Tag Archives: charles pellegrino return to sodom and gomorrah

http://ramsesii-amaic.blogspot.com/

Seti I was also king Jehoash of Israel, a friend fot he prphet Elisha.
 
Thus 2 Kings 13:14: “When Elisha became sick with the illness of which he was to die, Joash [Jehoash] the king of Israel came down to him and wept over him and said, “My father, my father, the chariots of Israel and its horsemen!”"

It may well be, then, under Elisha’s stong influence that the Jehu-ide ruler, Jeohash, became familiar with the Genesis texts, and then transposed these to Egypt.

Here is some of what else one may read at this other blog site
(http://ramsesii-amaic.blogspot.com/):

“Amaziah of Judah, whom we have already met, and identified with Ramses III, had died fifteen years after the death of Jehoash (Seti I) (2 Kings 14:17), his conqueror. It is at this point (820 BC) that there occurs another of those interregna, an 11-year one since Amaziah’s son Uzziah did not assume rulership until the 27^th year of Jehoash’s son, Jeroboam II (Ramses II) (2 Kings 14:21). Amaziah’s own father was Joash, whom we have identified with the legendary Seti-nakht, founder of the 20^th dynasty. His long reign of forty years (2 Kings 12:1) covered most of the reign of Jehu (Horemheb); the entire reign of Jehoahaz (Ramses I); and on until the 2^nd year of Jehoash (Seti I).

Now the historical scenario (revised) during the infancy of Joash of Judah, and just prior to it, seems to resonate so perfectly to the time of anarchy usually placed at the end of the 19^th dynasty, that I feel compelled to harken to Velikovsky’s view, at least in part, that this period ought to be shifted instead to that era prior to the main 19^th dynasty. Though the sequence Merenptah, Amenmesse, Seti II and Siptah at the end of the 19^th dynasty seems to be well established, the Aziru, Tausert and Bay scenario has its strong resonances we think at the time of Hazael (= Aziru). Bay in fact has such likenesses to Aziru/Hazael, as a likely ‘Syrian, a devious king-maker, a Chancellor, a seducer, in charge of the Treasury’, that we feel one must connect the ‘two’. Incredibly, the indestructible Hazael was still (along with his son, Ben-Hadad II) lurking in the background even during the infancy of Joash of Judah. There is here, too, the boy-king who has to be sheltered. That is Joash (2 Kings 11:2-3). In Egypt, it is supposed to have been Siptah whom Bay established on the throne of his father. But we should revise this instead to Tutankhamun, another so-called ‘boy king’. There is also the wicked queen, Athaliah in Judah, Tausert (ta-sherit) in Egypt, one of Nefertiti’s daughters. She would be Ankhesenamun, former wife of Tutankhamun, who had unsuccessfully tried to marry one of the Hittite princes, but was foiled; no doubt by Ay (Hazael/Aziru) whom she then married. Incredible as it may seem, it would appear then to have been Ay – rather than a son of his – who, as Bay, who is said to have seduced the queen, Tausert.

According to Rohl:

Egyptologists have often speculated that the ‘Great Chancellor of the entire land’ Bay, who ‘established the king on his father’s throne’, was an Asiatic power-broker, controlling the succession of Egypt at the end of the 19^th dynasty. They suggest that Bay was an Egyptian name given to the Asiatic Arsa – a foreigner perhaps more powerful than the pharaohs (Siptah and Tausert) whom he placed on the throne, and a politician of such influence that he could order a royal tomb to be made for himself in the Valley of the Kings.

All this would apply perfectly to Aziru/Ay (Arsa), who was indeed the same as Bay, except that it was Tutankhamun, not Siptah, whom he established on his father’s throne, whilst Tausert was the Ankhesenamun whom Ay married. And Ankhesenamun was Athaliah. Ankhesenamun would later reign solely for 5-6 years (as Tausert), like Athaliah’s 6 years in Judah (2 Kings 12:1). Finally Athaliah, a usurper in Judah, would be slain at the command of the priest, Jehoiada, aided by “the captains of the Carites and of the guards” (11:4). Though Joash, the boy king of Judah, would naturally have taken the credit. Thus Joash became the famed Seti-nakht, who drove out the usurper, after the sole reign of the queen, Tausert, whose tomb Seti-nakht “usurped and completed”?[2] This incident of the expulsion of the foreign Baalian (Phoenician) enemy from Jerusalem may actually be what the prophet Ezekiel would later celebrate in his majestic Proclamation Against the King of Tyre in terms of the expulsion of the fallen from Eden (ch. 28); Jehoiada there representing the “anointed cherub” (v. 14).

If Joash were the famed Seti-nakht, then presumably – as we have already concluded – his son, Amaziah, was Ramses III, son of Seti-nakht. Certainly one would think that Seti-nakht, with the reputation of a great reformer, would be in need of a substantial alter ego if a mere handful of years only in Egyptian history can be attributed to him. Whilst we are told pitifully little in the Second Book of Kings about what Joash had actually achieved during his 40 years of rule, it must have been substantial. The corresponding account in 2 Chronicles does at the end conclude enigmatically with: “Accounts of his sons, and of the many oracles against him, and of the rebuilding of the House of God are written in the Commentary on the Book of the Kings” (24:27). The Second Book of Kings, after telling about Joash’s confrontation with Hazael (12:17-18), then just gives us that standard line, “… rest of the acts of Joash, and all that he did” (12:19), before finally telling of Joash’s assassination by his servants (20-21). The account in the Second Book of Chronicles is nearly all bad. Joash went off the rails after the long life of his mentor, Jehoiada, and ungratefully murdered the priest’s son, Zechariah (24:15-22). That same year the Syrian army came up against Jerusalem and routed Joash’s army. Joash was “severely wounded” and this must have emboldened his servants to conspire against him and kill him (vv. 23-27). All of this would mean that the so-called 20^th dynasty was in fact a Judaean dynasty contemporaneous with Egypt’s 19^th dynasty.

Can this be explained? we have already attempted to do so, but shall add some more here.

During the reign of Jehu (Horemheb), Israel and Judah’s priest, Jehoiada were joined in common cause against Baalism. Jehoiada, as Elisha, was – as we saw – Jehu’s partner (in fact he had once cured Jehu/Naaman of his leprosy). Elisha, however, was not able to show his hand until Queen Athaliah had reigned for 6 years. Then, in Year 7, he struck. As a result of this coup d’êtat, The young Joash became king of Judah, thereby preserving David’s line. We should not expect a clash between Judah and Israel for the entire reign of Jehu’s son, Jehoahaz (Ramses I), since the latter was oppressed by Hazael and his son. Joash too, as we read above, was nearly overrun by Syria late in his reign.

In the 37^th year of the reign of Joash, when his reign was beset with troubles, Jehoash became co-Rex in Israel, and in Joash’s 40^th year of reign, just before his death, Jehoash assumed sole rule in Israel. A year later, Amaziah succeeded Joash in Judah. Early in his reign, Jehoash (Seti I) campaigned against the Syrians. He also had to confront the Libyans, as did Ramses III (Amaziah) in his early reign Seti’s (Year 4), with the ‘Sea Peoples’ overflowing in Year 8 of Ramses III.

By the late reign of Jehoash of Israel, Amaziah had grown into a powerful king, with a standing army of 300,000 men. It was presumably during this phase, before the rise of Jeroboam II (Ramses II) that Amaziah, as Ramses III, also ruled in Egypt. After Amaziah’s great success in Edom, probably right towards the end of Jehoash’s reign, when Jeroboam II (Ramses II, Year 7) was co-ruler, Amaziah clashed with the kingdom of Israel. Given the strength of both kingdoms now, this was probably inevitable. The army of Jehoash, presumably led by his son, defeated the king of Judah, tore down part of Jerusalem’s wall and plundered the Temple of Yahweh. It was about the halfway mark of Amaziah’s reign.

Now Israel was to have the upper hand for decades under Jeroboam II (Ramses II).

We shall be saying much more about the Judaeans as we go along.

Velikovsky, too, would attempt to preserve the ‘Sethos as founder’ tradition; though his radical solution to the problem – and indeed to the very structure and location of the entire 19^th dynasty – would differ greatly from Courville’s comparatively modest attempt (that is, within a revised context) to show how Seti could be the founder pharaoh.[2] Velikovsky renumbered Seti I, whom he often calls ‘Seti the Great’, as Seti II.[3] The reason for this is that Velikovsky had moved the pharaoh conventionally known as Seti (or Sethos) II Merenptah (c. 1202-1196 BC) from his usual position at the end of the 19^th dynasty to become a predecessor of Ramses I at the beginning of that dynasty; thereby preserving the tradition of a Seti (or Sethos) as founder of the dynasty. Velikovsky also removed the minor rulers Siptah and Tausert to the beginning of the 19^th dynasty. He may have been right in the case of Queen Tausert at least.

Velikovsky’s scheme also involved the identification of the 19^th dynasty with that normally known as the 26^th or Saïte dynasty of the C7th and C6th’s BC. According to Velikovsky’s radical proposal, Ramses II ‘the Great’ was the alter ego of the pharaoh Necho [II] who had opposed Nebuchednezzar II, the destroyer of Jerusalem (conventionally estimated at c. 587 BC). And Seti, father of Ramses II, was to be identified with Psammetichus I, who reigned from the mid to late C7th BC.[4] Thus the so-called ‘Israel Stele’ of Ramses II’s son, Merenptah – whom Velikovsky identified with pharaoh Apries of the 26^th dynasty – was now explained by Velikovsky as pertaining to the Babylonian Exile of the Jews by Nebuchednezzar, in the first half of the C6th BC.

Until the advent of Velikovsky’s Ramses II and his Time, in 1978, the US and British revisionists alike had generally tended to follow and accept his reconstruction of history as proposed in his Theses … and in his early Ages in Chaos series. But Velikovsky’s new proposal, which broke radically with standard archaeology by separating the 19^th dynasty from the 18^th, inserting in between two foreign dynasties (Libyan and Ethiopian) of about 150 years duration, led to a great rift amongst revisionists with many (particularly British) finding themselves unable to accept this new interpretation of the archaeology.[5]

Courville’s scheme, on the other hand, which had embraced Velikovsky’s major 18^th dynasty syncretisms with the biblical era, firstly of Israel’s Undivided Monarchy, followed by the early Divided Monarchy period, had retained the standard archaeological view that the 19^th dynasty followed immediately the 18^th. The ‘Glasgow School’ of the late 1970’s and early 1980’s began to test if it were possible to arrive at a revised history that would combine Velikovsky’s 18^th dynasty revision with the conventional archaeological sequence. Naturally now also Courville’s own system, that did combine these two aspects, came under greater scrutiny. For a time, the efforts of the ‘Glasgow School’ basically converged chronologically with Courville’s on major aspects of the 19^th dynasty: e.g. the location of Ramses II and Merenptah (and his Stele). Though Bimson soon modified Courville’s 721 BC date for the ‘Israel’ Stele, by re-setting it to a little earlier, to the Philistine campaigns of Tiglath-pileser III in the 730’s BC (conventional dates).[6]

However, with the passing of time, as serious difficulties were met especially in regard to finding a compelling location for the long-reigning Ramses II himself, and also for finding sufficient space for the five Third Intermediate Dynasties (21^st-25^th), now that the Ramessides had been brought down some 500 years on the time scale, some of the most notable contributors to the ‘Glasgow School’ eventually looked to locate the 19^th dynasty to an earlier period – about midway between Velikovsky’s and the conventional estimate. Whilst this new option now offered more chronological room in which to manoeuvre, it also meant inevitably the abandonment of all of Velikovsky’s promising 18^th dynasty syncretisms, including the previously highly regarded sequence of Ben-Hadad I = EA’s Abdi-ashirta and Hazael = EA’s Aziru. That was, may we suggest, a wrong move.

Courville himself, though, persevered with a Velikovskian-based 18^th dynasty, whilst rejecting Velikovsky’s 19^th dynasty scenario. Indeed perseverance was necessary here. The promising efforts of the ‘Glasgow School’ came to nothing, at least for many of its former proponents, due to the eventual complete abandonment of the original scheme in favour of an entirely new approach.

Now, according to Courville’s system Ramses II, whose reign would have terminated in 726/725 BC, must have been the biblical “King So of Egypt” with whom Hoshea of Israel conspired against the king of Assyria (2 Kings 17:4). Courville had plausibly (in his context) suggested that the reason why ‘So’ was unable to help Hoshea of Israel was because the Egyptian king was, as Ramses II, now right at the end of his very long reign, and hence aged and feeble. Courville had looked to find the name ‘So’ amongst the many names of Ramses II, and had opted for the rather obscure ‘So’ element in that pharaoh’s Suten Bat name, Ra-user-Maat-Sotep-en-Ra.<!–[7]

Far more compelling though, at least superficially, was Courville’s synchronising of Merenptah’s 5^th year, ‘Israel’ Stele, with 721 (722) BC, the year of the Fall of Samaria.

The view of this site however is that Courville’s dates for Ramses II and his son, Merenptah, are about half a century too late, because of Courville’s failure to take into account the interregna periods for Judah/Israel. Moreover Courville, as it seems, was unable properly to accommodate the 22^nd dynasty into his scheme. Admittedly, his identifying of these kings as governors appointed by Assyria was a clever way of relieving the ‘downward’ pressure on the Third Intermediate Period resulting from a massive chronological reduction. But we shall be rejecting this approach (e.g. on linguistic grounds) in favour of an entirely new and original view of the 22^nd dynasty that will be explained later.

For Velikovsky, the problem of a chronological squeezing of the Third Intermediate Period, due to a radically lowering of the Ramessides (19^th and 20^th dynasties), was ingeniously avoided by his allowing for this intermediate period, in part, to sit between the 18^th and 19^th dynasties, with the latter (19^th) now reidentified with the 26^th dynasty (Ramses II and His Time), and with the 20^th dynasty now located to as late as the Persian era (Peoples of the Sea). We must also reject this solution however, most notably on genealogical grounds which render these later aspects of Velikovsky’s Theses biologically impossible. Over the years certain revisionists who have continued to follow the complete Velikovskian historical package have strongly urged that we should reconsider his placement of the 19^th-20^th dynasties. And several times we have duly paused to give serious reconsideration to Velikovsky in this area. But on each occasion we have ultimately been convinced that the archaeological and genealogical facts just do not allow for Velikovsky’s bold re-location of the Ramessides.

Basically the solution to the Ramessides as proposed here, which owes a lot to many, but which also has its own quite distinctive characteristics, is to recognize the 19^th dynasty Ramessides as being of Jehu-ide (Zimride = Nimshi) origin. This now affords us with an extremely solid base when endeavouring to account for the 20^th dynasty and the most complex Third Intermediate Period.

B. Jehoahaz = Ramses I

Though Ramses I is not thought to have been even a relative of the supposedly son-less Horemheb, but merely an un-related official appointed by Horemheb to be his successor, Josephus seems to say otherwise:[1]

… his son Harmais [Horemheb?] for 4 years 1 month, his son Ramesses for 1 year 4 months, his son Harmesses Miamun for 66 years 2 months, his son Amenophis for 19 years 6 months, and his son Sethos, also called Ramesses, whose power lay in his cavalry and his fleet. ….

While, strangely, Seti I is omitted here, we seem to have the succession that we are tentatively proposing: namely, Horemheb, his son Ramses I (no Seti), then Ramses II.
That is a promising start.
Problems arise however after that. Whereas Jehoahaz reigned for 17 years (2 Kings 13:1), Ramses I is thought to have reigned for a mere 1-2 years. Moreover Jehoahaz, too, was buried at Samaria (13:9), whilst there is supposed to be an Egyptian mummy of Ramses I. Though one could note Ikram’s and Dodson’s objection to this. And most recently Clayton has written that “Ramesses [I]’s mummy may not have survived (it certainly has not been identified) …”.[2]

Despite the fact that Jehoahaz was oppressed by the Syrians virtually all the days of his reign (13:3-7), the Second Book of Kings also speaks of “all that he did, including his might”, without however bothering to elaborate upon this. In other words, there was more to Jehoahaz than is recorded in the Old Testament. A possible explanation in our context is that Jehoahaz, like Jehu, reigned over Israel for a substantial period of time, but only effectively over Egypt for a short period (respectively, 28 and 7-8 years for Jehu; 17 and 1-2 years for Jehoahaz). A significantly longer than 1-2 years of reign for Ramses I would however serve to ease an art-historical problem: namely, the apparent dissimilarity between the funerary equipment of Ramses I and that of his son, Seti I – extremely hard to explain if Ramses I had actually reigned for only 1-2 years.

Also, the ‘all that Jehoahaz did, including his might’, unelaborated upon in the Second Book of Kings, could now, for instance, incorporate his reign, however brief, over Egypt.

C. Jehoash = Seti I

With Jehoash and Seti I we gain a much better general fit than with B. The former reigned for 14 years, after a 3-year co-regency with his father;[3] while a “fourteen-year reign” is also the figure attributed to Seti I by Grimal.[4] Jehoash had some significant, though not total, success in battle in Syro-Palestine (2 Kings 13:15-19), especially early in his reign, as did Seti I.

The mummy problem now definitely arises, though, with the well-known mummy of pharaoh Seti I in Egypt, whereas Jehoash was buried in Samaria (14:29). When we come to discuss ‘Egyptian Mummies’, though, we shall consider the possibilities of (a) wrong identification and/or (b) removal of mummies from a previous location.

D. Jeroboam II = Ramses II

Here, again, there is a generally encouraging fit, with, in both cases, a reign of more than four decades. Though Ramses II, of course, went even two decades beyond that. Both were glorious kings, builders and conquerors. Ramses II, a genuine megalomaniac, is the best known pharaoh of Egypt (with perhaps the exception of Tutankhamun for his gold), whilst Jeroboam II managed to extend Israel’s domains back to the extent that they were in the glorious reign of Solomon (2 Kings 14:25). And, just as the last several decades of the reign of Ramses II were ineffectual, so was there a two-decade plus interregnum of confusion following Jeroboam II’s rule in Israel. The interregnum would perhaps account for the difference in reign lengths. The aged pharaoh had ceased to be able to retain his rule over Israel, but had continued ineffectually in Egypt for two more decades. The king’s great age might also provide a reason for the fact of this 22-year interregnum in Israel, about which the Bible provides hardly any detail at all.

Once again, there is the mummy problem, with the mummy of Ramses II being well-known in Egypt; whereas “Jeroboam slept with his ancestors, the kings of Israel” (14:29).

E. Zechariah = Merenptah

Zechariah, who reigned for only six months, is completely obscure. Merenptah, too is poorly known. He may have reigned from anything up to fifteen, or even nineteen years; though “just under a decade” is the more widely accepted figure.[5] We shall actually, however, be preferring the obscure Amenmesse, to Merenptah, for Zechariah. We are not told how and where Zechariah was buried after he was slain by “Shallum son of Jabesh” (15:10). That would not matter, though, in the case of the mummy-less Amenmesse.

The ‘Glasgow School’ of revision had done an excellent job in showing that the battles fought by Seti I, and Ramses II, were basically against the same sorts of enemies, Syrians and Hittites, in the same sorts of regions, as those of the early Jehu-ides.[6] The conclusion then was, not that the 19^th dynasty Ramessides were Jehu-ides, as we think, but that the oppressed Jehu-ides received help from the more potent of the 19^th dynasty pharaohs, Seti I and Ramses II. So, even if we have gone too far in even suggesting that the 19^th dynasty was in fact ‘Syrian’ Jehu-ide, we should nonetheless confidently accept the Glasgow view – now however discarded by its chief exponents – that the Jehu-ides were contemporaneous with the main rulers of the 19^th dynasty. Though we should have Seti I more adjacent to Jehoash than to Jehoahaz, hence a little later than then proposed by Dr. Bimson. Now, most interestingly in regard to this, the biblical span for the Jehu-ides, 124 years,[7] is actually identical to Grimal’s estimate for (our equivalent era) Horemheb to Amenmesse (1323-1199), 124 years.[8] Given our foundational argument, that Horemheb was Jehu, then our chronology for the 19^th dynasty Ramessides is going to be very accurate indeed even if these were not – as I believe they were – the Jehu-ides.

Summation

In general, then, we have a broad similarity amongst the succession A-D, at least, in that we there have four successive kings of Israel (including Jehu) loosely aligned to four successive pharaohs, over an approximately same period of time, with a certain feebleness in B. following the strong reign of A; a revival, though not complete, with C; a glorious and outstanding era of building and conquest, followed by a late period of weakness again, with D. And, whilst it is going to be necessary to explain why Merenptah is omitted from the equation in E., the pairing that we shall be proposing here will also involve such basic likenesses as a general obscurity and a brevity of reign.

Moreover, there is some overall degree of similarity in a Palestine at times under extreme pressure from the Syro-Hittites.

In terms of reign length, though, Ramses I is an extremely poor fit for Jehoahaz; whilst Jeroboam II, despite his exceptionally long reign of 41 years, still falls well short of Ramses II’s 66-67 years. Though we have suggested how to account for the discrepancies here. The problem of mummies in A-E ranges from extreme, through uncertain, to non-existent. What we are firmly holding to is that the era of the main Ramessides was contemporaneous with the Jehu-ides. That at least provides us with a basic general chronology (revised) for these Ramessides all the way down to c. 770 BC. Whether we can take things that step further though, to secure the Ramesside chronology by equating individual Ramesside pharaohs with individual Jehu-ides, as just outlined, still needs to be determined. Before specifically examining in detail each of the above four cases of Jehu’s successors (B-E), we should just like to suggest how we might begin to take steps to resolve the differences in reign lengths, in some cases, and also the mummy problem, in some cases. Here, then, is the basic pattern of events as we envisage it.

Jehu, a long-time governor and military commander in Syro-Palestine for the el-Amarna pharaohs, eventually became king of Israel where he ruled for 28 years and was buried in Samaria. He also directly ruled Egypt for a period of time, post-Amarna. Whilst this is also given as 28 years, his effective rule of that country is thought to have been more like 7/8 years (perhaps only 4 years), as we read. This establishes a general rule, that these Jehu-ide kings were actual kings of Israel, who also ruled Egypt to a greater or lesser extent. The Old Testament scribes in their selectivity, as we have previously discussed, did not as a rule show much interest in what was also happening in Egypt at the time. In some cases we shall suggest that, depending on their strength, the rule of these Jehu-ides over the more prestigious Egypt was even more significant than their rule over Israel.

The situation of mummies is perhaps rather more problematical. It seems that these kings were customarily buried in Samaria. That is not recorded, though, in the case of Zechariah; or even specifically (though it is strongly implied) with Jeroboam II. Horemheb is not a problem, because there is no mummy attributed to him. And the same applies to Amenmesse. Also great uncertainty pertains to the alleged mummy of pharaoh Ramses I. But with Seti I and Ramses II, especially, there seems to be a well-established mummy each in Egypt conflicting with the idea of a burial in Samaria; though we shall have cause to query the case of Ramses II in particular. We know that the coffins and mummies of these pharaohs were moved around. Our suggestion will be that, if we are right in identifying the Ramesside dynasty as Jehu-ide, then whatever genuine mummy of these Ramessides we do now possess must have been moved later from Samaria to Egypt.

We think that pharaoh Seti I (whom we identify also as Jehoash of Israel) ought also to be recognized as the “saviour” of the prayers of king Jehoahaz of Israel. We do not need to look then to Adad-nirari III, or Zakir of Hamath – neither of whom is even named in the biblical account – since the Second Book of Kings goes on to tell us that Jehoash in fact actually thrice defeated the Syrians. And, according to the Bible, Jehoash would have completely defeated this foe had he responded even more enthusiastically to the challenge offered to him by the prophet Elisha (2 Kings 13:14-19).

Dr John Bimson had considered the possibility that Jehoash, amongst other candidates, may have been this “saviour”, whilst also stating the objections to this view:[1] “There has been much discussion over the identity of the anonymous “saviour”. One view is that the verse refers to Joash [Jehoash], Jehoahaz’s successor, who defeated Ben-Hadad [II] three times and regained some of the lost Israelite cities (II Kings 13:24-25); or to Jeroboam II, son of Joash, who restored Israel’s Transjordanian territory and even conquered Damascus and Hamath (II Kings 14:25-28). But as J. Gray remarks: “The main objection to this view is that this relief is apparently a response to the supplication of Jehoahaz (v. 4), whereas relief did not come until the time of Joash and Jeroboam” … [Reference: I & II Kings: A Commentary, 2^nd edn., 1970, p. 595, where references can be found to scholars who favour Joash and/or Jeroboam as the deliverer]. Other scholars do not acknowledge this difficulty, pointing to II Kings 13:22 (“Hazael king of Syria oppressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz”) as evidence that deliverance did not come until after the reign of Jehoahaz … [Reference: K. A. Kitchen in NBD, p. 58]”.

Our explanation of the situation would be however based on the three-year co-regency between Jehoahaz and Jehoash. The relief for Jehoahaz’s Israel would have begun to arise right near the end of Jehoahaz’s reign, when there began the co-rule of the now more energetic Jehoash. However, this deliverance was only gradual and its proper effects would become manifest only after Jehoahaz had passed away. Correspondingly, with Jehoash as Seti I, the deliverance from Syria began at the end of the reign of the aged Ramses I.

Seti I was already claiming a new era.

Bimson had also provided a useful account of the similarities between Israel’s wars against Syria at this approximate time and Seti I’s campaigns into Syro-Palestine, leading him to consider the possibility that Seti I may in fact have been the “saviour” of Israel. This consideration of Bimson’s – which we in fact fully accept (given our combination: Jehoash = Israel’s “saviour”; Jehoash = Seti I) – we shall briefly return to again after here giving here part of Bimson’s intuitive account of Seti’s I’s campaigns in this revised context:[2] “In the chronology which we are testing here, the time of Jehoahaz [our comment: more exactly, we think, Jehoash] corresponds to the time when Seti I campaigned in Palestine and Syria. It therefore seems very probable that the Aramaean [Syrian] oppression of Israel is the event of which we have already read on Seti’s Beth-Shan stelae”.

… Aram is “the wretched foe”. Several parallels confirm that we are reading about the same events in both sources. Firstly we have seen that the stelae refer, in Rowe’s words, to “an invasion by tribes from the east side of the Jordan”; the Old Testament records that in Jehu’s reign Hazael occupied all of Transjordan as far south as the Arnon; it was therefore presumably from there that he launched his further offensives into the centre of Israel in the reign of Jehoahaz.

Furthermore, we have seen that the attacking forces of Seti’s day were operating from a base called Yarumtu, or Ramoth, probably Ramoth-gilead. [My comment: or Jarmuth/Yarmuth?]. ….

Once west of the Jordan, the immediate objective of Seti’s opponents was apparently the capture of towns in Galilee and the Plain of Esdraelon. In the time of Jehoahaz this was part of the kingdom of Israel. II Kings 13:25 speaks of towns in Israel which Ben-Hadad “had taken from Jehoahaz … in war”. Unfortunately the captured towns are not named, but we know they lay west of the Jordan, since all the territory east of the Jordan had been lost in the previous reign.

The invaders whom Seti confronted also had objectives further afield; they were attempting “to lay waste the land of Djahi to its full length”. We have seen that Djahi probably comprised the Plain of Esdraelon and the coastal plain to the north and south, extending southwards at least as far as Ashkelon. The capture of towns such as Beth-shan was probably an attempt to gain control of the Plain of Esdraelon, which provided access from the Jordan to the coastal strip, both to the north and (via the pass at Megiddo) the south. The coastal plain to the south was certainly one of Hazael’s objectives.

…

In short, the movements and objectives of Hazael’s forces exactly parallel those of the forces opposed by Seti I, so far as they can be reconstructed. This is not to say that specific moves recorded in the Biblical and Egyptian accounts are to be precisely identified .… Seti’s two stelae from Beth-shan show that the invaders pushed westwards on more than one occasion, so it would be a mistake to e Continue reading →