Sunday, November 6, 2016

More on 19th Dynasty Chronology

Velikovsky wasn't the first to suggest that Seti I actually reigned over 50 years.  All three versions of Manetho's 19th dynasty begin with Seti and give him about 54 or 55 years.  Same margin Herodotus gives Psammetichus.

Conventional chronology keeps shortening the reign of Seti I, apparently it recently became agreed upon that he didn't reign more then 11 years.  Even though when discussing Ramses II's son Khaemweset Seti's year 14 is mentioned.

Viewing Psammetichus as Seti I allows us to identify Seti's reign having more then one potential start date.  When he first started reigning as a local ruler upon the death of Rameses I/Necho I in 664 BC.  When he became sole ruler of Egypt in his 9th year in 656 BC.  Same 9th year I suspect Rameses II was crowned as an infant.  And possibly also later when he was recognized as independent by Assyria.  In one source he seems to be bragging about a lot of accomplishments already in his first year.

Mainstream Egyptologists think Ramses just made up the story about being crowned as an infant.  Now I get the reasoning a King might do that, and that could still fit the revised chronology, just having him actually date later events from the made up coronation.  But why randomly say it was Seti's 9th year?  If according to conventional chronology Ramses was born before Seti's reign started, why not say Seti did this right at the start?  That this lie was plausible is itself evidence Ramses birth didn't predate Seti's coronation.  Now if Seti was Psametichus we have a reason his 9th year was important, but maybe that was also when Ramses was born, and so he claimed he was crowned at his birth.

Returning to the subject of Hophra/Apries/Merneptah, and Amasis.  Herodotus reign lengths might be off here.  I believe Apries took the throne in 589 BC.  I think after 10 years was when he first fled Egypt.  I think about 579-572 would be the seven year reign of Seti II who Herodotus was unaware of.  Maybe Amenmes and Amasis are the same, maybe not.  I think the native Egyptian 19th Dynasty records are unaware of Egypt's 40 year exile/captivity(Ezekiel 29-30), which is why most or maybe all of Amasis reign (44 years according to Herodotus) is unknown.

I'm thinking of moving the death of Apries from 567 BC to 573-570 BC.  I think about 572-573 is also when Nebuchadnezzar conquered Egypt and sent them into captivity.  Amasis specifically gets exiled to Cyprus which Egyptian 26th Dynasty history prefers to remember as him Conquering Cyprus.

Cyrus allows Amasis and the Egyptians to return to Egypt not long after he allowed Judah to return.  It's possible like with Judah many Egyptians didn't return and were scattered.

Psamtik III could perhaps be the same as Siptah.  And Tworset the same as Nitetis, who I could see Cambyses allowing to reign as a vessel briefly after he defeated Psamtik III.

On the subject of the 19th Dynasty being perceived to directly follow the 18th.  One historical mystery I want to talk about is how Manetho seems to kind of record the 19th Dynasty twice, once at the end of the 18th Dynasty, and a second time as the 19th Dynasty.  Neither contains the whole picture of what archeology tells us.  But both have someone with a name similar to Rameses Miamun reigning for 60some years, archeology knows of only one pharaoh who's reign total was in the 60s at all, much less with basically the same name.

I think the 19th Dynasty rulers themselves wanted to pretend they followed the 18th because the time in-between was largely foreign occupation.  But maybe they did descend from some otherwise forgotten local dynasty that descended from the 18th?  Or maybe Manetho's garbled history reflects efforts by some previous Egyptian scribe trying to fill a gap he knew existed but didn't know how to fill.

I already said I think the Seti who was Rameses I's father may have been the Sethos of Herodotus.  With Rameses I as Necho I, perhaps this Seti is also either Nechepsos or Stephinates of Manetho's 26th dynasty before Necho I.  Herodotus begins the dynasty with Necho I.

Maybe also this Seti and his brother(s) can be identified with the Sethosis and his brother(s) who end Manetho's 18th Dynasty.  That places him about 710-700 BC.  Then with him proceeded by an Amenophis who reigned 40 years and a Miamun who reigned over 60, and then two short reigns for a Harmias and a Rameses, and then two Ascheneres of 12 years each.  And you wind up with Rathotis very near where Velikovsky (and possibly myself) placed Tutankamun, who Rathotis is commonly identified with.

Going back to Seti II.  He had a son named Seti-Merneptah about whom little is known.  He's assumed to have died during Siptah's reign, but there is no proof of that. 

Saturday, November 5, 2016

Cush, Africa, India and Arabia

One of the most confusing things in trying to determine the geography of Eden in Genesis 2 (if you think those names refer to the same places they do in Post-Flood geography, which Moses' present tense grammar supports), is how a river (The Gihon) sharing the same source as the Tigris, Euphrates and one seemingly linked to Arabia (Pishon), can encompass the Land of Cush (translated Ethiopia).  But of course this is confusing only to those who've gotten in the habit of thinking Cush only refers to Africa south of Egypt.

Rob Skiba mocks the theory that places the Gihon in northern India.  Well he is forgetting the Hindu Kush and the Kushan Empire.  I've already discussed on this blog that I think Cush's son Raamah traveled to India and that he was partly the basis for the Indian mythical figure of Rama.  Rama and Raamah both had two sons.  Rama's were mothered by Sita and named Lava and Kush, so like the Greeks the Indian mythical memory confused things.  The Ramayana, our main source on Rama, like the Mahabarata is post Alexander The Great, (they're not nearly as old as Ancient Aliens keeps saying they are).  Raamah's sons were Sheba and Dedan, maybe they are equally as linked to Arabia as Jokshan's pair of sons by those names.  But I think the Hindu god Shiva's name could come from Sheba, the Hebrew word Sheba is sometimes pronounced that way thanks to the B/V interchangeability.  And maybe Dedan is connected to the Danu and Danavas of Hindu mythology, and/or the Danuna of Burma.

Cush can also be linked to Mesopotamia starting with Nimrod.  Some theories on Eden say the Cush meant there is the city of Kish.  The Ziggurat of Kish is to a god who's name is possibly similar to two of Cush's sons.  Judges has a King of Mesopotamia with Cushan in his composite name and/or title.  Cushan in the Hebrew is just Cush with an N added at the end.  Some have also theorized the Kassites could come from Cush.

The names of some of Cush's sons in Genesis 10 can be linked to Arabia, even leaving out the names that have duplicates among the descendants of Shem.  Bill Cooper covers them in After The Flood Appendix 2.  I think his biggest mistakes are who he puts where with the duplicate names, but it's still all useful information.  He sadly missed Raamah's connection to India.

Another appearance in The Bible of the name Cushan is in Habakkuk 3:7 which all scholars agree is about Arabia.  Where Cushan is mentioned in close proximity to Midian.

The reference in Numbers 12 to Moses having a Cushite wife is, because of the tendency to by default assume that name means Africa, part of the origin of the tradition recounted in Josephus that Moses married a Nubian princess after conquering Ethiopia for Egypt.  This passage also becomes relevant to debates about both Polygamy and Inter-Racial marriage, with the text's condemnation of Aaron and Miriam's criticism here taken as a condemnation of opposition to either of those.

However there are scholars who have argued this wife may not even be a separate individual from Zipporah, the daughter of Jethro, thus making it irrelevant to Polygamy.  Jetho is called a Priest in Midian, and sometimes seemingly a Midanite by residence.  But his tribal identity is Kenite, we do not know how the Kenites fit into Genesis 10.  Bill Cooper's argument they came from Midian's son Henoch I do not find convincing.  Remembering that a Cushan is linked to Midian, the Kenites could very well be from Cush.

Bishop James Ussher in Annals of The World for the year 1615 BC quotes Eusebius Chronicles 1. 1. 1:53 as saying that the Ethiopians of Africa migrated there from the Indus River.  During the Old and Middle Kingdoms Egypt's main enemy to their south was called Kerma, there is no definitive evidence of a nation called Kush on the Nile River until the 18th Dynasty.

One scholar writing theories about the Igbo Tribe of Africa suggested that Midian's sons Ephah and Epher might have gone to Africa, and the name Africa itself might come from Epher.  I think all five sons of Midian were still in Midian in the days of Moses, and that is why Midian had five kings during the Wandering.  But maybe in the days of Gideon when some Midianites sought to conquer Israel, others migrated to Africa.  And perhaps at that time some of the Cushites near them did the same.  Midianites have already been suggested to be among the tribes that made up the Hyksos, perhaps the Cushites were as well.

Putting all of those factors into consideration.  There is no definitive proof ANY reference to Cush in The Torah ever means Africa.  And maybe even many references from later that cause confusion are confusing only because we assume Africa.

On the subject of Revised Chronology there is Zerah The Cushite who fought a war with King Asa according to 2 Chronicles.  Nothing in that account mentions Egypt at all.  But all theories on who Shishak is think an Ethiopian invading Israel a generation later must be tied to Egyptian history somehow.  And while I have myself on this blog endorsed two possible Egyptian identifications for Zerah (the more recent one the only one I still consider plausible).  I now feel the need to point out that we do not need to.

The proper account of the war with Zerah doesn't mention Lubim (often taken to mean Libya) either.  But they are mentioned alongside the Ethiopians when a Prophet rebukes Asa later.  We don't know everything about Asa's 41 year reign, this may not have even been the same war.  But either way Libyans are in a much better position then Nubia to potentially come to Israel by sea and thus bypass Egypt altogether.  And perhaps what Lubim refers to is itself something we need to reevaluate, but I don't feel like looking into that myself just yet.

Isaiah 18 is also confusing.  Partly because this Prophecy includes a quotation.  I think most likely Israel is the nation that the nation "beyond the rivers of Cush" is sending messengers to.  The "rivers of Cush" I think best fits a Mesopotamian or Indian Cush.

In the reign of Jehoram/Joram of Judah, there is an account of Judah being attacked by Philistines and "Arabians who are by Cush".  That doesn't make sense if Cush and Arabia are on different continents.

One more thought on Cush and Arabia.  In an earlier Nimrod post I observed how the Book of Jubilees seems to make a daughter of Nimrod the mother of Peleg and probably also Joktan.  That would make Cush via Nimrod an ancestor of all the Semitic Tribes of Arabia.

Isaiah 20 is clearly the Cush in Africa however.  Same mostly with Ezekiel 38&39 where since I view it the same as Revelation 20's Gog and Magog invasion, Cush is the South and Phut the West, while Persia is the East, and the other invaders mentioned are the North, all four corners (though Arabia could also be described as South, Jesus called the Queen of Saba the Queen of the South).  And I do still think Taharqa is the 25th Dynasty ruler.

In an early post of this blog I made a big deal out of how Ethiopia in Greek mythology is linked to Joppa, and using that as evidence for the Ethiopian Jews claim to come from Dan. Since then I've read criticism that the Ethiopian Jews do not identify themselves with Dan, that idea comes solely from the legends spread by Eldad.  The various traditions the Ethiopian Jews have all seem to favor them coming from Judah.  That is something I may discus more in the future.

Maps drawn interpreting what was allotted to the Tribes tend to put Joppa in Dan.  But the city of Joppa is not mentioned in Joshua's account of the allotment at all.  Likewise the Samson narrative from Judges 23-26 makes no reference to Joppa even though Samson was a Danite in that area.  Joppa seems to not be referenced at all till the time of Solomon, it appears in the Old Testament only three times, in 2 Chronicles 2:16, Ezra 3:7 and Jonah 1:3.  Jonah is the most famous reference, but the other two are about the Lebanon in origin supplies for The Temple coming through there.

Once Dan existed solely in the North, his old allotment could have been absorbed by Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim or Western Manasseh.  All four of those tribes also had Monarchies at some point, but Manasseh's only lasted two years.  At the same time observations I've made elsewhere make Manasseh seem the most likely to be interested in Sea Faring and thus having a port city.  But they had other ports already like Dor.  Acts 9:32-28 refers to Lydda as being nigh to Joppa.  Lydda is in the Hebrew Bible Lod which is identified as a town of Benjamin (1 Chronicles 8:12; Ezra 2:33; Nehemiah 7:37; 11:35).

I mentioned how Cepheus is a name that could come from the same Semitic root the New Testament uses as the Hebrew/Aramaic counterpart to Petros/Peter.  As an non-Catholic I know that Petros is Peter but Petras, the true Rock, is Jesus.  Solomon is a type of Christ, and The Temple is a type of The Church.  So could Cepheus have been a name for a Davidic King?

But Petra is also the name of a city in modern Jordan and the classical definition of Arabia, that is possibly right where Sinai was.  So could this mythical Ethiopia also be an Arabian Cushan, and Joppa really just a port Perseus traveled through to get there?  Memnon king of Ethiopia of Greek mythology had a brother who was a king of Arabia.

The Rock Moses struck to provide Water for the Israelites was a type of Jesus as The Rock, so connecting Petra and Cepheus to that region is very logical.  Jeremiah 49:16 and Obadiah 3 both in prophecies against Edom refer to them "that dwellest in the clefts of the rock".  The word for Rock there is Cela/Sela/Selah, believed to be the name for the Seir/Petra area in the Amarna letters, and mentioned in 2 Kings 14:7 which seems to describe it's name being changed.  1 Samuel 23 possibly records how it got the name Cela to begin with.  Isaiah 42:11 also mentions Cela in close proximity to Kedar.

You might ask "where do Black Africans come from then?"

For starters as I don't believe in the Evolutionary model I think it's entirely possible many parts of Africa were not inhabited until after 1615 BC.  And some even far later then that.

But regardless of that.  I think Phut, the only Son of Ham who none of his own sons are named, could have been ancestral to more Tribes then we usually assume.  I also think the Seven sons of Mizriam may have spread further then we usually assume.  They certainly all started in Egypt, but ultimately the intent of Genesis 10 is to identify 70 distinct Nations, so I do think they were more then just subgroups of Egypt.  The Kingdom of Kerma was probably a Mizraimite offshoot for example.

Last but not least, given the premise of my Shem, Ham and Japheth post.  I'm willing to consider that the population of Africa is not limited to Ham.  I've already suggested Midianites came at the same time Cush did.  But maybe others came before that.  Most of the sons of Joktan are not as firmly accounted for as the big three, Sheba, Ophir and Havilah, and links to Africa are argued even for those.

And at a much later point even then Cush. I have entertained the arguments of some that many Israelites came to Africa and were ancestral to the same Tribes chiefly targeted by the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.  But that shall be a subject for a future post.

Friday, November 4, 2016

Adjusting the 18th Dynasty

I still think Shishak is most likely an 18th Dynasty Pharaoh, or rather 18th Dynasty at the latest.

There are some out there now who support Velikovsky's identity for Shishak but can't his view of the 19th Dynasty.  And will thus try to argue a place for the 19th Dynasty putting it right after Velikovsky has the 18th end.  One variation is arguing Seti I is the "Saviour" of Jahoash.

And with that one could argue, though I haven't seen it yet, for placing the Libyan (22nd and 23rd) dynasties between 19 and 20.  Since Rameses III alludes to a foreign occupation then.

The thing is, I'm actually more convinced of Velikovsky's arguments for the 19th, 20th and 21st Dynasties then anything else, and I will be posting more on that in the future.  So I'm the opposite of others in this regard.

My desire to adjust the 18th Dynasty began only with problems I saw in which specific campaign of Tuthmosis III Velikovsky identified with Shishak taking treasures form The Temple.  We keep criticizing the conventional Shoshenk view by pointing out how Shoshenk's campaigns were in the North, ruled by Shishak's effective puppet Jeroboam.  But Tuthmosis III's 21st year campaign (first year of his sole rule) was mainly a siege of Megiddo, also a northern city.  Velikovsky talks about Megiddo being one of Solomon's main fortresses, but that doesn't matter, everything Solomon had north of Bethel became Jeroboam's by this point.

Something else I noticed.  The Bible records Shishak and Rehoboam fighting no battle.  The more detailed Chronicles account includes a description of his army, but because Rehoboam listened to the Prophet (unlike the Kings in the days of Jeremiah and Ezekiel) the Temple treasures was turned over without a fight.

So if it is a campaign of Tuthmosis III, it could easily be one of the campaigns that focused only on collecting tribute.  Or maybe it could fit Tuthmosis I's Syrian campaign where he describes how no one resisted him, a fact which has confused historians.

Solomon's marriage to the daughter of Pharaoh isn't mentioned in Chronicles, only in Kings, though Chronicles does mention Solomon bringing horses from Egypt.  And Gezer isn't mentioned when the marriage is first refereed to.  Pharaoh taking Gezer is thus based on only one verse, 1 Kings 9:16.  I shall quote it in the context of the verses before and after.
And this is the reason of the levy which king Solomon raised; for to build the house of the Yahuah, and his own house, and Millo, and the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, and Megiddo, and Gezer. 
 For Pharaoh king of Egypt had gone up, and taken Gezer, and burnt it with fire, and slain the Canaanites that dwelt in the city, and given it for a present unto his daughter, Solomon's wife.
 And Solomon built Gezer, and Bethhoron the nether.....
Velikovsky is willing to consider The Bible account imperfect or corrupted, as shown by his discussion of Ahab and Jehoram, which I responded to in my Amarna post.  And Rhol does the same when arguing for his view of Babel, I adjust his argument in a way that can be more consistent with viewing God's word as inspired and preserved.

When one allows that option, the possibly that Gezer somehow became an error for Megiddo is plausible.  I who do not consider it possible for the Masoretic text to be in error, am willing to consider that this whole account is a summery and by Pharaoh taking Gezer it might mean all three cities at the end of the previous verse.

That then opens up the option that Tuthmosis III's 21st-23rd years campaign is during Solomon's reign not Rehoboam.  When in Solomon's reign Gezer was taken isn't clear.  This verse seems to refer to it in past tense (the context of Solomon's reign at this point is about 20-25 years in).  But I think this did happen later then the marriage since Gezer isn't mentioned in the initial account of it.  And maybe in that case Gezer or Hazor is the city called Kadesh by Tuthmosis III.  Gezer did have a Canaanite High Place, so it too could have been a Holy City.  Hazor is actually quite close to Kadesh-Naphtali, not just both being in Naphtali, but very northern Naphtali, both significantly north of the Sea of Galilee.

So this could make the Shishak campaign either one of the very late campaigns of Tuthmosis III, or of Amenhotep II.  And could make the daughter of Pharaoh Solomon married either a daughter of Tuthmosis III or Neferure.

While I have many potential nitpicks of Velikovsky's Amarna view.  The strong evidence for the Amarna period being being contemporary with Shalmanezzer III I do find quite compelling.  But again for my view that would be Jehoram's reign over the north not Ahab's.

I tried to entertain David Rohl's Amarna view, his Mutbaal/Ishbaal connection is his strongest argument.  It's not only Rohl who argued Mutbaal means "Man of Baal" it's at the start of Mutbaal's wikipedia page.  However Labaya as Saul doesn't add up to me, I could see a Northern Kingdom ruler being defined mainly as Shechem, even the ones ruling from nearby Samaria.  But Saul's capitals were all in Benjamin.  Rohl also identifies Joab with a king of a very far northern city, which is just random.

The Amarna period must be some period of the Divided Kingdom.  Even how conventional chronology defines it has the area of modern Israel mostly being defined by the rivalry between Labaya in Shechem and the King of Jerusalem.

I read an argument once for Labaya as Basha.  I can't find it now.

But here is the thing, the beginning of the reign of Akhenaten is almost exactly 100 years after Tuthmosis III's battle of Megiddo, the Amarna period begins a decade before that, so 90 years later.  The Biblical timeline of the divided kingdom has 90 years after Shishak plundered Rehobaom as during the brief reign of Athaliah, and thus the Amarna period mostly after she died.  That's going off Ussher's dates.

So Velikovsky's synchronization for Shishak and Amarna can't both be right.

If the taking of Gezer can be synchronized to the Battle of Megiddo, then Amarna can be moved down a couple decades and perhaps fit much better.

And if the taking of Gezer was very early in Solomon reign, then 90 years after that takes us to right after Omri moved his capital from Tirzah to Samaria, in the region of Shechem. The Bible doesn't tell us how Omri died, but it was about 6 years after he moved the capital to Samaria.  The death of Labaya has sometimes been dated to while Amenhotep III still reigned.

If Ebed-Tov is a name all Kings of Judah used, then the letters might not even notice when Asa changed to Jehoshaphat.  Or maybe Jehoshaphat was writing the letters during the later part of his father's reign?

In my earlier Amarna post I had suggested the possibility that the grandfather of Jehu was a son of Omri other then Ahab who was placed in charge of the Transjordan.  Now that I'm considering Omri as Labaya, Mutbaal could have been an alternate name of Nimshi grandfather of Jehu.  Nimshi may be a name given to him post-mortem considering it's meaning.

But even without a Jehu connection, it would be logical for Omri to place a son as a governor in the Trans-Jordan.  And maybe it's because he ruled in the same region that he took the name of the much earlier Ishbaal.

End of part 1, Beginning of Part 2.

That timeline still has the issues so many find so unacceptable of the 19th Dynasty not immediately following the 18th.  I will make further arguments for the gap between the 18th and 19th Dynasties in the future.  But for the rest of this post I want to consider one more hypothetical timeline for the 18th Dynasty, one that would have it end pretty close to when Velikvosky has the 19th Dynasty begin.

The dates for Horemhab's reign are inconsistent, with most archeologists certain he didn't have more then 14 years, but with at least one ancient reference to 59 years.  Maybe power struggles with Nubia/25th dynasty are a part of that confusion.

If Horemhab can be placed about when Velikovsky argued him to be (which he did in the context of removing him from the 18th dynasty altogether) it can become possible to argue for the Amarna period being contemporary with Menahem and Pekah.  Menahem I think it is a bit easier to hypothetically identify with Labaya.

Let's talk about the sons of Labaya.  We know he had more then one, and we know the name of only one.  There is however no definitive proof Mutbaal was even among the sons referenced in other contexts.  I will not argue for identifying Mutbaal with Pekaiah.  I will for the next five paragraphs copy something I argued elsewhere not connected to revised chronology at all, for possibly making Hoshea a son of Menahem.  And at the same time giving his dynasty a link to the Transjordan (where Mutbaal reigned) via Gad.

King Menahem is called Ben Gadi or "Son of Gadi", Gadi is the same in the Hebrew as "Gadite", so perhaps Gadi wasn't the personal name of his father but rather this phrase identifies him as a Gadite?

The house of Menahem does NOT like Jeroboam, Baasha or Ahab have a declaration that it's male line was or will be entirely blotted out.  His son Pekahiah was killed in a coup by Pekah ben Remaliah.  Pekah is later killed in a coup by Hoshea ben Elah.  Could Hoshea have been of Menahem's house, that is often called the House of Gadi?   Hoshea and Menahem both paid tribute to the same Assyrian King, Tiglath-Pileser.

Maybe Elah was Pekahiah's brother?  Or Sister, ending with a Heh is usually grammatically feminine in Hebrew but our assumptions about some names forget that. Or maybe Elah was a wife of Menahem or Pekahiah?

We are repeatedly told there is more to the story in an alluded to Northern Kingdom counterpart to Chronicles, but it hasn't been preserved since it (being kept by a less faithful Kingdom) wasn't God's Word.

The idea of Kings coming from Gad is intriguing to me because I've noticed something about Moses Blessing on The Tribe of Gad in Deuteronomy 33:20-21 that most don't.  It's a blessing that seems to imply Royal status, similar terminology to that used of Judah in Genesis 49:9-10.  So Lost Tribes speculation aside that convinced me Samaria did have a Gadite dynasty.

 Maybe Hoshea could be Mutbaal, or maybe another brother.  If this dynasty was a Gadite one then it could have been important to them to place a potential heir as the governor of Gad, or of the whole Transjordan.

Maybe the Shalmanezzer alluded to is V rather then III?

This could place the start of the 18th Dynasty already after the time of Rehoboam.  And open the possibly that Shishak was a Hyksos.

I argued before that Shishak is in fact a Hebrew name the etymology of which can be 100% explained as Hebrew in origin, coming from a word for Linen.  And did so for the purpose of suggesting that we need not look for it in Egyptian records at all.  And I stand by that in terms of the first model I argued for in this post.

But the Hyksos used Semitic names.  Did they use one that could explain the origin of Shishak?  There is one very hotly debated figure of the second intermediate period who comes awfully close.  Sheshi.

Rohl attempted to argue Sheshi was the Sheshai who was an Anakim king.  In the Strongs that name is located close to some of the variants of Shishak, like Shashak and Sheshech.   One other attested Egyptian king some have sought to identify Sheshi with is Sharek.  So that is evidence for a version of the name with a K at the end.

Sheshi is also theorized to be the same as Shenshek.  Is Shoshenk proponents can add an n to the name, then adding one in s different spot is also acceptable.

The two theories about Sheshi provided by mainstream Egyptolgists I find most interesting here are, that he may have been a Hyksos who reigned between Khyan and Apepi.  Or that he was a Hyksos vessel who ruled in southern Canaan.

Shishak is NOT in either Kings or Chronicles called Pharaoh, the King who's daughter Solomon married was.  Shishak is only called the King (Melek) of Egypt.  But could it be this actually meant a King from or representing Egypt?  Perhaps ruling from Al-Arish or Sharuen?

And then, could the Pharaoh who's daughter Solomon married be Khyan?  Arguably the Hyksos ruler who's influence was the most extensive?  And the Hyksos may not have shared the hostility to marrying their daughter to foreign rulers that Amenhotep II and III did.

Josephus's version of Manetho seems to place Khyan after rather then before Apepi/Apophis.   Modern Egyptologists are pretty sure him reigning before is correct.  Either way aspects of what I just argued could be seen as weakening the Amalekites/Hyksos connection.  But as I said the Hyksos were always a collection of tribes.

Sheshi's successor has been theorized to be Nehesy Aaserhe.  With Nehesy being interpreted to mean "The Nubian".  Could Aaserhe somehow become Zerah?  Maybe it could come from an attempt in the Egyptian language to represent Ha-Zerah (Zerah with a definite article, because Hebrew did use those before personal names).  And "The Nubian" used to translate "The Cushite".

Thia second model is perhaps better compatible with a 6th Dynasty Exodus Model then a Middle Kingdom model.