Hi ray,
However, the time frame you are describing is the 9th century BC.
The Thutmosis Palestinian campaign DID NOT reach the Orontes in Syria.
You are correct in saying that his first campaign did not reach the Orontes, and thus did not reach Kadesh on the Orontes. However, the annals at Karnak do not claim that Thutmosis reached the city of Kadesh at this time, it claims that the 'Prince of Kadesh' had entered Megiddo and that Thutmosis engaged him and other allied forces there, it never claims that Thutmosis actually destroyed Kadesh on the Orontes. It was to be a few years before Thutmosis' empire stretched beyond the Orontes and into the extreme north of Syria.
Anyway, here is some text from the annals regarding Thutmosis III's first campaign into Palestine:
Regnal year 23, first month of shomu, day 16: at the town of Yehem, [his majesty] gave orders for a consultation with his victorious army, speaking as follows: '[that vile] doomed one of Kadesh is come, and has entered into Megiddo-- he is [there] even at this moment!-- having gathered unto himself the chiefs of all the foreign lands who used to be loyal to Egypt, together with places as far away as Naharin dogs at their heels namely Khurrians, and Qodians, their horses and their troops [being very many indeed]; and further, it is rumoured that he is saying: 'I shall make a stand to (Quote in Redford, Donald B. The wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III. Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2003. page 14)
This is nothing at all like the Biblical story of Shishak, Rehoboam, and Jerusalem, if you read that you will see that Rehoboam does not lead a confederacy of small kingdoms against Shishak, he stays in Jerusalem.
1 Kings 14:25-28
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. So King Rehoboam made bronze shields to replace them and assigned these to the commanders of the guard on duty at the entrance to the royal palace. Whenever the king went to the LORD's temple, the guards bore the shields, and afterward they returned them to the guardroom.
This is nothing at all like Thutmosis III’s first campaign into Palestine, which describes encountering the Prince of Kadesh at the city of Megiddo. Nowhere is it mentioned in the Bible that Rehoboam joined forces with other small kingdoms and challenged the pharaoh, in fact, the Bible claims that Rehoboam was so scared that he paid an indemnity to Shishak to leave Jerusalem alone.
Velikovsky writes:
"... the city of Kadesh is named as the first among one hundred and nineteen Palestinian (not Syrian) cities ....
This Kadesh could not be a city in Syria, for in the Palestine campaign Thutmose III did not reach the Orontes.
Kadesh on the Orontes was a major player in the Levant at this time, and had an influence way beyond the city itself, thus Thutmosis did not need to reach Kadesh in order to claim victory over Kadesh, indeed he conquered the Prince of Kadesh at the Battle of Megiddo, some distance south of Kadesh on the Orontes, but he still defeated ”Kadesh’.
There was a Kadesh in Galilee, Kadesh Naphtali,
There is a Kadesh-barnea in the Bible as well, it doesn't mean that you can just pick a 'Kadesh' willy-nilly to suit your purpose.
mentioned a few times in the Scriptures; but what would be the purpose of placing this unimportant city at the top of the list?
A fairly strong argument for it not being this particular Kadesh. But, wouldn't it depend how the list was constructed? Was it arranged in order of perceived importance, or in chronological order, or was it random?
But, the answer is fairly obvious, and even suggested by your statement
"what would be the purpose of placing this unimportant city at the top of the list?" Kadesh is at the top of the list precisely because it was a very important city, a city whose Prince had forged an alliance with many other kingdoms in order to challenge Egypt, then engaged Thutmosis at Megiddo in the south of Palestine. So, it makes perfect sense when you realise that The Prince of Kadesh on the Orontes engaged Thutmosis during the pharaoh's first campaign in Palestine. Thutmosis did not need to reach Kadesh as 'Kadesh' came to Megiddo.
"(source cite available upon request)
I won't trouble you for a source at the moment, but I have a feeling that both of us will need to provide a lot of sources in the coming weeks.
That list is the names of cities conquered by Thutmose III engraved at Karnak. Kadesh is Jerusalem. Kadesh at Karnak is holy Jerusalem.
Why not just use the Egyptian name for Jerusalem?
A word study in the O.T. will show beyond any doubt that Kadesh refers to Jerusalem.
I would be interested in seeing that please.
Forbidden"More recently, the problem may have been solved satisfactorily by K. Birch.26) It is well known that the later Egyptian pharaohs had as many as five names. Now Birch has noted in this regard that "... the (Golden) Horus names of Thutmose III comprise variations on: Tcheser-khau, Djeser-khau, Cheser-khau, (Sheser-khau?);" names that come very close indeed to "Shishak" (Hebr. qwaOwi) according to Birch. Nor do these names have the problem of the presence of the letter "n" as found greatly complicating discussions on the name Shoshenq's appropriateness for "Shishak". Regarding the succession of consonants - considered much more important than the changeable vowels in ancient names - we get for Sheser-kau the pattern, Sh-S-K, corresponding almost exactly to Sh-Sh-K, and more suitable than Shoshenq (Sh-Sh-N-K)."
This looks like very selective use of sources, as Shoshenq's name did not always contain an 'n', so the argument is not that straightforward. Do you know if Birch mentions this fact in his article?
Rohl mentions the fact that Shoshenq's name is sometimes found without the 'n', but he doesn't really dwell on that fact. Here is what he says:
In Egyptian hieroglyphics he name Shoshenk is usually written Sh-sh-n-k but occasionally as Sh-sh-k with the ”n’ omitted. The latter form would thus appear to be an exact equivalent of the biblical name Shishak. However, the few monuments of Shoshenk I found in Palestine never display the missing ”n’ form. Moreover, a contemporary text in east-semitic (Akkadian) cuneiform transcribes the name Shoshenk as Susink, displaying both the ”n’ and the common transposition of Egyptian ”sh’ into semitic ”s’. )Rohl, Test of Time, page 128).
But, in true Rohl style, he then ignores further evidence as it completely blows his silly little theory out of the water. Rohl has been criticised for not including evidence that other people scholars know for a fact that Rohl does actually know, but he omits it in order to keep the gravy train puffing along.
Here are a few explanations for the translation of Shoshenk as Shishak. First off, since I know you rate Cambridge Ancient History highly, as you have referenced it a few times in the past, here is a quote from Volume III, The Assyrian Empire:
Shishak, as the Hebrew chronicler calls him, was a local prince of Libyan descent, and, like his ancestors and descendants, bore a Libyan name. In Egyptian it is spelt Sha-sha-n-k , which the Assyrians vocalised as ’Shushinku’, and we conventionally call Sheshenk or Sheshonk.
Here we are told that Shishak was of Libyan descent, which is contrary to the descent of Thutmosis III, unless, of course, you have some evidence to suggest that Thutmosis III was of Libyan descent.
To support the Libyan connection, Shishak:
The Anchor Bible Dictionary
Entry Shishaq.
The form of the name in the MT indicates that its proper pronunciation was uncertain in later biblical tradition. The name derives from Lybian ssnk and appears in Akkadian as Susinku and in Greek as Sesonchis; the conventional English spelling is Shesonk. Shishak (Shesonk) was the founder of the Egyptian 22nd dynasty, and the first of perhaps five kings to bear the name Sheshonk. (page 1221)
So, the translation is pretty straightforward, and there is no need to do all the silly textual gymnastics. Sheshonk is the best fit for the description of the Bible anyway, look at who fights for Shishak:
Chronicles 2:12
Because they had been unfaithful to the LORD, Shishak king of Egypt attacked Jerusalem in the fifth year of King Rehoboam. With twelve hundred chariots and sixty thousand horsemen and the innumerable troops of Libyans, Sukkites and Cushites that came with him from Egypt, he captured the fortified cities of Judah and came as far as Jerusalem.
Possible problem here, do you have evidence of large numbers of Libyan troops fighting for Thutmosis III on his first campaign into Palestine?
Also, if you look at the final line of the Bible quote there,
”He captured the fortified cities of Judah and came as far as Jerusalem”, this could explain why there is no mention of Jerusalem on Shishak’s list. Simply put, this quote suggests that Jerusalem was not captured, it was only the fortified cities of Judah that were captured, and it says that Shsishak only came as far as Jerusalem, it does not say he captured it.
From the Anchor Bible Dictionary, page 1222
According to 1 Kings 14.26, Jerusalem escaped the fate of other cities, and it does not indeed appear in the list, thanks to Rehoboam's pragmatic decision to pay Shishak a substantial indemnity which included the golden shields his father had made for the guard.
So, it may well be that Shishak doesn't list Jerusalem as a conquered city because he didn't have to overcome it, he was paid a healthy indemnity to leave the city alone. Also, as you are no doubt aware, there is a substantial part of Shishak's list that is damaged and lost forever, and there is at least the possibility that Jerusalem was mentioned there if it was deemed necessary.
Scholarly analysis has now connected Shishak with Thutmose III.
Velikovsky, Ages in Chaos, pages 164, 165 [1952]:
"Cut into the outside of the southern wall at the Karnak Temple is a hieroglyphic name which reads "Sosenk", and this king of the Libyan Dynasty inscribed the names of cities subject to him.
Scholarly analysis has not and never has connected Shishsak with Thutmosis III, this is a dream that you are caught up in, and seem unable to waken up from. Scholarly analysis has shown Velikovsky’s connection to be untenable. Remember I asked which campaign you were on about, well evidence from the campaigns of Thutmosis III and Shishak prove that it could not be the same person.
This is from
Breasted, J. H. Ancient records of Egypt : historical documents from the earliest times to the Persian conquest., Chicago : University of Chicago Press ; London : Luzac & Co. ; Leipzig : Otto Harrassowitz, 1906-7., page 348:
The campaign of Sheshonk in Palestine in the fifth year of Rehoboam of Judah (I Kings 14:25), probably about 926 B.C., must have taken place in the latter half of the reign f the founder of the new dynasty. He possessed no monument in Thebes, until his twenty first year (abut 924 B.C.), when he built the Bubasite gate in the Karnak temple and the first court to which it leads.
Now, it was two years before his twenty first year that Sheshonk campaigned in Palestine, which makes it his nineteenth year by my reckoning. Now, if we turn to Thutmosis III’s first campaign in Palestine, we come across a problem. If we go back to the Redford quote:
Regnal year 23, first month of shomu, day 16: at the town of Yehem, [his majesty] gave orders for a consultation with his victorious army, speaking as follows: '[that vile] doomed one of Kadesh is come, and has entered into Megiddo-- he is [there] even at this moment!”
Thutmosis III’s first campaign into Palestine was during his 23rd Regnal year, which contradicts the nineteenth year of Shishak’s Palestinian campaign. It cannot be the same person.
This is maddening to say the least.
I think you might actually be enjoying this ?
It's a simple question Ray. Why does the Bible fail to mention Egypt, or an Egyptian, between the Reed Sea episode and 'Shishak', a period of over 500 years by biblical chronology? Think of all the powerful pharaohs there had been during that period, and the Bible is unaware of them.
Your commentary contains many false assumptions that predetermine your conclusions: Biblical evidence is false.
The Bible narratives of the Exodus and Conquest, at face value, have been falsified, whether you acknowledge that or not. But, instead of just saying that I have many false assumptions, why not say what the false assumptions are and why they are false?
The Biblical record AND Egyptian history coincide when the Velikovsky reconstruction is adopted.
But it doesn't, and not only that, it doesn't coincide with the rest of ancient near eastern history. Velikovsky seemed unaware of the knock on effect that rewriting Egyptian history would have.
Jews are not in a conspiracy to fool the world.
The early Jewish writers were no different from the writers from other ancient cultures, with exaggerated claims and propaganda being the order of the day. Take the Conquest myths as an example. The Conquest of Canaan has been shown beyond reasonable doubt to be untrue, yet the biblical myths apparently give Israel some sort of valid claim to the land.
Exaggerated claims are easy to find in ANE texts, the Bible is no different.
We move New Kingdom Pharoahs TO the circa 9th century BC and everything fits.
It actually disjoints the entire ANE, but I will demonstrate this on a new thread as this one is reaching the unstable 300 mark.
The only reason minimalists will not go along is because this would falsify the entire work of atheist Egyptology for over 100 years.
But, what you seem to be ignoring is the fact that not all Egyptologists are minimalists, you have failed to give the name of a single 'atheist Egyptologist' who is also a minimalist. I have given you three names of maximalist theist Egyptologists, so this falsifies your claim. How can anyone call Kenneth Kitchen an atheist Egyptologist and a minimalist?
Do you think if Thutmose was anihilated that it would go unnoticed?
He was not decimated because he was contemporary with Rehoboam.
So, who was the pharaoh of the Exodus in Velikovsky's hypothesis?
Velikovsky was an atheist/naturalist. Best friends with Einstein. He is famous for offering outrageous natural explanations to account for Biblical miracles.
There is no bias for the supernatural.
But, there is bias toward non-critical acceptance of evidence. Some of Velikovsky's proposals are so ridiculous I find it difficult to understand how anyone over ten years if age can take them seriously. The world in collisions proposal is completely unsound and has no basis at all in reality. Velikovsky's explanation for why there is no record of Venus colliding with Earth is because the event was so traumatic that the entire population of the Earth had collective amnesia! He states that the manna from heaven was carbohydrates that were carried here in the tail of Venus when it was a comet, and the insects involved in the plague were also carried to Earth by the rogue planet Venus. These aren't appeals to natural phenomenon, these are the products of an over active imagination.
The only reason Velikovsky is hated "is because he refuted them all" (Dr. Scott)
Perhaps Dr. Scott should have read a bit more on the subject, or his own bias blinded him from accepting how crazy Velikovsky's claims were.
Velikovsky proves the evidence for the Bible will not be accepted no matter what.
Any evidence that may be related to the Bible is now first examined on its own, no one wants to go back to the old days when Christian 'archaeologists' abused the material remains. Nowadays any new finds should be intensely scrutinised before any conclusions are made. This is what should happen, but some people are always too eager to accept anything that the think supports the Bible that they will declare almost anything authentic. Look at the recent James ossuary, or the Joash inscription, both fakes, and both touted as excellent evidence for bible reliability, and you think that the discipline is being stifled by theists? It is just as well theists are involved because if they weren't then every single thing in the Bible would have been 'discovered' by now, and every event verified. Seriously though, you need to get this idea of an atheist conspiracy out of yor head, it really makes no sense. The history of archaeological excavation in the Holy Land was dominated by theist scholars, predominantly American conservative Christians. What needs to be accepted is that the evidence against many biblical events was so overwhelming that these scholars, out of intellectual honesty, HAD to change their opinions, what they had believed for so long was so obviously inaccurate that they had to reinterpret the Bible to fit the evidence. As I have shown you before, Albright had to change his conclusions about many Bible events because as evidence was unearthed it did not support his previous stances. Callaway was exactly the same, his work at Ai was hopefully going to prove that it was inhabited at the same time as Jericho, he too had to conclude that something is wrong with the biblical narrative, as he found no evidence a settlement there from c.2400-1200. The whole debate is riddled with the altered opinions of thiests, who, when faced with overwhelming contrary evidence, had to be honest with themselves and accept that some of the biblical accounts could not be taken at face value. What they did was to reinterpret the biblical test to fit the archaeological evidence, hat other area of study would accept this as normal procedure? Truth be told, if any other ancient texts had the poor track record that the Bible has that text would have been categorised as folk lore long ago.
Despite your academic credentials you do not speak for all scholarship.
I certainly speak for the majority, but the majority has been wrong before, so I will keep an open mind.
The Media takes everything Darwinists say at face value without any dissenting views allowed = Biblical truth suppression claim corresponds with reality.
That's because evolution is a sound theory that hasn't been falsified, whereas the Bible has been shown to be largely unreliable. The Bible has had its day, and it no longer sits unchallenged by history and science. It is a great collection of ancient literature, which does contain some verifiable history, but Genesis to Judges is almost entirely fiction.
Since Dr. Scott's death his heir has decided to publish all of his material. An army of transcribers is at work around the clock.
That should bring in a few pennies from the gullible for the heir. What a coincidence that Wyatt's heirs are still raking in the cash from his scams as well.
The evidence for the Bible is massive.
That depends on what you consider 'massive' to mean. The fact that not a single person or event in all the books from Genesis to Judges has been verified only conjures up only one definition of 'massive' for me.
Dr. Scott was the single greatest researcher and scholar ever in ancient history.
Maybe in your opinion, but he isn't even registering on the radar of mainstream scholarship.
The only reason the vast body of evidence is relatively unknown is because, like the Bible says, no believers suppress it.
You surely don't swallow this do you, this is just a device used by conmen to explain why their silly, unsupported theories are rejected by the academic world. Which atheist suppressed Albright? Who founded the journal 'Biblical Archaeologist'? Is BARev suppressed by atheists?
The decision to publish Dr. Scott's scholarship will open the world’s eyes to the flood gates of evidence in existence.
Why did Scott not publish these great reams of evidence when he was alive? We all know he had a love of money, so why keep all this evidence to himself?
If I open a topic, and time permitting, will you participate ?
Tell you what, I think we should open thread on the pharaoh issue, did Shishak = Sheshonq (or some other pharaoh), if it did equal Sheshonq, then the Temple treasures argument is redundant.
Let me know what you think, and if you want to go ahead, do you want me to construct the OP? If you do, it will be probably next Monday before I will be able to post.
You have reason to now sue your eye doctor. Email me if you want a witness.
As long as you promise not to mention Velikovsky because over here they commit people to psychiatric wards for a lot less.
- time permitting on both sides ?
Time between posts has never been an issue between us, and I am quite busy right now, but I can spare a few hours for the next couple of weeks, and after February 8th I will have more free time.
Atheist Egyptology has existed from its inception. Modern day revisionism has been in full swing since the early 1970's.
Dr. Scott: "I never read an archaeological report from the 19th century that denied the Exodus".
This is a contradiction. How can you assert that Egyptology is atheist, yet claim Scott didn't read an archaeological report that denied the Exodus when Egyptology's 'inception' occurred in the 19th century?
When Scott says he hadn't read an archaeological report from the 19th century that denied the Exodus, does he mean the Bible version of the Exodus, or some variation of the alleged event? I'd like to know the answer before I respond to this point
Minimalists have slowly taken over.
Ray, this is only because the evidence available HAS to be allowed to stand on its own. Why should every find in the near east be interpreted in the light of the Bible? The Bible is just one source of many that has been used to try and reconstruct an accurate picture of the ANE, it has to be treated the same way that every other source is, and that is objectively. Why run the risk of allocating a find to a biblical event when it may have nothing to do with that event, why simply give Israel someone else's past?
Brian, how can the Bible ever be verified if minimalism ASSUMES the Bible wrong and wilfully interprets evidence contrary ?
This is an inaccurate understanding of minimalism because 'minimalists' do not assume that the Bible is wrong. Minimalist scholars just do not emphasise the importance of the Bible as much as maximalists do. Also, maximalists do not assume the Bible to be perfectly correct in everything it claims. What they will do is take the Bible's version of events at face value in an issue where there is little or no evidence, they do not dig their heels in and ignore contrary evidence. Where the archaeological records overwhelmingly contradict the Bible, a maximalist will always reinterpret the text to fit the evidence. Give me the name of any maximalist archaeologist, be it Albright, Glueck, Wright, or any other maximalist champion who has carried out field work in the near east, and I will show you that after being in the front line for a few tears that none of them take the Bible at face value, they always reinterpret the biblical text to fit the evidence.
The first goers proved the Bible.
No they didn't, they THOUGHT they had, but as the discipline of archaeology developed, it was shown how incorrect these early pioneers were.
Angry atheists have since attempted to erase.
You mean scholars, both theist and atheist, have worked hard to find the truth? You keep ignoring the fact that almost every archaeologist that has worked in the near east, and had their work published has been a conservative Christian. How can you swallow such obvious nonsense. Go through the history of archaeological excavation in the near east and make two lists, one for theist and one for atheist, which one will have more names, and by a long way?
How come you never mention how Kenyon was refuted, that is her silly departure from Garstang based upon a lack of pottery ?
She hasn't been refuted, the last attack on her work (that I know of) was Bryant Woods' embarrassing attempt actually ended up confirming Kenyon's conclusions. That must have been a bummer for old Bryant.
I respect credentials.
Could you inform the board of Velikovsky's credentials?
Do you want a debate about understanding views ?
Let me know.
Not at the moment thanks, I cannot commit more time.
Most scholars will not participate in any discussion that includes Velikovsky.
Well, since Velikovsky's ideas have all been obliterated, what would be the point? It is the same thing as debating Kent Hovind, pointless.
The Great Pyramid proves the existence of God
You are still clinging to this even though you accepted that there were errors in the claim? Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you agree that the G.P. is not on the LLM, and that the Queen's Chamber was incomplete?
and the Biblical penalty that God blinds the eyes of those who deny Him Creator credit.
He also short circuits the brains of those who affirm Him.
EvC will not allow me another GP topic.
Well, you did foam at the mouth a few times, so it is for your safety.
They want to sleep at night.
Yes, I'd certainly be up all night worrying about my sanity if I started thinking that the G.P. has anything to do with God, or that Thutmosis III lived in the 10th century B.C.E.
Catch you soon,
Brian.
Sorry if some of this seems a bit difficult to follow, I have had a heavy head cold for a week and it's driving me nuts. I will be happy to clarify any ambiguous points.
This message has been edited by Brian, Thursday, 16-02-2006 01:36 PM
, I realise this supports your claim.
™ Version 4.2