Well, I'm now probably moving away again from the Mizraim was in Arabia theory.
As I've said before, even as I've become more critical of Velikovsky in terms of the 18th Dynasty, I've become more convinced then ever of his models for the 19th, 20th and 21st Dynasties.
I've been considering the Implications of keeping that aspect of Velikovsky while at the same time considering that Rohl may have been at least partly right in his view of the Amarna Letters.
Mutbaal as Ishbaal/Eshbaal has always been Rohl's strongest argument. Even conventionalists agree that Mutbaal also means Man of Baal. We have someone ruling mainly in the Trans-Jordan but who's father controlled Shechem, and with basically the same name. Too many perfect alignments to just ignore.
The name Labaya is suspected to be related to a Hebrew word usually translated Lion, Labiy Strong Number 3833. The primary verse using this word I've seen so far cited to support it being a name for Saul is Psalm 57:4 which David wrote while on the run from Saul, and there it appears in a Plural form, Labaim. Sometimes the plural suffix is used of an individual in Hebrew as a sign of respect.
I however have been looking at Prophecies in the Torah, Genesis 49:9, Numbers 23:24 and Numbers 24:9, where two words for Lion get used, Ari and Labiy. Ari is definitely the Lion of Judah since only Ari is used in Micah 5:8, and Isaiah 29 uses Ariel (Lion of God) as a name for Zion, The City of David (Which is Bethlehem), and the Lions of Solomon's Throne were Ari. So I wonder if it's possible that in these prophecies the Ari is David and the Labiy is Saul?
Rohl doesn't seem to have an identity for Abdi-Heba the King of Jerusalem in the Amarna Letters. Probably because he assumed The Bible never names the Jebusite King of the region. But that's because English translations obscure that the Hebrew of 2 Kings 24:23 says Araunah was a King. And both accounts agree he was a Jebusite.
The fact that Abdi-Heba seems to have later started working with the same Hapiru that he'd complained about Labaya working with, is probably his alliance with David. It can be inferred from the Biblical Narrative that they were on friendly terms already even before the Plague happened.
Now one implication of combining those two views, is bringing us right back to the 22nd Dynasty seemingly being the era of Solomon, Jeroboam and Rehoboam. The starting point of Revised Chronology is usually saying that identification is obviously wrong.
Unless there is a forgotten dynasty, or forgotten final phase of the 18th, to come between the end of the Amarna period and the Libyan take over.
One criticism of the Shoshenq as Shishak view to come to me recently is that The Bible would have called Shosenk a Libyian (either by calling him a Lubim or of Phut). When it refers to the Nubian Dynasty ruler Taharka it calls him a Cushite King, and doesn't call him Pharaoh or even directly say that he rules Egypt.
And then there is the fact that even the conventional date for Shoshenq is too late for when I place the end of Solomon's Reign, being Ussher's date (975 BC) at the latest. Conventional Chronology places Ussher's date for Solomon's Death during the reign of Siamun of the 21st Dynasty.
This returns me to the mystery of how Manetho's 18th Dynasty does seem to last longer then Archeologists usually think. And has him seemingly recording Ramses Minaium twice, once as part of the 18th Dynasty and then in the 19th Dynasty. But Seti exists only in the 19th Dynasty account.
I still think Orus of Manetho is Akhenaten, and Rathotis is Tutankamun. And then Acheneres as Ay and finally Armasis'Harmais as Horemheb.
Rohl has Horemheb as the Pharaoh who's daughter Solomon Married, that adds up well. Since Labaya is now agreed to have probably died before Amenhotep III did, Horemheb was probably King when Solomon took the Throne 40 and one half years after Saul died. Still it's possible that even though he was King at the time the daughter Solomon married was one of Akhenetan's, or any woman who held the title "King's Daughter". Maybe Solomon wound up marrying the same Queen who had written to Suppiluliuma I?
That still leaves the Shishak question up in the air.
