Chariots had been used in Egypt as far back as the Old Kingdom.

This is now known thanks to discoveries made in 2013.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariotry_in_ancient_Egypt

In ancient Egyptian society chariotry stood as an independent unit in the King’s military force. Chariots are thought to have been first used as a weapon in Egypt by the Hyksos^[1] in the 16th century BC, though investigation of materials long held in the Tahrir Square Egyptian Museum has potentially revealed the presence of chariots as early as the Old Kingdom (c. 2686–2181 BC).^[2] The Egyptians developed their own design of the chariot.

3. Hyskos introduced chariots to ancient Egypt Archived 2010-06-29 at the Wayback Machine
4. 
   
Nevine El-Aref, “Old Kingdom leather fragments reveal how ancient Egyptians built their chariots”, English Ahra, Monday 22 Apr 2013, http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/9/40/69897/Heritage/Ancient-Egypt/Old%20Kingdom-leather-fragments-reveal-how-ancient-E.aspx

Much past discussion of when in Egyptian History certain Biblical events could have happened were based on the long held assumption that there were no Chariots in Egypt till the Hyksos period.  But we now know otherwise.  I wish I'd known about this sooner, being made in 2013 it predates my starting this Blog, I could have opened with it.

I'm still reevaluating just how much of my past Revised Chronology speculations I still agree with.  But for now this is an enlightening discovery either way.

Are Jews Edomites?

That's another claim you commonly see among Anti-Semites who want to argue modern Jewish communities (chiefly the Ashkenazim) are not legit descendants of the Ancient Israelites.

I find it interesting actually how White Supremisicts and Afro-Centrists believe basically the same thing about Ashkenazim Jews.  The KKK and Neo-Nazis hate Blacks but don't give them enough credit to view them as the Evil Masterminds of their Conspiracy Theories, so to them the Ashkenazim Jews are the puppet masters.  While Black Power groups view the Ahskenazim Jews as the Whitest of all White People.  So both see them as the ultimate villains.  And both when presenting their views in a Biblical Context, will often argue some sort of Jews aren't real Israelites theory.

The common Kazzar myth will be made an aspect of that.  That myth is easy to debunk, one of my favorite videos on the subject is Chris White's.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDWUZ6EqWHc

What's added to this here is claiming the Khazzars were Edomites.

Many Medieval texts seem to identify the Khazzars as being one of the tribes to come from Togarmah son of Gomer son of Japheth, like other tribes of that region. Some like Britam and Veilikovsky (in Beyond the Mountains of Darkness) have sought to claim Lost Tribes descent for the Khazars.  I last month on another blog discussed reasons to think they may have partially descended from Benjamin's son Rosh.

But another factor brought in to allow a far more ancient Edomite infiltration of Judaism, is to talk about how the Hasmoneans forcibly converted the Idumeans.  First of all I have cited Bill Cooper's After The Flood Appendix 1 to support my view that the Idumeans came from Ishmael's son Dumah not Edom.  Second, who was of Idumean ancestry was always well known, and it seems like after 70 AD many Idumeans reverted back to being gentiles and are in fact now a significant portion of the ancestry of the modern Palestinians.

But also, since NT era Idumea is essentially the land allotted to Simeon originally.  And Simeonites latter migrated to and conquered the Mt Seir region in the time of Hezekiah.  Maybe the Idumeans had some Simeonite stock intermingled into them?

But I also want to say that there is nothing inherently wrong with being descended from Esau.  The Torah allows Gentile converts to be incorporated into Israel.  And in the new Testament all who are Believers in Jesus are spiritually Abraham's Seed.  Deuteronomy 23:7-8 specifically tells the Israelites not to abhor Edomites or Mizraimites who dwell among them, and that children begotten of them are to be allowed into the congregation after the third generation.

The last thing I want to talk about is the Red Hair issue.

Because of how Esau is described, especially at his birth (Genesis 25:25), he is assumed to have had Red Hair.  And today Red Hair can be a bit more common then usual trait among Ashkenazim Jews.

Some question if Esau was a Red Head, and argue that this is a reference to how sometimes Babies skin color looks reddish at birth (people saying Blacks are the true Israelites will say this particularly happens with Black babies sometimes).  Esau's hair is definitely talked about however, he was a Hairy individual, but there is room to debate if it was ever the Hair being described as Red.

BTW, that's where the name Edom comes from, a variation on the Hebrew word for Red.  But some dispute that it always or even at all means Red but rather that it can also mean Brown.  But I think it probably means Red.  A form of the word is used to describe Ruby/Sardius gems.

Regardless, if Esau did have Red Hair, Jacob was Esau's twin brother, so it shouldn't be surprising if their descendants carry some common genetic traits.  And Red Hair has a particular tendency to be a recessive gene.  So Jacob could easily have still carried the Red Hair gene Esau inherited even if he didn't have Red Hair himself.

The same word used to describe Esau as Red is also used of David interestingly, in 1 Samuel 16:12 and 17:42.  The same above disputes arguably apply.  Plus how it's used with David makes it seem less likely to be a reference to specifically Hair rather then something else.  Regardless people have used those verses to say David was a Red Head.  Which if true would verify that the Red Hair gene existed among descendants of Jacob.

There are some studying the DNA of Jewish families that claim Pater-lineal descent from David to see if they can find a Y Chromosome Genetic marker similar to the Kohen Y Chromosome that's been found.
Davidic Dynasty DNA Research.
If they succeed, it would be interesting to then do a study to see if Genetically verified descendants of David are statistically more likely then other Jews to have Red Hair.

But Red Hair unlike the Y Chromosome or (most of the time) family names, can be passed on through the mother.  In fact you're more likely to actually have Red Hair if both parents carry the Gene.   Yet Tribal identity in Ancient Israel was usually determined by the Father's Tribe.  So let's look at how many confirmed times a daughter of the House of David could have passed David's DNA into another Clan or Tribe.

David had at least one Daughter, Tamar.  And unfortunately it can be considered unlikely she ever married after what happened to her, but not impossible.  I also feel like it's implied David had other Daughters, but we can't be certain.

Absalom we are told had children including at least one daughter.

Solomon had two daughters we know of.  Both were married to governors of Northern Kingdom locations.  So it's possible via them a Hypothetical Davidic Red Hair gene could have wound up among the Northern Kingdom's population, which can be interesting to note for Lost Tribes theories.

Rehoboam had 18 Wives and 60 Concubines who bore him 28 sons and 60 daughters.  His successor Abijah married 14 wives and had 22 sons and 16 daughters.  If most of those daughters were married into important families throughout the Kingdom, it's hypothetically possible that by the end of the Kingdom Period everyone in the Southern Kingdom could have been a descendant of Rehoboam.  The end of 1 Chronicles 11 does say Rehoboam dispersed his children throughout all the fenced cities of Judah and Benjamin.

Jehosbeba was a daughter of Jehoram of Judah.  She was married to Jehoiada, a Priest and thus a descendant of Aaron.  We know Jehoiada had at least one son, but no direct confirmation he was borne by Jehosheba.  Still, we have here a chance for a possible Davidic Red Hair gene to wind up in the Kohen gene pool.

Zedekiah we are told had daughters in The Book of Jeremiah.  British Israelism claims Irish and later Scottish and via the Stuarts British Royalty descends from one of those daughters.  If you believe that theory it's interesting to note that Red Hair is most common among the Irish.

Hillel The Elder who was a Benjamite by his father, claimed descent from David's son Shaphatiah by Avital via his mother.  Hillel's family were leaders of the Sanhedrin till it was disbanded.  Rashi was a descendant of Hillel and thus many modern Jewish families can claim descent from Hillel.

I believe Mary the mother of Jesus was a descendant of Nathan via Luke's Genealogy.  She may have had a sister who was the mother of Zebedee's children, James and John.  I also believe she had at least two Daughters.  And I even have a theory one of them could be ancestral to the Bagartid Dynasty.  And if my theory that Joseph of Arimathea was Joses the Brother of Jesus is true, that could add a twist to theories about Arthurian Legend and Grail Romance, but that is for another time on another Blog.

So maybe it's possible to develop a theory that every Red Head is descended from either Esau or David?

Some people have suggested the 19th Dynasty could have been of Hyksos stock because of their interest in Set who become unpopular after the Hyksos period.  Since Ramses II is proven to have had Red hair, that can be interesting in light of viewing the Hyksos as the Edomite Amalekites.

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.

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.

The succesors of Rameses II aka Pharoh Necho

I already talked about Necho being Rameses.  This is a follow up of sorts.

Revised Chronologists and Conventional Chronology both tend to assume the Pharaoh Jeremiah called Hophra is the same one Herodotus called Apries.  Velikovsky identified that Pharaoh with Merneptah (hetep-her-maat) the son of Ramses II.  One question not addressed usually is what about the Psamtik II who came between Necho and Apries according to Herodotus?

Well first I think Herodotus was likely mistaken on how they're genealogically related.

Psamtik II invaded Nubia.  I think that war with Nubia should perhaps be identified with Rameses II's Nubian Campaign in his 22nd year.

Interestingly in Abu Simbel a Greek Graiftti on a statue of Ramses II reads.

"When King Psammetichus (i.e., Psamtik II) came to Elephantine, this was written by those who sailed with Psammetichus the son of Theocles, and they came beyond Kerkis as far as the river permits. Those who spoke foreign tongues (Greek and Carians who also scratched their names on the monument) were led by Potasimto, the Egyptians by Amasis. ["king Psammetichus II (Psamtik II)". Touregypt.net. Retrieved 2011-11-20.]

Which I think is good circumstantial evidence.

We know Rameses was accompanied on that campaign by Amun-her-khepeshef his original Crown Prince.  When discussing the Sed Festival of Rameses year 30 it is said that Amun-her-khepeshef became effectively co-ruler.  But that seems like a contradiction since Amum is supposed to have died in year 26.  But given Velikovsky's suggestions on how to count the reign of Rameses, this could be a difference of which year 30.

Amun had one known son, a son named Seti.  Psamtik's only alleged son is Apries but is said to have had daughters, one was a High Priestess of Heliopolis which could be interesting latter.

 Timeline wise that would then put Amum's death about 589 BC, a date commonly given for the death of Psammetichos II.  And Ussher's date for a military victory Nebuchadnezzar had over Egypt leading up to the fall of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 37), an event dated partly on the grounds of Ezekiel 30:20-21.

Ezekiel 30 seems to refer to a Pharaoh of Egypt being mortally wounded by the Sword of the King of Babylon (inferred to be Nebuchadnezzar).  Generally it is debated whether this means Necho or Hophra, but the Mummy of Amun-her-khepeshef has a mortal head wound, usually theorized to be from a Mace but I think it could have been a Sword.  (But The Bible sometimes uses "Sword" idiomatically of any weapon or act of violence.)  Those who think Rameses was the Pharaoh of the Exodus attempt to use this as evidence Amun was the first born killed in the 10th Plague, but I think this Biblical connection is far more compelling.

On page 201 of Ages in Chaos II Ramses II and his time, Velikovsky mentions the head of Merneptah's mummy having a hole made by a sharp instrument in it, and suggests he died violently.  However nothing else I've read seems to back up this claim, and the images I've seen of Merneptah's Mummy shows no damage besides something that looks probably post-mortem.  Still Velikovsky argued this not even citing Ezekiel's statement.

One issue Velikovsky didn't address when dealing with the reign length of Rameses is that there were two Crown Princes who each served 25 years who predeceased him.  First Amum from year 1 to 26, then another Rameses from years 25-50.   I however have no trouble seeing them serving as Crown Prince at the same time, perhaps Ramses considered dividing upper and lower Egypt again.  Also each was the firstborn of a different wife.  Perhaps for whatever weird reason Amun was usually dated from Rameses II sole rule, while Prince Ramses was dated from the co-regency with Seti.

In Against Apion 1:26 Josephus addresses a story that seems to serve as an alleged Egyptian POV of the Exodus.  This story is the source of affiliating the 19th and/or 18th Dynasty with the Exodus due to it being seemingly affiliated with the same Amenophis identified as the successor of Rameses Miamun who reigned 66 years.  I've always been intrigued by this story since it's obviously mythical propaganda and I place the Exodus in the 12th or 13th Dynasty, yet still I've always suspected there is an otherwise forgotten real chapter of 19th Dynasty history hidden here.

Osarsiph who is alleged to be Moses is identified as a Priest of Heliopolis/On.  What's curious about that is that one of the sons of Rameses II was High Priest of On, Meryatum.  He was the son of Nefertari, the same mother as Amun-her-khepeshef, but a different one then Merneptah, so who knows what kinds of sibling rivalries they might have had.

The story involved him conspiring with descendants of the centuries before expelled Hyksos, or at least people coming from the same area.  Velikovsky tied the Hyksos to the Amalekites, but 1 Chronicles 4:40-43 records the last of the Amalekites being wiped out by the Simeonites when they migrated to Edom in the time of Hezekiah.  And earlier the city of Sharuhen was allotted to Simeon in the Book of Joshua, the actual city the Hyksos fled to when Avaris fell.  Maybe Simeonites were involved in this and that is where the Hyksos and Israelites being confused with each other begins?

Because of Jeremiah 43 and 44 we know many Israelites came to Egypt during the reign of Hophra.

I have discussed the Sea Peoples before mainly in the context of Rameses III and the 20th Dynasty.  But Merneptah also encountered them (and Ramses II had a battle with just the Sherden).  This comes up in Ages of Chaos II connecting this to Apries wars involving Cyrene.  Perhaps that also ties into the above story.

As for why Merneptah seems to be called Amenophis in Manetho as transcribed by Josephus in Against Apion.  This story also mentions this Pharaoh Amenophis seeking advise from someone else who has the same name.  Maybe the retelling of this story gave the name of this adviser to the Pharaoh himself for some reason.  Among the Children of Rameses there is an Amenhotep listed as number 14, right after Merneptah.  The Amenhoteps of the 18th dynasty tended to become Amenophis in Manetho as transcribed by Josephus.  And there was also an Amunemopet (“Amun on the Opet Feast”).  Perhaps one of his brothers became this key adviser of Merneptah?  Neither is a son of Nefertari meaning they could be of the same mother as Merneptah.

Another note on the Children of Rameses, one being named Astarteherwenemef (“Astarte Is with His Right Arm”) I also feel circumstantially better fits his reign being during the Neo-Babylonian era.  His daughter Bintanath also has a Semitic name.

I think it's possible that Herodotus history of Amasis is very wrong, and that he was influenced by native Egyptian propaganda seeking to hide that Amasis was really a puppet of Nebuchadnezzar.  Basically in the account of the civil war between Apries and Amasis, I think which side had Babylon's backing got switched.  And this switching of the history to say Babylon backed the losing side is why skeptics think The Bible is wrong in saying Nebuchadnezzar conquered Egypt.  Bishop Ussher expressed a similar view on the matter.

It is popular in Revised Chronology to suggest the post Merneptah 19th Dynasty Pharaohs actually reigned before Ramses I.  I'm not as convinced of that argument.  The Sethos of Herodotus being the Seti who was Rameses I's father is plausible however.

Amasis does not seem to be recorded in the traditional 19th Dynasty sources, at least not as a Phararoh.  I'd in the past considered identifying him with Amenmesse, but his reign was too short.

I'm now considering that Amasis could be the same as Meryatum/Osarsiph, or some other half-brother of Merneptah.  The name Amasis (used in Greek texts to transliterate Ahmose) has in it the Egyptian root that the name of Moses (Moshe) comes from, so perhaps that is a factor in this person being identified with Moses much later.  Amasis was earlier a leading general of Psamtik II's conquest of Nubia, perhaps that's a factor in how the extra-Biblical legend of Moses conquering Ethiopia came about.

Seti II and Amenmesse tend to be identified in Manetho as transcribed by Josephus with Sethosis and Rameses also called Armais/Hermeus.  The "two brothers" they are often called.  But based on the direct 19th Dynasty sources the paternity of Amenmesse is uncertain, though his mother seems to be a Takhat, who was also the mother of Seti II's wife Twosret, and yet also listed as his wife herself.  And a Takhat is also one of the named daughters of Rameses II.  So maybe the story as known to Manetho is off on the exact genealogy.

Some of the lesser sons of Rameses II listed separate from the main 28 I think could maybe actually be Grandsons.  Either way many of them were named Rameses, so perhaps that could help explain Amenmesse also being known as Rameses.  Or what if the source naming a daughter of Rameses II as Takhat is actually using that as an alternate name for one of the more well known daughters that Rameses married himself?  Yes he married at least three of his own daughters.

I've seen it claimed these later 19th dynasty rulers only really ruled Upper Egypt, that could explain them being unknown to Herodotus and other Greek historians.

The misconception that the 19th Dynasty followed the 18th directly may well go back to official propaganda of the 19th dynasty.  The history we place in-between is pretty much defined by foreign occupation, Libyan(22nd and 23rd) Nubian(25th) and Assyria.

I should also mention the theory of Osarseph being Chancellor Bey.  Bey is now known to have been executed during the reign of Siptah.  That theory is partly dependent on assuming Bey is the same as Irsu of the Papyrus Harris, which under Revised Chronology seems a lot less likely.  I forget whether or not Velikvosky identified Irsu with anyone.

Using Manetho to prove Cheops of Herdotus was Kufu

I'm no longer as inclined to believe any typical fringe theories about the Great Pyramid (and the other two Giza Pyramids).  I don't think it was a Monument to Yahuah, I don't think it has anything to do with Isaiah 19, I don't think it's Pre-Flood or built by Enoch, nor built by Noah or Shem or Melchizedek or Abraham or Joseph or Moses.

I still have doubts about the evidence for identifying it's builder as Kufu of the 4th Dynasty.  But if it wasn't Kufu, I'm now inclined to be the opposite of most fringe theories and say I think it's younger not older then the traditional view.   That it's absurd to think the most impressive Pyramids predate many inferior ones.

For one thing if you take Herodotus' account in the context of his full Egyptian narrative, it makes it younger than the Fall of Troy.  His Cheops is later then his Sesostris who he identifies as the contemporary of the Fall of Troy.

I see the logic of how Kufu can become Cheops etymologically, but I still feel it's shaky.  The big issue is when people use Manetho as a smoking gun on that identification.  First off Manetho highly criticized Herdotus elsewhere, he hated his narrative of Egypt.

And who knows if these details were added by transcribers.  These same transcribers have Manetho identify Memnon of the Trojan War with an Amenhotep, but Josephus makes no such reference discussing the same dynasty in Manetho.

When discussing the Fourth Dynasty, Manehto as transcribed by Eusebius says.

Of these the third was Suphis, the builder of the Great Pyramid, which Herodotus says was built by Cheops. Suphis conceived a contempt for the gods, but repenting of this, he composed the Sacred Book, which the Egyptians hold in high esteem.

This can equally be interpreted as attacking Herodutus and saying this guy not Cheops built it.

That account is interesting in light of claims the Great Pyramid builder wasn't following the normal Egyptian religion.  What Archeology tells us about Kufu doesn't fit that legend however.

A quote attributed to Manetho but that is not authentically Ancient is circulating the Net saying the Hyksos built the Great Pyramid.  This quote seems adapted from what Josephus quotes as it firmly misidentifies the Hyksos as Israelites.  But Josephus doesn't mention the Great Pyramid.  It doesn't even seem to come from the Book of Sothis which is at least medieval.

Theorists using this don't want to make the Pyramid younger though, so they attempt to say the Second Intermediate period Hyksos weren't the only Hyksos and that the 4th Dynasty Pharaohs were Hyksos too.  They do this by misquoting the start of Manetho's Fourth Dynasty account 

"The Fourth Dynasty comprised seventeen kings of Memphis belonging to a different royal line. "  

As saying 

"The Fourth Dynasty comprised seventeen kings of Memphis belonging to a different race."  

See the difference?

Osiris and Horus may be mentioned in The Bible, but they're not Nimrod or Tammuz

We don't know for sure how any Egyptian words or names were properly pronounced, we have their scripts which like Hebrew did not represent vowels, and since no one's spoken it in at least 2000 years, the precise pronunciations are lost.

And with many names our most common default forms of them are filtered through Greek sources, which among other things often ended names with an S that didn't in their native language (this has also influenced our pronunciations of Jesus and Moses who in Hebrew are Yeshua and Moshe).  And among the Egyptian names subject to this are Osiris, Isis and Horus, none of whom end with an S in Egyptian inscriptions.

I've long noticed many names of Egyptian gods happen to look and sound a lot like Hebrew words but usually with very different meanings.  Particularly the fact that Ra sounds like a Hebrew word for evil (Strongs number 7451).

I find Set/Seth being known by that name interesting, like there was an attempt to deliberately Corrupt the history of Genesis 4 by giving the name of Seth to someone who committed Cain's sin.

A Hebrew etymology for Toth/Thoth is easy to imagine too, just use two Teths or a Tau and a Teth, and maybe a Vav in between.

The most probable correct form of Isis is Aset or Iset.  Not quite identical to any Hebrew name, but makes sense as being related to the names of Ashteroth/Astarte and Ishtar/Easter, the Near East equivalents to Isis.  Perhaps Strong numbers 6245 or 6247 are Hebrew word Aset could have come from.

The letters that spell Osiris seem to be, Wsjr, with suggested pronunciations being Asar, Yasar, Aser, Asaru, Ausar, Ausir, Wesir, Usir, Usire, and Ausare.  This website, proposes Oh-SEAR, Ou-SEAR or Oh-SEAR-ee.

The Hebrew spelling that would most likely be used for Wsjr would be Vav-Shin-Yot-Resh.  That is basically a form of Seir with a Vav added at the beginning as a Prefix.  Vav can be used as a Prefix, the reference to Dan in Ezekiel 27 uses a Vav as a Prefix in the Hebrew.

The connection between Seir and Osiris I've noted before, it's on Wikipedia.  But I had originally thought that was an alternate name, now I see that the name Osiris itself may come from Seir.

What Seir means in Hebrew is Goat.  Banebdjedet (The Goat of Mendes), the Egyptian Goat-god (sometimes mistakenly called a Ram-god) must have originally been an aspect of Osiris since he's also the father of Horus The Child, and shrines to Osiris and his mythical ancestors exist in his main Temple.  And the Book of the Heavenly Cow calls the Goat of Mendes the Ba(Soul) of Osiris.

On the Wkipedia page the suggested Egyptian meaning for Seir is Prince.  One Hebrew word for Prince is Sar, which in Hebrew is two letters, S-R, Seir arguably comes from adding a vowel like letter between the two letters that spell Sar

Horus is really Hor or Haru.  Which could very likely equate in Hebrew to Hor, Hori, Horite/Horim and Horeb.  All place or tribal names in or near Edom.

Seir is a name linked to Edom but it was first the name of a Horite, the people who lived in Edom's land before Esau, who were there at least as early as Genesis 14.  While Seir is called a Horite, I think that name comes from his grandson Hori, mentioned in Genesis 36:20.

Hori is the son of Lotan and Lotan the son of Seir.  So how did the grandson become a son?

Well Lotan is not used in The Bible besides this name, but it's used in Pagan Canaanite texts of Ugarit as a seven headed Dragon that Baal destroyed, and possibly a form of Yam, Baal's brother.  Comparative mythology tends to compare Lotan to both Leviathan/Rahab and Typhon of Greek mythology.  We know from Manetho that the Greeks of Egypt often identified Typhon with Set.  And some references to Rahab are taken as seeming like references to Egypt.

So how did Seir's son become his brother?  It's not uncommon in antiquity including in The Bible for a Son to take as his wife a wife or concubine of his father, but usually not the one who's his mother, to secure succession.  It was also often common to call any wife poetically a sister.

Maybe a rumor persisted that Hori was actually fathered by Seir, even though it should have been chronologically clear he was conceived after Seir died.  Horus in Egyptian mythology was conceived after Osiris died.

Hori's brother was Hemam, what the Strongs says for entries 1967 and 1968 implied Hemem is related to Aman, which is in turn related to Amon.  So perhaps this name is connected to the Egyptian god Amon.

Timna is refereed to as the sister of Lotan.  Set also had a Sister-Wife, Nephthys (or Hebet Het, or Nepthet), but it seems like a not very real Marriage, they didn't have any kids, and both are often linked to Homosexuality.  I think maybe the assumption that this Timna and the mother of Amalek are the same could be mistaken, and she really lived much earlier.  Or perhaps this connection is a factor in why the Hyksos favored the worship of Set.

If Aholibamah is a descendant rather then direct daughter of Anah, then Seir could well have lived long before Esau or even Abraham.

Maybe the Egyptian name for the Moon, Iah or Aah, could come from Ajah/Aiah, which is not a Yah theophoric name but can easily be confused for one, it comes from the Hebrew word for Hawk or Kite or Vulture.  The Egyptian moon god, Khonsu's name is spelled with Hieroglyphics that resemble similar kinds of birds.

Only problem is Genesis does not connect the Horites to Egypt, they seem to be Canaanites not Mizriamites.  But they are near Israel's border with Egypt, and Egypt had a more diverse population then most realize.  And if Velikovsky is right that Canaan is Ta Netjer "God's Land", there is evidence the Egyptians viewed Ta Netjer as their ancestral Home Land.  This article discuses how many people groups made up Pre-Dynastic Egypt, and at least one came from Asia, though because of their conventional bias that's not the group they think came from Ta Netjer.

Egypt is called in The Bible the Land of Ham in Psalms 105 and 106, and one of Egypt's names for itself, Khem, is more similar to Ham then Misraim.  Maybe all of Ham's sons had connections to Egypt.  1 Chronicles 4:40 when recording Simeon's much later migration to Edomite territory says "for they of Ham had dwelt there of old".  Why say Ham and not Canaanites?  Maybe this verse specifically means Ham in the sense of Egypt being the Land of Ham?

Seir had many sons according to Genesis 36, perhaps it was mainly descendants of Lotan who came to Egypt, while the others mostly stayed in what would become Edom.

The myths about Osiris-Set-Horus in their most common forms talk as if they are taking place in Egypt.  But it's natural that would happen.  If Ta Neteru is called the "land of the gods" it must mean the gods lived there.

Horus was the son of Osiris and his successor who defeated Set.  That is well known but what isn't as well known is that the Turin Papyrus lists a second Horus reigning at the end of the dynasty of the gods, between the two are Thoth and Maat.  Even less well known is that Horus's wife Hathor is depicted in the Dendera Temple as bearing him a son named Ihy who is also called Hor-seme-tawy, or Horus the Younger.

The earliest known ruler of Pre-Dynastic Egypt that archaeology has uncovered is Iry-Hor in Upper Egypt.  I think he is Ihy/Horus the Younger. 

Going back to the name of Osiris.  Another possibility enters my mind, that maybe the prefix part before the Seir could give a meaning that could justify meaning he's a son or descendant of Seir, maybe specifically the Firstborn. 

The name in Egyptian mythology for the father of Osiris, Isis, Set and Nephthys is Geb, which means Earth, but he's male unlike other Earth deities which were goddesses.  It could easily comes from an Egyptian translation of them being called sons or daughters of Adam, who's name means Human, Red and Earth.  Which makes the coincidence of Set's name even more interesting.  Either way it's likely at this point the genealogy becomes purely mythological.

Another Egyptian meaning proposed for Osiris name is "the place of doing or creation", meaning the idea is right there that it is also a place name.  Seir was a sacred site in Edom, both for Pagans and Monotheists as it is linked Biblically to Yahuah.  Could people of that region have thought it was the site of Adam's creation?  The sons of Seir are all called Dukes of the Horites, perhaps Lotan was the Duke of Mount Seir.  Ladon, another Lotan figure of Greek mythology coils around an Apple Tree in the Garden of Hesperides, this myth is the reason we came to think of the Forbidden Fruit as an Apple.

Lotan in Hebrew is assumed to mean covering, only place where it's root is used not as a name (Lot is the other name form of the root) is Isaiah 25:7, "And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, and the veil that is spread over all nations.".  Next verse sounds like it's about the end of Revelation 20 going into 21.  Basically Isaiah 25:7 could support a desire to affiliate the name of Lotan with Satan and/or the Antichrist, of whom we often view Osiris as a type.

However I also think it could be Tan, a root meaning Dragon, with an L as a prefix.  This fits the Lotan of mythology being a Dragon like monster.

The second son of Seir is Shobal, who's name begins with the same letter as Seth.

The Greeks often got things wrong in their identifications, it can be said the more accurate Typhon-Lotan figure of Egyptian mythology is Apep, a coiling Serpent.  Who is in fact the enemy of Set in the myths where Set isn't a villain.  Adding to that Set's affiliation with Storms and one could see him as very similar to the Canaanite Baal, which identification could be a factor in why the Asiatic Hyksos favored him.

Disagreeing with the Strongs proposed meaning for Shobal, which seems convoluted to me.  Perhaps it's a shorting of sorts of Seth-Baal?  And Lotan Ben-Seir Duke of the Horites of Mount Seir became the basis for both Osiris and Apep depending on how one viewed Shobal?  Osiris is often depicted with Green Skin, usually this is explained as him being a vegetation god, but I don't see the basis for that, maybe it's evidence he was once a Serpent god.

Certain Atlantis themed fringe theorists make a big deal of the idea that the god-kings ruled in a different land.  But they're not reliable sources, so it's only because of the verification I talked about above already that I know that claim has some small truth to it.  But their claim it's in specifically Manetho I can't find, nor can I find in Manetho the name "Auritean" or "Aulitean".  

They want to place the "Land of the gods" to the West so they can make it Atlantis.  This website on the subject however admits that Dr. Charleton Coon (who's Racist bias was also for Civilization coming from the West) says Osiris home was sometimes placed to the North rather then West.  Daniel 11 defined Ptolemaic Egypt as the South from the perspective of Israel, so it makes sense a Holy Land location like Seir might be viewed as the North from an Egyptian perspective.

The references to the West these people are drawing on is probably Amentu, the Egyptian name for the land of the Dead which also meant the West because they believed it was also where the Sun traveled from west to east during the night.

Many in Revised Chronology date the beginning of the first Dynasty of Egypt to around 2100 BC, I'd long noticed how that happens to corresponds with Ussher's date for the founding of Egypt in 2188 BC.  But I'm willing to date the first Dynasty's founding to a little before that.

Still however the Biblical Chronology I support places the time of Genesis 12 in 2322 BC, and 14 I'd say within a few years, a decade tops.  So I think Abraham's time in Egypt was probably what Archaeologists now call Pre-Dynastic Egypt.

We should remember that we use Pharaoh how we do largely because of The Bible, or how we perceive The Bible's use of it.  Ancient Egyptians didn't use it as a word for King, it was a word for the palace the King lived in.  So calling the leader of Egypt "Pharaoh" is equivalent to calling the President of the United States, The White House.  Which is pretty common, though we don't strictly mean an individual when we do it.

Basically the use of "Pharaoh" in Genesis 12 (which may have been just Moses editorial decision anyway, the word is only used by the narrative voice not in dialogue), does not contradict it being "Pre-Dynastic".  In fact I feel it does not even require a Monarchical form of Government, which could also be interesting to keep in mind reading Prophecies about Egypt that may or may not be about Modern/End Times Egypt (Like Isaiah 19, or Ezekiel 29-32).

Abraham died when Jacob and Esau were 15 in 2222 BC, their birth was in 2237 BC.

Going back to the possibly of Osiris meaning "of Seir".  I recently learned that Osiris and Isis show up later in Egyptian History then most realize, in the 5th Dynasty.  While Horus and Set were there from the start.  It came up on a Wikipedia talk page.

 J. Gwyn Griffiths pointed out long ago that there's no certain evidence of Isis and Osiris before the Fifth Dynasty. (There is some ambiguous evidence earlier than that, such as a relief from a shrine of Djoser that may depict the Ennead, which would imply that Isis and Osiris were around by then, but we can't be sure that's what it is.) Based on that and some inconsistencies in the Pyramid Texts' characterization of Osiris and Horus, Griffiths argued that the Horus–Seth rivalry was originally a separate tradition from the murder of Osiris and that the two were conjoined, producing the Osiris myth as we know it, sometime before the PT were written down. Egyptologists today generally seem to agree with this thesis, though it's hard to tell how widespread that acceptance is. Anyway, the impression I get is that during the Old Kingdom, Isis and Osiris emerged from obscurity and were tied in with kingship and the Horus–Seth conflict. By being connected with the king in the afterlife, Osiris became much more important, displacing deities like Anubis to become the premier god of the afterlife by the end of the Old Kingdom.

So maybe the Hor of Genesis 36 was originally the basis for both Osiris and Horus, but became split in two later.

On the Amalekites and Hyksos

I'm going here to disagree with things I've said before (like some of what I said on how the Saul connection works), as I've studied Velikovsky's arguments more closely.  But I'll also repeat some of what I've said before that I still stand by.  There are certain areas where I don't want to go over again what others have already said, so this is perhaps best understood by someone who's already read Ages in Chaos.  It can be bought on Amazon pretty cheap.

On the Hyksos-Amalekites connection I first want to say I feel it's not quite that simple. The Hyksos were many tribes of Asiatic peoples. They included the Amalekites and possibly other Edomite tribes, I think they had a Midianite element 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 element as well.  Ishmaelite and Aramean tribes could have contributed also to help explain some of the confusion of the Arabian historians.

I agree with Ages in Chaos about Agag being Apep.

The early Hebrew written signs as they are preserved on the STELE OF MESHA show a striking resemblance BETWEEN THE LETTERS G (GIMEL) AND P (PEI). NO OTHER LETTERS are so much alike in shape as these: each is an oblique line connected to a shorter, more oblique line, and is similar to the written number 7, THE SIZE. OF THE ANGLE BETWEEN THE TWO OBLIQUE LINES CONSTITUTES THE ONLY DIFFERENCE.

Nevertheless, it seems that not the Hebrew reading but rather the EGYPTIAN MUST BE CORRECTED....Almost EVERY hieroglyphic consonant [Egyptian] stands for MORE THAN ONE SOUND, and only empirically are all the sounds symbolized by a consonant found.

There wasn't more then one known Agag though, Balaam is giving a Prophecy of the days of Saul.  Though it's certainly not impossible more then one Amalekite King had that name including one contemporary with Balaam.   The claim of there being more then one Apepi is also spurious and exists because of how Josephus's copy of Manetho is likely confused, but it's still not impossible more then one Hyksos ruler used that name.  In both cases it is the latter one at the end of this period who certainly existed.

Velikovsky and others are wrong in citing Genesis 14 as proving the Amalekites existed already before Esau/Edom. The reference to them there is an editorial note from Moses, telling his readers where on the Map of their day he's referring to. Like how we often say "near modern _____".   The Arabs didn't have an Arabic translation of The Bible until well after the Koran, so they got Amalek's genealogy confused just as they did how the Amalekite pharaohs relate to the history of Joseph and Moses.

Since Velikovsky's time Archeologists are inclined now to consider the location of Avaris indisputable.  And thus his Al-Arish theory useless.

It could be the Hyksos used more then one city as their Capital (like the later Persian Empire, or Assyrian Empire), each of which could have been known as "ḥw.t wr.t", which means "Great House".  And Velikovsky's model certainly does not preclude that they'd have some regional capital in the Delta.

Velikovsky's theory on the location of Sharuhen is probably wrong.  This would have been the city they operated from when they attacked Ziklag.  Judges 19:6 places Sharuhen in the allotment of Simeon.  But the Edom-Seir region is indeed where Simeonites would wind up much later as we see in 1 Chronicles 4.

On the subject of Psalm 78:49 and "Evil Angels".  I do not believe there is a scribal error here, I believe God's Word is preserved.  But the idea that it's a Hebraic Pun on "Shepard Kings" is possible.

So I think I've covered everything on this subject I might disagree with Velikovsky on.  I now want to talk about Greek Mythology.

Based on dating information from Eusebius, 1484 or 1470 BC is the date of Danaus leaving Egypt to found Argos.  Revised Chronology places that during the Hyksos period, since the latest possible date for the Exodus is 1492 B.C. (Ussher's date).

Danaus (ancestor of the Spartan and Macedonian Royal houses according to mythology via Perseus and Herakles) is frequently identified with the Tribe of Dan by various theories.  While I definitely consider the name evidence of Semitic origin, the D-n element does exist in Semitic languages independent of The Tribe of Dan, in Biblical names like Dinah and Dannah and Dedan and Daniel.  But most relevant here is Dinhabah, the city of the first King of Edom in Genesis 36.  (And some sources say the Ugarit story of Aghat and Pighat gives a Donatiya as the wife of Danel.)  Later on I do believe a Danite intermarriage with this line happens via Andromeda daughter of Cephus of Joppa/Jaffa and Perseus.

Josephus's account of the correspondences between the Spartan King and the High Priest Onais about the Spartans having descent from Abraham refereed to the Spartan seal as being an Eagle clutching a Serpent.  Extra-Biblical sources like the Targums are appealed to for evidence to make the Eagle a symbol of Dan.  But Biblical evidence links the Eagle with Edom in Obadiah 4 and Jeremiah 49:16&22.

The Serpent is indeed linked to Dan, maybe the Eagle clutching a Serpent in part represents an intermingling of Edom and Dan?

The Sabine Tribe of Ancient Italy claimed descent from a Spartan colony according to Plutarch.  Perhaps this can add to the Edomite heritage of Rome.  Rome's second King was a Sabine.

The father of Danaus was Belus.  Belus could come from Bela son of Beor, an Ancient Edomite King mentioned in Genesis 36, or maybe Baalhanan.  The Amalekites were an Edomite tribe.  Genesis entered it's finale form in the days of Moses, so 36 could include Edomite Kings contemporary with The Exodus.

If one of the two Hadad/Hadars who was a King of Edom in Genesis 36 is also the ruler deified as the Semitic god Hadad, then his name would also be linked to Baal/Bel.  The last King of Edom listed here is Hadar in Genesis 36 but Hadad in Chronicles.  His city Pau/Pai is unidentified and has been speculated by some scholars to be an Egyptian city, and that his wife Mehetabel is Egyptian in origin.  Maybe Pau/Pai is Al-Arish/Avaris.

Belus was a King of Egypt, but that Danaus's brother(Aegytpus)'s name became the Greek name for Egypt is largely due to confused Greek geography.  Like I discussed elsewhere with Aethiopia(Ethiopia).

Apollodorus ( 2.1.4-5)

"Belus remained in Egypt, reigned over the country, and married Anchinoe, daughter of Nile, by whom he had twin sons, Aegyptus and Danaus, but according to Euripides, he had also Cepheus and Phineus. Danaus was settled by Belus in Libya, and Aegyptus in Arabia."

Marrying a daughter of the Nile is likely a reference to him marrying a Native Egyptian (possibly of Royal or Nobel blood) for political reasons.  Whether or not the Hyksos historically ever did that I don't think we know for certain.

Because I support the Arabian view of Mount Sinai, I'm aware that what Arabia meant to Ancient Greek Writers (Modern Jordan south of the Dead Sea and north western Saudi Arabia) is where the Israelite wondering was, this included ancient Edom.  Some scholars think classical Arabia could have included parts of southern Israel (south of Beersheba) and the north eastern Sinai Peninsula, which would include Al-Arish.

So it sounds like Belus may have put his Heir Apparent in charge of the Amalekites original homeland.  Like how the Welsh in origin Tudors monarchs of England began making the Crown-Prince the Prince of Wales.

Greek myths go on to tell us that Aegytpus conquered a people called Melampodes.  Malampodes means "black footed" and could make sense as a term for former slaves who made mud bricks with their feet.  So I think they're the wandering Israelites and that this is a reference to not the first post Exodus Amalekite encounter, but when the Amalekites were victorious over them in Numbers 14:45.


In Peoples of The Sea on pages 84&85, Velikovsky argues for Temeh or Temehu being a name the Egyptians used for the Spartans or Lacedaemonians.  Teman is in Genesis 36 the name of a grandson of Esau (brother of the grandson Jasher links to Rome, and Amalek was their half brother), and later in The Bible a region in Edom.  The same basic Hebrew word is sometimes used and translated South, and the Teman in Edom is possibly one of it's more southern locations.  So perhaps Edomites who colonized the Peloponnesian peninsula used a word similar to Teman for the southern most region of the Peloponnese, where Sparta/Lacedaemonia was?

On Shishak and Agag

Shoshenk's City List
Shoshenk I campaign into Palestine: His city list is an imitation of that of Thutmoses III but very instructive. The first 9 names are the `Nine Bows', #10 is the introduction saying simply "List of the towns". They are: 11=Gaza, 12=Makkedah, 13=Rubuti, 14=Aijalon, 15=Kiriathaim?, 16=Beth- horon, 17=Gibeon, 18=Mahanaim, 19=Shaud[y], 20=?, 21=Adoraim, 22=Hapharaim, 23=Rehob, 24=Betshan, 25= Shunem, 26=Taanach, 27=Megiddo, 28=Adar, 29=Yadhamelek, 30=[Heb]el?, 31=Honim?, 32=Aruna, 33=Borim, 34=Gathpadalla, 35=Yahma, 36=Betharuma, 37=Kekry, 38=Socoh, 39=Bethappuah... Between #17 & 18 should be Jerusalem by sequence if that is where he went according to conventional history, 1.Kings 14:25-26 & 2.Chronicles 12:2-9. In fact he went no where near there.

Kadesh comes from Qdsh, the Hebrew word for Holy, it applied to many cities in the region, to assume Egyptian records always meant the same one is naive, The Bible repeatedly refers to Jerusalem as Holy.

While the "n" is sometimes dropped from Shoshenk, it never is in inscriptions recognizing him from this region.

It is well known that the later Egyptian pharaohs had as many as five names. Now Birch has noted in this regard that "... the (Golden) Horus names of Thutmose III comprise variations on: Tcheser-khau, Djeser-khau, Cheser-khau, (Sheser-khau?);" names that come very close indeed to "Shishak" (Hebr. qwaOwi) according to Birch. Nor do these names have the problem of the presence of the letter "n" as found greatly complicating discussions on the name Shoshenq's appropriateness for "Shishak". Regarding the succession of consonants - considered much more important than the changeable vowels in ancient names - we get for Sheser-kau the pattern, Sh-S-K, corresponding almost exactly to Sh-Sh-K, and more suitable than Shoshenq (Sh-Sh-N-K). And since an R is dropped in getting Ozymandias from the Throne Name of Ramses II I see no reason to make that an objection here.

As far as whether or not that's a normal name for a foreigner to call that pharaoh by, again the Bible is often abnormal, Shishak works well as a Hebrew pun, for example it's similar to Jeramiah's code for Babylon.

Among the Treasures looted from Tuthmosis's campaign are many matching relics of Solomon's Temple including the Menorah.
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/karnak_loot_english.html
There are a lot of ideas on this site I like. But plenty that annoy me, like Hatshepsut as Sheba but especially Solomon as Senenmut.

In the textbooks, that equate Sosenk I with the biblical Shishak, it is pharaoh Osorkon IV - or his (Nubian) general (un-named) - who is usually regarded as "Zerah the Ethiopian" who, in c.897 BC, attacked king Asa of Jerusalem with a massive army of Ethiopians and Libyans, but was soundly defeated by the Jewish king (2 Chronicles 14:9-15). Velikovsky had synchronized this biblical incident with the reign of the belligerent Amenhotep II (son of Thutmose III, Velikovsky's "Shishak") whom he equated with Zerah. Whilst I completely accept Velikovsky's dating here, I believe that his attempts to 'prove' that pharaoh Amenhotep II had Ethiopian blood flowing in his veins was not quite convincing.

Nor does the Bible say that Zerah was even a pharaoh; nor that he led native Egyptian troops. I, for my part, prefer to equate Zerah with Amenhotep's old friend, User-tatet, Nubian (Ethiopian) commander. I do not think that it is stretching the imagination too far to believe that Semites - who in the EA letters called Akhnaton, Naphuria, from his coronation name, Nepher-kheperura - could have turned User into Zerah. Moreover, we know from the Egyptian records that User-tatet did campaign in the vicinity of Maresha, in the Shephelah plain of Israel (given in the Egyptian records as Retenu - and distinguished from Upper Retenu, or the hill country). The Egyptian records, as it is thought, are not going to record any military defeat.

Now that I've synchronized Tuthmosis III's Kadesh campaign with the 5th year of Rehoboam, lining up Biblical dates with 18th Dynasty dates we get the final overthrow of the Hycsos in the same year the Amalekites attacks Ziklag and David became king. And the overthrow of Apepi is about 10-11 years before that, which is only a year or to before when Saul was sent to war against Agag.

I agree with Ages in Chaos about Agag being Apepi,

The early Hebrew written signs as they are preserved on the STELE OF MESHA show a striking resemblance BETWEEN THE LETTERS G (GIMEL) AND P (PEI). NO OTHER LETTERS are so much alike in shape as these: each is an oblique line connected to a shorter, more oblique line, and is similar to the written number 7, THE SIZE. OF THE ANGLE BETWEEN THE TWO OBLIQUE LINES CONSTITUTES THE ONLY DIFFERENCE.

Nevertheless, it seems that not the Hebrew reading but rather the EGYPTIAN MUST BE CORRECTED....Almost EVERY hieroglyphic consonant [Egyptian] stands for MORE THAN ONE SOUND, and only empirically are all the sounds symbolized by a consonant found.

but I don't agree with how this is presented in many other theories were Saul's war with him is the same battle as when the Thebans overthrew him.

Apepi seems to have been a usurper to begin with.

Apepi is thought to have usurped the throne of northern Egypt after the death of his predecessor, Khyan, since the latter had designated his son, Yanassi, to be his successor on the throne as a foreign ruler.
Ryholt, p.256

Who knows maybe neither his predecessor or successor where even Amalekites but of other Hyksos tribes.

Velikovsky and others are wrong in citing Genesis 14 as proving the Amalekites existed already before Esau/Edom. The reference to them there is an editorial gloss from Moses, telling his reader where on the Geography their familiar with he's referring to. Like how we after say "near modern _____".

So when it was his tyrannical behavior, particularly killing Seqenenre Tao, sparked the Theban revolution, I suspect the other Hyksos leaders overthrew him with a coup and banished him. He then with whatever supporters he had (mainly the fellow Amalekites) and set himself up a new home base in southern Israel.

Saul's refusal to simply kill Agag as ordered may have been politically motivated, seeing Agag as a useful hostage. Now if as generally thought he was just a leader of violent nomads I don't see him being to useful. But if he was an exiled former Pharaoh of Egypt? That makes sense. I Samuel 30 records an Amalekite having an Egyptian slave.

The timing also makes Tuthmosis I the Pharaoh when Solomon began his reign, and this who's Daughter Solomon married.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nefrubity
Nefrubity (Akhbetneferu) was an ancient Egyptian princess of the 18th dynasty. She was the daughter of Pharaoh Thutmose I and Ahmose, the sister of Hatshepsut and the half-sister of Thutmose II, Wadjmose and Amenmose.
Aidan Dodson & Dyan Hilton: The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt. Thames & Hudson, 2004, ISBN 0-500-05128-3 p.140

She is depicted with her parents in Hatshepsut's Deir el-Bahari mortuary temple, then vanishes. It is assumed that she died young.
Dodson & Hilton, p.130
Joyce Tyldesley: Queens of Egypt. 2006

The assumption she died young is of course I feel a false one. She disappears from Egyptian records because she was married to Solomon and after that remained in Israel.

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.