Thutmose IV may be Thutmose III procrusteanised, cut off really short

 

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

  

 

Added to this, Brian Alm has noted that reliefs of Thutmose IV actually

refer to his Heb Sed festival (“Thutmose IV: Placeholder or Pivot?”).

This usually indicated that the King of Egypt had attained to

three decades of reign.

 

 

 

In the ancient king lists we find kings and pharaohs, duplicated and even triplicated.

This comment applies to e.g. the Egyptian dynastic lists, the Assyro-Babylonian (Chaldean) king lists, and to the Medo-Persian lists. 

 

Archaeological data just cannot support so many kings as arise from these chaotic lists. On this, see e.g. my article:

 

Medo-Persian history has no adequate archaeology

 

(6) Medo-Persian history has no adequate archaeology

 

A most significant instance of duplication arises, so I would suggest, in the middle part of Egypt’s famous Eighteenth Dynasty:

 

Has Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty succession, Thutmose to Amenhotep, been duplicated?

 

(7) Has Egypt's Eighteenth Dynasty succession, Thutmose to Amenhotep, been duplicated?

 

THUTMOSE III, IV  

 

Having, as according to the above article, a double set of the pharaonic combination: Thutmose – Amenhotep, in the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt:

 

Tuthmosis III
Amenhotep II

Tuthmosis IV
Amenhotep III

inevitably makes me wonder, suspiciously, if, as in the case of Egypt’s Old-Middle Kingdoms, some duplications may have occurred, thereby unwarrantedly extending the already lengthy dynastic history of ancient Egypt:

 

Egypt’s Old and Middle Kingdoms far closer in time than conventionally thought

 

(8) Egypt's Old and Middle Kingdoms far closer in time than conventionally thought

 

I have greatly streamlined those Old-Middle Kingdom dynasties in earlier articles, wherein there occur such repetitive combinations as: Pepi – Merenre (so-called Sixth Dynasty) and Amenemhet – Sesostris (so-called Twelfth Dynasty).

 

 

What makes me wonder even more in the case of the above Eighteenth Dynasty repetitions is that Thutmose III and so-called IV, as well as bearing the same nomen (Thutmose, “Born of the god Thoth”), also had the same praenomen, Menkheperre (“Lasting are the Manifestations of Re”).

 

As well as that ‘they’ shared the Horus name, Kanakht.

 

Thutmose III had Syrian wives, Menhet, Menwi and Merti.

Thutmose IV had, amongst several, Merytra (Merti?).

 

The plot thickens.

 

Thutmose IV was also married to a (Syro-) Mitannian woman, Mutemwiya, a name of which I would suggest that the above, Menwi (M-ut-emwi-ya), was a hypocoristicon:

 

https://sites.google.com/site/historyofancientegypt/queens-of-egypt/mutemwia-wife-of-tuthmosis-iv

Queen Mutemwia is of unknown parentage. One theory identifies her with a daughter of King Artatama of Mitanni who is known to have married Pharaoh Tuthmosis IV. …. There is however no evidence for this theory. Others have suggested that she may have been related to Yuya, the father of Queen Tiye. This theory seems to date back to C. Aldred. He suggested that Mutemwia was a daughter of the Master of the Horse named Yey. This scenario would have Mutemwia as a secondary royal wife, who gives birth to a son and heir. During the early reign of her son Amenhotep III, she and her brother Yuya marry Amenhotep to his niece Tiye. This is a nice theory, but again, no firm evidence exists to validate any of these ideas.

 

Queen Mutemwia was likely a minor wife of Tuthmosis IV. During the reign of Tuthmosis IV we first see him accompanied by a Queen Nefertari and later by Queen Iaret. Mutemwia must have given birth to Prince Amenhotep failry early in the reign, and it seems that Prince Amenhotep was recognized by the king and may have even been designated crown prince.

 

Mutemwia becomes more important during the reign of her son Amenhotep III. Amenhotep came to the throne at a fairly young age (some suggest ca 8-10 years old). Mutemwia never takes on the official role of regent for her son, but she is depicted on several of his monuments.

[End of quote]

 

The ‘Syrian’ element may become most significant when (if) I continue to trace the origins and identification of Thutmose III and his son, Amenhotep.

 

Obviously the reign lengths, as conventionally assigned to Thutmose III, IV, differ greatly, with Thutmose III reigning for 54 years and Thutmose IV for only about a decade or less.

 

However, one finds some entirely new possible perspectives arising when one reads articles such as Betsy Bryan’s “The Reign of Thutmose IV” (1991):

https://www.academia.edu/37751598/The_Reign_of_Thutmose_IV telling of historians Wente and Van Siclen even allowing for the possibility of “a figure quadrupling the reign” of Thutmose IV.

 

CHRONOLOGY

 

For those most interested in interpretive history, the problem of chronology often delays discussion. For those, however, who recognize the pitfalls and rewards of examining chronological evidence, this introductory chapter will be expected and, I hope, appreciated--if not completely agreed to. How long did Thutmose IV reign? The traditional answer to this question has been about eight years, a figure corresponding both to the attested year dates and the Manethonian king lists. Recently, however, the chronology for the New Kingdom proposed by Wente and Van Siclen used a figure quadrupling the reign. …. Such a dramatic extension of Thutmose's years as ruler warrants full discussion before it is embraced or rejected. The discussion below, therefore, before passing on to the events, characters, and monuments of the period, will examine the evidence for Thutmose IV's length of rule and weigh the arguments bearing on his reign contained in the new chronology. ….

[End of quote]

 

Added to this, Brian Alm has noted that reliefs of pharaoh Thutmose IV actually refer to his Heb Sed festival (“Thutmose IV: Placeholder or Pivot?”).

 

This usually indicated that the King of Egypt had attained to three decades of reign: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Heb-Sed

“Heb-Sed, also called Sed Festival, one of the oldest feasts of ancient Egypt, celebrated by the king after 30 years of rule and repeated every 3 years thereafter. The festival was in the nature of a jubilee, and it is believed that the ceremonies represented a ritual reenactment of the unification of Egypt, traditionally accomplished by Menes”.

 

Brian Alm writes, imagining that this must have been “fake news”, however, on the part of the Pharaoh:

https://www.academia.edu/37751598/The_Reign_of_Thutmose_IV

 

[Thutmose IV] had reliefs put up at Amada, in Nubia, referring to his heb-sed Jubilee — even though he ruled only eight or ten years and had no sed observance, which technically was to commemorate a king’s 30th year of rule — “Jubilee by proxy,” Reeves calls it …. Yes, it’s true that kings did jump the gun and held the heb-sed early, while they were still fresh and able to assert their right to rule with youthful vigor, but it was still a bit too early for a king who had ruled at most ten years and was dead by the age of 25. It is also possible that the heb-sed was being expressed not as an event but as a wish for longevity. Nevertheless, real or imagined, the rite had been recorded and recognized, so it was “fact.” Today it might be called fake news, but it was an Egyptian convention to create truth by writing it, stamped with the magical di ankh, “given life,” to make it so. ….

 

If, however, Thutmose IV is to be merged with III, then “fake news” was not involved.

For Thutmose III certainly did celebrate a Heb Sed festival:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festival_Hall_of_Thutmose_III

“The Festival Hall of Thutmose III is situated at the end of the Middle Kingdom court, with its axis at right-angles to the main east–west axis of the temple. It was originally built to celebrate the jubilee (Heb-Sed) of the 18th dynasty Pharaoh, Thutmose III, and later became used as part of the annual Opet Festival.”

 

This all suggests to me that Thutmose so-called IV has been procrusteanised by over-zealous Egyptologists, lopped off too short, limbs truncated.

 

For a pharaoh who is thought to have reigned for approximately only 8 years, Thutmose IV was an incredibly prolific builder. Though, as is further thought: “Most of his work was adding to the temples of his father and grandfather …”: https://www.crystalinks.com/Thutmose_IV.html

“Like most of the Thutmoside kings, he built on a grand scale. Thutmose IV completed the eastern obelisk first started by Thutmose III, which, at 32 m (105 ft), was the tallest obelisk ever erected in Egypt, at the Temple of Karnak. Thutmose IV called it the tekhen waty or 'unique obelisk.' It was transported to the grounds of the Circus Maximus in Rome by Emperor Constantius II in 357 AD and, later, "re-erected by Pope Sixtus V in 1588 at the Piazza San Giovanni" in the Vatican where it is today known as the 'Lateran Obelisk."

….

Thutmose IV also built a unique chapel and peristyle hall against the back or eastern walls of the main Karnak temple building. The chapel was intended "for people "who had no right of access to the main Karnak temple.

 

It was a 'place of the ear' for the god Amun where the god could hear the prayers of the townspeople." This small alabaster chapel of Thutmose IV has today been carefully restored by French scholars from the Centre Franco-Egyptien D'Etude des Temple de Karnak (CFEETK) mission in Karnak.

 

He also began work at most of Egypt’s major temple sites and four sites in Nubia, but almost all of this was simply adding to existing monuments. Most of his work was adding to the temples of his father and grandfather [sic], and perhaps suggesting new sites and monuments to his son.

 

Minor building projects [Thutmose IV]:

 

·       The Delta at Alexandria

·       Seriakus

·       Heliopolis

·       Giza

·       Abusir

·       Saqqara

·       Memphis

·       Crocodilopos in the Fayoum

·       Hermopolis

·       Amarna

·       Abydos (a chapel)

·       Dendera

·       Medamu

·       Karna

·       Luxor

·       The West Bank at Luxor (his tomb and mortuary temple)

·       Armant

·       Edfu

·       Elephantine

·       Konosso

 

Thutmose IV is like a microcosm of the great Thutmose III.

He is, in fact, Thutmose III procrusteanised, vertically challenged.   

 

Suspiciously, “little is known” about him:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thutmose_IV

“Little is known about his brief ten-year rule. He suppressed a minor uprising in Nubia in his 8th year (attested in his Konosso stela) around 1393 BC [sic] and was referred to in a stela as the Conqueror of Syria … but little else has been pieced together about his military exploits. Betsy Bryan, who penned a biography of Thutmose IV, says that Thutmose IV's Konosso stela appears to refer to a minor desert patrol action on the part of the king's forces to protect certain gold-mine routes in Egypt's Eastern Desert from occasional attacks by the Nubians. …. Thutmose IV's rule is significant because he established peaceful relations with Mitanni and married a Mitannian princess to seal this new alliance”.

 

Numerous instances of Syro-Mitannian campaigning and booty collecting can be gleaned from a reading of Betsy Bryan’s article, “The Reign of Thutmose IV” - although the tendency is, again, as with Brian Alm’s article, to understate the likelihood of its being hard reality.    

 

Thutmose III was indeed a Conqueror of Syria:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thutmose_III#Conquest_of_Syria

 

“The fifth, sixth and seventh campaigns of Thutmose III were directed against the Phoenician cities in Syria and against Kadesh on the Orontes. In Thutmose's 29th year, he began his fifth campaign, where he first took an unknown city (the name falls in a lacuna) which had been garrisoned by Tunip. …. He then moved inland and took the city and territory around Ardata … the town was pillaged and the wheatfields burned. Unlike previous plundering raids, Thutmose III garrisoned the area known as Djahy, which is probably a reference to southern Syria. …. This permitted him to ship supplies and troops between Syria and Egypt. Although there is no direct evidence for it, it is for this reason that some have supposed that Thutmose's sixth campaign, in his thirtieth year, commenced with a naval transportation of troops directly to Byblos, bypassing Canaan entirely. …. After the troops arrived in Syria by whatever means, they proceeded into the Jordan River valley and moved north, pillaging Kadesh's lands. ….

Turning west again, Thutmose took Simyra and quelled a rebellion in Ardata, which apparently had rebelled again. …. To stop such rebellions, Thutmose began taking hostages from the cities in Syria. The cities in Syria were not guided by the popular sentiment of the people so much as they were by the small number of nobles who were aligned to Mitanni: a king and a small number of foreign Maryannu.

 

Thutmose III found that by taking family members of these key people to Egypt as hostages, he could drastically increase their loyalty to him. …. Syria rebelled again in Thutmose's 31st year and he returned to Syria for his seventh campaign, took the port city of Ullaza … and the smaller Phoenician ports … and took more measures to prevent further rebellions. …. All the excess grain which was produced in Syria was stored in the harbors he had recently conquered and was used for the support of the military and civilian Egyptian presence ruling Syria. …. This left the cities in Syria desperately impoverished. With their economies in ruins, they had no means of funding a rebellion. …”.

 

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.