Was Ramesses II even near Jerusalem?

[Sekhmet]

One of the first things you would have to do if you’re a Ramesses II is Shishak believer.  We might like to find out was he ever in the area of Jerusalem.  He was, although it appears some people believe it better than others do.

I went through my most likely books over the last days and I can honestly report the following.

Rohl, Kitchen, and Grimal all go into a bit of detail about his passing by Jerusalem in the 7/8th year.

Oxford, and Tyldesley quickly glosses over it giving very little information.  It is more like “He did some quick campaigns in the area of Jerusalem.  Then names some unknown towns.” 

I checked my Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times not a mention.  There was not one word, about Ramesses’ campaigns outside of the Battle of Qadesh. 

While Ramesses II out of 6 well known authors 3 admit that yes he was in the area.

While 2 of the six would only gloss over the fact that he had been in the area.

While 1 of of the six, couldn't get past his battle at Qadesh.

The important issue in this accounting is.  If Shoshenq I was Shishak why didn’t he leave any mention of Jerusalem?

[notalent]

The argument of Shoshenq believers is that he did mention it, but that mention just didn't survive.  We're lucky we have any mentions by any pharaohs of the cities they conquered. 

To them, that's much stronger evidence than actually carving a Shalem block and including Jerusalem in a campaign list.

[Moses]

Ramesses II was a Pharaoh

Shishak was a king of Egypt.  Maneto and others note that usually a King of Egypt means most likely lower Egypt and not whole Egypt.


http://www.touregypt.net/hdyn22.htm

Like the Hyksos before them, they were anxious to pose as true-born Egyptians through retaining on their heads the feather which had always been characteristic of their appearance. But their foreign origin was also betrayed by such barbarous names as Shoshenk, Osorkon, and Takelot, to mention only those born by actual kings. These three names were known to Manetho as members of his TWENTY-SECOND DYNASTY, this containing six more kings unnamed and yielding according to Africanus a total of 120 years. Egyptologists, on the other hand, have found it necessary to distinguish no less than five Shoshenks, four Osorkons, and three Takelots.

Harpson was alive and flourishing towards the end of the long reign of Shoshenk IV and though he himself claims to have been no more than a prophet of Neith he counted among his ancestors four consecutive kings, each said to be the son of his predecessor, the earliest of whom was Shoshenk I, the founder of Dyn. XXII and by far the most important member of his clan. He is first heard of in a long inscription found at Abydos while he was still no more than 'great chief of the Meshwesh, prince of princes'. His father Nemrat, son of the lady Mehetemwaskhe--both mentioned by Harpson--had died and Shoshenk had appealed to the reigning king to permit the establishment at Abydos of a great funerary cult in his honor. Both the king and 'the great god' (doubtless Amun) had replied favorably.

A third son of Shoshenk I was Iuput, whom he appointed to be high-priest of Amen-Re' at Karnak, thus breaking with the tradition of heredity previously observed for that post.

Karnak temple is very interesting discussion on its own.

[Sekhmet]

Okay Moses, you and your Manetho, another way to look at the Pharaoh, vs. King of Egypt in scripture can be done by looking at it from before Israel’s kings and after Israel’s kings.  An echo of this can be found in 1st Samuel 9. 

Aside from the fact that in Samuel’s days, they were dealing with Pharaohs Ahmose, Tuthmosis III, and Amenophis III.  If our King Solomon had married a daughter of Pharaoh during the rule of pretenders like Ay, Horemheb, Ramesses I, Seti I, and Ramesses II the Great.  LOL I might take a dib at poking fun at them by equaling the pretenders by calling them King.  Especially Ramesses II for the humiliation of sacking Jerusalem. When Solomon married the daughter of Pharaoh, he raised Israel up in the eyes of his people to an international nation were all were Kings.

Pretend I am Ptolemy a Greek raised, taught, to consider all non-Greeks especially Asians were good only to be slaves.

You know as well Greeks do not have a real good grasp on their own history, let alone Asian nations.  Suddenly I ask you to write a history of your people.  You can do a fair job however, because of the sacking and destruction by the Assyrians 671-663 of temples, palaces, mortuary chapels, still important facts are gone forever.  Another point, who ever- tells the master the complete truth, if a little lie can help Egypt you nation.  Simply by cautioning about how Egypt suffered from the God’s of the Hebrews.  Israel a nation in no mans land between Ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleucid Syria.

I am sorry Moses; I might feel different about Manetho, if we had the original book not the pieces Josephus felt he needed to prove the ancient history of the Jewish people.

Have a nice day.

[Moses]

Ramesses II taking Jerusalem?

Is it in any historical document or educated speculation?

Tx

[notalent]

Ramesses II taking Jerusalem?

Is it in any historical document or educated speculation?

Tx

It's carved on the Shalem block at the Ramasseum:  The town which the king plundered in year 8 - Shalem

[Irishman]

Ramesses II taking Jerusalem?

Is it in any historical document or educated speculation?

Tx

It's carved on the Shalem block at the Ramasseum:  The town which the king plundered in year 8 - Shalem

Ooh, this is good. Rameses II can't be the Exodus king AND conquering Shalem at the same time, can he? What does Kitchen have to say about this?

[notalent]

Ramesses II taking Jerusalem?

Is it in any historical document or educated speculation?

Tx

It's carved on the Shalem block at the Ramasseum:  The town which the king plundered in year 8 - Shalem

Ooh, this is good. Rameses II can't be the Exodus king AND conquering Shalem at the same time, can he? What does Kitchen have to say about this?

He admits Ramesses was there.  Then he repeats the Shishak/Shoshenq Bible name similarity.  To him, that's a better way to date pharoahs than something written in stone.

[Irishman]

Just as an aside, I've posted this very question to both the Biblical Studies and ANE-2 forae on Yahoo. I'm hoping to get some interesting replies. (They've already passed review, which is a good sign).

[Irishman]

Jim West said;

"Then what the inscription tells us is
1- Ramses II claimed to have invaded a place called Shalem.
2- We don't know if he did.
3- We don't know where it was.
4- We can't therefore make hard and fast claims that Ramses II invaded
Jerusalem without doing violence to historical method.

Barring further evidence the inscription tells us very little at all."

[notalent]

Jim West said;

"Then what the inscription tells us is
1- Ramses II claimed to have invaded a place called Shalem.
2- We don't know if he did.
3- We don't know where it was.
4- We can't therefore make hard and fast claims that Ramses II invaded
Jerusalem without doing violence to historical method.

Barring further evidence the inscription tells us very little at all."

But if the Bible says Shishak invaded and sacked the place, then we know for sure it was Shoshenq and we believe that right away without question.

That's fascinating.

[Moses]

Was that Shishak 1, shishak 2 or Shishak 3?

[Irishman]

Jim West said;

"Then what the inscription tells us is
1- Ramses II claimed to have invaded a place called Shalem.
2- We don't know if he did.
3- We don't know where it was.
4- We can't therefore make hard and fast claims that Ramses II invaded
Jerusalem without doing violence to historical method.

Barring further evidence the inscription tells us very little at all."

But if the Bible says Shishak invaded and sacked the place, then we know for sure it was Shoshenq and we believe that right away without question.

That's fascinating.

Actually, Mr. West is more along the minimalist side of things. He does not understand a biblical David or Solomon at all. His views are more in line with Lemche, Davies, et al.

[notalent]

Jim West said;

"Then what the inscription tells us is
1- Ramses II claimed to have invaded a place called Shalem.
2- We don't know if he did.
3- We don't know where it was.
4- We can't therefore make hard and fast claims that Ramses II invaded
Jerusalem without doing violence to historical method.

Barring further evidence the inscription tells us very little at all."

But if the Bible says Shishak invaded and sacked the place, then we know for sure it was Shoshenq and we believe that right away without question.

That's fascinating.

Actually, Mr. West is more along the minimalist side of things. He does not understand a biblical David or Solomon at all. His views are more in line with Lemche, Davies, et al.

One would expect, then, that he also doesn't accept the dates for Shoshenq I, since they are based on the Biblical synchronism with Rehoboam, son of Solomon.

[Irishman]

Jim West said;

"Then what the inscription tells us is
1- Ramses II claimed to have invaded a place called Shalem.
2- We don't know if he did.
3- We don't know where it was.
4- We can't therefore make hard and fast claims that Ramses II invaded
Jerusalem without doing violence to historical method.

Barring further evidence the inscription tells us very little at all."

But if the Bible says Shishak invaded and sacked the place, then we know for sure it was Shoshenq and we believe that right away without question.

That's fascinating.

Actually, Mr. West is more along the minimalist side of things. He does not understand a biblical David or Solomon at all. His views are more in line with Lemche, Davies, et al.

One would expect, then, that he also doesn't accept the dates for Shoshenq I, since they are based on the Biblical synchronism with Rehoboam, son of Solomon.

Correct.