel, King David's son and successor, which reign became known as Israel’s golden age. His date of birth is placed between 975 and 970 BC, and his death between 928 and 922 BC.



Building on David’s achievements, Solomon instituted a proficient centralized government, with a professional army and an advanced trade network. Above all, he poured attention on Jerusalem, raising superb public buildings and palaces, and carrying out his father’s plan to construct a Temple for the Lord, worthy to house the Ark of the Covenant.



Solomon had about 700 wives and 300 concubines. Many of the exotic women were in fact living treaties. He sustained alliances by taking wives from the family of every ruler willing to sign a treaty. He even kept mighty Egypt out of Israel by marrying an Egyptian princess, daughter of a Pharaoh Shishaq / Shoshenq, and that Shishaq paid the city of Gaza as a Dowry to Solomon.



By loving so many foreign women and allowing them to continue their own forms of worship corrupting the Holy City with their exotic rituals and gods, Solomon not only tolerated this paganism but also participated in it himself. Some even say that he became a skilled sorcerer. According to one of the many legends about him, Solomon used paganmagic to imprison 72 rebellious evil Demons into a brass vessel, throwing it then into a deep lake, where they were supposed to stay until the end of time. In an attempt to find great treasure, the Babylonians rescued the vessel and broke it open, allowing the demons to escape. These devils became known as the 72 spirits of Solomon.



Pharaoh Shishaq According to the bible conquered and sacked Jerusalem Just when Solomon Died. The Sack of Jerusalem



Very fanciful, false and doubtful



1-since It is man who pays Dowry to marry a woman, especially if Solomon wanted to keep the might of Egypt out of his lands.



2-According to all the Diplomatic letters of correspondence found between Egypt And other Nations, it was customary for these princes and kings to marry their daughters and sisters to the Egyptian kings as a form of respect and alliance to the ruling Egypt who were a super power in her days.



In the case of the references to Solomon’s marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter, several other facts lessen confidence in their historical reliability. First, as noted above, there is nothing in the references to indicate that they were drawn from any first-hand source; that is, any account that was written close in time to the events and by a person or persons in a position to know the facts about Solomon’s reign. Quite the contrary—Had the biblical writers been drawing from first-hand sources found in archives or records coming from Solomon’s time, they surely would have included the names of the pharaoh and his daughter. After all, the point of a royal marriage of this sort was to establish an alliance, and listing the names of the participants was indispensable to this process. Also, a comparison of these notices to the biblical report about Shoshenq’s (Shishak’s) campaign in Palestine (1 Kings 14:22-25) immediately shows the differences. In the latter, not only is a year given, but a specific king’s name is also mentioned. Neither of these data is found in the reports of the marriage. Nor is the princess’s name given. Undoubtedly when the biblical authors had access to specific names, places, dates and such, they included them. Therefore, the references to Solomon’s marriage resemble tradition and stock royal ideology not first-hand reports drawn from inscriptions, annals, archives, etc.



Second, we have explicit evidence from Egypt itself that pharaohs did not marry their daughters to foreigners. In a letter dating to the time of Amenhotep III (ca. 14th century BCE), Kadashman-Enlil I, king of Babylon, quoted Amenhotep III as having said, “From of old a daughter of the king of the land of Egypt was not given to anyone.” Indeed, from what is otherwise known of the Amarna period, the time of Amenhotep III, Egyptian pharaohs regularly married princesses from foreign countries, but never allowed their own daughters to marry a foreign potentate. Moreover, an analysis of Egyptian evidence from the time of David and Solomon supports this fact by showing a lack of marriages of pharaoh’s daughters to foreigners. Although a few scholars have attempted to demonstrate that such marriages occurred, primarily when Egypt was weak, my analysis of their published evidence and arguments shows that their claim does not hold up. To date, there are no clearly attested marriages of princesses of reigning pharaohs to foreigners. All of these considerations should make us skeptical of the historical reliability of the biblical reports of Solomon’s marriage to an Egyptian princess. True, we cannot prove that it never happened, but prudence and caution make it necessary to avoid placing any weight on these reports in our reconstruction of relations between Egypt and Palestine during Solomon’s reign.



please note that after heavy intensive excavation in Israel, nothing has been found of Solomon or any of his subject or the mention of his name any where. Most artifacts found belongs to Pharaoh Amenhotep III and other Pharaohs of Egypt.



When I was in Israel in 1968 1 took the tourist bus to view the so-called "Pillars of Solomon --impressive geological structures north of Eilat. I smiled within myself at the knowledge which the other tourists did not have that we were in an area of ancient copper mining activities as slag heaps were all around. Later I learned to my chagrin that Benno Rothenberg in 1969 discovered at the base of those pillars an Egyptian temple with inscriptions of the XlXth-XXth Dynasties dating from the 14th to the 12th centuries B.C. Rothenberg therefore maintained that these were earlier Egyptian mines and not Solomon's. 75 In a recent article Bimson argues that radio-carbon dates do indicate that the Timna mines were being utilized during Solomon's reign.76



EDWIN M. YAMAUCHI



History Department



Miami University



Oxford, OH 45056