Merneptah as The Pharaoh who destroyed Gezer

Once again I’m shifting my Revised Chronology views.

One argument against Shoshenq as Shishak we don't make enough is how Shoshenq was the first of his dynasty and so it makes the Pharaoh who destroyed Gezer and married a Princess of his Royal House to Solomon a Pharaoh of the dying and never really that militarily strong to begin with 21st Dynasty.  There simply is no archeological evidence for any 21st Dynasty Pharoah doing anything in Canaan especially not militarily, the last Pharaoh attested in the region until Shoshenq is Rameses VI of the 20th Dynasty.  And that Dynasty lasted over a century (in conventional chronology anyway) while 44-45 years separated Shishak's campaign agaisnt Rehoboam from the beginning of the reign of Solomon.

Another argument is how even in conventional chronology Shoshenq is actually too late. See the conventional dates for Shosenq are based on identifying him with Shishak and thus place him when mainstream Bible Scholars place the end of Solomon's reign.  When the 22nd Dynasty ended is pretty undisputed, we’re at the dawn of classical antiquity when all that goes down, plenty of solid verifiable synchronizations.  And proponents of various Revised Chronologies have pointed out that conventional chronologists are really stretching the dates for the 22nd dynasty even to have it start contemporary with those late mainstream dates for Solomon and Rehoboam.  It really should probably begin about the same time as the 23rd Dynasty, the other Libyan dynasty who ruled Upper Egypt, I think both were born of the same Libyan take over.

I’ve always placed Solomon decades sooner as a long time proponent of Bishop James Ussher for the Kingdom period, but how much I agree with Ussher has lessened over the years.  And now that I’ve advocated for an approach to the historical books of the Kingdom Period that allows me to consider their stated reign lengths may not even have to be accurate at face value, I’ve come to consider that Josephus’s dates for Solomon may be correct since he had access to now lost Temple records.

In Wars of The Jews Book 6 near the end of Chapter 4 he says that the destruction of The Temple in 70 AD was 1130 years besides 7 months and 15 days from when Solomon first laid its foundations, that gives us 1061 BC or 1062 BC depending on how the 7 months affects things.  In Antiquities of The Jews Josephus sought to correct mistakes he’d made in Wars, but in 20.10.2 he pretty much confirms that previous date for The Temple by saying it was 466 years 6 months and 10 days from the finishing of The Temple till it’s first destruction in 588-586 BC giving us 1054 or 1055 BC.  Back to Wars Josephus says it was 477 years and 6 months after King David that the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem happened.  Since David’s death was about 11 years before the full consecration of The Temple that lines up well with David dying and Solomon’s reign beginning in 1065 BC.  Solomon reigned for 40 years and Shishak’s raid was in the 5th year of Rehoboam according to 1 Kings 14:25 and 2nd Chronicles 12:5 giving us 1021 or 1020 BC.  But Shishak was already reigning in Egypt while Solomon was alive to harbor Jeroboam so was on the throne by 1025 BC. [Update: the possibly that Solomon reigned longer then conventionally assumed is one I'm also considering now, in a way that could potentially make the start of Rehoboam's reign 20 years later in 1005 BC and Shishak's invasion in 1001 BC.]

These same Josephus dates give us an Exodus in 1673 BC.

So I’m proposing a revised chronology today that’s really a comparatively slight revision.

In Judges 1:29 the city of Gezer is among the cities the Israelites weren’t originally able to drive the Canaanites out of. Gezer was subdued by the Pharaoh whose daughter Solomon married in 1 Kings 9:15-17, he gave it to Solomon who then rebuilt it as an Israelite city.  Gezer is clearly still a Canaanite city in the Amarna period, so placing Amarna later then Solomon doesn't work.

That argument agaisnt Velikovsky's chronology has been stressed by David Rohl and supporters of his New Chronology, and my last posts on this blog that were actually about Revised Chronology were me supporting Rohl on at least the Amarna Period.  But that timeline for David and Saul combined with his viewing Rameses II during one of his earliest campaigns as Shishak would have to make the Pharaoh who took Gezer either Horemheb, Rameses I or Seti I.  But there are no surviving references to any of those three or Rameses II himself taking Gezer.

Instead in all of Egyptian History the most well known and celebrated destruction of Gezer by an Egyptian Ruler was Merneptah the son and successor of Rameses II on the Stele named after him.  But this Stele isn’t the only reference, we know from the Amada Temple that Merneptah destroyed Gezer himself, he’s not merely referring to someone else destroying the cities in the region as Velikovsky’s 19th Dynasty theory had to interpret it.  

However the Merneptah Stele is also known as the “Israel Stele'' because of a line commonly read as saying “Israel is laid waste and his seed is not”.  If Israel was actually Merneptah’s ally and at the height of her prosperity under Solomon then how does this make sense?  Well I believe that reading is wrong and agree with those who argue “Israel” should read “Jezreel” instead.

We are no longer dependent on this stele for archaeological verification that Israel even existed, and one thing those other references seem to show to me is that Israel was not a name the Israelites were called by outsiders, especially not a hostile one bragging about claiming to have destroyed them.  Like how the Japanese don't generally call themselves that.  I think often outsiders would have just called them the same names they called the Canaanites because they weren't interested in the region's ethnic make up changing.  Besides that Egyptian and Assyrian records more often then not used the names of capital cities or more localized regions, tribes and clans.

The only other inscription commonly read as being a foreign King using the name Israel is Shalmaneser’s reference to King Ahab, but that too has been alternatively interpreted as reading Jezreel, and since that city was Ahab's capital and he didn’t actually rule all of Israel, that definitely makes more sense.  Both these sources were not using Alphabet based written languages like Hebrew, Jezreel absolutely would be represented in characters that could easily be confused with how the same system would say Israel.

Now Jezreel in The Bible is the name of both a City and a Valley by the City, but I believe the City was pretty much founded by the House of Omri, perhaps Ahab himself, and that any reference chronologically before then is referring to the Valley.  And that agrees with the Merneptah Stele which doesn’t call Jezreel a city as it did Gezer and Ashkelon in the preceding lines.  Jezreel in this Stele could be referring to basically the same region that is the subject of 1 Kings 4:12, the cities linked to Jezreel there were also ones the Canaanites weren’t driven out of back in Judges 1:27.  

That said there could have been some actual Israelites allied with the Canaanites who Merneptah fought this campaign agaisnt, perhaps some northerners were still resistant to unifying under the House of David, the "Sea Peoples" I'm still working on my theory for.

However the popular Israel reading of the Merneptah Stele is also the main argument against the Shasu of Yhw being Israelites.  So I do principally believe those of Jezreel Merneptah defeated were Canaanites.

The Shasu as Israelites I'm becoming very convinced of. (Of course other Abrahamic people like Edom are also included.) They are depicted as having invaded and taken over the Mountains of Canaan while the older populations survived more in the low lands.  That perfectly fits the picture painted by passages like Judges 1:19.  

Back in 1 Kings 9:15-17 the taking of Gezer by Pharaoh is to add context to Solomon doing construction projects there but also other places like Megiddo, a city in the above verse whose name is also applied to the valley of Jezreel.  I don’t think this Pharaoh destroyed any of those cities in a similar way, but the same campaign may have also weakened Canaanite presence in and around the Valley of Jezreel, the language could be of a specific obscure Canaanite clan tied to the valley.

Every daughter of a Pharaoh was given the title “King’s Daughter” which she kind of held for life.  So the “Daughter of Pharaoh” Solomon married may not actually be the Daughter of the Pharaoh at the time but of a previous one.  I mention this since Rameses II had a lot of spare daughters we know little about, this excess of royal daughters could be exactly why Merneptah was more willing to marry one off to a foreign King then the prior 18th Dynasty Pharaohs had been.  But given how old Merneptah was when he became Pharaoh, a Granddaughter or even Great Granddaughter is also possible.

That leads me to discussing the mysterious figure of Irsu.  Hans Goedicke advocated a reading of the Papyrus Harris I where Irsu is not some usurper ruling Egypt but a “rebel” in the land of Canaan who the later 19th Dynasty had been in the opinion of this 20th Dynasty propagandist too soft on and that Twosret had even allied herself with, and then Setnakhte the first Pharaoh of the 20th Dynasty finally stopped tolerating this “rebellion”.

Basically I’m suggesting that Solomon was Irsu.  Irsu is an Egyptian designation that means “He who made himself”. I could see enemies of Solomon choosing to describe him that way.  Another way Irsu has been transliterated is Yarsu, that really makes me consider the possibility that in addition to what it means in Egyptian it’s also a play on the name of Jerusalem.  There is also no actual reference to Tworset dying at the end of her reign, she could have just left.

Timeline wise it still wouldn’t be Setnakhte who was Shishak but Rameses III, that’s who’s reigning 44 years after Merneptah no matter when in Merneptah’s reign you start counting.  Now as I’ve pointed out before that many miss, Shishak didn’t actually fight any battle with Rehoboam at all, Rehoboam following the advice of a Prophet willingly offered tribute.  The language making it sound like “everything” in The Temple was taken by Shishak is hyperbole, none of the major Temple Sacred Relics were taken, and I don’t expect Ramses III would have even considered the incident all that notable.

Rameses III also fought land battles in his wars with the Sea Peoples and that’s what probably brought him to the land of Israel.  The Tjekker are linked in the Story of Wenamun to Dor, another city Judges 1:27 tells us was Canaanite.  The Teresh I think could be Tarshish/Tarsus because they had close relations with both Tyre and Solomon.  I finally have a view on Egyptology that doesn’t have me rejecting the Peleset=Philistines identification, but conventionally it’s said they weren’t in the Gaza region till after Rameses III which is obviously not the case here.  And despite how we use the term these Egyptians texts don’t call the Tjekker or Peleset Sea Peoples.

It’s also plausible from the reading of the Papyrus that Irsu himself wasn’t still in charge when Seknakhte put down the “rebellion” and so his pacifying Rehoboam is The Bible’s account of that same event.

Once again I consider it futile to look for the name of Shishak among any names any Pharaohs actually used, it’s a Hebrew name with a Hebrew etymology and probably serves a similar function to Jeremiah calling Babylon Sheshach.  Both Kings and Chronicles are commonly believed to enter their final written down forms around Jeremiah’s time or later.  The same method by which Sheshach is B-B-L, Shishak would be B-B-D but I don’t actually think that’s the answer either.  My point is it’s some type of poetic nickname.  No one thinks Pharaoh is a personal name (except for the Mizriam isn't Kemet at all theory which I once flirted with but have abandoned), but the fact is it's largely because of The Bible that we use Pharaoh as a word for every Egyptian Monarch.  When dealing with the texts of Kings and Chronicles, Pharaoh is in fact never used of Shishak, rather when we compare the references Shishak is being used in place of Pharaoh.  The problem with reading Pharaoh as an Egyptian synonym for King is that the word King is also used when Pharaoh is, it's Pharaoh King of Egypt and Shishak King of Egypt.  It might be that in this period Pharaoh is used of the 19th Dynasty while Shishak is used of the 20th.

There is almost certainly overlap between the reigns of Asa and Rameses III given how long they were.  Zerah The Cushite was probably a chieftain of one of the Cushite tribes of Arabia and so I don’t feel the need to look for him in Egyptian records at all. The reference to Asa having dealt with invasions by Cushites and Lubims is a long after the fact statement that I don’t think actually means those two attacks were the same, the Lubim incident is just not otherwise in Scripture.  The Lubim in Egyptian history were active and working with the Sea Peoples again in the time of Rameses III.

This theory has been suggested before by a Peter James, and one objection to Solomon as Irsu was that Irsu is called a Hurrian.  But some have argued that the family of Abraham were Hurrians originally, and maybe even as late as the time of Solomon many still used a Hurrian Language alongside the Language of Canaan.

I've settled on viewing Rameses III as Shishak but I still think there was more then the conventional 30 years between Merneptah Year 5 and Rameses III's year 8 and that that involved a longer reign for Twosret.

A lot of people don't understand how complex the Biblical picture of the Judges period is which is why so many people have trouble buying that the Amarna Letters are any period after Joshua.  All the Authors of those letters are Pagan Canaanites and that's what I'd expect from The Biblical depiction.  The major players are all among cities Judges 1 and other passages tell us were still Canaanite at least till the time of David (unless they are arguably outside the range of what was allotted to Israel entirely) Gezer, Megiddo, Jerusalem, Sidon and her daughter Tyre.  And it could be more cities were Canaanite then just ones The Bible specified, Pella in the Trans-Jordan does not seem to be directly mentioned in Scripture at all, but most of the Roman era Decapolis cities were ones that had stayed Canaanite.

The Israelites entered Canaan as primarily a pastoral nomadic people, for all of the Judges Period a good percentage of them, maybe even the majority, probably didn't even live in cities but preferred the rural life.  Judges 1 also clarifies how The Israelites initially mainly took over power in the most mountainous regions while the Canaanites held out in the plain. 

But the major cities we know were Israelite cities during this period do not have Kings or Mayors who wrote letters to Pharaoh at Amarna.  Hebron, Lachish, Bethlehem, Kirathjearim and Bethgader in Judah, Gibea in Benjamin, Bethel and Hai, Jericho, Shiloh, Shechem and Tirzah in the House of Joseph's allotment. Japhia and the other Bethlehem in Zebulun, Kedesh-Naphtali and so on.  Some of these cities are mentioned in the letters, some Canaanite Kings claimed sovereignty over them, but Kings do love to claim to be King of more then what they actually were.

Labaya is the enigma, he's not really linked to a specific city the way the others are, he's been called the King of Shechem by modern scholars but that's actually a city he claims is in his domain and is not depicted as his capital at all.  David Rohl argues for him being Saul and other revised chronologies have tried almsot every major Northern Kingdom monarch.  But again Gezer shows that the post Solomon period can be ruled out for Amarna.  And I really don't see Saul writing these kinds of letters to Pharaoh, even during his darker final years.

This timeline most likely makes Labaya contemporary with Eli and the rise of Samuel. In which context Labaya as a leader of the Philistines oppressing Israel could work.  Though a more minimalist interpretation of the Judges time period could make Labaya an Ammonite oppressor which would better fit his son being in the Trans-Jordan.

But he could just be a King of one of the Judges 1 Canaanite cities who's Amarna era King isn't specifically known, probably one of the Jezreel Valley ones disputed between Issachar and Manasseh in Joshua 17:11 and Judges 1:27.  Taanach is seemingly missing from the Amarna records, and it's far enough south to be in the West Bank on a modern Map of Israel, since Labaya's fall was at the hands of nearby Gina/Jenin it fits well.  The name of Labaya however is believed to come from a word for Lion, and a famous Stele at Bethshean depicts a Lion and Lioness.  Another Semitic word for Lion is Gur often translated "whelp" as in a baby lion, and Gur is also a place name connected to Ibleam in 1 Kings 9:27.  Dor is also missing from the Amarna records, Labaya could have ruled an alliance of everyone in those verses but Megiddo.

Back to the Sea Peoples subject, the Peleset being the Philistines and Tjekker the Canaanites of Dor I haven't changed my mind on, but they and the Lukka are NOT actually called Sea Peoples in the original Egyptian inscriptions.  [Update 2026: I have recently come to consider that the Lukka could be the Lecah (pronounced lew-kah) clan descended form Shelah son of Judah in 1 Chronicles 4:21.]

Based on Genesis 10 I think the term Philistim/Philistines was originally a term for Mizraimite colonists in Canaan and/or their puppets, though they could also have some Libyans like the Meshwesh and Tehenu, I believe Casluhim equates to what the Greeks and Romans would later call Cyrenaica and that the Lubim are a contracted form of Lehabim.  Gaza has been described as Egypt's capital in the region during the New Kingdom.  The Peleset name doesn't show up in Egyptian records till Ramses III because that's when these colonists sought independence.  And so the Philistine oppressors of the eras of Jephthah, Samson, Eli, Samuel, Saul and David are really just the proxies of the 18th and early 19th Dynasty Egyptian Empire.  And/or in addition to all that the Philistines could also be one of the tribes that made up the Hyksos.

But I now know that in the Merneptah records it's confirmed that the Ekwesh, Teresh, Shekelesh and Sherden were all Circumcised peoples, so that most likely rules out the Teresh being the Tarshish of Japheth and thus Tarsus.  However 1st Chronicles mentioned a Tarshish of Benjamin, but with only one "sh" the Teresh could perhaps more likely be Tirzah a name linked to Western Manasseh.

The Danuans mentioned in the Amarna letters are all in letters about affairs in Lebanon, so that fits them being Dan after their migration recorded in Judges 18 to an area north of Apheca and expanding from there.  They hadn't taken over Gebel/Byblos yet but I think they will by the time of Solomon.  From there they colonized the "islands" that Rameses III associated his Denyen with.

The Sherden I once again think are the Sardite clan of Zebulun descended from Sered of Genesis 46:14 and Numbers 26:26, and perhaps also connected to the place named Sarid in Joshua 19:10-12.  The Shekelesh has been suggested  to be Issachar (Egyptian like Japanese uses often confuses the L and R sounds).  The Weshesh has been argued by some scholars to be Asher.  I feel like the name of Ekwesh could be explained as tied to Akko, they are the Asherites who felt Akko belonged to them and kept trying to take it.  The Weslesh and Ekwesh never appear together so them being different designations for the same people is plausible.

I kind of want to explain all the Circumcised Sea Peoples as clans of either Dan, Asher or Zebulun, they are the ones with Biblical passages hinting at them becoming "Sea Peoples", either in their Blessings in Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 or the Song of Deborah.  But Western Manasseh did have access to the coast, from how the allotments are usually mapped way more so then Zebulun.  Meanwhile Issachar is linked to Zebulun in those blessings.

So I've been looking into the Alashiya (a people often identified with Elishah of Genesis 10 and Ezekiel 27), and the old scholarly discussions on if they were on Cyprus or on the mainland in Syria or Cilicia, and I'm so annoyed that everyone felt it has to be either/or.  I think their capital was probably Enkomi which was close to where Salamis was in New Testament times, but I think they probably had colonies or at least trading ports on the mainland coasts, and my hunch is one was around where Antioch on the Orontes would later be founded.

I think references to "The Isles" in The Hebrew Bible and other ancient Semitic texts prior to Alexander The Great are chiefly to the Greek world, it contained a lot of Islands, the Peloponnese was sometimes called an island even though it's technically not.  I think to the ancient Near East who didn't know much about the world further west then that, the Greek world including Magna Grecia was probably thought of as being the Isles of the West.

In The Bible this phrase first appears in Genesis 10:5 where the portion of either Japheth as a whole or just Javan from verse 4 is called "The Isles of the Nations".  Next is Esther 10:1, since Ahasuerus is Xerxes that being a reference to his invading Greece fits.  Psalm 72:10 says "the Kings of Tarshish and of the isles", Isaiah 60:9 associates the term with Tarshish and Isaiah 66:19 again sociates them with Javan.  Jeremiah 2:10 refers to the Isles of Kittim, and then 25:22 refers to the Isles that Tyre and Sidon trade with which Ezekiel 27 repeatedly identify with Javan and his sons.

So likewise I think "The Isles" that are associated with the Denyen by Rameses III are the Greek world and thus they are the Danaoi/Danaans of Homer.  If they are also a colony of The Tribe of Dan I don't think that means Dan made any significant permanent impact on the Hellene Gene Pool.  The Danaans/Acheans/Argrives of Homer chiefly ruled the Peloponnese where I don't think they ever full replaced the prior population and their kingdoms were later taken over by the Dorians.  The "Acheans" of Classical Antiquity are just Dorians who appropriated that name.  The Dorians never fully subjugated Arcadia, but I don't think the Danaans did either.  

Combining aspects of Rohl and Velikovsky.

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.

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.

More on 19th Dynasty Chronology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Rameses II as Pharaoh Necho

"A fragment of a mural from a Theban temple of Ramses II, preserved in the Metropolitan Museum of New York, shows a Palestinian prince, mortally wounded by a dart or a lance thrown by one of the Egyptian Warriors, an the army of this prince is in great dismay."-H.E. Winlock: Excavations at Deir el Bahari, 1911-1913 (New York 1942), p. 12 and plate 6g.

"An obelisk of Rameses II at Tanis mentions "Carrying off the princes of Retenu (Palestine) as living prisoners" The word "princes" is written on the obelisk with a heiroglyph of a size disproportionate to the rest of the inscription, emphasizing their royal status."-See Kemi, revue de philologie et d'archeologie egytpiennes et coptes, V(1935). Plate 26. and p. 113

Above are footnotes from Ages in Chaos II about the first Syrian campaign of Ramses II.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_II#First_Syrian_campaign
The immediate antecedents to the Battle of Kadesh were the early campaigns of Ramesses II into Canaan and Palestine. His first campaign seems to have taken place in the fourth year of his reign and was commemorated by the erection of a stele near modern Beirut. The inscription is almost totally illegible due to weathering. His records tell us that he was forced to fight a Palestinian prince who was mortally wounded by an Egyptian archer, and whose army was subsequently routed. Ramesses carried off the princes of Palestine as live prisoners to Egypt. Ramesses then plundered the chiefs of the Asiatics in their own lands, returning every year to his headquarters at Riblah to exact tribute.

Now compare that to what Necho does.

II Kings 23: 29-35.
In his days Pharaohnechoh king of Egypt went up against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates: and king Josiah went against him; and he slew him at Megiddo, when he had seen him. And his servants carried him in a chariot dead from Megiddo, and brought him to Jerusalem, and buried him in his own sepulchre. And the people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, and anointed him, and made him king in his father's stead.-----And Pharaohnechoh put him in bands at Riblah in the land of Hamath, that he might not reign in Jerusalem; and put the land to a tribute of an hundred talents of silver, and a talent of gold. And Pharaohnechoh made Eliakim the son of Josiah king in the room of Josiah his father, and turned his name to Jehoiakim, and took Jehoahaz away: and he came to Egypt, and died there. And Jehoiakim gave the silver and the gold to Pharaoh; but he taxed the land to give the money according to the commandment of Pharaoh: he exacted the silver and the gold of the people of the land, of every one according to his taxation, to give it unto Pharaohnechoh.

II Chronciles 35:20-35:4.
After all this, when Josiah had prepared the temple, Necho king of Egypt came up to fight against Carchemish by Euphrates: and Josiah went out against him. But he sent ambassadors to him, saying, What have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah? I come not against thee this day, but against the house wherewith I have war: for God commanded me to make haste: forbear thee from meddling with God, who is with me, that he destroy thee not. Nevertheless Josiah would not turn his face from him, but disguised himself, that he might fight with him, and hearkened not unto the words of Necho from the mouth of God, and came to fight in the valley of Megiddo. And the archers shot at king Josiah; and the king said to his servants, Have me away; for I am sore wounded. His servants therefore took him out of that chariot, and put him in the second chariot that he had; and they brought him to Jerusalem, and he died, and was buried in one of the sepulchres of his fathers. And all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah. And Jeremiah lamented for Josiah: and all the singing men and the singing women spake of Josiah in their lamentations to this day, and made them an ordinance in Israel: and, behold, they are written in the lamentations.-----Then the people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, and made him king in his father's stead in Jerusalem.----And the king of Egypt put him down at Jerusalem, and condemned the land in an hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold. And the king of Egypt made Eliakim his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem, and turned his name to Jehoiakim. And Necho took Jehoahaz his brother, and carried him to Egypt.

The same number of years that separate this event from Carchemish, separated Ramses II's first Syrian Campaign from his second. Which was his battle of "Kadesh".  Herdotus when referring to seemingly the same campaign of Necho mentions not Carchemish but a city called Cadytis which sounds like a Greek transliteration of Kadesh.

Herodotus (Book II: 158) says Necho II initiated but never completed the ambitious project of cutting a navigable canal from the Pelusiac branch of the Nile to the Red Sea. Necho's Canal was the earliest precursor of the Suez Canal.  Archaeology says Ramses II did that, and there is no evidence of any Suez Canal construction by any 26th Dynasty Pharaohs.

Supporters of the conventional chronology care a great deal about names. So Necho not being identical to Ramses is a big deal to them. But the Bible often refers to foreign leaders by code names or nicknames, sometimes being puns on a real name of theirs but maybe not always. 

Necho's Strongs Number is 5224 (Pharohnecho is 6549 near Pharaoh). Necho is similar to the Hebrew words Nekeh (5222 abject) or Nakeh (5223, Contrite, Lame), and also Nachon (5225) the name of an Israelite mentioned in 2 Samuel 6:6.

The Talmud implies somewhere Nehco was a Hebrew  nickname for that King meaning "The Lame One".  A source for this I now have, Page 93 of Disability and Isaiah's suffering Servant by Jeremy Shchiper.

The name is believed to reflect him having some sort of disability, perhaps one effecting his ability to walk.  From Wikipedia about Ramses II's Mummy.

In Paris, fungus was found attacking Ramesses's mummy and killed. During the examination, scientific analysis revealed battle wounds, old fractures, arthritis and poor circulation.

Ramesses II's arthritis is believed to have made him walk with a hunched back for the last decades of his life.^{[Bob Brier, The Encyclopedia of Mummies, Checkmark Books, 1998, p. 153.]} A recent study excludedankylosing spondylitis as a possible cause.^{[Can. Assoc. Radiol. J. 2004 Oct;55(4):211–7, PMID 15362343.]} 

 As far as Herodotus knowing him by the same name, he often got names wrong, and he was accused by Manetho and others of outright lying. Either directly or indirectly he could have heard the name from a Jewish source, or another Semitic one.  And then heard he was named after his grandfather and just assumed that was the same name he knew him by.

But if I wanted to look for Necho among Ramses known Egyptian names.   Pharaohs, especially Ramses, had many names, usually at least 5, but Ramses is known to have had many more.

Names Ramses II is known to have had
Hor “Falcon King”: Ka-nakht "Strong Bull”, Mery-Ma’at “Beloved of Truth"
Nebty “He of the Two Goddesses”:, Mek-Kemet "Protector of Egypt,” Waf-khasut “Who curbs foreign lands",
Hor-nub “Horus of Gold”: User-renput "Rich in Years,” Aa-nehktu “Great in Victories",
Nesu-bity (Insibya) “King of Upper & Lower Egypt”: User-maat-Re ("Strong in Right is Re") [Setep-en-Re "Chosen of Re"]
Se Re “Son of Re”: Rameses Mery-Amun “Beloved of Amun” [Nutjer-Heqa-Iunu "God, Ruler of Heliopolis"]

Leaving out Translations you get.

Hor: Ka-nakht Mery-Ma’at;
Nebty: Mek-Kemet Waf-khasut;
Hor-nub: User-renput Aa-nehktu;
Nesu-bity (Insibya): USER-MAAT-RE Setep-en-Re;
Se Re: RAMESES Mery-Amun Nutjer Heqa-Iunu.

Either nakht or nehktu could be the basis for Necho, especially if corrupted for the sake of a Hebraic pun.  This Egyptian epithet meant Mighty.

Supporters of conventional chronology love to insist that generally only the Insybya (USER-MAAT-RE Setep-en-Re for Ramses II) and Nomen (RAMESES Mery-Amun Nutjer Heqa-Iunu. for Ramses II) were ones the Pharaoh was generally refereed to by, especially by foreigners. But given our lack of total information that's frankly an assumption. Maybe scholars have decided that simply because those two names are often the ones that seem to fit conventional chronology.

They've also claimed my two potential Necho sources here are names all or most Pharaohs of the period had so it'd be useless in identifying which Pharaoh. Thing is I don't believe identification was the intent in the Biblical accounts at all, I believe both Biblical accounts were written soon after the events happened, their original readers would have known who without issue. Notice how Pharaoh and Necho are often put together as if they're one word Pharaohnecho.

In fact it's primarily because of The Bible modern society is so used to calling the rulers of Egypt Pharaoh.  That wasn't really a thing in ancient Egypt, the word Pharaoh comes from a title of the King's Royal Palace.  So it really was similar to referring to a United States Presidential administration as The White House.