The Six Days of Genesis 1 Explained

Professor Emmanuel Anati

Most welcome news to the AMAIC was an article by Stephen Linde in the Jerusalem Post, ‘Vatican to accept that Mt. Sinai is in Negev, not Egypt’, since we have been promoting for years the idea that Mount Har Karkom in Israel’s southern desert (Negev) – {and not the tourist destination of Jebel Musa (“Mount of Moses”) in the Sinai Peninsula} – is the true Mount Sinai. All credit goes to archaeologist professor Emmanuel Anati, firstly for recognizing Har Karkom as the sacred mountain, and, more recently, for bringing his prolific research to the attention of Vatican officials.

The Jerusalem Post article can be read at:

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=176844

Anati said that it had taken the Catholic Church several years to be persuaded by his argument, and recognition had been a slow process.

“About three-and-a-half years ago, I had a telephone call from the Vatican that a priest of high standing wanted to meet with me, and he arrived here with a driver. I live 500 km. from Rome, and he sat with me for a whole day and asked me a lot of questions,” Anati recalled.

“Then he disappeared, and after about a year, a group of theologians from the Catholic Church appeared and wanted to investigate the matter more deeply. Seven theologians sat here for the whole day, and I later met with them four times. Six months ago they spent four days with me at [Har] Karkom, and as a result of this, the Vatican publisher – Edizioni Messaggero Padova – asked me to write up my findings. I revised and updated my book, and they have now published it in Italian, changing the title to The Rediscovery of Mount Sinai.”

http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=21670

There have been many attempts by archaeologists and would-be historians to identify the sacred mountain of Moses and to determine the correct route of the Exodus. We ourselves have received from eager writers several different versions of the Exodus route, some of which efforts seem to have Moses and the Israelites bogged down in a waterlogged Egypt, whilst others seek a direct route to the Red Sea (the popular choice), even though the Book of Exodus describes a miraculous passage by Israel through a reedy place, Yam Suf (“Sea of Reeds”), which does not befit the Red Sea.

Often these efforts come from people who may have visited these areas, but who work largely from maps. Professor Anati, on the other hand, has spent at least forty years excavating in these desert regions (like the period of time that the Israelites spent in the wilderness). He understands the regions and the challenges of trying to live there. Thus his thesis is a holistic one, taking into account water supplies; location of designated tribes; an appropriate archaeology; and so on.

The various stages of the Exodus journey would have been determined by the location of water holes, Anati argues. One must also take into account the tribes named in the Exodus narrative, such as the Amalekites, the Midianites, the Horites, and exactly where these peoples were situated. Again, the proposed route and mountain must have an appropriate archaeology to go along with it.

Often other contributors do not give due regard to all of these factors; some probably imagining that the Exodus was a constant series of miracles, with supplies of water ‘on tap’. But an attentive reading of the narrative shows that it was a hard slog indeed.

We, as noted in the previous MATRIX, are convinced on the authority of Dr. Rudolph Cohen that the Israelites were the Middle Bronze I [MBI] nomadic peoples and that any biblico-archaeological system that cannot accommodate this is doomed to failure. Har Karkom has the greatest collection of BAC (Bronze Age Complex) sites in the entire Sinai Peninsula and Negev. Jebel Musa completely misses out here. Read Anati’s explanations further on.

The only significant weakness with Professor Anati’s thesis, as with Dr. Cohen’s, is that these conventionally educated archaeologists still follow an inflated dating system, according to which the MBI people are dated to c. 2000 BC, which is half a millennium too early. This is further complicated by an un-biblical dating of the Exodus to the C13th BC, in order for Ramses II ‘the Great’ to be the Pharaoh of the Oppression/Exodus. {Ramses II actually belongs half a millennium later than this}. These factors need to be taken into account when reading Anati’s statements later.

Our own most recent promotion of Har Karkom can be found in our book:

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA

A Revision of BC and AD Time

the first six parts of which (to Chapter Eighteen) have now been posted at:

http://amaic1.blogspot.com/ {a far simpler version of this can be read at: http://amaic-abraham.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/bible-illuminates-history.htm}

In The Chronology of the Alpha and Omega one will read as follows:

Mount Sinai: The Mountain of God

…. In this section, in which we take a look at Professor Anati’s findings on and around the sites of Har Karkom, we shall briefly be considering the archaeology of this mountain according to (i) its chronological implications; (ii) its location in relation to the Exodus route; and (iii) its religious and physical characteristics.

(i) Chronological Implications

Anati first laid eyes on Har Karkom back in 1954. However, it was not until 1983 that he ventured the suggestion that it might be Mount Sinai. Thus he explains:

“Although Har Karkom’s religious character was quite evident, no connection was made at first between that mountain and Mt. Sinai. Never before had we had to deal with problems concerning the Exodus and Mount Sinai and never did we have reasons for questioning the conventional belief that the Exodus had occurred in the 13th century BC. Indeed, this appeared to be an established ‘fact.’”

However, Anati’s research led him to a different conclusion:

“There is no evidence of any human occupation at Har Karkom in the 13th century BC, or for centuries before and after. The usually accepted date for the Exodus occurred right in the middle of a long archaeological gap at Har Karkom.”

But not only at Har Karkom, for: “Now we know that the hiatus concerns most of the Sinai peninsula and the Negev if we leave aside military and trading stations. Thus it is not a peculiarity of Har Karkom.

In fact the description of daily life of Midianites, Amalekites, Amorites, Horites and other tribes appearing in the Bible, if nor pure mythology, must refer to either before or after the 2nd millennium BC. According to the archaeological evidence, such dynamic tribal life can hardly belong to the 2nd millennium BC.” Thus we find that (abstracting for a moment from which mountain ought to be identified with the true Mountain of Moses) the archaeology of the entire Sinai and Negev regions shows us that there is, factually speaking, an irreconcilable disagreement between the conventional view of an Exodus during the Late Bronze Age/New Kingdom Era (Anati’s conventional “C13th BC”) and the biblical testimony about the tribes (Amalekites, Midianites, etc.) living in these deserts at the time of Moses. Essentially, then, the issue involves far more than a mere debate about which mountain is the true Sinai.

(ii) The Location

How did the traditional Jebel Musa come to be accepted as the true Sinai? It seems [see also explanation on p. 23] that Christian explorers of Byzantine times went in search of the highest mountain that they could find in the Sinai Peninsula, in which direction they estimated that the Israelites would have travelled after the Exodus. Some of these explorers selected the impressive Jebel Musa, at the foot of which the monastery of St. Catherine was built; though others preferred Jebel Halal, a little to the west of Kadesh-Barnea.

Today, a visitor to St. Catherine’s monastery will be shown what the monks there claim to be “the burning bush” (Exodus 3:2). The science of archaeology, however, has revealed that there is no trace of the MBI [Middle Bronze I] people in this southern region. In other words, the Israelite wanderers [MBI] did not – according to the revised chronology – go anywhere near Jebel Musa.

In maps showing the major ancient routes between Asia and Africa, we find that none of these well-trodden routes veers down into the southern Sinai Peninsula.

Professor Anati has come to light with many other compelling reasons as well for why neither Jebel Musa, nor Jebel Halal, can be a suitable candidate for Mount Sinai. For example, he wrote that:

“The presently named “Jebel Musa”, at the foot of which the monastery of St. Catherine was built, has not provided any evidence of cult sites previous to Byzantine times. The same applies to … Jebel Halal. The only evident traces of ancient human presence were several Palaeolithic stations, a few clusters of funerary tumuli … and some sites of rock art belonging to Roman-Byzantine and to Islamic times. No traces of BAC [that is, from Early Bronze to Middle Bronze I] cult sites were found.”

Anati extends his case to the whole of the so-called “Sinai” region:

“Other mountains which have been proposed by various authors as a possible “Mount Sinai” also lack the same sort of archaeological evidence. Some … have advocated the possible existence of several mounts Sinai. However, if that is the case, where are they?”

________________________________________

[Professor Anati] was just as certain that the Holy See would officially sanction his stance, and that millions of Catholic pilgrims could soon be visiting Mount Karkom instead of Mount Sinai.

________________________________________

A decade of research (1983-1992), following on from his first estimation that Har Karkom might be Mount Sinai, has served to convince Anati that his initial idea was correct. During that decade of further findings, he says, other scholars, “after the first shocked refusal of evidence”, have come to agree with him.

Adding further strength to Anati’s thesis is his success in having been able to provide the most plausible identifications of sites along the route of Exodus, and to pinpoint the homes of the various tribes mentioned in the Bible for this period. Just to mention some examples that he gives, the “Hill Road of the Amorites” (Numbers 13:29) is likely to be in the territory of the Amorite tribe which, according to the Bible, lived in the vicinity of the Dead Sea. “Hazeroth” (Numbers 11:35), near, or in, the Paran Desert, is described as the place of departure of the twelve scouts who reached Hebron by “the desert [or wilderness] of Zin” (Numbers 13:21). This desert in the biblical narration is likely to include what is presently called Nahal Zin, from the Arabah Valley to present Sde Boker. The site of “Bene Yaakan” (Numbers 33:31) has a Horite name and the Horites lived on the eastern side of the Arabah. “Hattavah” and “Abronah” (Numbers 33:33 & 33:34) are localities in the Artava and “Ezion Geber” (Numbers 33:35) is near Eilat.

On the other hand, as Anati goes on to explain, no such plausible series of identifications as these can be made for any locations in the Sinai Peninsula:

“If one starts the analysis with the preconceived idea that Mount Sinai must be near St. Catherine, or somewhere else in the southern or central … Sinai peninsula, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to give a geographical sense to the sequence of the exodus stations. In any case, in our view, the itinerary described must have been topographically meaningful to people from the first millennium BC who were acquainted with the region.”

Anati goes on to describe some typical criticisms that his discovery has provoked – to which criticisms he replies by drawing support from [Dr. Rudolph] Cohen’s findings:

“…[there] were those who could not agree with our chronology, saying “Since the Exodus took place in the 13th century BC, Mt. Sinai should have at its foot remains of 13th century camping sites.” Should the date be as certain as some believe, this rule should apply to any site candidate for Mt. Sinai, not just to Har Karkom. In such a case, it is probable that not a single mountain in the Sinai Peninsula would fit because the 13th century BC is part of a hiatus in settlement. …. This fact was further confirmed by extensive archaeological research carried on by Rudolph Cohen of the [Palestinian] Antiquities Authority. It led him to propose for the “Age of the Exodus” the same dates as those resulting from Har Karkom (R. Cohen, BAR, 1983).”

The Scriptures provide a detailed description of the deserts and tribal areas around Mount Sinai. “One of the main emerging points”, writes Anati, “is that Mt. Sinai … must be located on or near the border between the land of Midian and the land of Amalek”; a scenario that, as he explains, applies only to the Har Karkom region. The Bible also indicates that the Amalekites occupied the highlands of the Central Negev and the area of Kadesh Barnea, and the Midianites were on both sides of the Arava [Arabah] Valley. Mt. Sinai, according to the biblical narration, should be located between these two regions, meaning in the Har Karkom area. A thorough examination of the topographical details described in the Bible locates Mount Sinai in the Har Karkom region even without the findings at Har Karkom.

Now back to: http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=21670

Italian-Israeli archeologist Professor Emmanuel Anati says he believes that his controversial view that the biblical Mount Sinai is in Israel’s Negev desert rather than Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula will soon be adopted by the Vatican. … he presented his theory in the form of a new book at a seminar at the Theological Seminary in the northeastern Italian city of Vicenza, the Jerusalem Post reports. “Actually it’s not a theory, it’s a reality. I’m sure of it”, Anati told the paper by telephone from his home in Capo di Ponte. “My archeological discoveries at Har Karkom over many years and my close reading of the Bible leave me with no doubt that it is the real Mount Sinai. I’m now sure that Karkom is the real mountain of God.”

In 2001, Anati published the English edition of a book that was first issued in Italian two years earlier and titled The Riddle of Mount Sinai – Archaeological Discoveries at Har Karkom. In the book, he postulated that Karkom, 25km from the Ramon Crater, was probably the peak at which Moses received the Ten Commandments – and not the summit in southern Sinai where Santa Catarina (Saint Catherine’s Monastery) stands. According to Anati an abundance of archeological evidence showed that Mount Karkom had been a holy place for all desert peoples, and not just the Jews, which substantiated his case. “I know this is revolutionary,” he conceded. “I’m not only changing the location, but I’m moving Mount Sinai to Israel, and I’m sure it will anger the Egyptians. But Israel should be proud of this. The Negev is empty and should be developed.”

“I’m also changing the date of the Exodus from Egypt to some 1,000 years earlier than previously thought,” he added. “I know this will drive everyone crazy. But I am right. I’m sure of it.” Anati reasoned that if the account in the Book of Exodus was historically accurate, it must refer to the third millennium BCE – and more precisely to the period between 2200 and 2000 BCE.

It has taken him more than a decade, but Italian-Israeli archeologist Prof. Emmanuel Anati now believes his controversial view that the biblical Mount Sinai is in Israel’s Negev desert rather than Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula will soon be adopted by the Vatican. Anati reasoned that if the account in the Book of Exodus was historically accurate, it must refer to the third millennium BC – and more precisely to the period between 2200 and 2000 BC. Jewish tradition puts the Exodus around the year 1313 BC. According to Catholic tradition, Helena of Constantinople – the mother of Emperor Constantine credited with finding the relics of Jesus’ cross – determined the location of Mount Sinai and ordered the construction of a chapel at the site (sometimes referred to as the Chapel of Saint Helen) in about 330 AD.

According to Anati, however, an abundance of archeological evidence showed that Mount Karkom had been a holy place for all desert peoples, and not just the Jews, which substantiated his case.

He said more than 1,200 finds at Karkom – including sanctuaries, altars, rock paintings and a large tablet resembling the Ten Commandments – indicated that it had been considered a sacred mountain in the Middle Bronze Age. In addition, he said, the topography of its plateau perfectly reflected that of the biblical Mount Sinai.

Finally, he concluded, the biblical tale clearly backed up his geographic argument. “When the Children of Israel left Egypt, they reached the Arava. They couldn’t have been in Santa [Catarina], because it says in the Bible that they reached Nahal Tzin, and moved on to Hebron,” Anati said. “The whole story of receiving the Torah must have taken place in the Negev. The Children of Israel wandered in the north and not the south, in the Negev and not the Sinai.”

He was just as certain that the Holy See would officially sanction his stance, and that millions of Catholic pilgrims could soon be visiting Mount Karkom instead of Mount Sinai.

“Actually, they have already accepted my theory,” he said. “They are already organizing pilgrimages. There is already a plan, and I have meetings scheduled with theologians and others, including the Vatican pilgrimage office. They want to start pilgrimages to Karkom as soon as next year.”

Anati said he was aware that he had his detractors, especially among archeologists in Israel, several of whom were interviewed refuting his claims on a Channel 1 Mabat Sheni documentary ….

“I know there are all kinds of people – including professors – who resist my theory, and it’s natural that this occurs,” he said. “I urge them all to read my book and study the evidence before criticizing me.”

Tel Aviv University’s Professor Israel Finkelstein, a world-renowned expert on the subject, said he could not accept Anati’s hypothesis. “I do not see any connection between the third millennium BCE finds at Har Karkom and the Exodus story. The latter was put in writing not before the 7th or 6th centuries BCE, and as such depicts realities which are many centuries later than the finds of Har Karkom,” Finkelstein told the Post. “Roaming the desert with the Bible in one hand and the spade in the other is a 19th-century endeavor which has no place in modern scholarship.”

Anati said it had taken the Catholic Church several years to be persuaded by his argument, and recognition had been a slow process.

“Twenty years ago, I had a hunch that Har Karkom was the real Mount Sinai,” Anati said. “Three years ago I was convinced I was correct. Today I know I’m right.”

Damien Mackey’s Note. In 1990 I was fortunate enough to have been part of a touring party, including my mother and sister, to the Sinai Peninsula, dotted with burned out army tanks in the sand, and there to have visited St. Catherine’s monastery and Jebel Musa. Being already convinced, however, that this was not the true mountain of Moses, but that far away Har Karkom (the “Saffron Mountain”) was – {the Bedouin call it Jebel Ideid, meaning perhaps ‘Mountain of the Multitude’ or ‘of Celebration’} – I was suffering from a certain lack of enthusiasm, despite the place’s rugged awesomeness. There is no indication that the aged Moses had had to exert great effort coming and going on the mountain, as would have been the case with Jebel Musa – just as Noah would have had his work cut out with the high, ice-peaked Mount Ararat (Judi Dagh in ancient Urartu being the preferable mountain for ‘Ararat’). Nor was I impressed by being shown remnants of the Burning Bush by the monks in the monastery.

Later, coming to Israel, I could not pick up any clues or interest there about Har Karkom – that is, not until we were about to fly out to Rome, when I saw a notice on a board advertising a camel trek to Har Karkom. Rather recklessly I signed up for it – emboldened perhaps by having recently been led on the back of a camel up to the Giza pyramids. So, my mother and sister agreed that we meet up again later in Rome. Anyway, the Har Karkom expedition was cancelled and I ended up rather more comfortably on the plane to Rome. The Negev desert is a frightful place, reminding me of a moonscape, and one can have some degree of sympathy with the complaining Israelites – during whose time, though, it may have been somewhat less denuded.

by John D. Morris, Ph.D.

by

of the

Australian Marian Academy of the Immaculate Conception

by

Damien F. Mackey

1. 1.      Genesis 1 (c. 4050 BC) and the Flood (c. 2400 BC)

Two pillars of ‘Creationism’ or ‘Creation Science’, a very big industry, may actually be un-biblical. I refer to the notions that (i) God created the heavens and the earth in six days and that (ii) the Genesis Flood was global. Genesis I may instead be a revelation to man about a creation already effected. It seems to be strongly liturgical, not scientific (in a western sense). Paradise (the Garden) was for man what the Temple later became. The Sabbath rest has to do with God taking up his abode in the Garden on the seventh day just as He came to ‘rest’ in the Temple that king Solomon had built for him (2 Chronicles 6:41). Happily, some ‘Creationists’ now seem to be cottoning on to the idea that the pre-Flood world is still scientifically identifiable, as opposed to the long-held fundamentalist view that the Flood completely erased all previous topography. The world of Adam’s and Noah’s days reached from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers (east) to the Pishon and Gihon rivers (west). Possibly, a vast sea then circumscribed that whole area. The archaeology of the line of Cain can likely be traced in pre-Flood cities such as Uruk (Sumerian Unuk), called after Cain’s son, Enoch, and Eridu, called after Cain’s grandson, Irad, with legends associating the Babylonian Noah with nearby Shuruppak. I have tentatively identified the luxurious Mesopotamian monarch, Akalamdug, as Lamech, of the antediluvian age of copper. And I have wondered if the mass burials found at Ur at this time might be a case of mass suicide in the face of the all-enveloping Flood.

The Mesopotamian legends give great ages for the pre-Flood rulers, just as the Bible does, though the non-biblical versions are even greater. The difference may possibly be due to the mathematical system in use (the Mesopotamian version perhaps needing to be divided by 60).

From the Fall of Adam and Eve to the Flood we are wholly in the Stone Ages (and Geological Ages needing to be revised), from Palaeolithic to Chalcolithic (Copper/Bronze).

Then came the great Flood which Sir Leonard Woolley identified at Ur. It was huge and so it is irresponsible of critics to deny that a Flood estimated to have covered hundreds of miles had no effect on Eridu, not far ‘down the road’ from Ur. The trouble is one of alignment. Evidence for a great flood has also been found at Kish and other places, but dated differently from the Ur flood. The biblical Flood will enable for the proper realignment of Mesopotamian dynastic history. And it spread much further than Mesopotamia, of course, to Jericho and Jerusalem, and even to Egypt. The whole Fertile Crescent needs to be co-ordinated, Flood-wise, including the Black Sea Flood presently date to c. 7000 BC. This last was a case of the Atlantic ocean overflowing into the Mediterranean and the Black Sea.

The “eight” who survived the Flood probably refer only to the four ancestral couples from whom all later humanity sprang. It does not mean that only eight were aboard the massive Ark. Their offspring would also have been included, allowing for a rapid population of the earth after the Flood.

1. 2.      Babel to Abram (Abraham) (c. 2000 BC)   

After the Flood, the Stone Age sequence may basically have begun again to some extent.

When men came back to the southern Mesopotamian region (“land of Shinar”) after the Flood, there arose the mighty Uruk I dynasty. Sumerian was the original language. The Hamites dominated Mesopotamia, with Ham’s son Cush most likely being king Meskiagasher (or … kasher … or cush) of Uruk, since Meskiagasher was the father of Enmerkar (“Enmer the hunter”) who was almost certainly the biblical Nimrod. Nimrod rebuilt the old cities destroyed (or damaged) by the Flood, such as Uruk (biblical Erech), Babel and Akkad. The latter is unknown, but I have identified it with Mashkan-shapir not far from Baghdad. The tower of Babel was apparently in Babylon (Babel), but the high water table there makes excavation virtually impossible. Buildings at Ur III/IV level, though, do fit the sort of architecture traditionally accredited to Nimrod. It was then that the Proto-Elamite language also came into being, indicating the Babel confusion of tongues.

Humanity scattered. The Jemdat Nasr culture, which spread westwards, may relate archaeologically to the Dispersion from Babel. As to the eastwards spread, I have not studied much the Far East, except I know that the Chinese language has been shown greatly to resemble Sumerian.

In the Ebla tablets in Syria there is evidence of the descendants of Shem (such as Eber father of the Hebrews) and also of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.

Some think that Nimrod was the same as the Amraphel during whose time the four kings of Mesopotamia (Amraphel, Chedorlaomer, Erioch and Tidal) invaded Palestine and captured Abram’s nephew Lot. Chronologically that is possible. For a long time Amraphel was also considered to have been Hammurabi of Babylon. The names are a good fit, but Hammurabi actually comes much later in time as I shall show. Hammurabi in fact refers back to Chedorlaomer as a bygone sacker of Babylon.

Dr. John Osgood has archaeologically pinpointed the Palestinian invasion by the Mesopotamian coalition to Late Chacolithic/Ghassul IV: hence this would be the time of Abram. It corresponds very closely also to the time of king Narmer. Whether Narmer was the first unifier of Egypt (the legendary “Menes”, not a pharaonic name) cannot be established on current scant information.

From a study of the structure of Genesis, we learn the name of Abram’s pharaoh, who took Abram’s wife Sarai. He was Abimelech. I have suggested that this name was a variation of Lehabim, a son of Mizraim (also called “Egypt”). At this stage we cannot tell who these people were also in Egyptian history. But the era is archaeologically verifiable because Abram’s Pharaoh, as Abimelech king of the Philistines, must have ruled both Egypt and southern Canaan. And archaeology shows a migration out of Egypt into Palestine at this time.

Turning to the Far East for the moment, Hinduism has picked up Abram (Abraham) and Sarai as Brahman and Saraisvati.

Legend has Abraham bringing great knowledge to Egypt, e.g. mathematics and astronomy. There is a similar story of a Rikayon who came from Mesopotamia bringing wisdom. Ri-kayon could just possibly be based on the widespread Khyan, shepherd king, or “Greater Hyksos”, known to be early but not yet properly datable: hence Abraham. Another “Greater Hyksos” is Yaqub-har, who might be Jacob, grandson of Abraham. The names Yaqub and Jacob are the same. From the Book of Genesis it appears that Pharaoh was rather in awe of Jacob whose blessing he received (Genesis 47:7).

The wet climate of the Flood era has now given way to a Sahelian climate causing severe drought and famine. Both Abram and Jacob (and his son, Joseph) knew of severe famine. At one point in time the Lower Nile (northern) Delta region dried up completely. But southern Egypt (the Upper Nile) remained fertile and that is probably from where Abram, and later Jacob’s family, got their supplies.

The era of Abraham passes from the Stone Ages into the Early Bronze Age I when cities began to be built. Some of the major cities of Palestine, in fact. This would approximate with early dynastic Egypt.

Abimelech is still king when Isaac, son of Abraham, marries. He must have had a very long reign. Perhaps this factor will enable for Abimelech to be identified in time in the historical records.

1. 3.      The Era of Joseph (c. 1780-1670 BC)  

There was another dry phase during Early Bronze II which may equate to the famine of Jacob’s time. I have suggested that Jacob’s ‘stairway reaching to heaven’ was later produced by his son, Joseph, in Egypt, as Imhotep, the first great builder in stone, as the Step Pyramid of Saqqara. The vizier Imhotep is considered to have been one of the great geniuses of Egyptian history, and a saint. He belonged to the 3^rd dynasty, which may need to be aligned with the 1^st. There was famine during each. And there are many other similarities between dynasties 1 and 3. I think that Imhotep must also be the famous sage, Ptah-hotep, who, like Joseph, lived for 110 years. He wrote very Proverbs-like sayings, therefore influencing the Bible. I further think that Joseph may have been the great official Mentuhotep of the 11^th dynasty (Middle Kingdom).

So, though the history books separate Egypt’s Old Kingdom (dynasties 3-6) from Egypt’s Middle Kingdom (beginning with dynasties 10/11) by 700 years, I would have them concurrent and would probably scrap altogether the concept of a “Middle Kingdom”.

1. 4.      Moses and the Exodus (c. 1600-1500 BC)  

The “new king” of Exodus 1:8 “who knew not Joseph” – either by not wanting to recognize what the great man had done, or because he was born after Joseph had died (for certainly any Egyptian would have known of Joseph) – was presumably a new dynast. I have suggested that this was the beginning of the mighty 12^th dynasty, when king Amenemes I inaugurated a completely new era. And Amenemes also expressed concern about the great number of Asiatics (read Hebrews I think) in the Delta region, just as does the “new king” of the Book of Exodus. This was a period of massive building projects, pyramids, temples, irrigation and agricultural works. I suspect that the Hebrew slaves were heavily involved in all of it. Josephus tells us that they built pyramids. Moreover Hebrew names (some as are given in the Book of Exodus) have been found at this time (e.g. in the Brooklyn Papyrus). There appear to have been mass burials of babies, too. Were these the Hebrew children?

But baby Moses escaped.

The next pharaoh was Sesostris I, during whose time a tale tells of a Moses-like figure, Sinuhe, who fled Egypt for a time to live amongst Bedouin, just as Moses did, and who married a chieftain’s daughter (Moses married the Midianite, Zipporah). Professor Immanuel Anati thinks that these two tales “share a common matrix”. Tradition has Moses’ Egyptian ‘mother’ as “Merris” (Merrhis) and her husband as “Chenephres”. I have identified the latter with pharaoh Sesostris I, whose Horus name was Kha-kheper-re (Greek “Chenephres”?). Greek transliterations of Egyptian names are poor. Sesostris I was an obsessive sphinx builder. His name is virtually the same name as Chephren’s (Kheper-ka-re), who built the Great Sphinx at Giza during the 4^th dynasty. Hence I think that Chephren (4^th dynasty) and Sesostris I (12^th dynasty) must be merged as one, enabling for a folding of the so-called Old and Middle kingdoms.

Now Chephren’s wife was Meres-ankh, who I believe was the traditional “Merris”, foster-mother of Moses.

Whilst Cheops (my Amenemes I) and Chephren, the great pyramid builders, had very bad reputations, the next king, Menkaure (Greek, “Mycerinus”), was considered to have been kind, good and just. These were Moses-like traits. I have tentatively suggested that Menkaure may be Moses, who, tradition says, was “a king”.

But this still needs a lot of work.

Anyway, we are now in the Early Bronze Age III. This must be aligned with what has been construed as the Middle Bronze Age of the Middle Kingdom period, because our Old and Middle kingdoms are now concurrent.

The Plagues and Exodus bring down the 6^th dynasty (concurrent with the 12^th dynasty), the last ruler in each case being a woman – presumably because the main males were now all dead. The cataclysms release the Israelites from Egypt as the Middle Bronze I people. This is an absolute anchor point of biblical archaeology: Middle Bronze I = Exodus Israelites.

Into the vacuum in Egypt eventually pour the Hyksos people. Many equate these with the Amalekites whom the Israelites encountered on their way to Mount Sinai. The Hyksos, though, were probably a mix of peoples. I think that there was a strong Indo-European element amongst them, and I would also include here the Philistines.

This chaotic phase for Egypt is known as the First Intermediate Period of Egyptian history (dynasties 7-9), following the Old Kingdom, but it really needs to be fused with the so-called Second Intermediate Period (dynasties 13-17), following the Middle Kingdom.

1. 5.      Joshua and the Israelites (c. 1500-1400 BC)  

The Middle Bronze I people bring with them artefacts from Egypt. That makes sense. Their destination is not the traditional Mount Sinai at Saint Catherine in the Sinai Peninsula, as tour guides will claim. Professor Immanuel Anati has demonstrated that the true holy mountain was modern-day Har Karkom in the Paran desert south of Israel, a long way from the Sinai Peninsula. Anati has traced the Exodus route painstakingly, with reference to wells for drinking water, and the location of tribes named in the Bible (such as the Amalekites).

All but two of the Exodus Israelites will perish in the wilderness due to their rebellion, and even Moses will not get to enter the Promised Land. He probably entered there many times, however, during his 40-year sojourn near Mount Sinai prior to the Exodus. Hence he was able to write geographical instructions for his people, such as “the Valley of Siddim” of Abram’s day, before the Sodom episode, having become “the Dead Sea” (suggesting that the ill-fated cities of Pentapolis are now deep below the Dead Sea). Only Joshua and Caleb survived from the Exodus. And a potsherd has been found at Gezer, that the MBI Israelites conquered, bearing the name, Caleb (which means “dog” in Hebrew).

The Middle Bronze I Israelites attacked the Early Bronze III cities, beginning with Jericho, which, archaeology shows, collapsed outwards as if by an earthquake and was burned to the ground. Just as in the biblical account. Of course archaeologists date this event about 500 years before the Joshuan Conquest and say, therefore, that it could have nothing whatsoever to do with Joshua.

The archaeology of Jericho is rather messy due to the inadequate methods of the early archaeologists. But, still, I think that the Joshuan scenario is readily identifiable there.

1. 6.      The Judges Era (c. 1400-1020 BC)  

This long and obscure era is difficult both archaeologically and chronologically. Dr. John Osgood has done some excellent work tying the different phases of the Judges to the archaeological record. I do not have much to add to it. I have tentatively suggested that a famous personage who was not a king, but a judge, known from Mesopotamian history, Gudea, might perhaps be Gideon. More impressively, Dean Hickman has argued quite a strong case for the mighty Sargon of Akkad (c. 2000 BC in the textbooks) to have been the Mesopotamian conqueror of Israel, Cushan rishathaim (c. 1300 BC).

I have added to this that this Sargon (Akkadian Sharrukin) might have been the “Greater Hyksos” ruler, Shalek (or Sharek = Sharrukin?), of early Egyptian history.

1. 7.      Kings Saul and David (c. 1020-950 BC)  

It is now that our revision really starts to blossom. Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky (Ages in Chaos I) had proposed that the recovery of Egypt with the rise of the New Kingdom, the 18^th dynasty, had coincided with the rise of the Israelite monarchy after the period of the Judges. The common enemy, he suggested were the Hyksos, whom the 18^th dynasty rulers expelled from Egypt; the Hyksos otherwise known as (according to Velikovsky) the Amalekites, with whom kings Saul and David had to contend. Another Jewish scholar, Dr Ed (Ewald) Metzler, had taken all this further by proposing, not merely that the 18^th dynasty and Israel were allies, but that the 18^th dynasty was in fact Israelite.

This is a radical re-writing of Egyptian history. Here are the early 18^th dynasty pharaohs anew with their proposed biblical identifications:

Ahmose = Ahimaaz

Amenhotep I = Saul

Thutmose I = David

Thutmose II = Solomon

Hatshepsut = “Queen of Sheba”

Thutmose III = “King Shishak of Egypt”.

With Saul and David, we are now in the Late Bronze Age I.

Saul married Ahinoam, the daughter of Ahimaaz (I Samuel 14:50), who must have been the Egyptian princess, Ahhotep. The names are cognate. This made Saul a pharaoh. He was Amenhotep I. He may have co-ruled with his successor Thutmose I. No one is entirely certain. That would definitely fit with the awkward co-regency between Saul and David.

Thutmose I, who was not related to Amenhotep I (David was of a different tribe from Saul), married the princess daughter of Amenhotep I. That David was a pharaoh is apparent from the fact that the Bible has both David and “Pharaoh” conquering Gezer, which became the dowry for his daughter. The famed daughter of Thutmose I, who greatly revered her father, was Hatshepsut, whom Velikovsky rightly identified as the biblical “Queen of Sheba”.

Thutmose I was appropriately a non-royal Egyptian by birth, an ageing military commander of great repute. That fits with David.

But people ask how an idolatrous Egyptian pharaoh, Thutmose I, could have been the great Yahwist king David. The actual effective rule of Thutmose I over Egypt was only about 9 years. At this time, Amon-Ra (who I presume represented Yahweh) emerged as the leading god of the Egyptians. There was a definite trend towards monotheism. But the ingrained polytheism still largely prevailed. Yahweh had given David power over the nations in order that his dynasty would become a conduit by which Yahwism would penetrate into these nations. David was generally too busy, though, establishing his empire through wars to have been able to achieve this. He would have hoped for his descendants to have done so. But King David certainly established a vast empire through conquest: Egypt; Syria; Mesopotamia. That empire can well be discerned in our revision. It cannot be perceived at all, however, in the conventional model, according to which king David, who barely even seems to exist, was some small-time ruler of a petty Iron Age kingdom. At least, that is the view of archaeologist Israel Finkelstein, who is even more pessimistic about Solomon, claiming that he may never have existed.

Well we have got news for Finkelstein!

1. 8.      Solomon, ‘Sheba’ and ‘Shishak’ (c. 950-880 BC)  

Following on from Velikovsky’s view that Hatshepsut was the Queen of Sheba, I identified Hatshepsut’s famous consort, Senenmut, a supposed commoner but of royal privileges, as king Solomon himself. Senenmut was, like Imhotep, another of those genius characters of Egyptian history, a regular polymath. Metzler logically argued that Thutmose II, the husband of Hatshepsut, was Solomon. I now accept that, too. Israel had come to Egypt with a vengeance and Davidic wisdom was now pouring into the land as attested by those inscriptions of Hatshepsut that are so Psalm-like. But they are also Genesis-like, Proverbs-like and Song of Songs-like (the latter being undoubtedly Solomon’s influence).

Late Bronze Age I had now progressed into the cosmopolitan and wealthy Late Bronze II Age.

Yes, Solomon did really exist, you Israeli archaeologists. But you need to be looking in the right places to find copious evidence of him.

To be sure, king Solomon was not bound just to Palestine and Egypt. He also ruled Babylon as the great Hammurabi, supposedly of the Middle Bronze Age. Hammurabi’s laws are so Torah-like that he is often thought to have influenced Moses. Initially dated to c. 2400 BC, Hammurabi is now more likely to be found floating about at c. 1800 BC. One day archaeology will realize that he should be dropped much further again, down to c. 950 BC, so as to become king Solomon. Hammurabi’s laws did not influence Moses. Rather, the Mosaïc Law was adopted by Hammurabi-as-Solomon.

Unfortunately, however, Solomon eventually drifted away from the Torah, swayed by his pagan wives. Hence the Davidic dream of his dynasty’s being a Torah to the nations could not be fully realized through Solomon, though the latter had been a most effective instrument of Yahweh in his earlier days.

Solomon and his Egyptian connections, which the Bible does not bother to follow up, are picked up in Greek folklore as the wise lawgiver Solon, whose laws have been found to be quite Jewish.

My estimation is that Solomon basically ruled Israel, whilst to Hatshepsut and pharaoh Thutmose III (Solomon’s son by a concubine, Isis) he parcelled out Egypt and Ethiopia (and Sheba?). It was a very peaceful and prosperous time, this Late Bronze Age II.

But, in the end, God raised up adversaries to Solomon, Rezon, whom I have identified with Hammurabi’s Syrian foe, Zimri-Lim, and Jeroboam, who eventually took the northern kingdom.

When Hatshepsut and Solomon died, Thutmose III was able to undertake military conquests, whereby he became “the Napoleon of Egypt”. Unlike Napoleon though, so it is thought, Thutmose III never lost a battle. Velikovsky rightly identified Thutmose III as the biblical pharaoh, “Shishak”, who despoiled Jerusalem five years after the death of Solomon. Shishak knew all about Jerusalem from his many years as understudy to his father. With this great victory, he displaced Solomon’s elected son, Rehoboam, as ruler of the Solomonic empire.

I have also proposed that Thutmose III was the dark-skinned Nehesy who led Hatshepsut’s famous expedition to Lebanon (land of Punt) to fetch myrrh trees for her glorious temple at Deir el-Bahri. This temple was based on what she had seen in Jerusalem. If so, if Thutmose III were Nehesy, with some Negroid blood, then he could also be the “Zerah the Ethiopian” who led a massive army of “a million men and three hundred chariots” against Solomon’s grandson, king Asa of Judah (2 Chronicles 14:9). But this time he was soundly defeated by the Judaeans.

1. 9.      The El-Amarna Era (c. 880-815 BC)  

This is another most fruitful phase of the revision, the well-documented El-Amarna age of pharaohs Amenhotep III and IV (Akhnaton).

Velikovsky probably did his major work here, showing that the C14th BC era of the history books for El Amarna was actually the C9th BC era known from the Bible and other history. Amenhotep III and IV are known in the El Amarna letters by their throne names, respectively, of Nimmuria and Naphuria.

Velikovsky most convincingly identified the two great Syrian (biblical) kings of the time, the mighty Ben-hadad I and Hazael, contemporaries of the prophets Elijah and Elisha, with, respectively, El Amarna’s Abdi-ashirta and Aziru. The Syrian captain, Ianhamu, he identified as the Syrian Naaman of the Bible, cured by Elisha of his leprosy.

But, just as Velikovsky had aligned 18^th dynasty Egypt with Israel, but had not realized that the 18^th dynasty was Israelite, as Metzler later did, so did Velikovsky not realize that – as I think – pharaohs Amenhotep III and IV were actually biblical kings of Israel (and Judah). I got the ball rolling here by identifying Queen Nefertiti with Queen Jezebel. Only later did I realize that Akhnaton was king Ahab of Israel. Then I concluded that the great Amenhotep III, a very Solomon-like king, was the pious king Asa of Judah. The small state of Judah would not have been able to have contained so great and militarily powerful a king as Asa. He must have ruled far beyond Jerusalem. Asa’s falling away in the end was due I believe to the same cause as Solomon’s apostasy, pagan female influence, in Asa’s case Jezebel-Nefertiti. And this wicked queen would soon have even more devastating an effect upon Ahab-Akhnaton.

The eventual fall of Akhnaton and Nefertiti was at the hands of Ay and Horemheb, who find their perfect images, biblically, in Hazael and Jehu, designated (anointed) by the prophet Elijah to wipe out Baalism from Israel, which equated to Akhnaton’s and Nefertiti’s cult of Aton in Egypt.

Later the prophet Elisha himself will fulfil his part of the Sinai Commission, as the long-lived priest Jehoiada of Jerusalem, by wiping out Baalism from Judah, after the reign there of the wicked Queen Athaliah, perhaps Nefertiti’s (Jezebel’s) daughter.

Thus a new age dawned in Israel and Judah.

I believe that I have found a parallel history in the Bible with king Baasha of Israel as Ahab; Baasha’s son Elah, as Ahab’s son, Ahaziah; and king Zimri of Israel as king Jehu of Israel. For one, this explains who was the “Hiel” who built Jericho at the time of king Ahab (I Kings 16:34). It was Ahab’s very son, Elah (Elahi = Hiel). I have further identified this Ahaziah (Elah) as pharaoh Smenkhkare, and Ahaziah’s brother, Jehoram, a slightly better king, as the famous pharaoh, Tutankhamun.

We are now in the early Iron Age (probably overlapping Late Bronze) and the time of luxurious use of ivories (the prophet Amos’s ‘beds of ivory’).

1. 10.   The Ramessides (c. 880-770 BC)  

Obviously, now, there is no possibility in my scheme for the long-reigning Ramses II ‘the Great” (66/67 years of reign) (of the post-El Amarna era) to have been the Pharaoh of the Exodus (which is the usual view) more than a millennium  earlier. So how can we now squeeze in this most significant pharaoh?

Having Jehu as Horemheb, the destroyer of the Aton cult of Akhnaton, Nefertiti, their family and their followers, enables for the Ramessides who followed Horemheb to be anchored to c. 800 BC. I have found that the reigns of Horemheb and the four major Ramessides who followed him (Ramses I; Seti I; Ramses II and Merenptah) add up to virtually the same total as the reigns of Jehu and his four successors (Jehoahaz; Jehoash; Jeroboam II and Zechariah). So, even if my bold theory that the Ramessides were, like Jehu, kings of Israel, is incorrect, nevertheless I shall not be very far wrong, chronologically, in now slotting them into the period c. 880-770 BC. The biggest test of my theory is how well does the reign of Jeroboam II stand up to the 66-67 years reign of Ramses II who I consider to be Jeroboam II’s alter ego? At first glance it does not. Although Jeroboam II was also a powerful and long-reigning king, his 41 years of reign are dwarfed by Ramses’ 66 years. Until, that is the 22-year interregnum of Philip Mauro is added to Jeroboam II’s reign, enabling for more than 60 years total (co-regency may be included).

Perhaps the king of Israel was exclusively in Egypt during the troubled interregnum period.

The great disadvantage that we revisionists have is that, when you bring down history by a massive 500 years, you can end up with some awful crushes at the lower end of the scale. So, although we have managed to tuck into bed quite neatly these 19th dynasty Ramessides, no mean feat, we still have to consider the many 20^th dynasty Ramessides (Ramses III-XI) of close chronological proximity to the 19^th dynasty ones. These must also be brought into line.

My solution was to identify the founder of the 20^th dynasty, the legendary Seti-nakht who is reputed to have ‘driven out a usurper’, with the substantial king Joash of Judah, contemporaneous with the Jehu-ides in Israel. The usurper would then be Queen Athaliah and her fellow Baalists, whom the young king Joash removed under the guidance of the priest Jehoiada (Elisha). The son of Seti-nakht was the powerful pharaoh, Ramses III, whom I have identified with the mighty king Amaziah of Judah. And so on down to Ramses XI as, possibly, king Hezekiah of Judah himself (c. 730 BC).

The despoiling of Jerusalem during Amaziah’s reign I take to be Ramses II’s march on Jerusalem  during the reign of his father, pharaoh Seti I (= king Jehoash of Israel), which campaign to Jerusalem some revisionists think makes Ramses II the biblical “Shishak”. But I think that Thutmose III is by far the better candidate for “Shishak”.

So, the intertwining of the Jehu-ides of Israel and the dynasty of Joash of Judah is reflected, I have suggested, in the reigns of the 19^th dynasty Ramessides, on the one hand, and the un-related 20^th dynasty Ramessides, on the other. That is my proposed solution to fitting in these two great Egyptian dynasties into a compressed system of revision.

1. 11.   King Hezekiah of Judah (c. 730 BC)  

I have written a large two-volume university thesis on a reconstruction of the era of this great king, knitting into it the Book of Judith: A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background. This thesis can be accessed at: http://hdl.handle.net/2123/5973

The destruction of the Assyrian army of 185,000 of king Sennacherib I have attributed to the intervention of the Jewish heroine, Judith.

Though I thought that I had just about exhausted this intriguing subject, I now suspect that some new developments are indicating that there is much, much more to be added to this already fascinating era of ancient history. So I shall conclude this history here, pending further investigations.

11^th February 2012

Our Lady of Lourdes

Images as usual from D. Laing

[The AMAIC considers the Middle East – West comparisons of John R. Salverda as interesting, with some of them we think being very likely. But we do not necessarily agree with all of the following]