Reflecting on the biblical Egyptology of Ron Wyatt’s wife, Mary Nell (Lee)

by Damien F. Mackey According to Mary Nell, Ron believed that he had been able to work out the complexities of Egyptian dynastic history in relation to the Bible only because God had enabled him to do so. Otherwise, it would have been impossible considering the intricacies of the subject. Yesterday, the eve of today’s feast-day of the Immaculate Conception (8th December, 2025), I came across a video by Mary Nell (Lee) Wyatt on the high official, Senenmut, of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty: NEW Discovery | Ron Wyatt Found Evidence For Moses In Egypt! Prior to this, Mary Nell Wyatt was for me just a name that I had seen associated with, as his wife, the well-known Ron Wyatt. Thus I was stunned to hear her expatiate at great length and fluency on Egyptology, from the First Dynasty all the way through to the Eighteenth, in relation to her large book: Battle for the Firstborn: The Exodus and the Death of Tutankhamen (2020). Mary Nell’s narrative, heavily based upon the research of her deceased husband, gives as plausible account as most have been able to do of biblical history, from Abram (Abraham) to Moses, in its relation to the Egyptian dynasties. And it is highly original. Apparently, before the pair (met or) married, Ron had lived in Hawaii and had there, in the library, voraciously devoured books on history. What enhances Mary Nell’s presentation is she herself, a very likeable person who can listen patiently to her interviewer’s questions – unlike some guest speakers who want to talk all the time, talk all over the interviewer, and, when they do pause to listen, ostensibly, seem tense and impatient to re-commence their diatribe. According to Mary Nell, Ron believed that he had been able to work out the complexities of Egyptian dynastic history in relation to the Bible only because God had enabled him to do so. Otherwise, it would have been impossible considering the intricacies of the subject. Now she, as Ron’s successor, believes that the model that she has laid out in her book is the correct one. + + + + + Today’s feast of the Immaculate Conception recalls the one human person (Jesus, though having a fully human nature, was a Divine Person) in history who was not deceived, over whom the Devil never had any dominance. It is one thing to say that we are instruments of the Holy Spirit, but are we really? Might we be deceiving ourselves – or allowing the Devil, the Father of Lies (John 8:44), to deceive us? I remember years ago being turned off Ron Wyatt when I read that he would come to some mound and go all rigid with the Holy Spirit, standing there and pointing at the mound, within which some great biblical discovery, presumably, was waiting to be revealed. His gullible followers would then hasten keenly to start digging there. But nothing ever seemed to come to fruition. At the fateful moment, for example, the Israeli authorities (or some other unforeseen situation) would intervene, preventing the team from continuing. Nothing was ever able to come to fruition. The fact of the matter was, there was no fruition! Apparently the state of Israel is quite prepared to let loose such Christian Zionist amateur archaeologist types to dig in areas of no significance, looking on benignly while the Christians hope to add to their ‘amazing’ discoveries of no significance: Christian Zionists a boon to Israel, but sadly mistaken about Final Coming and Third Temple (7) Christian Zionists a boon to Israel, but sadly mistaken about Final Coming and Third Temple Another key point that we need to consider in studies such as this is that there is a world of difference between knowledge and wisdom, which is an inspired gift of the Holy Spirit. Knowledge is, too, of course (cf. Isaiah 11:2), but here I am talking about knowledge in natural terms, as knowing a whole lot of stuff. Our academic world is full of purveyors of much stuff, but wisdom can often seem to be in very short supply: Trenchant Criticisms of the Academic World (5) Trenchant Criticisms of the Academic World There is nothing self-deceptive in the wise man – the wise woman, Mary Immaculate. Take the prophet Daniel, as an example. He knew by the power of the Holy Spirit that what he had interpreted in relation to King Nebuchednezzar’s Dream, a humanly impossible assignment, was absolutely correct, coming as it did from God (Daniel 2:45): “The dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy”. This is what the Wyatt’s appear to have been claiming, as well. But can the same be said, “true”, “trustworthy” for their admittedly impressive (at least superficially) biblical Egyptology? The prophet Daniel’s wisdom was built upon prayer and fasting, and strict obedience. And there was no self-seeking, or ego, in it. Once the ego takes over, and a reputation is gained, one may feel pressure to ‘doctor’ digging sites, to start planting artefacts, as Ron Wyatt has often been accused of doing. All in the name of God, of course: Abandonment of common sense, telling lies for God, not necessary prerequisites for biblical interpretation (4) Abandonment of common sense, telling lies for God, not necessary prerequisites for biblical interpretation Professor Ian Plimer is not the problem here! The Wyatt version of Egyptology I like the fact that Ron Wyatt had approached Egyptology from the point of view of covering the extensive biblical phase from Abram (Abraham) to Moses, rather than simply focussing upon just one segment, e.g. the Famine era of Joseph. A holistic approach. How well, though, does he and his wife’s Egyptological platform serve for setting up later major events, archaeologically and/or geographically verifiable, such as Joshua’s Conquest of Jericho, and Shishak of Egypt’s despoliation of the Temple of Yahweh? If it be a case of a Danielic type of inspiration from the Holy Spirit, then the whole thing must, like Nebuchednezzar’s Dream, fall lock, stock and barrel, right into place. Sadly, as we are going to find out, this will not be the case. Once again, there will be a lack of fruition, unlike: An accurate revision of history is a ‘tree’ bearing ample fruit (7) An accurate revision of history is a 'tree' bearing ample fruit And if such be so, then it cannot justifiably be claimed to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit. Abraham and Joseph Mary Nell gets off to a very good start, so I believe, by supposing Abraham to have lived at the beginning of Egyptian dynastic history, First or Second Dynasty. It gets even better with her identification of Joseph with the great Imhotep, who served Horus Netjerikhet, a Famine Pharaoh, of Egypt’s Third Dynasty. Creationist Patrick Clarke, who will locate Joseph during Egypt’s Eleventh Dynasty, will refer critically to the Wyatt thesis here in his article: “Joseph’s Zaphenath Paaneah—a chronological key” (JOURNAL OF CREATION 27(3) 2013 || VIEWPOINT): …. Wyatt creates far greater problems by linking Joseph to the famous Imhotep. …. Wyatt (using the conventional Egyptian chronology as the guide) must move Imhotep and Zoser around seven centuries nearer the birth of Christ. …. Given the unsuitability of the choices of pharaohs and names for Joseph above, is there a suitable pharaonic candidate who meets the biblical requirements? Mentuhotep II appears to meet these requirements perfectly, needing a movement of three centuries rather that the stress-inducing seven centuries required by Wyatt above. …. The fact is (my opinion) that, to identify Joseph and Moses, one needs to knit together, as one, several Egyptian dynasties, even kingdoms. Both Wyatt and Clarke are correct that (Wyatt) Joseph is the Third Dynasty Imhotep and (Clarke) that he belonged to the Eleventh Dynasty Famine era of Mentuhotep II. See how I have connected all this, and more, in my article: Symmetrical dynastic links for Famine Pharaoh and Joseph (4) Symmetrical dynastic links for Famine Pharaoh and Joseph But both Wyatt and Clarke are wrong, however, in naming the Third Dynasty (Famine) Pharaoh as Zoser (see my article again). As far back as 1987, Tom Chetwynd had opined that Joseph may have been Imhotep (“A Seven Year Famine in the Reign of King Djoser with Other Parallels between Imhotep and Joseph”, Catastrophism and Ancient History, Volume IX, Part I). Did the Wyatt’s come to this conclusion independently? That can happen. Whatever be the case, it would be nice as a general courtesy if writers would indicate whenever they had adopted an idea from someone else. Whilst listening to Mary Nell most capably deliver her long account of Egyptian history, I wondered at times what happened to certain very important dynasties or rulers. For instance – and perhaps she has dealt with this in her book – the mighty Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt did not seem to get any reasonable mention at all. This, I believe, to have been the very dynasty (or one of them, as merging is necessary) that had begun the Oppression of Israel when Moses was born: Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty oppressed Israel (6) Egypt's Twelfth Dynasty oppressed Israel Mary Nell scoots through a whole swathe of dynasties and ends up in the Seventeenth, with Pharaoh Kamose as her first Oppressor King of Israel (cf. Exodus 1:8). This is a startlingly long jump from Imhotep as Joseph, in Egypt’s Third Dynasty (c. 2600 BC, conventional dating) to the infancy of Moses presumably under Kamose (c. 1550 BC, conventional dating). Biblically estimated, Moses was born only about 65 years after the death of Joseph. And now for the intriguing identification of Moses as the high Eighteenth Dynasty official, Senenmut – a view that has become extremely popular in recent times – with Moses’s Egyptian foster-mother as Hatshepsut. Bizarrely, Mary Nell chooses to identify the male Senenmut in statues as a female: Quite missing from her treatment of the Eighteenth Dynasty (at least in the video) is another much favoured candidate for Moses, the monotheistic pharaoh, Akhnaton. I do not recall Mary Nell even mentioning him. After Akhnaton came the famous Tutankhamun, Pharaoh’s ill-fated first born (see title of Mary Nell’s book). Actually, Smenkhkare is considered to have been Tutankhamun’s older brother, and apparently his features, and not those of Tutankhamun, are what adorn the royal mask. (Mary Nell claims that these are Tut’s father’s features): Tut’s famous middle coffin probably belonged to his predecessor Smenkhkare (6) Tut's famous middle coffin probably belonged to his predecessor Smenkhkare Dr. I. Velikovsky’s intuitive (though not properly worked out) identifications of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty, with, respectively, the biblical Queen of Sheba and King Shishak (Ages in Chaos, I, 1952), are far preferable, I would think, to Mary Nell’s admittedly intriguing and original scenario. And I was able in 1997 to include the addition of Senenmut, as (not Mary Nell’s Moses) King Solomon in Egypt (pairing with the Queen of Sheba, Hatshepsut): Solomon and Sheba (8) Solomon and Sheba All of this segues very nicely into Dr. Velikovsky’s thesis that pharaoh Thutmose III (Shishak), in his Year 22-23 (First Campaign) despoiled the Temple in Jerusalem, about 5 years after the death of King Solomon. The chronology is virtually exact, locking in, as it does, with Senenmut’s (as Solomon) fading from the Egyptian records around Year 16 (of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III). Dr. Velikovsky had made quite a mess, though, of putting together the geography of Thutmose III’s campaign unto Jerusalem, which I hope to have rectified in articles such as: Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III’s march on Jerusalem (6) Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III's march on Jerusalem I do not know if Mary Nell’s version of Egyptian history has projected this far ahead. But why I do know that the Egyptological reconstruction of the Wyatt’s is faulty, and thus not locked in as “trustworthy” by the Holy Spirit, is because any New Kingdom reconstruction of the Exodus will have as its consequence the sore fact that, when Joshua will arrive at Jericho, there will be no city there for him to attack. As I wrote in my article (favouring that holistic approach): From Raamses to the ‘Sea of Reeds’ (8) From Raamses to the 'Sea of Reeds' …. Why the new Kingdom is totally inappropriate While, superficially, a New Kingdom (Eighteenth or Nineteenth Dynasty) setting for the Exodus might appear to fit the bill, it would actually cause far more problems than it may seemingly manage to solve. For it is not sufficient simply to grab a particular phase out of history and claim that it attaches nicely to a biblical event. The Bible records a long, developing history which necessitates that the whole thing be fitted into an historical and archaeological framework. If, for instance, one were to take Ramses II as the Pharaoh of the Exodus, one would then need to be able to situate, each into its own proper place, Joseph and the Famine at an earlier phase of Egyptian history, and, then, Abram (Abraham), before Joseph. On this note, Dr. John Osgood has rightly, in a recent article (2024): https://assets.answersresearchjournal.org/doc/v17/ jericho_dating_joshuas_conquest_of_canaan_comments_osgood.pdf Answers Research Journal 17 (2024): 221–222, “The Walls of Jericho: Dating Joshua’s Conquest of Canaan—Comments”, expressed his ‘amazement’ when those involved in biblico-historical reconstructions exclude “a whole saga of history”: …. Habermehl tells us that “we note that the Bible does not say that Hiel built a city, but only a wall.” Really, then what do the words “Hiel of Bethel built Jericho” mean? It had a foundation (not specifically of a wall) and it had gates (1 Kings 16:34). But the archaeologists have clearly and categorically found a large city during Middle Bronze on the site of Jericho and therefore before Hiel. That city needs an explanation, as it won’t go away. This is where I am amazed at the blindness of both conventional and revisionist discussions, as if the pages of the book of Judges are stuck together and a whole saga of history is excluded. Namely, there was the attack on Jericho, the city of palm trees, by Eglon of Moab, and for 20 years that site was occupied by 10,000 of his troops (Judges 3:12– 30, see also Deuteronomy 34:3; Judges 1:16; 2 Chronicles 28:15—the city of palm trees). …. [End of quote] Nor will it be sufficient to focus only upon Egypt – though that nation was, admittedly, the main power during the biblical era from the patriarchs Abram (Abraham) to Moses. Mesopotamia, Syria, Canaan, and so on, must likewise be properly accounted for, both historically and archaeologically. Key to a biblico-historical synthesis will obviously be the Conquest of Canaan and its centrepiece, the Fall of Jericho, which outstanding episode should be archaeologically verifiable. Pharaoh Ramses II may indeed have had his wonderful horses and chariots, but, for those who hold him to have been the Pharaoh of the Exodus, these are now faced with a Late Bronze Age (LBA) archology for the Conquest, and for Jericho, that is hopelessly inadequate. Much has been written about this. Stuart Zachary Steinberg briefly sums it up here: Redating the Conquest of the Promised Land | by Stuart Zachary Steinberg | Medium “For nearly 150 years the conquest by the Israelites has been dated to the Late Bronze Age. The reason for that has been primarily placing the Exodus in the Late Kingdom to have Raamses II as the pharaoh of the Exodus, to correspond with Exodus where it states that the children of Israel built the store cities of Pithom and Raamses. The problem is that there are nearly no correspondence[s] between the destruction of various cities and archaeology in the Late Bronze Age (LBA). Most [of] the cities mentioned do not exist or were destroyed much earlier. Case in point is Jericho. During the Late Bronze Age there was no city at Jericho for Joshua to destroy”. This is the dire situation that confronts the conventional scholars and whoever else might look to situate the Exodus at the time of Egypt’s New Kingdom. The high point of the Conquest of Canaan by Joshua was the destruction of Jericho, whose walls famously fell down. However: “During the Late Bronze Age there was no city at Jericho for Joshua to destroy”. Boom, boom. This is that lack of fruition, again – no lock, stock and barrel co-ordination.

Barry Setterfield’s Egyptian chronology for Joseph, the Oppression and Exodus

by Damien F. Mackey “Finally, Josephus actually gives us information about the Exodus as does Artapanus, the Egyptian historian. The story is actually amazing. Moses had been the Commander in charge of the Egyptian military, and had led an expedition south and extended Egypt's territory 200 miles into Nubia. This was a unique event, and the troops sought to make him pharaoh instead of Khaneferre (Sobekhotep IV) who had married Merris (the daughter of Pharaoh Palmonothes who rescued him from the river)”. Barry Setterfield ________________________________________ Introducing Barry Setterfield Paul Romano tells us something about him: Introducing Barry Setterfield — New Life Magazine We are thrilled to announce that NewLife Magazine has a new addition to our team of talented contributors! Joining us is Barry Setterfield. With an impressive background in various fields including physics, astronomy, and theology, Barry Setterfield brings a wealth of knowledge and deep insights to NewLife's diverse range of topics. We are excited to welcome Barry Setterfield to NewLife Magazine family, and we cannot wait to see the impact his contributions will have on our readership! … Barry John Setterfield was born 15th April, 1942 in Northam, Western Australia, to Salvation Army parents. His high school results earned him a full Commonwealth Scholarship for university where he majored in physics and geology and minored in mathematics and chemistry. Because of a family crisis in 1964 and an acute attack of a genetic disease, Barry had to quit university and so has no formal degree. On March 8th 1964 he accepted Christ as his Saviour. Early in 1965 he was asked by the Astronomical Society of South Australia (ASSA) to prepare for publication the research of the recently deceased Government Astronomer for South Australia, George Dodwell. From 1966 to 1971 he lectured in Astronomy for the ASSA, as well as presenting astronomy to schools, colleges and scout groups. In August 1987 he co-authored a Report for Stanford Research Institute (SRI) International on the changing values of the constants of physics. This led to his ongoing research into the effects on these constants caused by the expansion of the universe. …. During this time, he was invited to speak on a variety of biblical topics at churches and Bible colleges in Australia. In October of 2000 he married Helen (Penny) Fryman, and they presented on both bible topics and the implications of Barry’s research internationally. Barry & Penny settled in Grants Pass, Oregon, where Barry was appointed Director of the New Hope Observatory and taught astronomy at both a Christian school there as well as presenting by invitation at a secular college. He and Penny have regular Bible studies at their home as well as a monthly pastors meeting where the Bible and current events are discussed and the notes emailed internationally. [End of quote] His interests in Science and Time Although a Creationist, Barry Setterfield appears to be a highly original thinker, with certain views that would not be standard fare amongst Creationists. I first heard about him in the 1980’s, I think, when his views on the velocity of Light not being a constant were making waves, so to speak: The Atomic Constants, Light, And Time Barry Setterfield suggests that the velocity of light may not be constant and could be decreasing over time. His research indicates that all constants that carry units of per second have been decreasing since the beginning of the universe, with the velocity of light being one of the most established cases. Setterfield's hypothesis has been supported by statistical analyses, which indicate no significant variation in the velocity of light over the last 300 years. However, this hypothesis has faced criticism and has not been widely accepted in the scientific community. I, having been an ardent fan of Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky in those days, particularly his historical revision, was then somewhat interested, too, in his catastrophism, which figures in Barry Setterfield’s research. Recently, I explained very briefly to a 90+ year-old lady in Brisbane (Australia) – who is a real enthusiast of astronomy and physics, having tremendous knowledge in these areas – who drew my attention to Barry Setterfield again, why my interest in scientific catastrophism had fallen right off: … Probably why I tended to drift away from Barry Setterfield … was due to his Catastrophism, which I initially liked following Dr. Velikovsky. I used to follow the latter holus bolus, in his history and (so-called) science. Later, I came to reject his Catastrophism. For one, there was no indication whatsoever in the OT that Venus had played any sort of backdrop role in the Plagues and Exodus. But, more meaningfully for me, Mars was not the cause of the zapping of the 185,000 Assyrian army. Judith was. It was not a cosmic zapping, but a rout (as is clear from Isaiah), set in train by Judith's slaying of “Holofernes” (Sennacherib's oldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, the Nadin/Nadab of the Book of Tobit 14:10). …. Another area where I would not be in agreement with Barry Setterfield is with his use of the long biblical chronology (Septuagint), which cancels out Shem, son of Noah, from being Melchizedek (as according to Hebrew Tradition); and which necessitates a four-century sojourn of Israel in Egypt. While I, following the likes of Drs. Courville and Velikovsky, have sought to fix an over-extended Egyptian chronology to the much shorter biblical one, Barry Setterfield, on the other hand, with his unique adding of supposed biblical catastrophes (A Brief Earth History: A Brief Earth History), has now tied Egyptian dynastic history to his much enlarged biblical chronology. Thus he would have pharaoh Khufu (Cheops) and the Pyramid Age around 2550 BC, corresponding closely to the conventional system. I, on the other hand, have Khufu as the “new king” of Exodus 1:8, at close to 1550 BC, a millennium later. However, despite, our entirely different approaches, our Egypto-biblical models actually meet in several major places. Let us consider these. His biblico-Egyptology Barry Setterfield writes: Egypt and Exodus There are always a number of questions about the Exodus of the Israelites from ancient Egypt. Here are two of them regarding two different articles: Amenhotep II and the Historicity of the Exodus Pharaoh and A New Chronology which Barry has been asked about in two separate emails. Amenhotep II and the Historicity of the Exodus Pharaoh Mackey’s comment: Thankfully, Barry has rejected the highly unsuitable identification of the Pharaoh of the Exodus with Amenhotep II, which has become quite popular lately. Here, though, he shows his preference for the Septuagint chronology which I believe is far too long. Thanks for the link, which is appreciated. Unfortunately, there are a number of problems with both the dating and the Pharaoh of the Exodus here. First, the author is using the Masoretic text which originated at the Council of Jamnia about 100 AD. This was not the text used by Christ, the Apostles nor by the Ante-Nicene Fathers. The preferred text was the same as the Alexandrian Septuagint. This gives a significantly longer chronology back to Adam and allows for all the Egyptian Dynasties to be accounted for basically in the dates currently accepted by most archaeologists. The Masoretic text for the Old Testament, which all our modern Bibles have, does not allow that to happen. As a result, generations of Christian archaeologists have spent their lives trying to re-date Egyptian dynasties in order to bring them into conformity with the Masoretic text. This is entirely unnecessary if the Septuagint (LXX) text is used. Mackey’s comment: Barry will now ‘swing and a miss’ with his identification of the biblical “Shishak” as Ramses III. Dr. Velikovsky’s identification with Thutmose III is, I believe, far preferable. Secondly, mention is made of the fact that Pharaoh Sheshonq I is actually mentioned in our Bibles as Shishak. This again is an artifact of the Masoretic text. The LXX actually states that this pharaoh is Shushaqkim. Shishak is a shortening of this title to Shushaq. This was the Horus name for Ramesses III. Since this is fixed as being the name of the pharaoh who invaded Israel on the death of Solomon, all Biblical-Egyptological chronologies need to take note of this fact. The current authors do not do that. So the exodus event in Egyptian history needs re-evaluation. Third. much is made of the fact that 1Kings 6:1 gives us accurate information. There is an unfortunate aspect to this. That time-listing actually drops over 100 years from the record of Israelite history in the time of the Judges when Israel was under the control of foreign kings and out of fellowship with God. The early church recognised this and it is actually hinted at in Stephen's speech to the Sanhedrin in Acts 7. This passage has posed a problem for those who ignore what has been called the "Omission Principle" whereby years out of fellowship with God are omitted from the record. When these things are factored in, a much earlier date for the exodus is obtained. Mackey’s comment: Here, Barry gives his rationale for his much earlier than usual date for the Exodus, at 1603 BC, when c. 1450 BC would be more common amongst conservative biblical scholars. Fourth, the date which results from the study in the URL gives a date for the entry into Canaan under Joshua which disagrees with most of the archaeological data. As a result, many Christian archaeologists try to find "problems" with the archaeology that has been done by "unbelievers". Fifth, the use of Jubilee cycles has been shown to be notoriously unreliable. The Talmud and its suggestions for these cycles was written after the Babylonian captivity and they were making guesses based on tradition. Finally, Josephus actually gives us information about the Exodus as does Artapanus, the Egyptian historian. The story is actually amazing. Moses had been the Commander in charge of the Egyptian military, and had led an expedition south and extended Egypt's territory 200 miles into Nubia. This was a unique event, and the troops sought to make him pharaoh instead of Khaneferre (Sobekhotep IV) who had married Merris (the daughter of Pharaoh Palmonothes who rescued him from the river). Mackey’s comment: Amazingly, despite our quite different methodologies and chronologies, Barry and I will arrive at the same conclusion, that pharaoh Khaneferre Sobekhotep was the traditional “Chenephres” (Artapanus). But this is only one of my many identifications for this “Chenephres”, beginning with Chephren, son of Khufu, of the Fourth Dynasty (Pyramid Age), which Barry has way back in c. 2550 BC. See e.g. my article: ‘Chenephres’ drives Moses out of Egypt (2) 'Chenephres' drives Moses out of Egypt For this reason, Khaneferre sought an excuse to get rid of Moses, so that when Moses killed the Egyptian, Pharaoh had an excuse, and Moses went into exile. Mackey’s comment: Whereas Barry (as apparently with Dr. David Rohl) has Dudimose as the Pharaoh of the Exodus, my own preference is for the slightly earlier Neferhotep so-called I, of the same Thirteenth Dynasty. The Exodus was then in the reign of Dudimose II (Djedneferre), and what followed immediately was the 2nd Intermediate Period in Egyptian history when the Asian Hyksos marched into Egypt and took the country "without a single battle" as Manetho records. The escaping Israelites also met these "Hyksos", and the Bible calls them the Amalekites. The date of the Exodus then becomes 1603 BC from all these considerations, not 1440 BC or thereabouts as these other authors suggest. Furthermore, we have the history of Egypt to agree with that since the Ipuwer Papyrus tells of the 10 plagues suffered by Egypt just before the Hyksos came in. EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY & THE BIBLE Years B.C. (BCE) Pharaohs/ Events 2067- 2047 Mentuhotpe I (Thebes only) begins 11th Dynasty 2047-1603 The Middle Kingdom begins when Mentuhotpe united all Egypt under his control 2047-2016 Mentuhotpe I (united kingdom until his death) 2041 Joseph made Prime Minister at age 30 by Pharaoh Mentuhotpe I 2032 Israel enters Egypt 2016-2004 Mentuhotep II 2015 Israel (Jacob) dies; Joseph could not approach Pharaoh to bury Jacob --Genesis 50:4 2004-1997 Mentuhotep III Twelth Dynasty begins Amenemhet I usurps Throne – strongly anti-Semitic – oppression starts; oppression continues for about 400 years, as prophesied 1961 Joseph dies sometime after 1783 13th Dynasty Starts 1683 Moses born during the reign of Pharaoh Palmonothes whose daughter Merris rescued Moses (Prince Mousos) about 1650 Moses commander for Pharaoh Khaneferre (Sobekhotep IV) whom Merris had married 1643 Moses exiled from Egypt during Moses' exile Sobekhotep V (Kha’hotepre) Aya (Merneferre) Mentuemzaf (Djed’ankhre) Dudimose II (Djedneferre) 1603. Exodus in time of Dudimose II (Djedneferre) 1603 - 1532 Second Intermediate Period Begins Hyksos invade, take over, no battle Mackey’s comment: Amazingly, once again, Barry and I have several concurrences: Joseph in the Eleventh Dynasty, at the time of a Mentuhotep; Amenemhet I as the Oppressor Pharaoh (identical with Khufu, see above); and Moses a commander for Khaneferre Sobekhotep. Barry continues on with his long chronology. It is certainly true that the Septuagint currently appears to give the time of 430 years as the total time of the Children of Israel in both Canaan and Egypt. We will deal with the reason for this shortly. However, the implication is that this time is counted from the time of the entry of Abram into the Canaan unto the Exodus. This leaves about 215 years for the sojourn in Egypt, and many chronologists have accepted that as a fact uncritically. However, the debate is ongoing and has basically been fueled by the LXX as the link you gave makes plain. ….

King David’s Hymnody impacted ancient world

by Damien F. Mackey “Psalm 104 is almost a duplicate of the Egyptian Hymn to Aten”. Facts About Religion There is an abundance of articles, and some YouTube videos, too, drawing parallels between the incredibly alike Psalm 104 of King David of Israel and pharaoh Akhnaton’s (Akhenaten’s) Hymn to the Aton (Aten). The following example neatly tabulates comparisons between these ancient texts: https://factsaboutreligion.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/psalm-104-is-almost-a-duplicate-of-the-egyptian-hymn-to-aten/ Psalm 104 is almost a duplicate of the Egyptian Hymn to Aten. On the wall of a 14th century BCE tomb in Egypt archaeologists found a beautiful hymn to the god Aten. What is really strange is that the Pharaoh Akhenaten (1352-1336) who lived in an era when everyone believed in many gods, chose to believe in only one, Aten. In fact, many scholars have argued that Pharaoh Akhenaten is the earliest documented example of a monotheist in history, though others argue that he was a henotheist (thought many gods existed, but chose to worship only one.) What’s really curious about the Great Hymn to the Aten is that it closely mirrors Psalm 104 in the Hebrew Bible as a song of praise to the creator, though written hundreds of years before. Biblical scholars and historians disagree as to whether these two hymns are actually related by way of influencing one another, or whether both were independently written. In any case, the similarities are fascinating. A logical conclusion could be that King David (c. 1000 BC) was indebted to Akhnaton, more than three centuries before David, for the inspiration to compose his Psalm 104. Some would put it more bluntly. It was a case of plagiarism on the part of the Bible! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDI3cMDzqEY Biblical Plagariasm? | Akhenaten’s Hymn to Aten Vs. Psalm 104 | Audiobook And so we must suppose it must have been - that is, until Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky turned things upside down and inside out in his Ages in Chaos (1952) and Oedipus and Akhnaton (1960) reconstructions of ancient history, demonstrating that pharaoh Akhnaton actually belonged to the C9th BC, rather than to the C14th - necessitating now that King David could not possibly have known about Akhnaton and his Hymn, whose advents were still some centuries in the future. From this superior chronological base, Dr. Velikovsky was able most convincingly to identify a succession of Syrian (Amurru) kings approximately contemporaneous with Akhnaton and the El Amarna (EA) age, Abdi-ashirta and Aziru, with, respectively, Ben-Hadad and his successor Hazael – two mighty Syrian kings well known from the Old Testament. This was an aspect of Dr. Velikovsky’s challenging revision that was very well received. Already, his new revision (written far earlier than today’s so-called New Chronology), was proving itself to be fruitful. See my recent article: An accurate revision of history is a ‘tree’ bearing ample fruit (5) An accurate revision of history is a 'tree' bearing ample fruit And it doesn’t stop there. I, building on this far preferable chronology for Akhnaton and the El Amarna (EA) period, have been able to show that Dr. Velikovsky’s Aziru/Hazael composite was the same ruler as the Syrian ‘condottiere’, Arsa (Irsu)/Aziru, of the Great Harris Papyrus, who invaded Egypt and who overthrew the gods there. AI Overview “The "Arsa (Irsu)" or Aziru mentioned in the Great Harris Papyrus is a Syrian who took control of Egypt and its gods …”. Dr. Velikovsky had really missed a trick here. From there, it not such a great step to identify the foreign invader, Aziru/Hazael/Arsa, as pharaoh Akhnaton himself who so greatly undermined the national Egyptian gods. And, as one will find upon reading my article: Akhnaton’s Theophany (5) Akhnaton's Theophany the new chronology cuts even deeper yet, into the Bible, fully accounting for Akhnaton’s celebrated monotheism – for monotheism (not henotheism, or something else) indeed it was. With EA re-located now to the C9th BC, then the United Kingdom of Israel (Saul, David and Solomon, c. 1000 BC) could be estimated by Dr. Velikovsky to have corresponded in time with the rise of the magnificent Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt (c. C16th BC, conventional dating) – in whose later stages we encounter Akhnaton. Relevant for this article is Dr. Velikovsky’s establishing of twin pillars of revision: Hatshepsut as the biblical “Queen Sheba” and pharaoh Thutmose III as the biblical “Shishak king of Egypt”, who despoiled the Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem shortly after King Solomon had passed away. These twin identifications have had to undergo a rocky ground-breaking of trial and error, however, before they could be securely established as pillars of revision. For Dr. Velikovsky, an intuitive genius who could arrive at right identifications, often took quite wrong paths, adopting spurious methodologies and archaeologies, to get there. Quite the opposite of some of his critics, who, fussing over and analysing minute details, and belabouring the reader with endless charts and numbers, hardly ever seem to arrive at any satisfactory conclusions. For my same conclusions as Dr. Velikovsky in these two instances, but with significantly different arguments, see e.g., for “Sheba”: The vicissitudinous life of Solomon’s pulchritudinous wife (8) The vicissitudinous life of Solomon's pulchritudinous wife and: The Queen of Beer(sheba) (8) The Queen of Beer(sheba) While, for “Shishak”, see: Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III’s march on Jerusalem (8) Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III's march on Jerusalem That background sets us up, now, to consider Davidic (Solomonic) and biblical influence in the inscriptions of Hatshepsut, who had grown up as a princess in Israel. In my article: Solomon and Sheba (8) Solomon and Sheba I gave the following examples in which biblical wisdom can be glimpsed amidst the stiff and formulaïc Egyptian inscriptions: …. Scriptural Influence (i) An Image from Genesis After Hatshepsut had completed her Punt expedition, she gathered her nobles and proclaimed the great things she had done. Senenmut and Nehesi had places of honour. Hatshepsut reminded them of Amon's oracle commanding her to ‘... establish for him a Punt in his house, to plant the trees of God's Land beside his temple in his garden, according as he commanded’ …. At the conclusion of her speech there is further scriptural image ‘I have made for [Amon-Ra] a Punt in his garden at Thebes ... it is big enough for him to walk about in’; Baikie … noted that this is ‘a phrase which seems to take one back to the Book of Genesis and its picture of God walking in the Garden of Eden in the cool of the evening’. This inscription speaks of Amon-Ra's love for Hatshepsut in terms almost identical to those used by the Queen of Sheba about the God of Israel's love for Solomon and his nation. Compare the italicised parts of Hatshepsut's ‘... according to the command of ... Amon ... in order to bring for him the marvels of every country, because he so much loves the King of ... Egypt, Maatkara [i.e. Hatshepsut], for his father Amen-Ra, Lord of Heaven, Lord of Earth, more than the other kings who have been in this land for ever ...’ …. with the italicised words in a song of praise spoken to Solomon by the Queen of Sheba ‘Blessed be the Lord your God, who has delighted in you and set you on the throne as king for the Lord your God! Because your God loved Israel and would establish them for ever ...’ (II Chronicles 98) …. (ii) An Image from the Psalms When Hatshepsut's commemorative obelisks were com¬pleted, she had the usual formal words inscribed on them. However, Baikie states that …: ‘The base inscriptions ... are of more importance, chiefly because they again strike that personal note which is so seldom heard from these ancient records, and give us an actual glimpse into the mind and the heart of a great woman. I do not think that it is fanciful to see in these utterances the expression of something very like a genuine piety struggling to find expression underneath all the customary verbiage of the Egyptian monumental formulae’. In language that ‘might have come straight out of the Book Psalms’, the queen continues, ‘I did it under [Amon-Ra's] command; it was he who led me. I conceived no works without his doing .... I slept not because of his temple; I erred not from that which he commanded. ... I entered into the affairs of his heart. I turned not my back on the City of the All-Lord; but turned to it the face. I know that Karnak is God's dwelling upon earth; ... the Place of his Heart; Which wears his beauty ...’. Baikie continues, unaware that it really was the Psalms and the sapiential words of David and Solomon, that had influenced Hatshepsut's prayer: ‘The sleepless eagerness of the queen for the glory of the temple of her god, and her assurance of the unspeakable sanctity of Karnak as the divine dwelling-place, find expression in almost the very words which the Psalmist used to express his ... duty towards the habitation of the God of Israel, and his certainty of Zion's sanctity as the abiding-place of Jehovah. ‘Surely I will not come into the tabernacle of my house, nor go up into my bed; I will not give sleep to mine eyes, or slumber to mine eyelids. Until I find out a place for the Lord, an habitation for the mighty God of Jacob. - For the Lord hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation. This is my rest for ever; here will I dwell; for I have desired it’.’ (iii) An Image from Proverbs In another related verse of the Punt reliefs about Amon-Ra leading the expedition to ‘the Myrrh-terraces ... a glorious region of God's Land’, the god speaks of creating the fabled Land of Punt in playful terms reminiscent of Solomon's words about Wisdom's playful rôle in the work of Creation (Proverbs 8:12, 30-31). In the Egyptian version there is also reference to Hathor, the personification of wisdom …: ‘... it is indeed a place of delight. I have made it for myself, in order to divert my heart, together with ... Hathor ... mistress of Punt …’. Interestingly, the original rôles of Hathor and Isis in the Heliopolitan ‘theology’ were similar to those of Moses's sister and mother (the god Horus reminding of Moses). Grimal … says ‘Isis hid Horus in the marshes of the Delta ... with the help of the goddess Hathor, the wet-nurse in the form of a cow. The child grew up ...’. In The Queen of Sheba - Hatshepsut, I had compared this Egyptian account with the action of Moses's mother and sister in Exodus 2:3-4, 7, 10. (iv) Images from the Song of Songs In the weighing scene of the goods acquired from Punt (i.e. Lebanon), Hatshepsut boasts ….: ‘[Her] Majesty [herself] is acting with her two hands, the best of myrrh is upon all her limbs, her fragrance is divine dew, her odour is mingled with that of Punt, her skin is gilded with electrum, shining as do the stars in the midst of the festival-hall, before the whole land’. Compare this with verses from King Solomon's love poem, Song of Songs (also called the Song of Solomon), e.g. ‘My hands dripped with myrrh, my fingers with liquid myrrh; Sweeter your love than wine, the scent of your perfume than any spice; Your lips drip honey, and the scent of your robes is like the scent of Lebanon’ (4:10-11; 55). (cf. 4:6, 14; 5:1, 5). [Hyam] Maccoby … went so far as to suggest that the Song of Songs was written by Solomon for the Queen of Sheba/Hatshepsut. Clearly, the poem is written in the context of marriage (e.g. 3:11). We read, partly following Maccoby …: l. ‘To a mare among Pharaoh's cavalry would 1 compare you, my darling’ (1:9). This reference to Egypt is strange for an Israelite girl, but natural if the beloved was an Egyptian. 2. ‘Black am I but beautiful, O daughters of Jerusalem, like the tents of Qedar, like the curtains of Solomon. Do not gaze at me because I am swarthy, because the sun has blackened me’ (16). A darker complexion would not be surprising in an Egyptian woman. 3. Perhaps the sentence ‘Who is she that cometh out of the wilderness ... perfumed with myrrh and frankincense, with all the fragrant powders of the merchant?’ (3:6), refers to the visit by the Queen of Sheba, who brought a great store of perfumes. She gave Solomon ‘a very great store of spices ... there came no more such abundance of spices as these which the Queen of Sheba gave to King Solomon’ (I Kings 10:10). 4. ‘My mother's sons were angry with me. They made me the keeper of the vineyards, but mine own vineyard I have not kept’ (1:6). It is a puzzle that the female here is represented as a humble vineyard-watcher but elsewhere she appears as a great lady. Maybe here she is speaking metaphorically about her country (and her native reli¬gion?) as a ‘vineyard’? The anger of her ‘brothers’ would be understandable, perhaps, if she were a princess of Egypt. Her involvement with Solomon would have unwelcome politi-cal and religious implications. 5. ‘O that you were as my brother ... I would lead you and bring you to my mother's house’ (8:1-2). She perhaps regrets that Solomon is not an Egyptian, who could live permanently with her. What has been presented here probably represents only a very small portion of Israel’s wisdom influence upon the ancient nations. The only other theme that I shall touch on here, most relevant to King David of Israel, is the notion of the king as shepherd. I have already written something about this in my article: Shepherd King contemporaries of King David (10) Shepherd King contemporaries of King David And compare this one: “Prince Rim-Sîn, you are the shepherd, the desire of his heart”, with the shepherd David’s being “a man after my own heart” (Acts 13:22). CONTEMPORARY SHEPHERD KINGS One could describe David’s life during his service to King Saul, as, ‘never a dull moment’. King Saul was indeed a mercurial character, totally unpredictable. Naturally, Samuel had been nervous about visiting Jesse of Bethlehem for the purpose of anointing one of his sons to the kingship (I Samuel 16:1-2): The LORD said to Samuel, ‘How long will you mourn for Saul, since I have rejected him as king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and be on your way; I am sending you to Jesse of Bethlehem. I have chosen one of his sons to be king’. But Samuel said, ‘How can I go? If Saul hears about it, he will kill me’. Even the wise Samuel had been inclined to judge by appearances (“height”) the worth of Jesse’s sons (v. 6): “When they arrived, Samuel saw Eliab and thought, ‘Surely the LORD’s anointed stands here before the LORD’.” But, in an interesting glimpse into the Lord’s thinking, we then read (v. 7): “But the LORD said to Samuel, ‘Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart’.” Had not Saul himself, who would so miserably fail as king, been a man of the most striking height and appearance (I Samuel 9:2): “Kish had a son named Saul, as handsome a young man as could be found anywhere in Israel, and he was a head taller than anyone else”? David, the youngest of Jesse’s eight sons, was not even present (v. 11): “‘There is still the youngest’, Jesse answered. ‘He is tending the sheep’.” It is this characteristic that would mark David’s kingship, ‘tending his sheep’. He was, like Jesus Christ, a true “Shepherd King”, modelling himself upon “the Lord [who was his] Shepherd” (Psalm 22, Douay). Kings at this time (revised) came to describe themselves from this time onwards as Shepherds. For example (Hammurabi Stele): I, Hammurabi, the shepherd, have gathered abundance and plenty, have stormed the four quarters of the world, have magnified the fame of Babylon, and have elated the mind of Marduk my lord. And compare this one: “Prince Rim-Sîn, you are the shepherd, the desire of his heart”, with the shepherd David’s being “a man after my own heart” (Acts 13:22). Rim-Sin, king of Larsa, was an older contemporary of Hammurabi of Babylon. Rim-sin’s prayerful sentiments can be very David-like – even quasi-monotheistic: “-7......, who is fitted for holy lustration rites, Rim-Sîn, purification priest of An, who is fitted for pure prayers rites, whom you summoned from the holy womb ......, has been elevated to lordship over the Land; he has been installed as shepherd over the black-headed. The staff which strengthens the Land has been placed in his hand. The shepherd's crook which guides the living people has been attached at his side. As he steps forward before you, he is lavishly supplied with everything that he offers with his pure hands. 8-20Your attentive youth, your beloved king, the good shepherd Rìm-Sîn, who determines what should be brought as offerings for his life, joyfully pours out offerings for you in the holy royal cultic locations which are perfect for the cultic vessels: sweet-smelling milk and grain, rich produce of the Land, riches of the meadows, unending abundance, alcoholic drink, glistening wine, very sweet emmer beer fermented with pure substances, pure ...... powerful beer made doubly strong with wine, a drink for your lordship; double-strength beer, superior beer, befitting your holy hands, pale honey exported from the mountains, which you have specifically requested, butter from holy cows, ghee as is proper for you as prince; pressed oil, best oil of the first pressing, and yellow cream, the pride of the cow-pen, for the holy abode of your godhead. 21-26Accept from him with your joyful heart pure food to eat as food, and pure water to drink as water: offerings made for you. Grant his prayer: you are indeed respected. When he humbly speaks fair words to you, speak so that he may live. Guide him correctly at the holy lordly cultic locations, at the august lordly cultic locations. Greet him as he comes to perform his cultic functions. 27-37May his kingship exist forever in your presence. May he be the first of the Land, called (?) lord and prince. Following your commands he shall be as unshakeable as heaven and earth; may he be ...... over the numerous people. May the mother goddesses among the gods attend to his utterances; may they sit in silence before that which he says, and bring restorative life. May he create heart's joy for the population, and be the good provider for their days. May the terrifying splendour that he wears cover like a heavy raincloud the king who is hated by him. May all the best what he has be brought here as their offerings. 38-52The good shepherd Rim-Sîn looks to you as to his personal god. Grant him ...... a life that he loves, and bestow joy on him. May you renew it like the daylight. As he prays to you, attend to his ....... When he speaks most fair words to you, sustain his life power for him. May he be respected ......, and have no rivals. As he makes supplication to you, make his days long. In the ...... of life, ...... the power of kingship. May his correct words be ever ....... May he create heart's joy in his ....... ...... make the restorative ...... rest upon him, the lion of lordship. When he beseeches you, let his exterior (?) ...... shine. Give him ...... life ....... May you bring ...... for his life with your holy words. Hear him favourably as he lifts his hands in prayer, and decide a good destiny for him. 53-69As his life ......, so may it delight his land. Cast the four quarters at his feet, and let him be their ruler. Reclining in meadows in his own land, may he pass his days joyously with you ....... In the palace, lengthen the days and reign of Rim-Sîn, your compliant king who is there for you; whose name you, Acimbabbar, have named, ...... life. ...... the august good headdress. ...... due praise for his life. ...... the throne, and may the land be safe. May satisfaction and joy fill his heart. May ...... be good for his ....... Place in his hand the sceptre of justice; may the numerous people be bound (?) to it. Shining brightly, the constant ...... in his ....... Confer on him the benefit of months of delight and joy, and bestow on him numerous years as infinite in number as the stars in the lapis-lazuli coloured heavens. In his kingship may he enjoy a happy reign forever. 70-85May you preserve the king, the good provider. May you preserve Rim-Sîn, the good provider. May his reign be a source of delight to you. Lengthen the days of his life, and give him kingship over the restored land. For him gladden the heart of the land, for him make the roads of the land passable. For him make the Land speak with a single voice. May you preserve alive Rim-Sîn, your shepherd with the compliant heart. May his canals bring water for him, and may barley grow for him in the fields. May the orchards and gardens bring forth syrup and wine for him, and may the marshes deliver fish and fowl for him in abundance. May the cattle-pens and sheepfolds teem with animals, and may rain from the heavens, whose waters are sporadic, be regular for him. May the palace be filled with long life. O Rim-Sîn, you are my king!” Compare, for example, King David’s Psalm 60 (Douay), otherwise Psalm 61:6-7: ‘Increase the days of the king’s life, his years for many generations. May he be enthroned in God’s presence forever; appoint your love and faithfulness to protect him’. According to Timothy S. Laniak (Shepherds After My Own Heart: Pastoral Traditions and Leadership in the Bible, p. 63): “By the beginning of the second millennium BC [sic] Akkadian and Amorite kings were using conventional shepherd language to describe themselves”. When David - young, but mature beyond his years - indignant at the mockery being publicly and loudly uttered by the Gath-ite champion, Goliath - ‘defying the armies of the living God’ - was told by King Saul that he was not experienced enough to fight against the Philistine, he will apprise the king of the extreme dangers that he had already faced as a shepherd: ‘When a lion or a bear came and carried off a sheep from the flock, I went after it …’. Here follows David’s exchange on this occasion with King Saul (I Samuel 17:32-37): David said to Saul, ‘Let no one lose heart on account of this Philistine; your servant will go and fight him’. Saul replied, ‘You are not able to go out against this Philistine and fight him; you are only a young man, and he has been a warrior from his youth’. But David said to Saul, ‘Your servant has been keeping his father’s sheep. When a lion or a bear came and carried off a sheep from the flock, I went after it, struck it and rescued the sheep from its mouth. When it turned on me, I seized it by its hair, struck it and killed it. Your servant has killed both the lion and the bear; this uncircumcised Philistine will be like one of them, because he has defied the armies of the living God. The LORD who rescued me from the paw of the lion and the paw of the bear will rescue me from the hand of this Philistine’. Saul said to David, ‘Go, and the LORD be with you’. Young David had been taking supplies from his father Jesse back to his three oldest brothers, and then returning “to tend his father’s sheep at Bethlehem” (vv. 14-19). Now these were the very three sons, the “firstborn was Eliab; the second, Abinadab; and the third, Shammah”, whom Samuel had first considered for the anointing (I Samuel 16:6-9). Yet here they were frozen almost to a standstill in the face of the angry Goliath (“all the Israelites were dismayed and terrified”), while David, the youngest of them, was aflame with indignation. It is a famous story (17:1-11): Now the Philistines gathered their forces for war and assembled at Sokoh in Judah. They pitched camp at Ephes Dammim, between Sokoh and Azekah. Saul and the Israelites assembled and camped in the Valley of Elah and drew up their battle line to meet the Philistines. The Philistines occupied one hill and the Israelites another, with the valley between them. A champion named Goliath, who was from Gath, came out of the Philistine camp. His height was six cubits and a span. He had a bronze helmet on his head and wore a coat of scale armor of bronze weighing five thousand shekels; on his legs he wore bronze greaves, and a bronze javelin was slung on his back. His spear shaft was like a weaver’s rod, and its iron point weighed six hundred shekels. His shield bearer went ahead of him. Goliath stood and shouted to the ranks of Israel, ‘Why do you come out and line up for battle? Am I not a Philistine, and are you not the servants of Saul? Choose a man and have him come down to me. If he is able to fight and kill me, we will become your subjects; but if I overcome him and kill him, you will become our subjects and serve us’. Then the Philistine said, ‘This day I defy the armies of Israel! Give me a man and let us fight each other’. On hearing the Philistine’s words, Saul and all the Israelites were dismayed and terrified. Eliab, the oldest of Jesse’s boys, the one upon whom Samuel had first fastened, would severely reprimand his youngest brother for intruding into the army’s affairs, also implying that David may have been neglecting their father’s sheep. But we had already been told that David, who was only obeying his father’s instructions, anyway, had “left the flock in the care of a shepherd”. Here follows the feisty David’s exchanges with the Israelite soldiers and with Eliab (vv. 20-31): Early in the morning David left the flock in the care of a shepherd, loaded up and set out, as Jesse had directed. He reached the camp as the army was going out to its battle positions, shouting the war cry. Israel and the Philistines were drawing up their lines facing each other. David left his things with the keeper of supplies, ran to the battle lines and asked his brothers how they were. As he was talking with them, Goliath, the Philistine champion from Gath, stepped out from his lines and shouted his usual defiance, and David heard it. Whenever the Israelites saw the man, they all fled from him in great fear. Now the Israelites had been saying, ‘Do you see how this man keeps coming out? He comes out to defy Israel. The king will give great wealth to the man who kills him. He will also give him his daughter in marriage and will exempt his family from taxes in Israel’. David asked the men standing near him, ‘What will be done for the man who kills this Philistine and removes this disgrace from Israel? Who is this uncircumcised Philistine that he should defy the armies of the living God?’ They repeated to him what they had been saying and told him, ‘This is what will be done for the man who kills him’. When Eliab, David’s oldest brother, heard him speaking with the men, he burned with anger at him and asked, ‘Why have you come down here? And with whom did you leave those few sheep in the wilderness? I know how conceited you are and how wicked your heart is; you came down only to watch the battle’. ‘Now what have I done?’ said David. ‘Can’t I even speak?’ He then turned away to someone else and brought up the same matter, and the men answered him as before. What David said was overheard and reported to Saul, and Saul sent for him. It has been said: “One man’s meat is another man’s poison”. King Saul’s armour, which the huge Benjaminite wore easily, was nothing but cumbersome to the smaller man, David. To use another saying, it fell ‘all over him like a cheap suit’. Vv. 38-39: Then Saul dressed David in his own tunic. He put a coat of armor on him and a bronze helmet on his head. David fastened on his sword over the tunic and tried walking around, because he was not used to them. ‘I cannot go in these’, he said to Saul, ‘because I am not used to them’ So he took them off”. Then, it is back to his shepherding experience (v. 40): “Then he took his staff in his hand, chose five smooth stones from the stream, put them in the pouch of his shepherd’s bag and, with his sling in his hand, approached the Philistine”. Christians can regard David’s “five smooth stones”, symbolically, as the five wounds of Christ, and again, with the “sling”, as the five-decade Rosary. Thus Frits Albers introduced his book, “… five smooth stones …” (1998).

Qadesh doubly problematical for Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky

Part One: Qadesh of the Annals of Thutmose III by Damien F. Mackey “The north side of my town faced east / And the east was facing south”. The Who In somewhat similar fashion, with geography all askew, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky once had Qadesh (Kadesh) facing southwards, when it should have been facing northwards, and once had Qadesh facing northwards, when it should have been facing southwards. The first instance concerned Kadesh in the records of Thutmose III, the warrior-pharaoh whom Dr. Velikovsky would re-locate from his conventional placement in the mid-C15th BC to the C10th BC era of King Solomon and his son, Rehoboam. (Ages in Chaos, I, 1952). Despite this radical downwards time-shift, I fully accept the correctness of it, as well as accepting Dr. Velikovsky’s identification of Thutmose III, ‘the Napoleon of Egypt’ (professor Henry Breasted), as the biblical “Shishak king of Egypt” (I Kings 14:25-26): “In the fifth year of King Rehoboam, Shishak king of Egypt attacked Jerusalem. He carried off the treasures of the Temple of the Lord and the treasures of the royal palace. He took everything, including all the gold shields Solomon had made”. Thirdly, I am likewise convinced with Dr. Velikovsky (though by no means in harmony with his details) that this, the First Campaign of Thutmose III, his Year 22-23 (c. 1460 BC, conventional dating; c. 922 BC, revised), was the same as the biblical episode as narrated above in the First Book of Kings. It is commonly agreed that Kd-šw/Qd-šw in the Egyptian Annals refers to Kadesh/ Qadesh, though not all agree as to which geographical location was intended. Ironically, in this singular instance, Dr. Velikovsky’s reconstruction would rigidly follow the conventional path, northwards from Gaza (Egyptian G3-d3-tw], to Yemma? (Egyptian Y-hm), via a narrow defile, Aruna (Egyptian '3-rw-n3), to Megiddo (Egyptian My-k-ty). Megiddo’s close association with Taanach (Egyptian T3-'3-n3-k3) in the Egyptian Annals, appears positively to secure the identification of My-k-ty with Megiddo - as both professor James Henry Breasted and Dr. Velikovsky had accepted. Whilst I, also, shall be embracing their identifications of Gaza, Megiddo and Taanach, I shall be vehemently rejecting those of the in-between locations of Yehem (Y-hm) and Aruna. A conventional path was never going to hold Dr. Velikovsky too long in its embrace. For, while the conventionalists had the Egyptian army continuing its push northwards, to Syrian Qadesh - which progression I think is correct - Dr. Velikovsky, in order to make this campaign fit his brilliant “Shishak” identification, will have the Egyptian army suddenly lurch back southwards from Megiddo, to attack Jerusalem, the “Holy” - Dr. Velikovsky here attempting to draw a connection between the Kd-šw/Qd-šw of the Egyptian Annals and the Hebrew word for “Holy”, qodesh (קֹ֔דֶשׁ). Consequently, Egypt’s “wretched foe”, the king of Qadesh, Dr. Velikovsky will now identify as King Rehoboam of Jerusalem, in full southward flight from the Egyptians, only managing to have himself hauled into Jerusalem before the Egyptians can seize him. A similar narrow type of escape is narrated in the Egyptian Annals in the case of the real King of Kd-šw. Those ever hoping to find evidence for the Bible in historical records can be thrilled by such excitingly reconstructed scenarios as this. Now, though Dr. Velikovsky’s reconstruction (and also its conventional counterpart) of the right biblical campaign, is wrong, those thrilled by the prospect of having a biblical event confirmed in the historical records need not cease being thrilled. The First Campaign of Thutmose III, in his Year 22-23 (c. 922 BC, revised), was, indeed the same as the biblical episode as narrated above in I Kings 14:25-26. But it needs to be properly re-presented. This was typical Dr. Velikovsky, intuiting the correct conclusion - namely, here, that Thutmose III was the biblical “Shishak”, whose assault on Jerusalem occurred during the pharaoh’s First Campaign - but erecting his thesis in a most unconvincing fashion. Glaringly wrong is the conventional identification (accepted by Dr. Velikovsky) of the Aruna ('3-rw-n3) road with some obscure Wadi 'Ara near Megiddo. Thankfully, Dr. Eva Danelius came to the rescue here with her most important article, “Did Thutmose III Despoil the Temple in Jerusalem?” (1977/78): https://saturniancosmology.org/files/egypt/thutmos.htm Breasted identified this defile, the road called "Aruna" in Egyptian records, with the Wadi 'Ara which connects the Palestine maritime plain with the Valley of Esdraelon (4). It was this identification which aroused my curiosity, and my doubt. …. As an afterthought, Nelson warns not to be deceived by the Arabic name (wadi) 'Ara: "Etymologically, it seems hardly possible to equate (Egyptian) 'Aruna with (Arab) 'Ar'arah." (51). …. Not only etymologically, but, far more importantly, topographically - the major contribution made by Dr. Danelius - does the Wadi 'Ara not at all fit the Egyptian description of the dread Aruna road, whose Egyptian rendering, '3-rw-n3, however, transliterates perfectly into the Hebrew Araunah. This road was connected, via the name of Araunah the Jebusite (2 Samuel 24:15-16), directly to Jerusalem and its Temple. To conclude, without repeating all the details of what I have already written by way of correction of Dr. Velikovsky, and modification of Dr. Danelius, in: The Shishak Redemption (1) The Shishak Redemption and: Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III’s march on Jerusalem (2) Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III's march on Jerusalem - with Yehem (Y-hm) newly identified as Jerusalem itself - here is the brief summing up of my “Yehem near Aruna …” article: The Aruna road, the most difficult, but most direct, was the one that the brilliant pharaoh chose, for a surprise assault upon Megiddo. Jimmy Dunn writes regarding pharaoh’s tactic …: … the Aruna road was through a narrow and difficult pass over a ridge that was presumed (particularly for the enemy coalition) to be too difficult for any army to use. Taking that route meant that ‘horse must follow horse, and man after man’…. Also, many modern commentators, and perhaps the Canaanite coalition as well, seem to forget the major virtues of the Egyptian Chariots. They were light vehicles, and it was certainly conceivable that many could be carried through the pass, while the horses were led separately …. The pass was named from its beginning at Araunah, near king Rehoboam’s capital, Jerusalem, “Yehem near Aruna”. Dr. Danelius had got the name right, but she had the Egyptian military negotiating it the wrong way around, with Araunah as its destination point, rather than its being … [the] starting point. This road is variously known to us today as the Way of the Patriarchs, the Hill Road, or the Ridge Route, since it included, as we read, “a narrow and difficult pass over a ridge”. It was not a proper road, even as late as the time of Jesus, not one of the international highways then to be found in Palestine. This would have been a most tricky road, indeed, to negotiate, especially for an army that greatly relied upon its chariots. From Gaza (as all agree), pharaoh marched to Jerusalem (Dr. Danelius got the sequence right, but mis-identified Jerusalem), and then by the narrow Aruna road (Dr. Danelius got the name right only, not the direction) on to Megiddo (as per the conventional view and Velikovsky), and then on to Syrian Kadesh (as per the conventional view ….). For Dr. Velikovsky, this one was a case of: Qadesh facing southwards, when it should have been facing northwards. Part Two: Battle of Pharaoh Ramses II near Qadesh “The north side of my town faced east / And the east was facing south”. The Who In somewhat similar fashion, with geography all askew, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky once had Qadesh (Kadesh) facing southwards, when it should have been facing northwards, and once had Qadesh facing northwards, when it should have been facing southwards. The second instance concerned Kadesh in the inscriptions of Ramses II ‘the Great’ and in those of his mighty foe, the Hittites. Dr. Velikovsky would re-locate Ramses II from his conventional placement in c. 1300 BC to c. 600 BC, identifying him as pharaoh Necho II of Egypt’s Twenty-Sixth Dynasty. And the Hittite king, Hattusilis, known to have made a treaty with Ramses II, Dr. Velikovsky would shockingly (by conventional estimates) identify with the Chaldean king, Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’. (Ramses II and His Time, 1978). Despite this radical downwards time-shift, I believe that Dr. Velikovsky was very much on the right track here. However, rather than Ramses II being Necho II, and Egypt’s Nineteenth Dynasty being the same as the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty, my preference would be for Ramses II being, instead, Tirhakah (Taharqa) of the (Ethiopian) Twenty-Fifth Dynasty. For my comprehensive treatment of this subject, see my article: The Complete Ramses II (3) The Complete Ramses II which is no less shocking than Dr. Velikovsky’s thesis. In fact, it is more so, considering that I claim here that textbook ancient history has scattered the bits and pieces of Ramses II ‘the Great’ over almost a whole millennium, from c. 1300 BC to c. 350 BC (Tachos = Taharqa). Importantly, Ramses II was the same as Ramses Psibkhanno (Twenty-First Dynasty), leading me to conclude that: Sargon II’s Šilkanni of Egypt was Psibkhenno, not Osorkon (3) Sargon II’s Šilkanni of Egypt was Psibkhenno, not Osorkon This conclusion of mine, that Ramses II was a contemporary of Sargon II, would probably strain (even with my radically truncated chronology) Dr. Velikovsky’s identification of Nebuchednezzar with Hattusilis. It was considered in Part One that Dr. Velikovsky had been compelled - to keep alive his “Shishak” thesis - to re-identify Thutmose III’s Qadesh as Jerusalem. Now, similarly, to keep alive his thesis that Ramses II was the same as Necho II, who is known to have marched towards Carchemish (Jeremiah 46:2; 2 Chronicles 35:20), Dr. Velikovsky will geographically force Qadesh in this case - no longer as the “Holy” city of Jerusalem - into becoming what he called “the Sacred City” of Carchemish. (Ramses II and His Time, Chapter. 1: THE BATTLE OF KADESH-CARCHEMISH …. Carchemish, the Sacred City). Given that Necho II had fought “on the plain of Megiddo”, where King Josiah of Judah was slain (2 Chronicles 35:22-24), and given that pharaoh Shoshenq so-called I campaigned against Megiddo, I would rather suggest that (along with Ramses II as Tirhakah) Necho II was the same pharaoh as Shoshenq. https://cojs.org/shoshenq_megiddo_fragment/ A fragment of Pharaoh Shoshenq’s commemorative stele found at Megiddo. The fragment is not well-preserved and only the name of the king and some phrases glorifying him can be read. Although the fragment does not prove that Shoshenq conquered Megiddo, it does imply that he had some control over the city. Taking an Occam’s Razor approach, the whole thing can be simplified by identifying Qadesh (Kadesh) in the records both of Thutmose III and of Ramses II as Syrian Qadesh on the Orontes. This is the usual interpretation in each case. AI Overview The ancient city of Kadesh is believed to have been located near the Orontes River in modern-day Syria, while Carchemish was situated on the west bank of the Euphrates River, also in modern-day Syria. The distance between the two locations is approximately 150-200 kilometers (93-124 miles). For Dr. Velikovsky, this one was a case of: Qadesh facing northwards, when it should have been facing southwards.

Dr. I. Velikovsky likely correct in his identifying Thutmose III’s Sk with Socoh in the Shephelah

by Damien F. Mackey Creationist Patrick Clarke, holding to the conventional route, will misidentify certain locations that Dr. Velikovsky had claimed were the newly fortified forts of Rehoboam. Following on from Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky’s biblically maximalising identification of “Shishak king of Egypt” (I Kings 14:25-26) with ancient Egypt’s “Napoleon” (professor Breasted), Thutmose III, of the Eighteenth Dynasty (in Ages in Chaos, I, 1952), I undertook the extremely challenging task of solving the geographical and topographical problems associated with that pharaoh’s First Campaign (Year 22/23), the one that Dr. Velikovsky had rightly identified as being the biblical campaign against Jerusalem in Year 5 of king Rehoboam of Judah. My reconstruction of this campaign can be read in articles such as: The Shishak Redemption (4) The Shishak Redemption | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and: Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III’s march on Jerusalem (3) Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III's march on Jerusalem | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Whereas convention, and Dr. Velikovsky - surprisingly in agreement with it for once - have the pharaonic campaign proceeding from Gaza, northwards, following a relatively easy coastal route to Megiddo (at which point Dr. Velikovsky will veer south, while convention will continue to go northwards, to Syrian Kadesh), I would have the Egyptian force, instead, proceeding from Gaza directly to Jerusalem - called Y-hm (Yehem) in the Egyptian Annals - which location was, as the above articles show, near the Aruna (of Araunah the Jebusite) road. As is apparent from these articles, I am much indebted to Dr. Eva Danelius for the identification of the ancient Aruna road with its tortuous topography that cannot be found anywhere in convention’s, or in Dr. Velikovsky’s, route northwards to Megiddo. Creationist Patrick Clarke, holding to the conventional route, will misidentify certain locations that Dr. Velikovsky had claimed were the newly fortified forts of Rehoboam: Was Jerusalem the Kadesh of Thutmose III’s 1st Asiatic campaign—topographic and petrographic evidence (4) Was Jerusalem the Kadesh of Thutmose III’s 1st Asiatic campaign—topographic and petrographic evidence | Patrick Clarke - Academia.edu Clarke, who is highly critical of Dr. Velikovsky’s reconstructions, will write as follows in this article: …. Velikovsky mentions three locations as being part of Rehoboam’s fifteen fortified cities. He wrote: “The walled cities fortified by Rehoboam … may be found on the Egyptian list [referring to Thutmose III]. It appears that Etam is Itmm; Beth-Zur – Bt sir; Socoh – Sk. …. Here is a new field for scholarly inquiry: the examination of the list of the Palestinian cities of Thutmose III, comparing their names with the names of the cities in the kingdom of Judah. The work will be fruitful.” …. Socoh – Sk Here Velikovsky is actually right about the name equivalence, i.e. Sk really is Socoh; but unfortunately for his thesis, there is an additional issue to consider, inasmuch as there were three towns called Socoh. Socoh 1 was the town fortified by Rehoboam … Socoh 2, mentioned only once in the Bible, in Joshua 15:48, is located in the southernmost district of the Judean hill country … Socoh 3 lies on the Sharon plain and not in Judah. The following explains which of the three is relevant to this paper: “Amenhotep II in his campaign against recalcitrant peoples mentioned it [Socoh], again in association with Yaham and other places in the Sharon. Socoh was strategically located not only on the N-S highway but also near the mouth of the Naḥal Shekhem, the main entryway to Samaria and Shechem from the west. The town appears three times in Egyptian records, and the contexts confirm its location vis-à-vis the other towns along the great international trunk route along the eastern edge of the Sharon plain. In the topographical list of Thutmose III, Socoh (no. 67) appears after Aphek and before Yaham [Yehem].” Thus the Socoh which Velikovsky so confidently held to be one of Rehoboam’s Judean fortresses is shown to be the wrong Socoh for his purposes; the one claimed as a conquest by Thutmose III, the one we have labelled Socoh 3, above, lies some 80 km to the north. …. [End of quote] Whilst Clarke’s placement of “Socoh (no. 67)” might well apply if the conventional interpretation of the route of pharaoh Thutmose III’s First Campaign were valid, it cannot possibly apply in the close association of it with a Yehem (Y-hm) that I have identified in the above articles as Jerusalem. It will be, as Clarke himself puts it, “some 80 km” too far away. Thus I believe that the intuitive Dr. Velikovsky was quite correct in identifying Thutmose III’s Sk with Rehoboam’s fort of Socoh in the Shephelah. Unfortunately, the Socoh in the Shephelah, which concerns us here, has not yet been unequivocally identified. What is certain from the Bible is that it lay close to Azekah: https://leonmauldin.blog/2010/10/21/socoh-in-the-david-goliath-narrative/ Socoh, in the David & Goliath Narrative Our recent posts have included aerial photos of Azekah and Khirbet-Qeiyaffa (Elah Fortress), both of which are in the Valley of Elah. (Some suggest that Khirbet-Qeiyaffa may turn out to be the biblical Ephes Dammim.) Another site mentioned in the biblical record and featured in today’s post Socoh. 1 Sam. 17 includes this site as the geographical setting is provided for the battle between the Philistines and the Israelites, when David killed Goliath. The text reads: Now the Philistines gathered their armies for battle; and they were gathered at Socoh which belongs to Judah, and they camped between Socoh and Azekah, in Ephes-dammim. Saul and the men of Israel were gathered and camped in the valley of Elah, and drew up in battle array to encounter the Philistines. The Philistines stood on the mountain on one side while Israel stood on the mountain on the other side, with the valley between them. (1 Sam. 17:1-3) Our photo shows tel Socoh in center (look to the left and above the horizontal road that dissects the field in center). If you note the tiny tree-line above tel Socoh, across the road, this is the brook from which David selected five smooth stones, one of which he used to slay Goliath. In the distance (just right of wing brace at top) you can see tel Azekah. For 40 days this valley rang out with the threatening voice of loud-mouth Goliath, until the shepherd David rose to the challenge, prompted by this faith in the God of Israel. Socoh (also spelled Sochoh and Soco) had earlier been assigned to the territory of Judah (Josh. 15:35). Later it was fortified by Solomons’ son King Rehoboam (2 Chron. 11:7). Later still, in the days of King Kezekiah, Socoh was among the cities of the Shephelah listed in 2 Chron. 28:18 as raided and conquered by the Philistines. Apparently Socho had been an administrative center during Hezekiah’s reign as indicated by the numerous stamped jar handles with the seal of Socoh.

Pharaoh Thutmose II’s tomb found empty

by Damien F. Mackey “Thutmose II likely ruled for a little over ten years, although some scholars believe his reign may have lasted only three years”. Anna M. Kotarba-Morley and Katarzyna Kapiec Pharaoh Thutmose II is totally overshadowed by his wife, Hatshepsut, who herself later became pharaoh and who co-ruled with the similarly notable Thutmose III. Now there is great excitement because the tomb of the - albeit relatively insignificant- pharaoh Thutmose II has just been found. We read about it here: https://theconversation.com/its-the-biggest-egyptian-tomb-discovery-in-a-century-who-was-thutmose-ii-250432 It’s the biggest Egyptian tomb discovery in a century. Who was Thutmose II? Published: February 21, 2025 12.51pm AEDT Archaeologists in Egypt have made an exciting discovery: the tomb of Pharaoh Thutmose II, a ruler who has long been overshadowed by his famous wife and half-sister, Queen Hatshepsut. Damien F. Mackey’s comment: Was she actually the half-sister of Thutmose II? Thutmose I, whom Hatshepsut greatly loved and admired, never referred to her as his daughter. Dr. I. Velikovsky rightly identified this Hatshepsut as the biblical Queen of Sheba, and Thutmose III as the warrior-pharaoh, Shishak. She was probably more distantly related to Thutmose I on her mother Maacah’s side. He, a former ruler of Geshur, the biblical King Talmai (2 Samuel 3:3): “… Absalom the son of Maakah daughter of Talmai king of Geshur …”, gave her as a dowry Beersheba, the chief city of Geshur (not the city of Gezer) (I Kings 9:16): “(Pharaoh king of Egypt had gone up and taken Gezer and burned it with fire, had killed the Canaanites who dwelt in the city, and had given it as a dowry to his daughter, Solomon’s wife.)” This city I am inclined to think was Tel Masos, near modern Beersheba, in the land of Geshur (Gezer) facing Egypt. So, firstly, Hatshepsut became the wife of King Solomon, then, they may have divorced (“she returned”) for diplomatic reasons (I Kings 10:13): “King Solomon gave the queen of Sheba all she desired and asked for, besides what he had given her out of his royal bounty. Then she left and returned with her retinue to her own country”. The couple’s sights may have been on a far bigger surprise - rulership of Egypt. When the Pharaoh died, his son Thutmose II came to the throne and married Hatshepsut. Upon his death, she would invite (‘I was in the land at her request’) her beloved Solomon to Egypt, as Senenmut, who became, as many scholars think, ‘the real power behind the throne of Egypt’: ‘I was the greatest of the great in the whole land’. The article continues: The remarkable find is located in the Western Valley (a burial ground for queens rather than kings), near the complex of Deir el-Bahari, which houses the funerary temple of Hatshepsut. Both of us worked together as archaeologists at this spectacular site some 15 years ago. Thutmose II’s tomb has been labelled the first, and biggest, discovery of a royal tomb since Tutankhamun’s tomb was found just over 100 years ago. Despite being totally empty, it’s a crucial element in further understanding a transformative period in ancient Egyptian history. Hatshepsut’s forgotten brother and husband Thutmose II (also called Akheperenre) reigned in the first half of the 15th century BCE. [sic] This made him the fourth ruler of the 18th Egyptian Dynasty, which marked the beginning of the New Kingdom period. Damien F. Mackey’s comment: Dr. Velikovsky was right in re-locating the likes of Thutmose II from the C15th BC to the C10th BC era of King Solomon. No wonder that poor Thutmose II has been edged out, what with contemporaneous luminaries such as Solomon (Senenmut), Hatshepsut (Sheba), and Thutmose III (Shishak)! The article continues: Thutmose II likely ruled for a little over ten years, although some scholars believe his reign may have lasted only three years. He was the son of a great pharaoh Thutmose I and his lesser wife, Mutnofret. He married his half-sister Queen Hatshepsut according to the royal custom, to solidify the rule and bloodline. Together they had a daughter named Nefrure. …. Thutmose II’s mummy was discovered in 1881 but his original tomb was unknown until now. Wikimedia Upon his death, his wife Hatshepsut became the sixth pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty – and arguably one of the most famous and successful female rulers of all time. Military activities As the successor of Thutmose I, Thutmose II continued his father’s military policy in the southern regions of Egypt. According to preserved inscriptions, he ordered the brutal suppression of a rebellion against Egyptian rule in the land of Kush (in present-day north Sudan). As a result, a significant number of prisoners were brought to Egypt – possibly as part of a campaign. But Thutmose II’s military campaigns were minor in comparison to the grand conquests of his predecessors and successors. Most historians believe he was a weak ruler and that Hatshepsut had a major role in governing the country, even long before his death. However, others contest this. Thutmose II’s short reign left modest traces of building activity in Karnak, one of the largest religious centres in ancient Egypt, located in present-day Luxor. The structure, of which only fragments survive, features a unique decoration depicting Thutmose II, Hatshepsut as his royal wife before she became a ruler, and their daughter Nefrure. The origins of the monument are uncertain. It’s possible Thutmose II started it and Hatshepsut finished it. The monument was reconstructed by French researchers and can now be admired at the Open Air Museum in Karnak. Other monuments of Thutmose II were found in the southern regions of Egypt, such as in Elephantine, in the city of Aswan, and in northern Sudan (likely connected to his military campaigns). The condemnation of Hatshepsut’s memory Interestingly, the name of Thutmose II became strongly associated with many of Hatshepsut’s constructions due to the actions of Thutmose III. Regarded as one of the greatest warriors, military commanders and military strategists of all time, Thutmose III was the nephew and stepson of Hatshepsut, and co-ruled with her as a regent. At the end of Thutmose III’s reign, some 20 years after Hatshepsut’s death, he carried out a large-scale campaign to remove or alter Hatshepsut’s names and images. Scholars call this “damnatio memoriae”, or condemnation of the memory. This was likely due to concerns about securing the throne for his successor, Amenhotep II, by linking him to his male ancestors. In many cases, Hatshepsut’s name was replaced with that of Thutmose II, making him the principal celebrant in temples built by Hatshepsut, such as in Deir el-Bahari. What does Thutmose II’s empty tomb tell us? The newly discovered tomb reveals fresh details about the status of Thutmose II and his role in the sociopolitical structure of 15th century BCE Egypt – a period of territorial expansion, wealth and political intrigue. It also sheds light on the perception of his rule at the time. Thutmose II has been painted as an ineffectual ruler. And the latest findings don’t contradict this. Unlike his father Thutmose I, who expanded Egypt’s reign through military strength, or his stepson Thutmose III, who became one of the most famous Egyptian warrior-kings, his modest tomb suggests his legacy may not have been as widely celebrated as others in his dynasty. The tomb’s location is also intriguing, as it is near the tombs of royal wives, including the cliff tomb of Hatshepsut, which was prepared for her when she was still a royal wife. ….

Can Amenhotep II and III be merged?

by Damien F. Mackey Similar patterns emerge, again, with the course of the reign of Amenhotep II, III – some early military activity followed by years of peace and prosperity, allowing for major building projects. This article follows on appropriately from my earlier one: More to Thutmose III? (4) More to Thutmose III? As well as Thutmose III and IV needing to be merged into just the one pharaoh, as I have done, so also, do I think, the same may just apply to Amenhotep II and III. The first (II) is rightly considered to have been the son of Thutmose III, whilst the second (III) is thought to have been the son of Thutmose IV. Here, though, I shall be arguing that Amenhotep II = III was the son of my Thutmose III-identified-as-IV. STRONG, A SPORTSMAN, HUNTER Some patterns of similarity emerge also with Amenhotep II and III. For example: Being fathered by a predecessor “Thutmose”. And sharing the name Aakhepeh[-erure]. Having as wife: [Amenhotep II] “Tiaa (Tiya) "Great Royal Wife" Daughter of Yuya and Thuya”. http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn18/07amenhotep2.html [Amenhotep III] Having a Great Royal Wife, “Tiy, daughter of Yuya and Tuya”. http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn18/09amenhotep3.html Having as son-successors a Thutmose, and then an Amenhotep: [Amenhotep II] “Children Thutmose IV, Amenhotep …”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amenhotep_II [Amenhotep III (and Tiy)] “Their eldest son, Thutmosis … died as a child. This left the kingdom to their second son, Amenhotep … who changed his name and is better known as Akhenaten”. https://study.com/academy/lesson/amenhotep-iii-biography-family-death.html Well known about Amenhotep II is that he was a very physically strong sportsmen and hunter. But so, too, was Amenhotep III: https://681308714824908458.weebly.com/hunter.html …. Amenhotep III's reign encompassed peace and because of this there was no real need to have a 'warrior' pharaoh to protect Egypt, so instead the role of 'Hunter' became more prominent. Amenhotep still needed to seem strong and powerful. Skills taught to pharaohs previously to fulfil the role of being a warrior were transferrable to the role of being a hunter. Hunting was an important role as the representation of a hunter was Ma'at. Inscriptions praised the pharaoh for his physical power as a sportsman giving emphasis on his strength, endurance, skill and also his courage. Two scarabs were also issued promoting his success as a hunter. One scarab is pictured on this page from 1380BC [sic] in the 18th Dynasty. To the Right is the bottom of the scarab presenting the hieroglyphics and below is the picture of the detailed top of the artefact with markings indicating the head, wings and scorching on its legs imitating its feathering. This scarab records that the king killed 102 lions within his first ten years of his reign. He stated that he did this with only a bow and arrow. This presents his strength and power without having to win thousands of wars. Historian A. Gardiner wrote in 1972 a quote the relates strongly to the topic of a hunter 'with the accession of Amenhotep III, Dynasty 18 attained the zenith of its magnificence, though the celebrity of this king is not founded upon any military achievement. Indeed, It is doubtful whether he himself ever took part in a warlike campaign'.' This quote is explaining further how Amenhotep III was more involved with a warrior role than a military role. He may of [have] not had war but he managed to keep his magnificence through hunting as the skills were transferrable. Hunting was an important role in the 18th dynasty and specifically during Amenhotep's reign as it was up to him to withhold the concept of ma'at. It was significant as the role of being a warrior was not necessarily needed throughout his reign, so the role of a hunter arose to ensure that the pharaoh was presented as strong. Amenhotep contributed to this role by creating the commemorative scarabs and recording any hunting successes. This provided the people with reassurance that their pharaoh could protect them and also it is significant because it provides historians and archeologists with evidence about the pharaoh and hunting. Sometimes the strength and sporting prowess of Amenhotep II are presented as if being his main claim to fame. The following piece exemplifies the pharaoh’s outstanding sporting skills: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/amenhotep2.htm Notably, Amenhotep II was well known for his athletic abilities as a young man. A number of representations of him depict his participation in successful sporting pursuits. He lived in the Memphite region where he trained horses in his father's stables, and one of his greatest athletic achievements was accomplished when he shot arrows through a copper plate while driving a chariot with the reins tied about his waist. This deed was recorded in numerous inscriptions, including a stele at Giza and depictions at Thebes. So famous was the act that it was also miniaturized on scarabs that have been found in the Levant. Sara Morris, a classical art historian, has even suggested that his target shooting success formed the basis hundreds of years later for the episode in the Iliad when Archilles is said to have shot arrows through a series of targets set up in a trench. He was also recorded as having wielded an oar of some 30 ft in length, rowing six times as fast as other crew members, though this may certainly be an exaggeration. …. The Odyssey, which (like The Iliad, “Achilles” above) has borrowed many of its images from the Bible, no doubt picked up this one of Amenhotep II also and transferred it to its hero, Odysseus (Latin variant: Ulysses). (Book 21): Penelope now appears before the suitors in her glittering veil. In her hand is a stout bow left behind by Odysseus when he sailed for Troy. ‘Whoever strings this bow’, she says, ‘and sends an arrow straight through the sockets of twelve ax heads lined in a row -- that man will I marry’. The suitors take turns trying to bend the bow to string it, but all of them lack the strength. Odysseus asks if he might try. The suitors refuse, fearing that they'll be shamed if the beggar succeeds. But Telemachus insists and his anger distracts them into laughter. As easily as a bard fitting a new string to his lyre, Odysseus strings the bow and sends an arrow through the ax heads. …. Similar patterns emerge, again, with the course of the reign of Amenhotep II, III - some early military activity followed by years of peace and prosperity, allowing for major building projects. Amenhotep II: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/amenhotep2.htm Some references refer to his first expedition taking place as early as his 2nd year of rule, though others provide that it was during his 7th. Still other references indicate that he made both of these campaigns. Regardless, he fought his was across the Orontes river and claims to have subdued all before him. One city, Niy, apparently had learnt their lesson under his father, and welcomed Amenhotep II. But at Tikhsi (Takhsy, as mentioned in the Theban tomb of Amenemheb - TT85), he captured seven prices, returning with them in the autumn. They were hung face down on the prow of his ship on the return journey, and six of them were subsequently hung on the enclosure wall of the Theban temple. The other was taken south into Nubia where his was likewise hung on the walls of Napata, "in order to cause to be seen the victorious might of His Majesty for ever and ever". According to the Stele recording these events, this first campaign netted booty consisting of 6,800 deben of gold and 500,000 deben of copper (about 1,643 and 120,833 pounds respectively), as well as 550 mariannu captives, 210 horses and 300 chariots. All sources agree that he once again campaigned in Syria during his ninth year of rule, but only in Palestine as for as the Sea of Galilee. Yet these stele, erected after year nine of Amenhotep II's rule, that provide us with this information do not bear hostile references to either Mitanni or Nahrin, the general regions of the campaigns. This is probably intentional, because apparently the king had finally made peace with these former foes. In fact, an addition at the end of the Memphis stele records that the chiefs of Nahrin, Hatti and Sangar (Babylon) arrived before the king bearing gifts and requesting offering gifts (hetepu) in exchange, as well as asking for the breath of life. Though good relations with Babylon existed during the reign of Tuthmosis III, this was the first mention of a Mitanni peace, and it is very possible that a treaty existed allowing Egypt to keep Palestine and part of the Mediterranean coast in exchange for Mitannian control of northern Syria. Underscoring this new alliance, with Nahrin, Amenhotep II had inscribed on a column between the fourth and fifth pylons at Karnak, "The chiefs (weru) of Mitanni (My-tn) come to him, their deliveries upon their backs, to request offering gifts from his majesty in quest of the breath of life". The location for this column in the Tuthmosid wadjyt, or columned hall, was significant, because the hall was venerated as the place where his father received a divine oracle proclaiming his future kingship. It is also associated with the Tuthmosid line going back to Tuthmosis I, who was the first king to campaign in Syria. Furthermore, we also learn that Amenhotep II at least asked for the hand of the Mitannian king, Artatama I, in marriage. By the end of Amenhotep II's reign, the Mitanni who had been so recently a vile enemy of Egypt, were being portrayed as a close friend. After these initial campaigns, the remainder of Amenhotep II's long reign was characterized by peace in the Two Lands, including Nubia where his father settled matters during his reign. This allowed him to somewhat aggressively pursue a building program that left his mark at nearly all the major sites where his father had worked. Some of these projects may have even been initiated during his co-regency with his father, for at Amada in Lower Nubia dedicated to Amun and Ra-Horakhty celebrated both equally, and at Karnak, he participated in his father's elimination of any vestiges of his hated stepmother, Hatshepsut. There was also a bark chapel built celebrating his co-regency at Tod. …. Amenhotep III: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/amenhotep3.htm While as usual, an expedition into Nubia in year five of his reign was given grandiose attention on some reliefs, it probably amounted to nothing more than a low key police action. However, it may have pushed as for as south of the fifth cataract. It was recorded on inscriptions near Aswan and at Konosso in Nubia. There is also a stele in the British Museum recording a Nubian campaign, but it is unclear whether it references this first action, or one later in his reign. There was also a Nubian rebellion reported at Ibhet, crushed by his son. While Amenhotep III was almost certainly not directly involved in this conflict, he records having slaughtered many within the space of a single hour. We learn from inscriptions that this campaign resulted in the capture of 150 Nubian men, 250 women, 175 children, 110 archers and 55 servants, added to the 312 right hands of the slain. Perhaps to underscore the Kushite subjection to Egypt, he had built at Soleb, almost directly across the Nile from the Nubian capital at Kerma, a fortress known as Khaemmaat, along with a temple. The Prosperity and International Relationships However, by year 25 of Amenhotep III's reign, military problems seem to have been settled, and we find a long period of great building works and high art. It was also a period of lavish luxury at the royal court. The wealth needed to accomplish all of this did not come from conquests, but rather from foreign trade and an abundant supply of gold, mostly from the mines in the Wadi Hammamat and further south in Nubia. Amenhotep III was unquestionably involved with international diplomatic efforts, which led to increased foreign trade. During his reign, we find a marked increase in Egyptian materials found on the Greek mainland. We also find many Egyptian place names, including Mycenae, Phaistos and Knossos first appearing in Egyptian inscriptions. We also find letters written between Amenhotep III and his peers in Babylon, Mitanni and Arzawa preserved in cuneiform writing on clay tablets.From a stele in his mortuary temple, we further learn that he sent at least one expedition to punt. It is rather clear that the nobility prospered during the reign of Amenhotep III. However, the plight of common Egyptians is less sure, and we have little evidence to suggest that they shared in Egypt's prosperity. Yet, Amenhotep III and his granary official Khaemhet boasted of the great crops of grain harvested in the kings 30th (jubilee) year. And while such evidence is hardly unbiased, the king was remembered even 1,000 years later as a fertility god, associated with agricultural success. …. Estimated reign lengths vary somewhat, with 38 years commonly attributed to Amenhotep III, whilst figures for Amenhotep II can range from, say, 26-35 years: https://www.crystalinks.com/Amenhotep_II.html “The length of [Amenhotep II’s] reign is indicated by a wine jar inscribed with the king's prenomen found in Amenhotep II's funerary temple at Thebes; it is dated to this king's highest known date - his Year 26 - and lists the name of the pharaoh's vintner, Panehsy. Mortuary temples were generally not stocked until the king died or was near death; therefore, Amenhotep could not have lived much later beyond his 26th year. There are alternate theories which attempt to assign him a reign of up to 35 years, which is the absolute maximum length he could have reigned. …”. Complicating somewhat the matter of reign length is the possibility of co-regencies - even perhaps quite lengthy ones: (a) between Amenhotep II and his father, Thutmose III, and (b) between Amenhotep III and his son, Akhnaton. The most extreme estimate for (a) is “twenty-five years or more” (Donald B. Redford): https://www.jstor.org/stable/3855623?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents whilst for (b): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amenhotep_III#Proposed_co-regency_by_Akhenaten “In February 2014, the Egyptian Ministry for Antiquities announced what it called "definitive evidence" that Akhenaten shared power with his father for at least 8 years …”. Apart from Asa’s (as Abijah’s) significant war with Jeroboam I, the King of Judah would also have to deal with a massive invasion from the direction of Egypt/Ethiopia: Zerah’s invasion. Dr. I. Velikovsky had aligned this biblical incident with the era of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty pharaoh, Amenhotep II, son of Thutmose III. This is very close to what I think must be the right biblico-historical synchronisation. My own historical preference for this biblical character is: Viceroy Usersatet my favoured choice for Zerah the Ethiopian (7) Viceroy Usersatet my favoured choice for Zerah the Ethiopian According to my own estimate, with the Shishak campaign (in King Rehoboam’s Year 5) approximating to Thutmose III’s Year 25, then the 54-year reign of Thutmose III would have extended beyond Rehoboam’s reign, his Year 17 (I Kings 14:21), and would have penetrated as far as Asa’s (identified as Abijah) (54-25-12 =) Year 17. That Year 17 occurred probably a little after Zerah’s invasion, which Raymond B. Dillard estimates to have taken place in Asa’s Year 14 (2 Chronicles, Volume 15). Peter James and Peter Van der Veen (below) - who will include in their calculation the 3 years attributed to King Abijah (who is my Asa) - will situate “the Zerah episode in a fairly narrow window, between the years 11 and 14 of Asa”. Now, with the distinct likelihood that Amenhotep II shared a substantial co-regency with his long-reigning father, even as much as “twenty-five years or more”, as we read above, then Dr. Velikovsky may be entirely correct in his synchronising of the Zerah invasion with the reign of Amenhotep II – to which I would add that Thutmose III was also still reigning at the time. Once again Dr. Velikovsky had – as with his identifications of the Queen of Sheba and Shishak – the (approximately) right chronology. But once again he would - as we are going to find out - put it together wrongly. In this particular case, Zerah, Dr. Velikovsky would actually identify the wrong (as I see it) candidate. In this article I have enlarged pharaoh Amenhotep II to embrace also the one known as Amenhotep III ‘the Magnificent’. I have also (elsewhere) enlarged King Asa of Judah to embrace his supposed father, Abijah (Abijam): History of Asa, King of Judah, filled out by Abijah (Abijam) (7) Abijah's Influence on Asa's Kingship And, as already noted, I have enlarged Thutmose III, the father of my expanded Amenhotep, to embrace Thutmose IV.