Was Ramesses II even near Jerusalem?

[Moses]

Shishak = Ramesses III?

http://www.biblemysteries.com/lectures/shishak.htm

Shishak - Solomon's brother - in - law or father in law?
Was then the father-in-law of Solomon  Siamun?
 This extremely powerful King? Not a Thuthmose, not even a Ramesses, but a very obscure king called Siamun.

"Two pieces of evidence, taken together, suggest that Siamun launched his armies into South-West Palestine against his nearest neighbors, the Philistines, and reached as far as Gezer, a late-Canaanite enclave on the borders of Philistia and Israel" (in I Kings 9:16).

That city is crucial to our story because it was that city that a wife of Solomon received as a wedding present from her father, the King of Egypt.


Because they are constrained by having Shishak as Shoshenq I, they must have the mighty King who invaded Philistia, who came within twenty miles of Jerusalem, at a time when a King David and a King Solomon were at their most powerful and could do nothing in the same area, the mighty King ... Siamun ... who Siamun? And the evidence is from the Biblical story which does not mention the name Siamun and a relief showing him smiting someone holding an axe head from a different region.....puleeeese !!!!!!!

Is this a mighty pillar support, indeed?

Now we have a tremendous number of Egyptian records. All the powerful Kings left long and glowing accounts of their conquests. Only ONE, however, gave an account of his conquest of Gezer, and it is on one of the most famous inscriptions in the world.

And there is another shock for Egyptologists. For the King who wrote that inscription and who, we claim, was the father-in-law of Solomon, would confirm also our identification of Shishak of the Bible account.

 Who is this King, actually known as "The Binder of Gezer", who inscribed his great success on that wonderful stela known as the "Israel Stela":

"The Kings are overthrown, saying 'Salam!'
Not one holds up his head among the Nine Bows.
Wasted is Tehenu,
Kheta is pacified,
Plundered is Pakanan
Carried off is Askalon,
Seized upon is Gezer
Yenoam is made as a thing not existing.
Israel is desolate, his seed is not:
Palestine has become a widow for Egypt.
All lands are united, they are pacified:"
(Breasted: Ancient Records of Egypt, vol. 3. p.264-265 )


The King is Merneptah, 4th King of the {Nineteenth Dynasty}, And the only Egyptian King known to have captured Gezer. He was the father-in-law of Solomon and our pillars are strong and secure.

If Merneptah was the father-in-law of Solomon, then Ramesses III must have been Shishak ... is that pillar secure? ...   


Other info
 Solomon sought therefore to put Jeroboam to death; but Jeroboam arose and fled to Egypt to Shishak king of Egypt, and he was in Egypt until the death of Solomon.

A team of archeologists from Netherlands and Israel, Drs. Bruins, van der Plicht, and Mazar examined the site of Tel Rehov, in the Beth-Shean/Jordan Valley, 4 miles west of the River Jordan.1 14C radiocarbon dating placed the destruction of Tel Rehov at 940-900 B.C., instead of the later date suggested by the associated pottery.

The place name Rehov occurs on the list of cities conquered by Pharaoh Shoshenq I, assumed as Shishak in the Bible.

High-precision radiocarbon dating of Tel Rehov establishes a date earlier than that suggested by previous studies utilizing pottery finds. The accuracy of 14C dating calls into question previous studies based solely upon pottery evidence. The current dating of Tel Rehov confirms the biblical date for Shishak's invasion of Israel.

[turanclancath]

http://www.biblemysteries.com/lectures/bible.htm

interesting Moses.
The Bible mystery site you use is written  by Michael Sanders.

An adept of the Velikovsky/James/Rohl New Chronology.
See the link above and open the PDF file at the bottom.

You see he uses a  sort of Revised Chronology  cocktail of his own .
Placing Meremptah   contemporanious with king Solomon.

And a question  As i,m no linguist or hebraist:

Is there any linguistic/hebraiistic consensus that Shishak is the same word as Shoshenk.?
Besides the hypothesis of Champollion .

see this article

http://www.northforest.org/BiblicalArchaeology/shishak.html

By the way it uses Rohl chronology but what is important denies the linguistic Similarity of Shishak/shoshenk

Turanclancath:)

[Sekhmet]

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?

I would say Dr. Kitchen dances over the whole issue.  Maybe he doesn't feel up to being the equal of Dr. David Noel Freedman.  Who went where the evidence lead him not kow-towing to theology, or religion but the truth as disclosed by physical evidence.


http://forum.bib-arch.org/archaeologists-scholars-and-other-personalities/dr-freedman-and-abraham-in-eba-period/

[Sekhmet]

http://www.biblemysteries.com/lectures/bible.htm

interesting Moses.
The Bible mystery site you use is written  by Michael Sanders.

An adept of the Velikovsky/James/Rohl New Chronology.
See the link above and open the PDF file at the bottom.

You see he uses a  sort of Revised Chronology  cocktail of his own .
Placing Meremptah   contemporanious with king Solomon.

And a question  As i,m no linguist or hebraist:

Is there any linguistic/hebraiistic consensus that Shishak is the same word as Shoshenk.?
Besides the hypothesis of Champollion .

see this article

http://www.northforest.org/BiblicalArchaeology/shishak.html

By the way it uses Rohl chronology but what is important denies the linguistic Similarity of Shishak/shoshenk

Turanclancath:)

My dear scholar Truanclancath, In David Rohls first book he makes the best linguistic case of Shishak as Ramesses.  So if Michael Sanders is an adept of the Velikovsky/James/Rohl New Chronology.  He would not accept Shishak as any other than as Ramesses.

[Sekhmet]

Was that Shishak 1, shishak 2 or Shishak 3?

That is Shishak 2

Shishak 1 to old as Pharaoh however as Commanding General under Pharaoh Horemheb he made Solomon marry those Hittite beauties, and his son Seti I made refortifying the cities needed. 

While Shishak3 was busy driving out invaders called the Sea People.

So by looking at what the other Shishaks were doing we can tell which one.

[Sekhmet]

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.

Sekhmet says To dear Mr. West, whoever he is.

1.  Yes he claims to have, excuse me, to have humbled Shalem not Jerusalem (see he was reordering Maat that Akhenaten disturb by allowing a kingdom to form on Egypt’s ancient frontier.)

2.  He said he did, unless proven to be a liar I tend to believe.  Do you believe everyone especially the ancients lied?  You know all they had was their standing before God.  They did not have modern marvels to dwell on, they had mostly their god (s).  I sure hope in three thousand years people do not believe most of what you said was a lie and I hope it isn’t.

3. Then you haven’t read Moran’s The Amarna Letters .

4. I believe sitting around and saying we don’t know, their liars, can’t believe a word they say.  That Biblical chronology and archaeology supports us.  Without first testing if, that Biblical chronology is based on opinion of ancient scholars.  That agreed on a short Earth history, or on solid fact.  I believe this is doing more violence to historical method than anything else currently being done.

The evidence is there, it just is not where Africanus, Eusebius, St. Jerome, Bebe, Archbishop Ussher claims it is.  It is a sorry, sorry day when historical method depends more on them.  Than the evidence of those archaeology are restoring to us. 

The day modern archaeology examines the reliability of Biblical Chronology is the day minimalists are going to start to worry.  The day is coming and I will be happy to see it come. 

[turanclancath]

http://bible.cc/2_chronicles/12-3.htm

That must have been really the mightyest and greatest Pharao( and king/emperor ) of all times and off alll the ancient world  this Sjishak.!!!!


1200 war chariots and 60.000 horsemen !!!!!

Even the Assyrians hadnt this number of horsemen.

see page133/134 of this link

http://books.google.nl/books?id=y1ngxn_xTOIC&pg=PA133&lpg=PA133&dq=numbers+of+assyrian+armies&source=bl&ots=KbjR6K2lxI&sig=iXLMb9rERVkxCjut_QXp4BY5UZo&hl=nl&ei=3nm0Sra-NsOi4QbDiax8&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=numbers%20of%20assyrian%20armies&f=false

or about the battle of Quarcar

only some 1000thends of cavalry
http://www.livius.org/q/qarqar/qarqar_battle.html


Or in modern times  during the greatest battles of Napoleon  like Leipzig 1813   Napoleon had 41.000 cavalry .

seee link  on page 2
http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/cavalry_tactics.html


Imagine food , drink and logistics for 60.000 horsemen.
what an amount of water had 60.000 horses have to drink every day, on march from egypt to jerusalem and in Judea itself

Andwhat a small army RamsesII had at the great and famous battle of Kadesh.

Only some 1000dends of Chariots  and No Cavalry .
Werent used then in 13 century and even not in the Rohl time 937 ( in that amount )

see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kadesh


and  pag 44/49 for pharaonic and assyrian cavalry


http://books.google.nl/books?id=72ZR9KCh9lUC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=pharaonic+cavalry&source=bl&ots=LOs6oKF7Nq&sig=pNoTPGnQdlNVrG_NRCbHjCwb2HQ&hl=nl&ei=T5a0SoX3BMHq-Ab8rfjkBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#v=onepage&q=pharaonic%20cavalry&f=false



Who is this Pharao Sjishak then ?


Turanclancath:)

[Sekhmet]

http://bible.cc/2_chronicles/12-3.htmhttp://bible.cc/2_chronicles/12-3.htm

1. That must have been really the mightyest and greatest Pharao( and king/emperor ) of all times and off alll the ancient world  this Sjishak.!!!!
1200 war chariots and 60.000 horsemen !!!!!

2. Even the Assyrians hadnt this number of horsemen.
or about the battle of Quarcar only some 1000thends of cavalry

3. Or in modern times  during the greatest battles of Napoleon  like Leipzig 1813   Napoleon had 41.000 cavalry .
Imagine food , drink and logistics for 60.000 horsemen.
what an amount of water had 60.000 horses have to drink every day, on march from egypt to jerusalem and in Judea itself

4. And what a small army RamsesII had at the great and famous battle of Kadesh.
Only some 1000dends of Chariots  and No Cavalry .
Werent used then in 13 century and even not in the Rohl time 937 ( in that amount )

5. Who is this Pharao Sjishak then

Dear Friend I hope you do not mind my editing for my ease in working your questions.

1. In the scene of Egyptian New Kingdom warfare that wasn't very much to be truthful my dear friend.  Those numbers represent the only the chariots of Shishak, Ramesses II went against Jerusalem with 5 understrength or 4 overstrength companies.  An Egyptian chariot company equaled 250 chariots.  Doing the numbers I find his companies only had 240 chariots.  The chariot required 2 horses, plus 2 in reserve his 60,000 left him with a few extra horses.

2. One reason the ancients went to cavalry less expensive!  Another reason why I wonder about the number of chariots Ahab is credited with in that later century.  He actually fits better into the 13th century.

3. Depending on the exact route Egypt had over the millenniums prepared forts along the Sinai.   They had the Coast Road, and then the Kings Highway both ancient trade routes.  My understanding of Ramesses II appearence as Shishak is he took both routes with his son taking the Kings Highway.  It began in Egypt, and stretched across the Sinai Peninsula to Aqaba. From there it turned northward, leading to Damascus and the Euphrates River.  Because both roads had a long history of being trade routes.  The Egyptian Quartermaster or as Ramesses II would have titled them; Distribution Scribe and Assemblage Scribe would have prepared to provide for total numbers given or lose his health, wealth, and anything else we today might care about.

4. No one claims Ramesses II had a modest ego!  But he went with his ego maybe using the numbers his father had in his battle against Hittite.  He learned though.  I agree with you on Rohl as well.

5. Since Ramesses II fought the Kadesh battle in year 5 (he actually planned one day to go back and finished it) and it is in year 7/8 that Ramesses went humbling King Rehoboam I don't see a great problem with the differences in numbers.

A great day to you and yours and again forgive me for my editing

[turanclancath]

http://www.livius.org/se-sg/septuaginta/septuaginta.html

Could the 60.000 horsemen , be a scribal error  and must be 6000 or 600 ?
Would solve  many problems.
As there are so many many texts of the holy Bible with so many translations with a long long   history reaching us  its possible.

See the link above .
Especially  the remark at the end
I copy/paste it.:

----------------------------


The result is that it is impossible to reconstruct the original version of the Septuagint. Because the Masoretic text has a similar editorial 
history, we must conclude that we can not know the original wording of the books of the Jewish Bible. The texts of the Dead Sea scrolls are sometimes closer to the Masoretic tradition, and sometimes closer to the Septuagint; therefeore, they can not be used to decide which version is better.

It should, however, be stressed that the differences are usually not very large. Although we are unable to reconstruct the precise wording of Law, Prophets and Scriptures in, say, 250 BCE, we can safely assume that it was more or less like the text of our present-day Bibles


------------------------

Dr Lendering is a very religious man so  it is a bonafideconclusion i think,

Besides long ago Cyrus Gordon  wrote that
ages and numbers in the Old Testament are very problematic.

And as Prof Collins( surely a religious man and great great Scholar ) wrote recently in Tall El Hamman II
I will paste it
Ages  and numbers !!!!!! etc are also
andnot taken to litteraly


the paste :
--------------------------


Steven Collins
Full Member

 Offline

Posts: 149


     Re: Tall El-Hammam Part 2
« Reply #515 on: Mar 12, 2009, 06:05 PM »   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Turanclancath:

Don't be so sure about your chronological "certainties." If you continue to take the biblical numbers with "western" literalness, you'll run aground quickly in ever trying to sychronize the biblical history with the ANE history. The patriarchal lifespans are likely honorific and/or formulaic in some way that we as yet do not understand. To complicate the issue, there is absolutely no consensus even amongst conservative scholars as to the actual date of the Exodus, except to say that it occurred sometime between the early 15th century and the end of the 13th century BCE.

The issue of the general chronological placement of the patriarchal stories is far and away one of historical synchronisms rather than simplistic "number crunching," especially when the mathematico-linguistic meaning of the "numbers" is far from straightforward. Such "number crunching" has never (nor ever will, I suspect) produce any kind of consensus about the identity of the Pharaoh of the Exodus, much less a firm date (even century!) for Abraham. Perhaps the excavation of the infamous Cities of the Plain will shed light on the date with more precision!

Thanks for your interest in the Tall el-Hammam Excavation Project.

---------------------

So I,m in exellent   company if I hypotise that 60.000 horsemen should be 6000 or 600


see also this
http://pursiful.com/tag/2-chronicles/
 







Turanclancath

[Sekhmet]

Oh my Turanclancath,

Before the great scholars that make all kinds of claims, excuses about the Bible, and Jewish history.  How do I show them that perhaps they are over educated, and over complicating things? 

If you believe their words, why even your simple and direct year counting based on ten is off based and hopelessly wrong, according to them.  I thought it wonderful and completely in line with proper understanding of ancient people not evolving apes.

I am sorry dear friend, don't lose heart.  Someday maybe they will get tired of defending Josephus, Africanus, Origen, Panodorus, Orosius and all the those others.  That didn't have science like archaeology to depend on, only the works of their earlier era favs. 

Well, I guess I will complete the little work left put it in a locked box and wait until people want what archaeology has to tell them.  Then I will become the new Josephus: oh that's to much I'll get sick. 

I'm going to keep on trusting my dear Lord's, science of archaeology much like physican that depends on science to take care of me. Thank God, I have an science background so I know the questions to ask of archaeology and medicine.

I do believe I ought to remind everyone...Everything, everything my Lord God has allowed archaeology to teach me about Biblical Chronology is copyrighted to Pjbl2223@aol.com 2000-2008 First under Abram Back in Time, and now under Archaeological Chronology of the Bible Lands and all rights are reserved. 


You and yours have a great day. 
 

[turanclancath]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/09/090921-great-pyramid-giza-date-built.html

Interesting article about Egyptian Chronology,Calendar  Sothis/,Sirius risings and unreliability of Pharao,s regnal lists
see copy/paste
:

----------------------------------------------------------------

What's more, dated lists of kings are unreliable, since the ancient Egyptians often had political motivations to alter the historical record.

Some unpopular pharaohs could have been left off the lists, for example, which would have changed the ruling dates of every pharaoh that followed
---------------------------------------------------------------


Turanclancath:)

[Sekhmet]

Interesting article about Egyptian Chronology,Calendar  Sothis/,Sirius risings and unreliability of Pharao,s regnal lists
see copy/paste
:

----------------------------------------------------------------

What's more, dated lists of kings are unreliable, since the ancient Egyptians often had political motivations to alter the historical record.

Some unpopular pharaohs could have been left off the lists, for example, which would have changed the ruling dates of every pharaoh that followed
---------------------------------------------------------------


Turanclancath:)

A great Sekhmet roar!

LOL some unpopular Pharaohs did get their names dropped! LOL what is as funny to me is thinking Classical Greeks and Romans, and Victorian men had all the answers!  LOL  Meaning no real disrepect to the late great departed.

However,

Sekhmet 
Re: Which Pharaoh lived during the time of which Prophet?
« Reply #131 on: Sep 19, 2009, 12:57 PM »

 

I maintain my Exodus date is at the end of the Old Kingdom.

My dear Sir Turanclancath, please note I do not use a date only an era.

Almost a year ago on this very board, I complained about the reliability of Pharaonic dating, and loss kings.  So, how did I solve that LOL easy!  I decided to look for a comprehensive regional history dating back to the 7th millennium.  I maintain the date isn't the important thing, yet.  Correct positioning and era is far more important today than month, day, year.  We have learned scholars claiming there was no Abraham (acbl ca. 2,990 BCE)  Again, if there is no Abraham there is no King David, no Ishmael, and no Jesus.

I looked at the regional history as a slide ruler or a math negative, positive line.  This is how I dealt with the dating problems.  There are so many sources, Egyptian, Scriptural, Mesopotamian, Syrian, Hittite, and ancient documentation.   I place it all on their own slide ruler line and work it out from there until it merges into a comprehensive study of regional history.   

Documenting it as I have I can actually, see where the regional history still has a few problems; gaps of any data and it often falls across the line as a whole. Dates, no I do not have but a comprehensive study of Biblical Land history from the 7th millennium to the Roman era, I do have.

Egyptian chronology as used by the Egyptian archaeologists and historians is the best there is as of today.  I am well aware of the chronology problems.  Again they do not bother me, because a required and correct chronology from the ancient world is not required.  All that is required is scriptural agreement (I settle for 96% I am not perfect) and multiple repetition from different modern archaeological sources, at least two; preferably and often three. 

Science is ever increasing its ability to date reliably.  Nor do I distrust science as so many of my fellow brethren of our beloved Lord do.  If they truly believe all things are made by Him and He called them good.  This has to include the sciences, then what is the problem?  I admit to myself at times I do not like it...it does not break the rules of my God.  Then, I remember Christ my Lord did not come to die for science but for me, you and those that believe on him.  He did not give science free will.

The real and big problem is Israeli archaeology, if it dates to the 10th century IT IS THE UNITED MONARCHY. 

Your most respectful friend Sekhmet

[Sekhmet]

turanclancath] on Sep 18, 2009, 11:22 PM
http://bible.cc/2_chronicles/12-3.htmhttp://bible.cc/2_chronicles/12-3.htm

1. That must have been really the mightyest and greatest Pharao( and king/emperor ) of all times and off alll the ancient world  this Sjishak.!!!!
1200 war chariots and 60.000 horsemen !!!!!

5. Who is this Pharao Sjishak then
 

Sekhmet
Re: Was Ramesses II even near Jerusalem?
« Reply #22 on: Sep 19, 2009, 11:30 AM »
1. In the scene of Egyptian New Kingdom warfare that wasn't very much to be truthful my dear friend.  Those numbers represent the only the chariots of Shishak, Ramesses II went against Jerusalem with 5 understrength or 4 overstrength companies.  An Egyptian chariot company equaled 250 chariots.  Doing the numbers I find his companies only had 240 chariots.  The chariot required 2 horses, plus 2 in reserve his 60,000 left him with a few extra horses.

turanclancath
Re: Was Ramesses II even near Jerusalem?
« Reply #23 on: Sep 20, 2009, 03:24 AM »
So I,m in exellent   company if I hypotise that 60.000 horsemen should be 6000 or 600

Sekhmet says!

Hee, hee, hee You have reminded me that Christopher Columbus was the odd man out in his little fleet.

I do like your 6,000 horses better.  The count would be a more organized (and the ancient Egyptians were organized).  Again each chariot required 2 horses, and 2 for relief.  6,000 divided by 4 equals 1,500 chariots.  1,500 equals what an Egyptian army would call a "host" an official designation.  A host equals at least 2 companies of 250.  So, 1,500 chariots, with 6,000 horses would work out to be a full 6 companies.  Surely enough military strength to humble Rehoboam even in Jerusalem/Shalem.   Then cruise around with all that loot!

You take care dear friend.  I need a few days off again.

[turanclancath]

Great Answer Dear lady Sekhmet about the 6000 horses and the division in 4   chariot  divisions and reserve horses.

We are in perfect harmony  then .
a good solution compliments dear friend in  solving this problem

stay well.
turanclancath:)