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.
Showing posts with label Amarna Letters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Amarna Letters. Show all posts
Friday, March 30, 2018
Friday, December 29, 2017
Jeroboam as Labaya
I may possibly be done with this blog for awhile, partly for reasons explained on my Prophecy blog in Biblical Egypt may not be Egypt. And the comparative mythology stuff I sometimes talk about here I have a new blog for.
But I'm by no means done with revised chronology completely, and so I'm making this post before 2017 ends to be a continually updated work in progress on a new theory I have for identifying Jeroboam with Labaya. I'm not 100% on it, but it's worth throwing out there.
Many revised Chronologists agree that Labaya is probably a northern Kingdom monarch. Thing is only Jeroboam had Shechem as his Capital, but other factors make people not consider Jeroboam a candidate.
Since I possibly no longer identify Shishak with Kemet (what we today call Egypt) but an Arabian king, those are not really a major problem for me anymore. Instead it could be Shishak's forces are those called the Hapiru who Labaya was apparently in cahoots with.
The Amarna period begins with the last decade of Amenhotep III's reign, and many do think Labaya died before Amenhotep III did. So the King of Jerusalem of the Amarna Letters would probably be Asa.
As far as the sons of Labaya go. That could be an issue since The Bible tells us Jeroboam's were all wiped out. But we don't know for sure how quickly that happened. The only Amarna Letters that refer to plural sons of Labaya are while Labaya's still alive. So it's only Mutbaal who might be an issue. Maybe it's not impossible Mutbaal was lying and only claiming to be a son of Labaya. But it's certainly possible Jeroboam placed a son as a governor in the Trans-Jordan, and that it took a little while for that one to be killed in the purge of Jeroboam's heirs. Jeroboam did have a Trans-Jordan fortress at Panuel which he could have placed a son in charge of.
But I'm by no means done with revised chronology completely, and so I'm making this post before 2017 ends to be a continually updated work in progress on a new theory I have for identifying Jeroboam with Labaya. I'm not 100% on it, but it's worth throwing out there.
Many revised Chronologists agree that Labaya is probably a northern Kingdom monarch. Thing is only Jeroboam had Shechem as his Capital, but other factors make people not consider Jeroboam a candidate.
Since I possibly no longer identify Shishak with Kemet (what we today call Egypt) but an Arabian king, those are not really a major problem for me anymore. Instead it could be Shishak's forces are those called the Hapiru who Labaya was apparently in cahoots with.
The Amarna period begins with the last decade of Amenhotep III's reign, and many do think Labaya died before Amenhotep III did. So the King of Jerusalem of the Amarna Letters would probably be Asa.
As far as the sons of Labaya go. That could be an issue since The Bible tells us Jeroboam's were all wiped out. But we don't know for sure how quickly that happened. The only Amarna Letters that refer to plural sons of Labaya are while Labaya's still alive. So it's only Mutbaal who might be an issue. Maybe it's not impossible Mutbaal was lying and only claiming to be a son of Labaya. But it's certainly possible Jeroboam placed a son as a governor in the Trans-Jordan, and that it took a little while for that one to be killed in the purge of Jeroboam's heirs. Jeroboam did have a Trans-Jordan fortress at Panuel which he could have placed a son in charge of.
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) Temple treasures were 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. But it could also fit Amenhotep II's campaigns from his 3rd, 7th or 9th years.
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.
When one allows that option, the possibility 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.
Karnak does list Gezer as a city Tuthmosis III conquered. And Wikipedia's page for Gezer lists Tuthmosis as the only Pharaoh known to have conquered the city.
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 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?
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) Temple treasures were 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. But it could also fit Amenhotep II's campaigns from his 3rd, 7th or 9th years.
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 possibility 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.
Karnak does list Gezer as a city Tuthmosis III conquered. And Wikipedia's page for Gezer lists Tuthmosis as the only Pharaoh known to have conquered the city.
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 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?
BTW the Deuteronomy Prophecy about Gad uses the same Hebrew word for Lion that Rohl argued is root of the name Labaya.
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. If Shoshenk proponents can add an n to the name, then adding one in a different spot is also acceptable.
The two theories about Sheshi provided by mainstream Egyptologists 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".
This second model is perhaps better compatible with a 6th Dynasty Exodus Model then a Middle Kingdom model.
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. If Shoshenk proponents can add an n to the name, then adding one in a different spot is also acceptable.
The two theories about Sheshi provided by mainstream Egyptologists 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".
This second model is perhaps better compatible with a 6th Dynasty Exodus Model then a Middle Kingdom model.
Monday, June 22, 2015
Jar bearing the name of Ishbaal/Eshbaal found
http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/rare-inscription-bearing-biblical-name-found-in-israel-150616.htm
It's estimated to be about 3000 years old, putting it near the time of King David. Main reason people are assuming it's unlikely to refer to the exact same Biblical Ishbaal is that he's Ben Beda rather then Ben Shaul.
Ancient Kings frequently had additional names, They would frequently take an additional name to their birth name when becoming king. Beda is observed in the linked article as rare and unusual.
The only similar word I found in the Strongs (908) means devised or feignest, or to invent.
Ishbaal's base of operations was east of the Jordan, but still it's presumed the entire North was loyal to him over David till he died. This Jar was fond west of Jerusalem which was originally allotted to Benjamin, and Ishbaal was a Benjamite.
I favor the basics of the Velikovsky model over David Rohl. It's interesting since we're talking about Ishbaal to note that Rohl's argument for Saul as Labaya of the Amarna Letters pointed out that Mutbaal has basically the identical meaning to Ishbaal/Eshbaal.
Maybe it's possible this Eshbaal is that Mutbaal? At face value connecting Beda to Labaya seems more likely then to Saul. But Mutbaal was also Transjordan based and without making an Ishbaal connection no reason to think he held authority west of the Jordan, or had any link to the territory of Benjamin.
This Eshbaal may indeed have no connection, but it's an interesting find.
It's estimated to be about 3000 years old, putting it near the time of King David. Main reason people are assuming it's unlikely to refer to the exact same Biblical Ishbaal is that he's Ben Beda rather then Ben Shaul.
Ancient Kings frequently had additional names, They would frequently take an additional name to their birth name when becoming king. Beda is observed in the linked article as rare and unusual.
The only similar word I found in the Strongs (908) means devised or feignest, or to invent.
Ishbaal's base of operations was east of the Jordan, but still it's presumed the entire North was loyal to him over David till he died. This Jar was fond west of Jerusalem which was originally allotted to Benjamin, and Ishbaal was a Benjamite.
I favor the basics of the Velikovsky model over David Rohl. It's interesting since we're talking about Ishbaal to note that Rohl's argument for Saul as Labaya of the Amarna Letters pointed out that Mutbaal has basically the identical meaning to Ishbaal/Eshbaal.
Maybe it's possible this Eshbaal is that Mutbaal? At face value connecting Beda to Labaya seems more likely then to Saul. But Mutbaal was also Transjordan based and without making an Ishbaal connection no reason to think he held authority west of the Jordan, or had any link to the territory of Benjamin.
This Eshbaal may indeed have no connection, but it's an interesting find.
Thursday, June 11, 2015
Bit-Sulman in the Armana letters
Velikovsky did not use this argument in Ages of Chaos but a later Essay.
Mostly the criticism of this argument is that the "n" only became added to the name of Solomon in Greek transliteration, in Hebrew it is Shalamo. Appealing to the Septuagint is something I reject on many levels.
I first feel the need the point out that I no longer believe the Salem or Shalem of Genesis was the Jerusalem of David and Solomon.
I could also nitpick Velikovsky's jumping from Bit/Beth to Temple when it just means House, that can include The Temple which is The LORD's house but not always. The personal palace Solomon spent even more time constructing was likely still around at this time also.
Just as I feel the name Ebed-Tov as an alternate name for the King of Jerusalem could have a connection to Obed an Ancestor of the House of David. I also think perhaps the real origin of the name Sulman is Salmon (Strong number 8012), an ancestor of Boas and Obed mentioned in Ruth 4:21 (spelled with an N there but without it in verse 20) Matthew 1:4-5 and Luke 3:32.
The versions of the name without the N are strong number 8009 and 8007 used in 1 Chronicles 2:11. 1 Chronicles 2:51 and 52 Identifies another Salmoh as the father of Bethlehem, and son of Caleb. Presumably this Bethlehem was the founder of the city of Bethlehem.
Another related name is Zalmon (Strong number 6756), referenced in Psalm 68:14 and Judges 9:48 as a location and the name of a random Israelite in 2 Samuel 23:28. There is no clear connection to Jerusalem here however. The location seems like it's probably a Northern Kingdom one.
But since Salmon is rendered both with and without the N clearly in reference to the same person. That could also be seen as evidence that adding an N to Solomon independent of Greek influence wasn't impossible though it has no known precedent in the Masoretic text. Shalamo (Strong 8010) and Salmoh (Strong 8009) are spelled the same in Hebrew but merely pronounced different due to different vowels.
Mostly the criticism of this argument is that the "n" only became added to the name of Solomon in Greek transliteration, in Hebrew it is Shalamo. Appealing to the Septuagint is something I reject on many levels.
I first feel the need the point out that I no longer believe the Salem or Shalem of Genesis was the Jerusalem of David and Solomon.
I could also nitpick Velikovsky's jumping from Bit/Beth to Temple when it just means House, that can include The Temple which is The LORD's house but not always. The personal palace Solomon spent even more time constructing was likely still around at this time also.
Just as I feel the name Ebed-Tov as an alternate name for the King of Jerusalem could have a connection to Obed an Ancestor of the House of David. I also think perhaps the real origin of the name Sulman is Salmon (Strong number 8012), an ancestor of Boas and Obed mentioned in Ruth 4:21 (spelled with an N there but without it in verse 20) Matthew 1:4-5 and Luke 3:32.
The versions of the name without the N are strong number 8009 and 8007 used in 1 Chronicles 2:11. 1 Chronicles 2:51 and 52 Identifies another Salmoh as the father of Bethlehem, and son of Caleb. Presumably this Bethlehem was the founder of the city of Bethlehem.
Another related name is Zalmon (Strong number 6756), referenced in Psalm 68:14 and Judges 9:48 as a location and the name of a random Israelite in 2 Samuel 23:28. There is no clear connection to Jerusalem here however. The location seems like it's probably a Northern Kingdom one.
But since Salmon is rendered both with and without the N clearly in reference to the same person. That could also be seen as evidence that adding an N to Solomon independent of Greek influence wasn't impossible though it has no known precedent in the Masoretic text. Shalamo (Strong 8010) and Salmoh (Strong 8009) are spelled the same in Hebrew but merely pronounced different due to different vowels.
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
About Ahab, Labaya, Mesha and the Amarna era.
I
agree with Velikovsky's argument on Jehoshaphat as Ebed-Tov/Abdi-Heba King of
Jerusalem and Mesha King of Moab with the Mesh of the Amarna letters.
The Amarna letters also list 3 of the Captains of Jehoshaphat from II
Chronicles 17:14-19. Addudani/Addadani=Adna and Ada-danu mentioned by
Shalmaneser in 825 BC, "Son of Zuchru" = "son of Zichri",
Iahzibada=Iehozabad/Jehozabad.
One objection to the proposed model is that during the Amarna period Burnaburiash, king of Karduniash and Assur-uballit, king of Assyria, are already identified as Burnaburiash II, a Kassite king, and Assur-uballit I, King of Assyria, who lived in the 14th century. Unfortunately, this synchronism is just coincidental and has hampered the uncovering of the true situation. The identification Of Burnaburiash as a Kassite has great difficulties. Amarna Burnaburiash, proclaimed himself to be a 'Great King', and claimed Assyrians were his subjects (Letter 9). Burnaburiash II, the Kassite king, never ruled over Assyria nor referred to himself as 'Great King'. The identification of Amarna Assur-uballit has equal difficulties. The Armana Assur-uballit's father was Assur-nadin-ahhe but no ancestor of King Assur-uballit I of Assyria was known by that name. Furthermore, Assuruballit's role as spoiler of Shuttarna II, the Mitanni King is doubtful. The Mitanni king forced his vassals to pay him tribute to give to an unnamed Assyrian king. According to Roux "Without shooting an arrow, Assur-uballit I not only freed his country from the Mitanni domination but brought about the downfall of the kingdom to which his fathers had paid tribute" [Roux, G. p260]. History shows that Assur-uballit I was a vassal of the Hurrians who ruled Nuzi and Arraphka only a few miles from Asshur. His inscriptions never mentioned any tribute from Khanigalbat, nor did he use the title 'Great King' or 'King of the Universe' as his Amarna namesake did. Gadd has to admit that it is strange history to receive rewards for rebellion -"the wealth, the princes and even the territory of his former sovereign" - instead of punishment [Gadd, 1975, p. 27].
Who, then, is Burnaburiash? The Burnaburiash of the el-Amarna letters ruled Babylon sometime in 910-880 RC. When Babylonian king, Nabu-apla-iddina, died about 910 BIC, his son, Marduk-zakir-shumi, ascended the throne. His brother Marduk-Bel-usate rebelled against him and he was forced to call on Shalmaneser III to help him. Shalmaneser defeated Marduk-Bel-usate and then "joined Babylonia and Assyria together". Thus, Shalmaneser III was the king of Babylon during the Amarna era. This agrees with Velikovsky's identification [Velikovsky, 1952]. Many kings who conquered foreign lands took another name. It is possible that Shalmaneser took the name Burnaburiash as king of Babylon. Shalmaneser III also took the titles 'Great King', 'King of the Universe' [Oppenheim, 1969a, p.233]. Thus he meets the conditions necessary for the Amarna king, Burnaburiash.
A seal of Kidin-Marduk, son of Sa-ilima-damqa, 'the Great Official of Burnaburiash', the 'King of All', was found in Mycenaean strata at Thebes Greece [Bacon, 1971, p.87]. This stratum is Mycenaean. Its Burnaburiash belongs to the Amarna era and per RC must be Shalmaneser III. Archaeologists found lapis lazuli and agate cylinder seals in the same strata [Platon, N. 1964. p.859-61]. The seals were classified as Mycenaean, Kassite/Babylonian of the 14th century and older Babylonian. One was classified as Mitannian and another was Syro-Hittite. According to the RC model, the Mitannian, Syro-Hittite and Mycenaean era is the 10th and 9th century but the Kassite and older Babylonian seals are dated to the 14th and 15th century. But, Sa-ilima-damqa is a very rare name. It is found in Assyria during only one reign, that of Assurnasirpal. He is the eponym for year 880 GAD. His son Kidin-Marduk is the same generation as Shalmaneser III. Thus, the Kassite and older Babylonian seals are not a product of 14th century Babylon but the 9th century.
In Shalmaneser's 6th year, he faced a coalition of forces headed by a commander named Biridri. The coalition included Aduni and Matinu-Baal and the Prince of Asu [Oppenheim, 1969a]. Velikovsky identifies Biridia in the Amarna period as the Commandant of Meggido. He notes a King Aduni mentioned in Letter 75; a Mut-Baal sender of Letter 255; and in Letter 150, Abimilki, King of Tyre, mentions Uzu [Velikovsky, 1952, pp. 310-11]. Hittite King, Suppilulimas I wrote a congratulatory letter to Pharaoh Tutankhamun who could be Saplel, King of Hattina, mentioned in Shalmaneser's annals [Oppenheim, 1969b] These Syrian rulers appear both in the Amarna letters and the 9th century annals of Shalmaneser III. Lastly, in Letter 55 to Akhenaten, Abimilki, king of Tyre, refers to himself three times as the "servant of Shalmatiata". The fall of Tyre to Shalmaneser in year 18, 897 BIC, agrees with the date of the Letter 155 in the reign of Akhenaten is 898-882 RC.
Burnaburiash's Amarna (Letter 9) complained of Egypt's reception of the Assyrian king because he had asked Egypt to stop trade with him in a prior letter [Oppenheim, 1967, p. 116]. Burnaburiash's claim that Assyrians were his subjects and his objection to Egypt's recognition of the Assyrians are consistent only if Assyria was in revolt against him at that time. It was led initially by Assur-danin-apli, son of Shalmaneser. Shalmaneser was forced to seek refuge in Babylon. After his death, his son, Shamsi-Adad V, fought for several years to quell the rebellion. During that time, a non-canonical Assur-uballit could have claimed the throne of Assyria, as 'King of All'.
I agree about the Habiru being bandits or mercenaries, not an ethnic term.
In an earlier post I said I disagreed with Velikovsky's identification for the Northern Kingdom ruler and went along with many others who insist Labaya must be the Northern Kingdom ruler. But I've gone over the arguments again and changed my mind. Gubla is used of Byblos but also of other cities too. So now Rib-Addi king of Sumur and Gubla the Northern Kingdom Omrid ruler of Jezreel and Samaria I do agree with.
But I disagree on that being Ahab, since the Rebellion of "The people of Mesh" (Mesha and his Moabites) is going on right from the beginning of this period, we're in the reign of Jehoram not Ahab.
The whole Jezebel-Nefertiti connection suggested by SpecialtyInterests I don't like.
Who is Labaya then?
Labaya and his questionable behavior seems to have some link to the "people of the rebel Mesh". 2 Chronicles 20 says Ammonites were allied with Mesha's rebellion. "It came to pass after this also, that the children of Moab, and the children of Ammon, and with them other beside the Ammonites, came against Jehoshaphat to battle". Shalmaneser records that at the Battle of Qargar "King Ba'asa, son of Ruhubi, of the land of Ammon sent 100 soldiers." Note, "son of Ruhubi" here could mean "House of Ruhubi". Labaya's son Mutbaal ruled in the Transjordan region, the geographical clues for Labaya himself are unclear and possibly misleading, Shechem was not his Capital as some have assumed for example.
On the other hand Labaya's role seems too duplicitous to be an obvious ally like the Amonites. But I'm still leaning towards a Transjordan location.
On further thought I feel that's unlikely to. Those who want to make Labaya a northern Kingdom ruler like to minimize the references to Shechem in the Labaya letter, saying they don't make Shechem his capital city but only that he's responsible for it. But in my current view, I'm coming to think Maybe this is simply telling us Labaya is a governor entrusted with the city of Shechem, and maybe also areas around Shechem like Mount Gerizim and Ebal.
Velikovsky did NOT believe in the infallibility of Scripture. Which of course is an assumption many critics of revised chronology make about all revised chronologists. This fact about him is most apparent in the part of Ages in Chaos about the Death of Ahab. He takes it from what he saw as a contradiction between this verse.
The Tel Dan Stele discovered since Veilikovsky's time confirms Jehoram existed, but creates other confusion.
II Kings 1:17 "So he died according to the word of the LORD which Elijah had spoken. And Jehoram reigned in his stead in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah; because he had no son."
And these two verses.
II Kings 3:1 "Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned twelve years."
II Kings 8:16 "And in the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel, Jehoshaphat being then king of Judah, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to reign."
There is no contradiction here however, he'd have known this if he'd studied Ussher's chronology. Jehoshaphat made his son a co-ruler for the latter years of his reign, this is why the 18th year of Jehoshaphat can also be the second year of Jehoram.
As for the fact that Ahab did Repent after Elijah rebuked him over the Naboth business. That was negated when Ahab sinned again believing the False Prophets over Micaiah.
But Velikovsky creates a whole convoluted theory that Ahab survived the battle of Ramoth-Gilead and lived another 9 years.
Mesha of Moab's rebellion was right after Israel's defeat at Ramoth-Gilead, Velikovsky sees the Moabite stone documenting this event as saying it was in the Middle of Ahab's reign, not after he died. First off the stone sounds like Mesha's relating a Prophesy made by a Prophet of Chemosh, who's Prophecy may have came true but not completely accurately. But also if it was made immediately at the start of the rebellion he may not have heard of Ahab's death yet. At any rate Ahab is not named on the Stone.
Regardless of those arguments, not all readings of the Mesha Stele even agree with the one Velikovsky used to support his theory.
As for his argument that Rib-Addi refers to himself as an old man? Solomon is called an old man when he died, but he never lived to see 60. We don't know how old Jehoram was when he took the throne, but I think it likely all three of Ahab's named children where born before Omri died. The context of the letter is mainly that he was in too poor health to travel to visit Pharaoh. He could have been lying/making excuses and just didn't want to go to Egypt, or he could have had any number of illnesses or injuries.
As for his argument about there being not even enough time according to the Assyrian inscriptions of the reign of Shalmaneser between Qarqar (where an Ahab of Israel or Jezreel is mentioned) and when Jehu gave his tribute. A few possibilities.
1. The two inscriptions could have been counting his reign differently, his becoming King of Babylon presents one excuse for different starting points.
2. Some have argued that Jehu is just an incomplete inscription of Jehoram. Based on Jehu not being a son of Omri as the inscription says, and a purely conjectural opinion that Jehu wouldn't give tribute to Shalmaneser. The latter argument however is a naive interpretation of Jehu's character. And for the former, the Assyrians called the Northern Kingdom in general the "House of Omri" well after his dynasty ended.
3. The leaders Shalmaneser fought at Qargar he refers to in general as Sars (princes) and refers to no individual one by a specific title. The Bible in this period uses Sars frequently of City governors, Assyrians never used Sar this way strictly, but this refers to foreign leaders here, who knows how accurate their info on their enemies even was.
Ahab had at least 70 sons we're told, only two are named, and probably neither of those even included in the referenced 70 who Jehu massacred at Jezreel. Kings especially back then usually named at least one son after themselves. And when you have that many your bound to run out of original ideas. So I think the Ahab at Qarqar may actually have been a brother of the reigning King and son of Ahab who was appointed Sar of Jezreel and entrusted with some key military authority and thus also been the General sent to command Israel's contribution to the Qargar war.
Or maybe this Israelite Sar was simply refereed to as "Ben Ahab" (Son of Ahab) but some poor communication caused the Assyrian record to only hear the Ahab part.
But also, I don't think Jehoram was that king's original birth name, Jezebel would not likely have given her Son a Yahweh theophoric name. We are told Jerhoram broke with her Mother's religion and returned to the religion of Jeroboam (which I believe was never a non Yahweh religion, but simply worshiped him in an Idolatrous fashion). So he may have taken the name Jehoram when he did that, but was at birth Ahab II.
Leaving Amarna now, lets go to other Egyptian material from the same period.
Shasu is a term used in the Soleb Temple built by Amenhotep III and latter copied by Seti I and Ramesses II. The 19th Dynasty Pharaohs may not have accurately known what the various Shasus originally refereed to.
They're all in the Transjorabn region, the list mentions six groups of Shasu: the Shasu of S'rr, the Shasu of Rbn, the Shasu of Sm't, the Shasu of Wrbr, the Shasu of Yhw, and the Shasu of Pysps. And there are also refrences elsewhere to a Shasu of Edom, Since Seir was the holy mountain of Edom they're likely the same group. The Shasu of Rbn I think is likely the tribe of Reuben.
The "Shasu of Yhw" is popularly speculated as having something to do with the Biblical YHWH, and I indeed believe there were Yahweh worshipers in the Transjordan region at this time. But this would be the only occasion where the name after Shasu refers to a deity they worship rather then a tribal or regional name.
I then thought, "Yhw is just as similar to Yhwo (Jehu) as it is to YHWH". And Jehu was in Rammoth-Giliead, a Transjordan region, before he was anointed King and given his mission to overthrow the Omrids. Maybe the Shasu of Yhw are the Shasu of Jehu, maybe Jehu was not his personal name but the name of a Clan he was the leader of?
For a different perspective you can read Amarna Names. The least credible claim made there is Labaya as Mesha, but the argument for the name actually meaning "The Moabite" is interesting. Now I have agreed here that Labaya was in cahoots with Mesha. Maybe he was called the Moabite because he was ethnically Moabite or half Moabite?
One objection to the proposed model is that during the Amarna period Burnaburiash, king of Karduniash and Assur-uballit, king of Assyria, are already identified as Burnaburiash II, a Kassite king, and Assur-uballit I, King of Assyria, who lived in the 14th century. Unfortunately, this synchronism is just coincidental and has hampered the uncovering of the true situation. The identification Of Burnaburiash as a Kassite has great difficulties. Amarna Burnaburiash, proclaimed himself to be a 'Great King', and claimed Assyrians were his subjects (Letter 9). Burnaburiash II, the Kassite king, never ruled over Assyria nor referred to himself as 'Great King'. The identification of Amarna Assur-uballit has equal difficulties. The Armana Assur-uballit's father was Assur-nadin-ahhe but no ancestor of King Assur-uballit I of Assyria was known by that name. Furthermore, Assuruballit's role as spoiler of Shuttarna II, the Mitanni King is doubtful. The Mitanni king forced his vassals to pay him tribute to give to an unnamed Assyrian king. According to Roux "Without shooting an arrow, Assur-uballit I not only freed his country from the Mitanni domination but brought about the downfall of the kingdom to which his fathers had paid tribute" [Roux, G. p260]. History shows that Assur-uballit I was a vassal of the Hurrians who ruled Nuzi and Arraphka only a few miles from Asshur. His inscriptions never mentioned any tribute from Khanigalbat, nor did he use the title 'Great King' or 'King of the Universe' as his Amarna namesake did. Gadd has to admit that it is strange history to receive rewards for rebellion -"the wealth, the princes and even the territory of his former sovereign" - instead of punishment [Gadd, 1975, p. 27].
Who, then, is Burnaburiash? The Burnaburiash of the el-Amarna letters ruled Babylon sometime in 910-880 RC. When Babylonian king, Nabu-apla-iddina, died about 910 BIC, his son, Marduk-zakir-shumi, ascended the throne. His brother Marduk-Bel-usate rebelled against him and he was forced to call on Shalmaneser III to help him. Shalmaneser defeated Marduk-Bel-usate and then "joined Babylonia and Assyria together". Thus, Shalmaneser III was the king of Babylon during the Amarna era. This agrees with Velikovsky's identification [Velikovsky, 1952]. Many kings who conquered foreign lands took another name. It is possible that Shalmaneser took the name Burnaburiash as king of Babylon. Shalmaneser III also took the titles 'Great King', 'King of the Universe' [Oppenheim, 1969a, p.233]. Thus he meets the conditions necessary for the Amarna king, Burnaburiash.
A seal of Kidin-Marduk, son of Sa-ilima-damqa, 'the Great Official of Burnaburiash', the 'King of All', was found in Mycenaean strata at Thebes Greece [Bacon, 1971, p.87]. This stratum is Mycenaean. Its Burnaburiash belongs to the Amarna era and per RC must be Shalmaneser III. Archaeologists found lapis lazuli and agate cylinder seals in the same strata [Platon, N. 1964. p.859-61]. The seals were classified as Mycenaean, Kassite/Babylonian of the 14th century and older Babylonian. One was classified as Mitannian and another was Syro-Hittite. According to the RC model, the Mitannian, Syro-Hittite and Mycenaean era is the 10th and 9th century but the Kassite and older Babylonian seals are dated to the 14th and 15th century. But, Sa-ilima-damqa is a very rare name. It is found in Assyria during only one reign, that of Assurnasirpal. He is the eponym for year 880 GAD. His son Kidin-Marduk is the same generation as Shalmaneser III. Thus, the Kassite and older Babylonian seals are not a product of 14th century Babylon but the 9th century.
In Shalmaneser's 6th year, he faced a coalition of forces headed by a commander named Biridri. The coalition included Aduni and Matinu-Baal and the Prince of Asu [Oppenheim, 1969a]. Velikovsky identifies Biridia in the Amarna period as the Commandant of Meggido. He notes a King Aduni mentioned in Letter 75; a Mut-Baal sender of Letter 255; and in Letter 150, Abimilki, King of Tyre, mentions Uzu [Velikovsky, 1952, pp. 310-11]. Hittite King, Suppilulimas I wrote a congratulatory letter to Pharaoh Tutankhamun who could be Saplel, King of Hattina, mentioned in Shalmaneser's annals [Oppenheim, 1969b] These Syrian rulers appear both in the Amarna letters and the 9th century annals of Shalmaneser III. Lastly, in Letter 55 to Akhenaten, Abimilki, king of Tyre, refers to himself three times as the "servant of Shalmatiata". The fall of Tyre to Shalmaneser in year 18, 897 BIC, agrees with the date of the Letter 155 in the reign of Akhenaten is 898-882 RC.
Burnaburiash's Amarna (Letter 9) complained of Egypt's reception of the Assyrian king because he had asked Egypt to stop trade with him in a prior letter [Oppenheim, 1967, p. 116]. Burnaburiash's claim that Assyrians were his subjects and his objection to Egypt's recognition of the Assyrians are consistent only if Assyria was in revolt against him at that time. It was led initially by Assur-danin-apli, son of Shalmaneser. Shalmaneser was forced to seek refuge in Babylon. After his death, his son, Shamsi-Adad V, fought for several years to quell the rebellion. During that time, a non-canonical Assur-uballit could have claimed the throne of Assyria, as 'King of All'.
I agree about the Habiru being bandits or mercenaries, not an ethnic term.
In an earlier post I said I disagreed with Velikovsky's identification for the Northern Kingdom ruler and went along with many others who insist Labaya must be the Northern Kingdom ruler. But I've gone over the arguments again and changed my mind. Gubla is used of Byblos but also of other cities too. So now Rib-Addi king of Sumur and Gubla the Northern Kingdom Omrid ruler of Jezreel and Samaria I do agree with.
But I disagree on that being Ahab, since the Rebellion of "The people of Mesh" (Mesha and his Moabites) is going on right from the beginning of this period, we're in the reign of Jehoram not Ahab.
The whole Jezebel-Nefertiti connection suggested by SpecialtyInterests I don't like.
Who is Labaya then?
Labaya and his questionable behavior seems to have some link to the "people of the rebel Mesh". 2 Chronicles 20 says Ammonites were allied with Mesha's rebellion. "It came to pass after this also, that the children of Moab, and the children of Ammon, and with them other beside the Ammonites, came against Jehoshaphat to battle". Shalmaneser records that at the Battle of Qargar "King Ba'asa, son of Ruhubi, of the land of Ammon sent 100 soldiers." Note, "son of Ruhubi" here could mean "House of Ruhubi". Labaya's son Mutbaal ruled in the Transjordan region, the geographical clues for Labaya himself are unclear and possibly misleading, Shechem was not his Capital as some have assumed for example.
On the other hand Labaya's role seems too duplicitous to be an obvious ally like the Amonites. But I'm still leaning towards a Transjordan location.
On further thought I feel that's unlikely to. Those who want to make Labaya a northern Kingdom ruler like to minimize the references to Shechem in the Labaya letter, saying they don't make Shechem his capital city but only that he's responsible for it. But in my current view, I'm coming to think Maybe this is simply telling us Labaya is a governor entrusted with the city of Shechem, and maybe also areas around Shechem like Mount Gerizim and Ebal.
Velikovsky did NOT believe in the infallibility of Scripture. Which of course is an assumption many critics of revised chronology make about all revised chronologists. This fact about him is most apparent in the part of Ages in Chaos about the Death of Ahab. He takes it from what he saw as a contradiction between this verse.
The Tel Dan Stele discovered since Veilikovsky's time confirms Jehoram existed, but creates other confusion.
II Kings 1:17 "So he died according to the word of the LORD which Elijah had spoken. And Jehoram reigned in his stead in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah; because he had no son."
And these two verses.
II Kings 3:1 "Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned twelve years."
II Kings 8:16 "And in the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel, Jehoshaphat being then king of Judah, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to reign."
There is no contradiction here however, he'd have known this if he'd studied Ussher's chronology. Jehoshaphat made his son a co-ruler for the latter years of his reign, this is why the 18th year of Jehoshaphat can also be the second year of Jehoram.
As for the fact that Ahab did Repent after Elijah rebuked him over the Naboth business. That was negated when Ahab sinned again believing the False Prophets over Micaiah.
But Velikovsky creates a whole convoluted theory that Ahab survived the battle of Ramoth-Gilead and lived another 9 years.
Mesha of Moab's rebellion was right after Israel's defeat at Ramoth-Gilead, Velikovsky sees the Moabite stone documenting this event as saying it was in the Middle of Ahab's reign, not after he died. First off the stone sounds like Mesha's relating a Prophesy made by a Prophet of Chemosh, who's Prophecy may have came true but not completely accurately. But also if it was made immediately at the start of the rebellion he may not have heard of Ahab's death yet. At any rate Ahab is not named on the Stone.
Regardless of those arguments, not all readings of the Mesha Stele even agree with the one Velikovsky used to support his theory.
As for his argument that Rib-Addi refers to himself as an old man? Solomon is called an old man when he died, but he never lived to see 60. We don't know how old Jehoram was when he took the throne, but I think it likely all three of Ahab's named children where born before Omri died. The context of the letter is mainly that he was in too poor health to travel to visit Pharaoh. He could have been lying/making excuses and just didn't want to go to Egypt, or he could have had any number of illnesses or injuries.
As for his argument about there being not even enough time according to the Assyrian inscriptions of the reign of Shalmaneser between Qarqar (where an Ahab of Israel or Jezreel is mentioned) and when Jehu gave his tribute. A few possibilities.
1. The two inscriptions could have been counting his reign differently, his becoming King of Babylon presents one excuse for different starting points.
2. Some have argued that Jehu is just an incomplete inscription of Jehoram. Based on Jehu not being a son of Omri as the inscription says, and a purely conjectural opinion that Jehu wouldn't give tribute to Shalmaneser. The latter argument however is a naive interpretation of Jehu's character. And for the former, the Assyrians called the Northern Kingdom in general the "House of Omri" well after his dynasty ended.
3. The leaders Shalmaneser fought at Qargar he refers to in general as Sars (princes) and refers to no individual one by a specific title. The Bible in this period uses Sars frequently of City governors, Assyrians never used Sar this way strictly, but this refers to foreign leaders here, who knows how accurate their info on their enemies even was.
Ahab had at least 70 sons we're told, only two are named, and probably neither of those even included in the referenced 70 who Jehu massacred at Jezreel. Kings especially back then usually named at least one son after themselves. And when you have that many your bound to run out of original ideas. So I think the Ahab at Qarqar may actually have been a brother of the reigning King and son of Ahab who was appointed Sar of Jezreel and entrusted with some key military authority and thus also been the General sent to command Israel's contribution to the Qargar war.
Or maybe this Israelite Sar was simply refereed to as "Ben Ahab" (Son of Ahab) but some poor communication caused the Assyrian record to only hear the Ahab part.
But also, I don't think Jehoram was that king's original birth name, Jezebel would not likely have given her Son a Yahweh theophoric name. We are told Jerhoram broke with her Mother's religion and returned to the religion of Jeroboam (which I believe was never a non Yahweh religion, but simply worshiped him in an Idolatrous fashion). So he may have taken the name Jehoram when he did that, but was at birth Ahab II.
Leaving Amarna now, lets go to other Egyptian material from the same period.
Shasu is a term used in the Soleb Temple built by Amenhotep III and latter copied by Seti I and Ramesses II. The 19th Dynasty Pharaohs may not have accurately known what the various Shasus originally refereed to.
They're all in the Transjorabn region, the list mentions six groups of Shasu: the Shasu of S'rr, the Shasu of Rbn, the Shasu of Sm't, the Shasu of Wrbr, the Shasu of Yhw, and the Shasu of Pysps. And there are also refrences elsewhere to a Shasu of Edom, Since Seir was the holy mountain of Edom they're likely the same group. The Shasu of Rbn I think is likely the tribe of Reuben.
The "Shasu of Yhw" is popularly speculated as having something to do with the Biblical YHWH, and I indeed believe there were Yahweh worshipers in the Transjordan region at this time. But this would be the only occasion where the name after Shasu refers to a deity they worship rather then a tribal or regional name.
I then thought, "Yhw is just as similar to Yhwo (Jehu) as it is to YHWH". And Jehu was in Rammoth-Giliead, a Transjordan region, before he was anointed King and given his mission to overthrow the Omrids. Maybe the Shasu of Yhw are the Shasu of Jehu, maybe Jehu was not his personal name but the name of a Clan he was the leader of?
For a different perspective you can read Amarna Names. The least credible claim made there is Labaya as Mesha, but the argument for the name actually meaning "The Moabite" is interesting. Now I have agreed here that Labaya was in cahoots with Mesha. Maybe he was called the Moabite because he was ethnically Moabite or half Moabite?
Friday, March 21, 2014
Where I differ from Velikovsky
I agree with the basic pillars of Immanuel Velikovsky's Egyptian
chronology (Middle Kingdom Exodus with the Hyksos invading some time
after the Red Sea incident, Thuthmosis III as Shishak, El Amarna era
during the divided Kingdom, Ramses II as Necho, Ramses III as Nectenbos
of Diodorus with the Prstt being the Persian Empire and Sea Peoples as
Ionian Greeks, The Maunier Stele depicts Alexander's visit to the Siwa Oasis).
I don't agree with his weird theories about the planets though.
Rohl I don't agree with on Egyptian chronology, but I like his identification of Enmerkar with Nimrod and Eridu with Babel and have written my own study on that subject.
I do want to discus some of the details of Velikovsky and his contemporary supporters' model I disagree with.
On the Hyksos Amalekites connection which I've touched on elsewhere I just want to say I feel it's not that simple. The Hyksos were many tribes of Asiatic peoples. They included the Amalekites and possibly other Edomite tribes (I think the king remembered by Greek myth as Belus was an Edomite King connected in some way to Bela son of Beor of Genesis 36:32&33), I think they had a Midianite aspect too (Hor II of the 13th Dynasty I think was the Midanite king Hur mentioned in The Bible). Archaeology clearly shows they had an Amorite aspect at all.
The most prominent is Hatshepsut as the Queen of Sheba. If she was an Egyptian queen The Bible wouldn't have obscured that, it dealt with Solomon's interactions with Egypt unambiguously both before and after this. Also since Tuthmosis I must be the Pharaoh who's daughter Solomon married, Hatshepsut was her Sister. If this Queen was Solomon's sister in law that wouldn't been overlooked.
Yeshua calls her the "Queen of The South" in Matthew 12:42 and Luke 11:31. And then Daniel 11 is cited where the "King of The South" is consistently Egypt. South in Biblical geography is south of Israel/Jerusalem, in the context of Alexander's successors only Ptolemy is south of Israel, and Egypt was the core of his Kingdom but not all of it.
There are three Shebas on the Table of Nations, Two in Genesis 10 and another being Abrahamic. The two in Genesis 10 are one Hamitic/Cushite and the other Semitic/Joktanite. But in both I Kings 10 and II Chronicles 11 the Queen of Sheba narrative is linked to Ophir another Joktanite name. And the other two Shebas are virtually inseparable from the Dedan who is their brother, but no Dedan is alluded to here.
Serious Archaeologists all know that Sheba was the name of a Kingdom in southern Arabia, modern Yemen. ( Israel Finkelstein, Neil Asher Silberman,David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition p. 167). The Saba that was a capital of Nubia/Ethiopia didn't appears till very late, Meroë was their Capital until after the fall of the 25th Dynasty (When Nubia ruled Egypt). The Cushite Sheba of Genesis 10 I believe settled in Ancient India where he was deified as Shiva and his rather Ramaah as Rama an avatar of Vishnu.
I do believe the Ark of the Covenant came to Ethiopia. But the Menelik legend is propaganda created by the Christian Auxomite kings to give them a Biblical lineage. I believe Graham Hancock and Bob Cornuke's theory for how it got there. First being at Elephantine island from sometime after King Manasseh's reign of terror to the time of Cambyses.
The Arabic traditions of Balqis/Bilqis/Bilquis did exist in Pre-Islamic times (Mohammed didn't really come up with much of anything new) and so have good reason to be viewed as more Ancient and Valid then the purely invented Ethiopian legend.
I do believe Hatshepsut probably visited Solomon also. The Bible says many rulers come to visit Solomon and witness his Wisdom. The Queen of Sheba is singled out NOT because she's the most important by secular standards, but because she became a Saved individual, so Yeshua cited her as such.
So I do agree that Punt was an Egyptian name for Canaan/Israel. And I don't think the similarity between Make-Ra (A name of Hatshepsut) and Makeda (The name of the Queen of Sheba in the Ethiopian traditions) is a coincidence. I think various Egytpian Jews, first at Elephantine and then latter in Alexandria and the Onias colony, drew the same false conclusion and began giving her that name. And this may have influenced Josephus who was very familiar with Alexandrian Jewish traditions.
El Amarna period.
I agree with Velikovsky's on Jehoshaphat as Ebed-Tov/Abdi-Heba King of Jerusalem and Mesha King of Moab with the Mesh of the Amarna letters. The Amarna letters also lsit 3 of the Captains of Jehoshaphat from II Chronicles 17:14-19. Addudani/Addadani=Adna and Ada-danu mentioned by Shalmaneser in 825 BC, "Son of Zuchru" = "son of Zichri", Iahzibada=Iehozabad/Jehozabad.
And I agree about the Habiru being bandits or mercenaries, not an ethnic term.
But his identity for Ahab is very problematic. Gubla is the Amarna letters name for Byblos not Jezreel. So Rib-Addi/Rib-Hadda was not Israelite.
Labaya I feel is logically is Ahab, (or whoever the Northern Kingdom ruler was at the time). The whole Jezebel-Nefertiti connection suggested by SpecialtyInterests I don't like however.
Velikovsky's references to "Sodomites" is really weird, he's unaware that that is a reference to Sodom only in English.
Velikovsky did NOT believe in the infallibility of Scripture. Which of course is an assumption many critics of revised chronology make about all revised chronologists. This fact about him is most apparent in the part of Age sin Chaos about the Death of Ahab. He basis it on what he saw as a contradiction between this verse.
II Kings 1:17 "So he died according to the word of the LORD which Elijah had spoken. And Jehoram reigned in his stead in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah; because he had no son."
And these two verses.
II Kings 3:1 "Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned twelve years."
II Kings 8:16 "And in the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel, Jehoshaphat being then king of Judah, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to reign."
There is no contradiction here however, he'd know this if he'd studied Ussher's chronology. Jehoshaphat made his son a co ruler for the latter years of his reign, this is why the 18th year of Jehoshaphat can also be the second year of Jehoram.
As for the fact that Ahab did Repent after Elijah rebuked him over the Naboth business. That was negated when Ahab sinned again believing the False Prophets over Micaiah.
But Velikovsky creates a whole convoluted theory that Ahab survived the battle of Ramoth-Gilead and lived another 9 years.
Mesha of Moab's rebellion was right after Israel's defeat at Ramoth-Gilead, Velikovsky sees the Moabite stone documenting this event as saying it was in the Middle of Ahab's reign, not after he died. First off the stone sounds like he's relating a Prophesy made by a Prophet of Chemosh, who's Prophecy may have came true not not completely accurately. But also if it was made immediately at the start of the rebellion he may not have heard of Ahab's death yet.
Regardless of those arguments, not all readings of the Mesha Stele even agree with the one Velikovsky used to support his theory.
The Denyen of the Greek Islands
I said I agreed about the Prstt being the Persian Empire and Sea Peoples as Ionian Greeks. But his Identity of the "Peoples of the Islands" the Denyen as Athens I think is silly. The Denyen are also in the Amarna letters where they are in northern Syria, very northern, by the modern Turkish border. Associated with Hammath. Their also identified with Adana is Cilicia.
"And of Dan he said, Dan is a lion's whelp: he shall leap from Bashan." Deuteronomy 33:22
The Tribe of Dan originally settled north of the Philistine Lands, around the port city of Joppa/Jaffa modern Tel-Aviv. The books of Joshua and Judges both record events when Danites left their allotted land traveled north conquered a city and renamed it Dan.
"And the coast of the children of Dan went out too little for them: therefore the children of Dan went up to fight against Leshem, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and possessed it, and dwelt therein, and called Leshem, Dan, after the name of Dan their father." Joshua 19:47
The Judges 18 account, where the City is Laish, is often assumed to be the same event. There are however several differences between the two accounts:
1. In the Book of Joshua the children of Dan had received an inheritance in the south but it was insufficient for them and so they went to fight against Leshem. In Judges though the Danites were in the region of Zorah and Eshtaol (in the south) they had yet not taken possession of their own.
2. In Judges, at least at first, only six hundred went forth after receiving the report of a reconnoitering mission: on the other hand, the Book of Joshua may be understood to say that all (or nearly all) of Dan went to fight.
3. In the Book of Joshua the city taken is called Leshem: In Judges the city is called LAISH. Some Commentators have tried to state that "Leshem" and "Laish" are different forms of the same word but "leshem" in Hebrew is a type of precious stone (maybe amber) while "laish" means a young male lion.
The Joshua account refers to the Dan that is frequently used as an idiom of the Northern Border of the Kingdom, where Jeroboam built one of his Idols, and which on the map of modern Israel is in the Golan heights on the Lebanon border.
The Judges event is clearly much further north. They encountered Sidonians, but those Sidonians are also implied to be far from home. Laish is also know as Luash and the Danites who migrated there became known as Dananu.
The king of Sma'al in the valley north of ASI (Orontes embouchemont) on the edge of LUASH (LIASH) called himself "KING of the DANIM" i.e. of the Danes of Dan. The Danes (Dananu) also controlled the neighbouring area of Cilicia and at one stage their capital was Adana by Tarsis of Cilicia and their suzerainity reached as far north as Karatepe. A bi-lingual inscription of theirs found at Karatepe employs a Phoenician type of Hebrew and a version of Hittite. Branches of the Hittites in Anatolia neighboured the Dananu of Cilicia. This northern portion of Dan is referred to variously as Dananu, Danau, Denye, Denyen, Danuna.
Above I've borrowed a great deal from Britam's "Dan and the Serpent Way" study. I don't agree with all of Britam's premise obviously, or any other form of British Israelism, but Dan does have a unique history.
Secular scholars agree on connecting the Denyen to the Tribe of Dan, you can read about it on Wikipedia's Denyen and Dan pages, but the sequence is reversed. They believe the Denyen traveled south and became incorporated into the Hebrew confederation. This supports their desire to claim that the various Tribes of Israel didn't even really have a common origin. Traditional chronology makes that argument easy for them but still doesn't make the Biblical picture impossible. But revised chronology makes it indisputable which Dan came first.
The connection Dan has to Greece, is Biblically alluded to in Ezekiel 27.
I don't agree with his weird theories about the planets though.
Rohl I don't agree with on Egyptian chronology, but I like his identification of Enmerkar with Nimrod and Eridu with Babel and have written my own study on that subject.
I do want to discus some of the details of Velikovsky and his contemporary supporters' model I disagree with.
On the Hyksos Amalekites connection which I've touched on elsewhere I just want to say I feel it's not that simple. The Hyksos were many tribes of Asiatic peoples. They included the Amalekites and possibly other Edomite tribes (I think the king remembered by Greek myth as Belus was an Edomite King connected in some way to Bela son of Beor of Genesis 36:32&33), I think they had a Midianite aspect too (Hor II of the 13th Dynasty I think was the Midanite king Hur mentioned in The Bible). Archaeology clearly shows they had an Amorite aspect at all.
The most prominent is Hatshepsut as the Queen of Sheba. If she was an Egyptian queen The Bible wouldn't have obscured that, it dealt with Solomon's interactions with Egypt unambiguously both before and after this. Also since Tuthmosis I must be the Pharaoh who's daughter Solomon married, Hatshepsut was her Sister. If this Queen was Solomon's sister in law that wouldn't been overlooked.
Yeshua calls her the "Queen of The South" in Matthew 12:42 and Luke 11:31. And then Daniel 11 is cited where the "King of The South" is consistently Egypt. South in Biblical geography is south of Israel/Jerusalem, in the context of Alexander's successors only Ptolemy is south of Israel, and Egypt was the core of his Kingdom but not all of it.
There are three Shebas on the Table of Nations, Two in Genesis 10 and another being Abrahamic. The two in Genesis 10 are one Hamitic/Cushite and the other Semitic/Joktanite. But in both I Kings 10 and II Chronicles 11 the Queen of Sheba narrative is linked to Ophir another Joktanite name. And the other two Shebas are virtually inseparable from the Dedan who is their brother, but no Dedan is alluded to here.
Serious Archaeologists all know that Sheba was the name of a Kingdom in southern Arabia, modern Yemen. ( Israel Finkelstein, Neil Asher Silberman,David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition p. 167). The Saba that was a capital of Nubia/Ethiopia didn't appears till very late, Meroë was their Capital until after the fall of the 25th Dynasty (When Nubia ruled Egypt). The Cushite Sheba of Genesis 10 I believe settled in Ancient India where he was deified as Shiva and his rather Ramaah as Rama an avatar of Vishnu.
I do believe the Ark of the Covenant came to Ethiopia. But the Menelik legend is propaganda created by the Christian Auxomite kings to give them a Biblical lineage. I believe Graham Hancock and Bob Cornuke's theory for how it got there. First being at Elephantine island from sometime after King Manasseh's reign of terror to the time of Cambyses.
The Arabic traditions of Balqis/Bilqis/Bilquis did exist in Pre-Islamic times (Mohammed didn't really come up with much of anything new) and so have good reason to be viewed as more Ancient and Valid then the purely invented Ethiopian legend.
I do believe Hatshepsut probably visited Solomon also. The Bible says many rulers come to visit Solomon and witness his Wisdom. The Queen of Sheba is singled out NOT because she's the most important by secular standards, but because she became a Saved individual, so Yeshua cited her as such.
So I do agree that Punt was an Egyptian name for Canaan/Israel. And I don't think the similarity between Make-Ra (A name of Hatshepsut) and Makeda (The name of the Queen of Sheba in the Ethiopian traditions) is a coincidence. I think various Egytpian Jews, first at Elephantine and then latter in Alexandria and the Onias colony, drew the same false conclusion and began giving her that name. And this may have influenced Josephus who was very familiar with Alexandrian Jewish traditions.
El Amarna period.
I agree with Velikovsky's on Jehoshaphat as Ebed-Tov/Abdi-Heba King of Jerusalem and Mesha King of Moab with the Mesh of the Amarna letters. The Amarna letters also lsit 3 of the Captains of Jehoshaphat from II Chronicles 17:14-19. Addudani/Addadani=Adna and Ada-danu mentioned by Shalmaneser in 825 BC, "Son of Zuchru" = "son of Zichri", Iahzibada=Iehozabad/Jehozabad.
And I agree about the Habiru being bandits or mercenaries, not an ethnic term.
But his identity for Ahab is very problematic. Gubla is the Amarna letters name for Byblos not Jezreel. So Rib-Addi/Rib-Hadda was not Israelite.
Labaya I feel is logically is Ahab, (or whoever the Northern Kingdom ruler was at the time). The whole Jezebel-Nefertiti connection suggested by SpecialtyInterests I don't like however.
Velikovsky's references to "Sodomites" is really weird, he's unaware that that is a reference to Sodom only in English.
Velikovsky did NOT believe in the infallibility of Scripture. Which of course is an assumption many critics of revised chronology make about all revised chronologists. This fact about him is most apparent in the part of Age sin Chaos about the Death of Ahab. He basis it on what he saw as a contradiction between this verse.
II Kings 1:17 "So he died according to the word of the LORD which Elijah had spoken. And Jehoram reigned in his stead in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah; because he had no son."
And these two verses.
II Kings 3:1 "Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned twelve years."
II Kings 8:16 "And in the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel, Jehoshaphat being then king of Judah, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to reign."
There is no contradiction here however, he'd know this if he'd studied Ussher's chronology. Jehoshaphat made his son a co ruler for the latter years of his reign, this is why the 18th year of Jehoshaphat can also be the second year of Jehoram.
As for the fact that Ahab did Repent after Elijah rebuked him over the Naboth business. That was negated when Ahab sinned again believing the False Prophets over Micaiah.
But Velikovsky creates a whole convoluted theory that Ahab survived the battle of Ramoth-Gilead and lived another 9 years.
Mesha of Moab's rebellion was right after Israel's defeat at Ramoth-Gilead, Velikovsky sees the Moabite stone documenting this event as saying it was in the Middle of Ahab's reign, not after he died. First off the stone sounds like he's relating a Prophesy made by a Prophet of Chemosh, who's Prophecy may have came true not not completely accurately. But also if it was made immediately at the start of the rebellion he may not have heard of Ahab's death yet.
Regardless of those arguments, not all readings of the Mesha Stele even agree with the one Velikovsky used to support his theory.
The Denyen of the Greek Islands
I said I agreed about the Prstt being the Persian Empire and Sea Peoples as Ionian Greeks. But his Identity of the "Peoples of the Islands" the Denyen as Athens I think is silly. The Denyen are also in the Amarna letters where they are in northern Syria, very northern, by the modern Turkish border. Associated with Hammath. Their also identified with Adana is Cilicia.
"And of Dan he said, Dan is a lion's whelp: he shall leap from Bashan." Deuteronomy 33:22
The Tribe of Dan originally settled north of the Philistine Lands, around the port city of Joppa/Jaffa modern Tel-Aviv. The books of Joshua and Judges both record events when Danites left their allotted land traveled north conquered a city and renamed it Dan.
"And the coast of the children of Dan went out too little for them: therefore the children of Dan went up to fight against Leshem, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and possessed it, and dwelt therein, and called Leshem, Dan, after the name of Dan their father." Joshua 19:47
The Judges 18 account, where the City is Laish, is often assumed to be the same event. There are however several differences between the two accounts:
1. In the Book of Joshua the children of Dan had received an inheritance in the south but it was insufficient for them and so they went to fight against Leshem. In Judges though the Danites were in the region of Zorah and Eshtaol (in the south) they had yet not taken possession of their own.
2. In Judges, at least at first, only six hundred went forth after receiving the report of a reconnoitering mission: on the other hand, the Book of Joshua may be understood to say that all (or nearly all) of Dan went to fight.
3. In the Book of Joshua the city taken is called Leshem: In Judges the city is called LAISH. Some Commentators have tried to state that "Leshem" and "Laish" are different forms of the same word but "leshem" in Hebrew is a type of precious stone (maybe amber) while "laish" means a young male lion.
The Joshua account refers to the Dan that is frequently used as an idiom of the Northern Border of the Kingdom, where Jeroboam built one of his Idols, and which on the map of modern Israel is in the Golan heights on the Lebanon border.
The Judges event is clearly much further north. They encountered Sidonians, but those Sidonians are also implied to be far from home. Laish is also know as Luash and the Danites who migrated there became known as Dananu.
The king of Sma'al in the valley north of ASI (Orontes embouchemont) on the edge of LUASH (LIASH) called himself "KING of the DANIM" i.e. of the Danes of Dan. The Danes (Dananu) also controlled the neighbouring area of Cilicia and at one stage their capital was Adana by Tarsis of Cilicia and their suzerainity reached as far north as Karatepe. A bi-lingual inscription of theirs found at Karatepe employs a Phoenician type of Hebrew and a version of Hittite. Branches of the Hittites in Anatolia neighboured the Dananu of Cilicia. This northern portion of Dan is referred to variously as Dananu, Danau, Denye, Denyen, Danuna.
Above I've borrowed a great deal from Britam's "Dan and the Serpent Way" study. I don't agree with all of Britam's premise obviously, or any other form of British Israelism, but Dan does have a unique history.
Secular scholars agree on connecting the Denyen to the Tribe of Dan, you can read about it on Wikipedia's Denyen and Dan pages, but the sequence is reversed. They believe the Denyen traveled south and became incorporated into the Hebrew confederation. This supports their desire to claim that the various Tribes of Israel didn't even really have a common origin. Traditional chronology makes that argument easy for them but still doesn't make the Biblical picture impossible. But revised chronology makes it indisputable which Dan came first.
The connection Dan has to Greece, is Biblically alluded to in Ezekiel 27.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)