 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
      
|
Implications of the New Chronology
on David
& Solomon
In the New Chronology model, the Pharaoh Seti I ascends in Egypt around the middle of the fourty year reign attributed to Solomon. Shortly after his coronation, Seti I and the Egyptian army set out to deal with a crisis in Palestine. The Karnak account states, "their chiefs are gathered ... on the hills of Palestine,"(2) and that "Beth Shean was under attack from a Canaanite king and could not get help."(3) Beth Shean is listed as one of the most important Solomonic cities, and yet it is Seti I who is taking action to defend Egyptian interests there. The Bible does not mention this Egyptian military intervention. However, it does mention the capture of Gezer by the army of Egypt during the reign of Solomon. The Bible also records that Solomon had troubling adversaries, e.g., Jeroboam who is said to have fled from Solomon to the Pharaoh Shishak in Egypt; Rezon, the former minister of Hadadezer (identified by Rohl as Aziru of the Amarna letters) in Damascus; and Hadad in Edom (I Kings 11:14-40). Osman notes that both the Bible and the Talmud agree that Solomon was not the original name of the local monarch, but perhaps Jedediah.(4) What does seem certain is that Palestine remained an Egyptian possession from the time of Thutmose III throughout the Amarna period(5) and up until the time of Ramses III of the 19th Dynasty, and that David and Solomon would have ruled under the shadow of some of the most powerful kings of ancient times. Egypt, and the other imperial powers that followed (Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome), sought to control Palestine in order to secure land routes between Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Arabia. A recurring and effective strategy of control involved mass deportations and the establishment of native governors as vassals. Those who ruled in Palestine, especially during the Egyptian 18th and 19th Dynasties, would have only done so with Egypt's cooperation, or as Egyptian vassals. One ruler of Jerusalem, namely Solomon's son Rehoboam, apparently decided to test that condition by fortifying the cities of Judah after Egypt's defeat to the Hittites at the Battle of Kadesh in Syria in year 5 of Ramses II. In his year 8, Ramses II demonstrated Egypt's resolve to maintain sovereignty over Palestine. The pride of Rehoboam was dashed, and his move toward greater independence put down. The Encyclopedia Judaica states, "Elhanan was David's original name, which was later changed to David."(6) However, in the New Chronology, we have a more likely candidate, namely the Dadua of the Amarna tablet inscription. In the New Chronology model, the rise of the Habiru leader Dadua falls squarely within the Amarna period of Egypt. At this same time, another "Apiru" kingdom was emerging just to the north of Palestine known as Amurru. Its aggressive and independent leader, Aziru (identified in the New Chronology as the Biblical King Hadadezer) owed nominal allegiance to Egypt, but by the end of the Amarna period, had defected to the Hittites. It is reasonable, as the Bible describes, that the the newly established tribal kingdom of David would clash with its close rival just to the north, and after the defection of Hadadezer (Aziru) may have been encouraged by Egypt to do so. There was at least one major Egyptian military campaign during the Amarna period, either at the end of Akhenaten's reign or during that of Tutankhamun.(7) This campaign was directed primarily toward reestablishing the traditional border of Egypt's empire in Syria. This sortie by the Egyptian forces was largely unopposed and resulted in the recapture of the Syrian city Kadesh. A refinement of Osman's interpretation of the Bible's statement that David defeated Zobah (a city or region in Syria mentioned in the Bible) and "went to re-cover his border at the River Euphrates," would be that David participated in the Egyptian campaign of Akhenaten/Tutankhamun, and that it was later perceived as a retaking of the claims of his namesake Thutmose III. The Bible records that after this campaign, the Kings of Syria and former allies of Hadadezer (Aziru) made peace with David (II Samuel 10).. Joshua
However, something dramatic also occurred during the reign of Amenhotep III, or shortly thereafter, as evidenced by the sudden absence of cartouches among Jericho burials. Perhaps this corresponds to military action of Tutankhamun. Archaeology also indicates that Jericho lay waste for a considerable time after this event, i.e., until the time of King Ahab as the Bible also states. The Joshua of the Canaan conquest and Hebrew Commonwealth period would be associated with the first Exodus. In the second Exodus, the role of Joshua reflects the historical activities of Akhenaten's protege, the young Tutankhamun. The
Exodus The three passages in the Bible that specify the length of the Israelite Sojourn in Egypt reveal obvious "kludges" when carefully analyzed. Exodus 12:40 in the Masoretic text, on which some translations of the Bible are based, reads as: "they sojourned in Egypt for 430 years." However, in the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch texts, which both predate the Masoretic, Exodus 12:40 reads as: "they sojourned in Egypt and Canaan for 430 years." Josephus bases his account of the Exodus on the earlier texts as well. The original length of the Sojourn recorded by Exodus 12:40 would therefore have been approximately 215 years (430 years minus the 215 years Abraham and his descendants dwelt in Canaan prior to the Sojourn). The "and Canaan"was apparently dropped in order to harmonize with Genesis 15:13-16 which reads: "your [Abraham's] descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years ... and in the fourth generation they shall come back." Exodus 6:16-20 provides the four generations for the entire Sojourn, and explicit life spans, i.e., Levi (137 years), Kohath (133 years), Amram (137 years), and Moses (120 years) totalling 527 years (527 years minus the 57 years Levi lived prior to the Sojourn(9) minus the 40 years Moses lived after the Sojourn equals a Sojourn of 430 years, but only if you assume each son was born in the year of his fathers death!). Despite this fine piece of accounting work (most likely a harmonizing performed by a Biblical editor), it is impossible to reconcile the four generation Sojourn of Exodus 6 with the 400 year Sojourn of Genesis 15, or even a 215 year Sojourn recorded in Exodus 12. Moreover, the four generations of Exodus 6:16-20 cannot be harmonized with the eleven generations given for the Sojourn found in the genealogy of Joshua in I Chronicles 7:23-27. This is especially unworkable, because we are told that Amram married his father's sister.
This mess of "Biblical proportion" can be explained by recognizing that the Biblical editors/redactor were attempting to harmonize, wittingly or not, two or more distinctly different Sojourns. One Sojourn, according to early Bible manuscripts and Jewish tradition lasted approximately 215 years spanning eleven generations, while the other spanned portions of only four generations.
Exodus 6:26-27 seems to confirm a second Moses when it states, "It was this same Aaron and Moses...who spoke to Pharaoh king of Egypt about bringing the Israelites out of Egypt. It was this same Moses." The passage appears to be trying to discriminate between this Moses and another Moses who led Hebrews out of Egypt at another time and under different circumstances. This second Exodus may not have involved the destruction of Pharaoh's army, however it was not entirely peaceful either. Those who survived Seti's assault must have made their way to Palestine to join (or rejoin) the new Hebrew/Israelite nation. Conclusion
Having to deal with composite Biblical persons is not gratifying to the purist. But, the Biblical Moses does seem to be equally at home in the "eye for eye and tooth for a tooth" world of the Hammurabi Code (contemporary with the Egyptian 12th & 13th Dynasties), as he does in the time of the sweeping reforms of Akhenaten in the Egyptian 18th Dynasty. Dualism and other forms of synthesis and symbolic thought were highly developed and prized in ancient times,(10) and is a genius that has often been persecuted by "fundamentalists" of all pursuits even to this day. Whether one recognizes it as a genius or not, it is certainly a practice that we may all be forced to cope with when trying to reconcile the Bible and archaeology Suggestions
for Additional Research Rohl also identifies the Yishuya of Amarna tablet EA 256 as David's father Jesse. However, it doesn't take a Hebrew scholar to observe that Yishuya or Yeshua is a form of the name Jesus/Joshua. If EA 256 was written late in the reign of Akhenaten or after his exile, then this very well may be a reference to Tutankhamun. Perhaps, this is just a bit too obvious, but it should still be investigated. It is not yet clear how the Israelites who may have left Egypt in exile with Akhenaten or later in the reign of Ramses I, would have melded with those Hebrews already in Palestine. It may be that the exiled Israelites did more than simply bide their time in the Sinai, but took an active role in the Habiru revolution occurring at that very same time. As Rohl points out in "Pharaohs and Kings," there are two distinct groups in the Biblical Palestine of the tribal leader David. One group, referred to in the Bible as Hebrews, readily flee in the face of danger. The other are referred to as Israelites, and are the ones who stand and fight against the Philistines with conviction. The sudden appearance of over 300,000 men at Hebron to assist David in his capture of Jerusalem (see 1 Chronicles 11:1-6; 12:23-40) may be associated with the infusion of a new fighting force into Palestine. The power struggle associated with the ascension of Solomon may be a witness to their political takeover (see 1 Kings 2:13-35). At that time, Adonijah, the elder step-brother of Solomon, and the commander of the Army, Joab, were both killed by Benaiah (same as above) the Levite by order of Solomon. Also by command of Solomon, the priesthood of the Hebrew Commonwealth at Shiloh was ended at that time. Its priest, Abiathar was dismissed and he was replaced by the Levitical priest Zadok. Upon the death of Solomon, the short-lived marriage between factions came to an abrupt end (see 1 Kings 11:26-40; 12:1-20). Caveat
Reader There are two articles on
tree ring dating that claim to have bearing on the dating
of ancient Egypt: "Anatolian Tree Rings and the
Absolute Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean,
2220-718 B.C." in the June 1996 issue of Nature, and
"Ancient World Gets Precise Chronology" in the
June 29, 1996 issue of Science News. The first article
states, "Wood found as part of the cargo on the
Kas/Uluburun shipwreck has a last preserved ring of 1316
B.C.; other finds include ... a unique gold scarab of
Nefertiti ... and confirm conventional 14th-12th century
B.C. chronology against radical critiques
("Centuries of Darkness" is referrenced).
SYNERGY BETWEEN THE RESEARCH OF OSMAN, ROHL, AND THEAUX
by Charles Pope
DRAFT DISCUSSION PAPER w/questions following
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ccording
to Donald Redford in his landmark book, Egypt, Canaan,
and Israel in Ancient Times, "Solomon has assumed
the guise of the 'Sesostris of Israel.
historical
Pharaohs of Egypt, Thutmose III and Ramses II.) The
research of Ahmed Osman points to Amenhotep III as being
the main source of our "Sesostris of Israel."
In the conventional chronology, Solomon and Amenhotep are
separated by about 350 years, and this would make the
association between them more difficult to accept (albeit
still strong). However, in the New Chronology, they are
very nearly contemporary. In the New Chronology, the
United Kingdom of David and Solomon follows shortly after
the reign of Amenhotep III, and therefore would have
enjoyed use of the entire infrastructure of fine cities
newly established by the Egyptian 18th Dynasty
Pharaohs in Palestine. For example, strata VIII and VIIB
corresponding to Solomonic Israel at Megiddo span the
reigns of Amenhotep III through Merenptah in Egypt. It
may prove difficult to differentiate between construction
in Palestine by 18th Dynasty Pharaohs and that
of a local Israelite monarchy, especially if construction
by local rulers was performed with the blessing and
assistance of those same Pharaohs. However there is at
least the possibility of pursuing this research. 
n the New
Chronology model, Tutankhamun's reign falls squarely
within the time of King David in Israel. This poses an
interesting situation considering that Tutankhamun and
his general Horemheb likely campaigned in Palestine and
Syria. If this be the case, Tutankhamun's efforts could
only have strengthened the position of the new Hebrew
nation, which Egypt must have considered as an ally.
Furthermore, if the identification by Osman of
Tutankhamun as a second Joshua is correct, then
Tutankhamun's Palestine campaigns could only have
reinforced his association with the earlier Joshua of the
conquest. Excavation of Jericho indicates that the
catastrophic destruction of the city was associated with
the first Exodus of the 13th Dynasty. The corresponding
destruction layer includes outwardly collapsed walls,
extensive fire damage, and storage jars filled with
charred grain, and is consistent with the Biblical
account. 
he
research of Rohl has strengthened the basis for a Hebrew
Sojourn and Exodus during the Egyptian 12thand
13th Dynasties.
In the New Chronology model, the
first Sojourn begins shortly after the appointment of
Joseph by the 12th Dynasty Pharaoh Amenemhet
III, and ends with the first Exodus under Prince
"Mousos" at the close of the Egyptian 13th
Dynasty (in accordance with the ancient Jewish historian
Artapanas as quoted by the later Christian historian
Eusebius). In the second Sojourn, Joseph, in the person
of Yuya, serves the 18th Dynasty Pharaoh
Amenhotep III, and the second Exodus occurs at the end of
the 18th Dynasty (in accordance with the
ancient Egyptian historian Manetho as quoted in the later
works of the Jewish historian Josephus). The first Exodus
coincides with a devastating plague, which leaves Egypt
unable to stop the encroachment of the Hyksos. The second
Exodus also is associated with a devastating plague that
was at least partly responsible for the ignominious fall
of Akhenaten's government, and ultimately for bringing an
end to the 18th Dynasty. 
