Was King David the King Arthur of the scribes of King Josiah?

Oldandeasilycofused · Oct 22, 2023

AlpinLuke said:
Well ... there are also well known evidences that a House of David existed ... but what about the huge content of the OT? [The Tanakh].

Only one of which I'm aware; the Tel Dan Stele, (discovered in 1993) which mentions a House of David. What it does not provide is proof of the existence of a king David and the Davidic line, which included King Solomon, and ultimately, [allegedly] Jesus himself.***

I'm unable to accept the Tanakh or any religious book as a reliable historical source. Although there are traditions, as far as I'm aware, no one knows who wrote the Tanakh. Same with the New Testament, with the probable exception of some of the Pauline epistles. Most interested to learn of other evidence about King David.

"The Tel Dan Stele is a fragmentary stele containing a Canaanite inscription which dates to the 9th century BCE. It is notable for possibly being the most significant and perhaps the only extra-biblical archaeological reference to the house of David.[1][2]"

Tel Dan stele - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So far not convinced that the claim that "The house of David" means there was a king David.

The Tel Dan Inscription: The First Historical Evidence of King David from the Bible

Few modern discoveries have caused as much excitement as the Tel Dan inscription that furnished the first historical evidence of King David.

www.biblicalarchaeology.org

In their book The Bible Unearthed; Archaeologys New Vision Of Ancient Israel And The Origin Of Its SacredTexts, Archaeologists Israel Finkelstein and Neil Siberman opine that the David mentioned in the Tell Dan Stele was simply a local chief. In ancient times writers liked to exaggerate, making a tribe into a kingdom, to make their conquest sound grander.

*** I won't open that can of worms here. If you're interested, have a look at Jewish prophecy about the Messiah. It differs significantly from the Christian account. It explains why Jews have never been able to accept Jesus as the Messiah.

Ayrton · Oct 22, 2023

Florida said:
One of the big things about Ralph Ellis is he spends considerable ink on the many translations of the same name...It was he who got me going on the idea that history in that time frame (2000 bc to 500 ad) is written/translated to and from at least 5 languages (2 of which, I think are extinct). I had to study a little lingustics (actually I was drowning but I lived for another day) to get a grip of his work. It was all worth it. I reread still his work. And there were two (2) exodus.

I am wading through some interviews of Ralph Ellis. Like Ahmed Osmon and David Rohl (and Vellikovski), one is at first taken aback, lol. I’ll persist, of course.

The curious vase of two Exoduses is intriguing. I, for one thing, suspect the Hyksos Expulsion has at least has strong echoes in the Bible take. The closest I can find in the evidence (so to speak) for any ‘echoes’ in the Amarna Period, Akhenaten going off into the desert to build his Holy City (Akhetaten). Josephus mentions an Amenophis in the 19th Dynasty who did a similar thing. This Amenophis, for mine, is another memory or story that began with Amenophis/Akhenaten. It’s a peculiar tale. But as to any exodus, Akhenaten’s move to Amarna during feel much like the Bible exodus tale. The Hyksos Expulsion seems to resonate more, though the Egyptian King Ahmoses and the people of Egypt were the slaves in a sense of the Hyksos. As to Thera. I see it occurring as Manetho’s blast from God, which caused problems bless throughout the Mediterranean world, including the Hyksos either invading Egypt in the first place, or causing their demise in Egypt in the time of Ahmose. The Admonitions of Ipuwer, I think, were part of the template for the Biblical plagues. I also, as I’ve already said, wonder if the Dadua and Labaya in the Amarna Letters might be figures borrowed by later Judean writers to give themselves kings House. The Northern Kingdom (Israel) perhaps favouring Labaya/Saul and the Southern Kingdom (Judah), David. The detail in the tale of Saul, David and Solomon is kind of suspicious, while closer to history based on scribal records seems to belong to the time of Rehoboam et al. Though even here, the earlier kings of Israel and Judah might be oral history. David’s tale is more Arthurian (Homerian?) than Rehoboam et al for mine.

Ayrton · Oct 22, 2023

Oldandeasilycofused said:
Only one of which I'm aware; the Tel Dan Stele, (discovered in 1993) which mentions a House of David. What it does not provide is proof of the existence of a king David and the Davidic line, which included King Solomon, and ultimately, [allegedly] Jesus himself.***

I'm unable to accept the Tanakh or any religious book as a reliable historical source. Although there are traditions, as far as I'm aware, no one knows who wrote the Tanakh. Same with the New Testament, with the probable exception of some of the Pauline epistles. Most interested to learn of other evidence about King David.

"The Tel Dan Stele is a fragmentary stele containing a Canaanite inscription which dates to the 9th century BCE. It is notable for possibly being the most significant and perhaps the only extra-biblical archaeological reference to the house of David.[1][2]"

Tel Dan stele - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So far not convinced that the claim that "The house of David" means there was a king David.

The Tel Dan Inscription: The First Historical Evidence of King David from the Bible

Few modern discoveries have caused as much excitement as the Tel Dan inscription that furnished the first historical evidence of King David.

www.biblicalarchaeology.org

In their book The Bible Unearthed; Archaeologys New Vision Of Ancient Israel And The Origin Of Its SacredTexts, Archaeologists Israel Finkelstein and Neil Siberman opine that the David mentioned in the Tell Dan Stele was simply a local chief. In ancient times writers liked to exaggerate, making a tribe into a kingdom, to make their conquest sound grander.

*** I won't open that can of worms here. If you're interested, have a look at Jewish prophecy about the Messiah. It differs significantly from the Christian account. It explains why Jews have never been able to accept Jesus as the Messiah.

I think a House of David is mentioned on a Stele in Moab in the time of Omri. But I’m ready to agree that David is a (mainly)legendary king, but maybe loosely based on a real figure, the Dadua of the Amarna Period. Rohl pits the Amarnans down t9 the time of Dabid (10th century), I’m ready to consider Dadua might be David, but as a legendary brigand or Chief back around the 1300’s. Dadua was an Apiru (Hebrew). And a problem child, along with Labaya and others, for their Egyptian overlords in the Amarna period.

AlpinLuke · Oct 22, 2023

Ayrton said:
I think a House of David is mentioned on a Stele in Moab in the time of Omri. But I’m ready to agree that David is a (mainly)legendary king, but maybe loosely based on a real figure, the Dadua of the Amarna Period. Rohl pits the Amarnans down t9 the time of Dabid (10th century), I’m ready to consider Dadua might be David, but as a legendary brigand or Chief back around the 1300’s. Dadua was an Apiru (Hebrew). And a problem child, along with Labaya and others, for their Egyptian overlords in the Amarna period.

It's like about Arthur: which Arthur?
The one mentioned by Nennius in IX century CE? Or the Arthur mentioned in the Y Gododdin in early VII century CE?
And we know that the Arthurian cycle tells us that he lived between late V and early VI century ...

You don't need to move through time this or that less or more historical figure, often it's simply enough to use this or that existing "version".

AlpinLuke · Oct 22, 2023

Then, thinking to Canaan, we can expect to hear about local conflicts and rebellion in any period. Sure it was a well unstable area.
According to when we imagine the Exodus happened [if a gigantic exodus happened for real] we can find in Canaan all the rebels and the local leaders we want.
For example there is who says that the personages in the Amarna Letters were the Judges. This would mean that the Exodus happened before of the age of Akhenaten ...

Ayrton · Oct 23, 2023

AlpinLuke said:
Then, thinking to Canaan, we can expect to hear about local conflicts and rebellion in any period. Sure it was a well unstable area.
According to when we imagine the Exodus happened [if a gigantic exodus happened for real] we can find in Canaan all the rebels and the local leaders we want.
For example there is who says that the personages in the Amarna Letters were the Judges. This would mean that the Exodus happened before of the age of Akhenaten ...

I think it likely that the Bible writers (there were many) ploughed through and borrowed and remodelled a host of stories and legends, but also annals and oral histories. When it comes to the Biblical Exodus, the Hyksos Expulsion stands out for me. But it’s just one idea among many to create that tale. The story got bigger and better and more diverse in the telling. By the time things were stitched together, David was grown from brigand chief to great King of an empire - an empire mirroring that under Amenophis III and Akhenaten. In the time if Josiah, David even became Yahweh’s main man. Go figure!

I tend to think that the (possibly) climatic problems circa Merenptah to Ramesses III’s time (and before and after?) caused many Canaanites to move inland from the Western Canaanite/Syria Mediterranean coast. Some were already in the hilly inland. Different Canaanites, sedentary and nomadic or semi nomadic probably contested territory due to displacements from the coastal city states that collapsed under pressure of the Sea Peoples.

The Judges tales, according to Finklestein, were collected tales from all over the region. And the Bible writers seem to have been great collectors of stuff, and good embroiders of tapestries that suited the political and religious needs of whoever were writing and collecting and sewing at any given time. This is why I can imagine a figure like Dadua being built into a famous king using a folk memory (the brigand Apiru chief) and added stuff from Egyptian pharaonic history and folk tales.

Finklestein thinks Solomon was built up partly on the idea of an Assyrian King, but I see a great pharaoh.

Indeed, I’m beginning to think Solomon (Jedidiah) was David too, somehow separated from other tales and creations about David. Of course, Dadua/David was transported in time from the Amarna Period three hundred years forward to the tenth century. Oddly enough, it was a Finklestein - who does not support the New Chronology (he sticks only to the basic agreed general chronology) - speaks of the Amarna Period (in the area of the later Israel) as being similar in political-tribal terms. Generally, he is keen to draw distinctions between periods quite separate in time, usually based on archeology. Here Finklestein only seems to indicate similarities. I think this is where Rohl’s ideas might have some credence. Not his New Chronology (though my mind remains open) but in that displacement I’m willing to entertain, if only for discussion purposes, of folk hero Dadua/David in time from Amarna times to the tenth century.

Btw Sheshonq as Shishak remains a problem, if it’s thought Shishak is Sheshonq the 1st. Sheshonq appears to have attacked towns in Israel not Judah (Jerusalem is a case in point, Sheshonq does not mention it). So if it’s Sheshonq-Shishak, do we we need look at one of the other Sheshonq’s for the despoiler of the Jewish Temple?

Edit: I note Ralph Ellis thinks David is an Egyptian pharaoh from Tanis contemporary with the alleged tone of King David in the 10th century. A forbear of Sheshonq I. He compares names of the main players in the David talesoth the Tanis royals! Rohl does name comparing with Labaya and Dadua etcetera. Maybe we have two Egyptian sources - among others - for the creation of the King David tales!

AlpinLuke · Oct 23, 2023

Ayrton said:
I think it likely that the Bible writers (there were many) ploughed through and borrowed and remodelled a host of stories and legends, but also annals and oral histories. When it comes to the Biblical Exodus, the Hyksos Expulsion stands out for me. But it’s just one idea among many to create that tale. The story got bigger and better and more diverse in the telling. By the time things were stitched together, David was grown from brigand chief to great King of an empire - an empire mirroring that under Amenophis III and Akhenaten. In the time if Josiah, David even became Yahweh’s main man. Go figure!

I tend to think that the (possibly) climatic problems circa Merenptah to Ramesses III’s time (and before and after?) caused many Canaanites to move inland from the Western Canaanite/Syria Mediterranean coast. Some were already in the hilly inland. Different Canaanites, sedentary and nomadic or semi nomadic probably contested territory due to displacements from the coastal city states that collapsed under pressure of the Sea Peoples.

The Judges tales, according to Finklestein, were collected tales from all over the region. And the Bible writers seem to have been great collectors of stuff, and good embroiders of tapestries that suited the political and religious needs of whoever were writing and collecting and sewing at any given time. This is why I can imagine a figure like Dadua being built into a famous king using a folk memory (the brigand Apiru chief) and added stuff from Egyptian pharaonic history and folk tales.

Finklestein thinks Solomon was built up partly on the idea of an Assyrian King, but I see a great pharaoh.

Indeed, I’m beginning to think Solomon (Jedidiah) was David too, somehow separated from other tales and creations about David. Of course, Dadua/David was transported in time from the Amarna Period three hundred years forward to the tenth century. Oddly enough, it was a Finklestein - who does not support the New Chronology (he sticks only to the basic agreed general chronology) - speaks of the Amarna Period (in the area of the later Israel) as being similar in political-tribal terms. Generally, he is keen to draw distinctions between periods quite separate in time, usually based on archeology. Here Finklestein only seems to indicate similarities. I think this is where Rohl’s ideas might have some credence. Not his New Chronology (though my mind remains open) but in that displacement I’m willing to entertain, if only for discussion purposes, of folk hero Dadua/David in time from Amarna times to the tenth century.

Btw Sheshonq as Shishak remains a problem, if it’s thought Shishak is Sheshonq the 1st. Sheshonq appears to have attacked towns in Israel not Judah (Jerusalem is a case in point, Sheshonq does not mention it). So if it’s Sheshonq-Shishak, do we we need look at one of the other Sheshonq’s for the despoiler of the Jewish Temple?

Here we need to research a bit about available sources. Our old friend Lepsius can help us again: he copied the inscription of Sheshonq I on the wall of Amun-Ra at Karnak. Many names of cities are not readable, so we cannot exclude that Sheshonq was active somewhere else. But as usual, absence of evidence doesn't allow to imagine an evidence ...

In any case Megiddo is mentioned [evidently, the Sovereigns of KmT considered that city strategic].
From what I can read around, there should be a stela at Megiddo. But recent observations of a fragment suggest that it was an inscription on a wall.

Florida · Oct 23, 2023

Came across the news feed today .... a bunch of questions and answers..... from Ralph Ellis

__________________________________
*** Chat-GPT Points and Questions ***
I missed this posting last week, so I will answer them here. Sorry, I cannot remember who posted these points and questions. I think these points were made by Chat-GPT - perhaps the poster could confirm this.
.
Point 1:
City of David and Jerusalem Excavations: While modern archaeological excavations have revealed significant findings in Jerusalem, Ellis might argue that the scale does not fit the grand descriptions found in biblical accounts. He would contend that the "real" Jerusalem of the United Monarchy was a larger, more monumental city in Egypt.
Answer:
This was not really my contention. It came from Silberman and Finkelstein, two eminent archaeologists in lsrael who are not overly influenced by biblical texts. Their conclusion was that during the United Monarchy era, Jerusalem was ‘no more than a village’. In which case the grand palace and temple of David and Solomon cannot have been located in Jerusalem, and must have been located elsewhere. Hence my search for an alternate capital city for the United Monarchy.
.
Point 2:
Tel Dan Stele and Mesha Stele: The references to the "House of David" or the "House of Omri" in external sources do validate the existence of these monarchies, but Ellis could argue that these inscriptions don't necessarily pin down the exact location of these kingdoms.
Answer:
Indeed. We don’t even know if these names refer to a city or to a monarchy. But even if they did refer to a monarchy, they tells us nothing about them - beyond the fact they existed. However, my relocation of the United Monarchy from Zion (Jerusalem) to Zoan (Tanis), does not deny the existence of this monarchy. In fact, my evidence proves they did indeed exist - just their capital city was further south.
.
Point 3.
Shishaq's Campaign and the Bubastite Portal: Ellis's identification of King David with Pharaoh Shishaq offers an alternative interpretation of the campaign. Rather than viewing it as an external invasion, he might argue it was a civil campaign or an internal reassertion of control.
Answer:
Actually, I identify David with Psusennes and Solomon with Shishak. So it was indeed Shishak-Solomon who conquered all these cities in lsrael, to become the king of lsrael. So Solomon-Shishak was the king of this region, just as the Tanakh claims.
This may appear to be contradictory, regards Shishak’s conquest of Solomon’s capital city. But no. It is likely that the biblical scribes used Solomon's alternate name (Shishak) at the end of the narrative. Solomon-Shishak had retired to Luxor, while his young heirs started a civil war in the north. So Solomon-Shishak marched north and used his authority as the elder monarch, to demand the gates of Zoan-Zion be opened and his treasures returned to him. This is why there was no battle.
.
Point 5:
Archaeological Layers and Destructions: Ellis could contend that while there's evidence of settlements and destructions in the Levant, these sites might not represent the primary locations of biblical narratives but rather peripheral areas influenced by a central power located elsewhere.
Answer:
Absolutely. We do know that the 21st dynasty pharaohs of Tanis (Zoan) did wage wars in the Levant, and ended up ruling all of Judaeo-Israel. In which case Psusennes (David) and Shishak (Solomon) WERE the kings of Jerusalem (Zion), but that was not their capital city. Their capital was located at Tanis (Zoan).
Note that the entire family and court of Psusennes, have the same names as the family and court of King David, so there is good reason for thinking they are the same monarchy. I mentioned this to Prof Finkelstein, and he said that just because all the names are the same, does not mean they are the same monarchy. But Finkelstein’s position is highly political - he cannot say that the real Jerusalem is located in the Nile Delta.
.
Point 6:
Still, Ralph Ellis's theories, though outside of mainstream consensus, do underscore the importance of continually questioning and reassessing our historical understanding based on available evidence and interpretations.
Answer:
Indeed. And if all these points came from Chat-GPT, then I must commend its grasp of my “Solomon, Pharaoh of Egypt” thesis, and all its many nuances.
Amazon link:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Solomon-Pharaoh.../dp/B0049B2FRC/
Ralph

AlpinLuke · Oct 23, 2023

There is who simply says that the tale of the Exodus was actually invented during the Exodus from Babylon ...

Btw, on Historum we don't appreciate Chat-GPT [and I'm an IT manager dealing with AIs on a daily base ...].

Anyway, using the historical method, the first point to arise is that there are no clear references to the Exodus [or at least to the Passover] before of the letters from V century BCE sent by Jewish mercenaries [or similar]on Elephantine isles to relatives. We know, thanks to recent discoveries, that at Babylon there was a Jewish community, but their archive [unfortunately!] was administrative and legal: no religious texts. It would have been helpful to find out which were the beliefs and the tradition of those exiled Jews.

So, we cannot dismiss the "Babylonian Variant". Overall thinking that the bases of the doctrine and the Tradition we read in the Tanakh were well probably composed during that exile.

Wickerman · Oct 23, 2023

Ayrton said:
I tend to think that the (possibly) climatic problems circa Merenptah to Ramesses III’s time (and before and after?) caused many Canaanites to move inland from the Western Canaanite/Syria Mediterranean coast. Some were already in the hilly inland. Different Canaanites, sedentary and nomadic or semi nomadic probably contested territory due to displacements from the coastal city states that collapsed under pressure of the Sea Peoples.

You have me almost salivating now, any mention of my principal study period - Rameses III and the Sea Peoples, is cause for tingles down the spine

You've touched on a scenario concerning Canaanites that is the subject of much investigation. Finkelstein wrote of his demographic study of the Shephelah where he concludes the whole area was annihilated around the end of the Late Bronze to the dawn of the Iron Age, conventional chronology of course. Settlements burned to the ground, the whole area was stripped but the main cities of the time increased in population, but he also concluded there was no appreciable increase in population across the area as a whole.
He does not reach a conclusion as to the cause, but fire was the tool of the Egyptian military.
The texts of Rameses III tell us the Peleset, Danuna, etc. were settled on his borders as he assembles his weaponry and moves against them.

Ayrton said:
Btw Sheshonq as Shishak remains a problem, if it’s thought Shishak is Sheshonq the 1st. Sheshonq appears to have attacked towns in Israel not Judah (Jerusalem is a case in point, Sheshonq does not mention it). So if it’s Sheshonq-Shishak, do we we need look at one of the other Sheshonq’s for the despoiler of the Jewish Temple?

The only opinion I have on the Sheshonq=Shishaq debate, is to say he wasn't Ramesses II or the III.

As to this Shishaq not listing Jerusalem as a conquest, this has always surprised me. For those who accept the Bible as history, or at least the Old Testament, then Chronicles tells the reader "...I will not destroy them, but I will grant them deliverance", and something about not pouring his wrath over Jerusalem. Shishak takes away all the treasures - it was tribute.
Jerusalem was not conquered by Shishak.
We have a clue provided by Thutmose III, only conquests are listed on the temple walls, cities that offer tribute are not conquered. Which means Jerusalem wouldn't have been listed anyway, I mean assuming it was true.
I'm surprised christian scholars do not recognise this, but anyway, just my two cents.

Ayrton · Oct 23, 2023

Florida said:
Came across the news feed today .... a bunch of questions and answers..... from Ralph Ellis

__________________________________
*** Chat-GPT Points and Questions ***
I missed this posting last week, so I will answer them here. Sorry, I cannot remember who posted these points and questions. I think these points were made by Chat-GPT - perhaps the poster could confirm this.
.
Point 1:
City of David and Jerusalem Excavations: While modern archaeological excavations have revealed significant findings in Jerusalem, Ellis might argue that the scale does not fit the grand descriptions found in biblical accounts. He would contend that the "real" Jerusalem of the United Monarchy was a larger, more monumental city in Egypt.
Answer:
This was not really my contention. It came from Silberman and Finkelstein, two eminent archaeologists in lsrael who are not overly influenced by biblical texts. Their conclusion was that during the United Monarchy era, Jerusalem was ‘no more than a village’. In which case the grand palace and temple of David and Solomon cannot have been located in Jerusalem, and must have been located elsewhere. Hence my search for an alternate capital city for the United Monarchy.
.
Point 2:
Tel Dan Stele and Mesha Stele: The references to the "House of David" or the "House of Omri" in external sources do validate the existence of these monarchies, but Ellis could argue that these inscriptions don't necessarily pin down the exact location of these kingdoms.
Answer:
Indeed. We don’t even know if these names refer to a city or to a monarchy. But even if they did refer to a monarchy, they tells us nothing about them - beyond the fact they existed. However, my relocation of the United Monarchy from Zion (Jerusalem) to Zoan (Tanis), does not deny the existence of this monarchy. In fact, my evidence proves they did indeed exist - just their capital city was further south.
.
Point 3.
Shishaq's Campaign and the Bubastite Portal: Ellis's identification of King David with Pharaoh Shishaq offers an alternative interpretation of the campaign. Rather than viewing it as an external invasion, he might argue it was a civil campaign or an internal reassertion of control.
Answer:
Actually, I identify David with Psusennes and Solomon with Shishak. So it was indeed Shishak-Solomon who conquered all these cities in lsrael, to become the king of lsrael. So Solomon-Shishak was the king of this region, just as the Tanakh claims.
This may appear to be contradictory, regards Shishak’s conquest of Solomon’s capital city. But no. It is likely that the biblical scribes used Solomon's alternate name (Shishak) at the end of the narrative. Solomon-Shishak had retired to Luxor, while his young heirs started a civil war in the north. So Solomon-Shishak marched north and used his authority as the elder monarch, to demand the gates of Zoan-Zion be opened and his treasures returned to him. This is why there was no battle.
.
Point 5:
Archaeological Layers and Destructions: Ellis could contend that while there's evidence of settlements and destructions in the Levant, these sites might not represent the primary locations of biblical narratives but rather peripheral areas influenced by a central power located elsewhere.
Answer:
Absolutely. We do know that the 21st dynasty pharaohs of Tanis (Zoan) did wage wars in the Levant, and ended up ruling all of Judaeo-Israel. In which case Psusennes (David) and Shishak (Solomon) WERE the kings of Jerusalem (Zion), but that was not their capital city. Their capital was located at Tanis (Zoan).
Note that the entire family and court of Psusennes, have the same names as the family and court of King David, so there is good reason for thinking they are the same monarchy. I mentioned this to Prof Finkelstein, and he said that just because all the names are the same, does not mean they are the same monarchy. But Finkelstein’s position is highly political - he cannot say that the real Jerusalem is located in the Nile Delta.
.
Point 6:
Still, Ralph Ellis's theories, though outside of mainstream consensus, do underscore the importance of continually questioning and reassessing our historical understanding based on available evidence and interpretations.
Answer:
Indeed. And if all these points came from Chat-GPT, then I must commend its grasp of my “Solomon, Pharaoh of Egypt” thesis, and all its many nuances.
Amazon link:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Solomon-Pharaoh.../dp/B0049B2FRC/
Ralph

Have watched some podcasts interviewing Ralph. I think I’ll need to make sone investments in his books. Or, to begin, his expanded thoughts on Tanis etc. Because all he talks about is so new to me, I don’t know what to make of any of it. But as Rohl linked David et al to the Amarna Period and Akhenaten, and likewise Ahmed Osman Solomon to Amenophis III, I think anything Ralph says about Tanis and Israël-Judah, seems right up my alley.

Edit: I’m particularly interested to see Ellis’s ‘identical names.’

AlpinLuke · Oct 23, 2023

If we think to Sheshonq I, there is something interesting in the sources we can find:
the so called "Field of Abram".

I'm going back to the inscription on the wall of the temple at Karnak [the "Bubastite portal"]. As said before, many names are unreadable [so we cannot exclude that Jerusalem was among them, but we cannot say this].
An other problem is that the readable names are not so easy to be read: the phonetic correspondence among hieroglyphics and Semitic languages is not so clear yet.

Moreover ... are we sure that the Egyptian scribe knew the Semitic names? Or simply he heard about them? And what about the geographical order of the cities?

Now, no. 71 and 72 have been interpreted in the past as a reference to the "Field of Abram".
First of all, the transliteration of 71 is already a problem: was it a transliteration in hieroglyphic of a Semitic term? It should sound "P Hkl" ...
Then, there is the proble of its connection with 72 [which should be "Abram" and its transliteration can sound "mrb'mrj"].

Observing the list, it's improbable that the two entries should be read together.
Anyway, what about that "Abram"?

We can see the sign for "mr" [mer; mery - beloved]. And then a sign for "b" [the crane].
But here we enter again the mined field of the transliteration of a Semitic name into hieroglyphics.
The third sign is the mouth, which can mean a "r". The fourth one is a "m". And the fifth one is the arm [why not a "j"?].

Honestly to think to such a transliteration of "Abram" is not that intuitive.

Ayrton · Oct 23, 2023

Wickerman said:
You have me almost salivating now, any mention of my principal study period - Rameses III and the Sea Peoples, is cause for tingles down the spine
You've touched on a scenario concerning Canaanites that is the subject of much investigation. Finkelstein wrote of his demographic study of the Shephelah where he concludes the whole area was annihilated around the end of the Late Bronze to the dawn of the Iron Age, conventional chronology of course. Settlements burned to the ground, the whole area was stripped but the main cities of the time increased in population, but he also concluded there was no appreciable increase in population across the area as a whole.
He does not reach a conclusion as to the cause, but fire was the tool of the Egyptian military.
The texts of Rameses III tell us the Peleset, Danuna, etc. were settled on his borders as he assembles his weaponry and moves against them.

The only opinion I have on the Sheshonq=Shishaq debate, is to say he wasn't Ramesses II or the III.

As to this Shishaq not listing Jerusalem as a conquest, this has always surprised me. For those who accept the Bible as history, or at least the Old Testament, then Chronicles tells the reader "...I will not destroy them, but I will grant them deliverance", and something about not pouring his wrath over Jerusalem. Shishak takes away all the treasures - it was tribute.
Jerusalem was not conquered by Shishak.
We have a clue provided by Thutmose III, only conquests are listed on the temple walls, cities that offer tribute are not conquered. Which means Jerusalem wouldn't have been listed anyway, I mean assuming it was true.
I'm surprised christian scholars do not recognise this, but anyway, just my two cents.

Saw a view that Ramesses III may not have defeated the Sea Peoples and resettled them, but negotiated a settlement because things had not gone so well. I even wonder if the Sea Peoples conquered cities on the Levantine coast and Ramesses III just recognised them as being settled there., I’ve been watching quite a few podcasts and reading Wikipedia bits and pieces. Can’t remember who said it. My mind is awash with a whole world to reexamine.

The Shishak and the Temple business might be just as you say. Still, I might have thought that Sheshonq might have mentioned exacting such considerable tribute. As to Ellis thinking Pesusennes and Sheshonq are David and Solomon, I think I need to find his book on it and learn and consider his whole thesis.

wenamun · Oct 24, 2023

Let's throw in a nice revisionist theory.

The Sheshonq=Shishaq debate might be relevant from a different perspective. Why do rulers and administrators from the northern kingdom have seals depicting symbols that are typical for the Horus the Behdetite, such as the dung beetle or winged disks? Not far from ancient Israel, on the Way of Horus or Horus military road was an ancient Egyptian fortress and fortified city of Selē (Tjaru) which controlled the border between Egypt and Canaan. Horus the Behdetite was worshipped at Tjaru in the form of a lion, the national symbol of Judah.

According to scholar Othman Keel Yahweh could be depicted as a sun disc (see the top register of the Taanach cult stand), This influence of North-Eastern Egypt on the old kingdoms resonates in Jewish literature; “But for you who revere my name the sun of righteousness shall rise, with healing in its wings” (Malachi 4:2).

So if you theorize that Sheshonq/Shishaqs' conquest of cities in ancient Israel was executed by the border garisson of Tjaru you have a simple explanation for the usage of symbols that are specific for Horus the Behdetite and the Lord of Mesen in the old kingdoms. The lion of Zion then becomes the Lion of Tjaru, probably representing Horus of Edfu.. And now you have a framework that is compatible with Ellis' theory of David and Salomon.

Ayrton · Oct 24, 2023

wenamun said:
Let's throw in a nice revisionist theory.

The Sheshonq=Shishaq debate might be relevant from a different perspective. Why do rulers and administrators from the northern kingdom have seals depicting symbols that are typical for the Horus the Behdetite, such as the dung beetle or winged disks? Not far from ancient Israel, on the Way of Horus or Horus military road was an ancient Egyptian fortress and fortified city of Selē (Tjaru) which controlled the border between Egypt and Canaan. Horus the Behdetite was worshipped at Tjaru in the form of a lion, the national symbol of Judah.

According to scholar Othman Keel Yahweh could be depicted as a sun disc (see the top register of the Taanach cult stand), This influence of North-Eastern Egypt on the old kingdoms resonates in Jewish literature; “But for you who revere my name the sun of righteousness shall rise, with healing in its wings” (Malachi 4:2).

So if you theorize that Sheshonq/Shishaqs' conquest of cities in ancient Israel was executed by the border garisson of Tjaru you have a simple explanation for the usage of symbols that are specific for Horus the Behdetite and the Lord of Mesen in the old kingdoms. The lion of Zion then becomes the Lion of Tjaru, probably representing Horus of Edfu.. And now you have a framework that is compatible with Ellis' theory of David and Salomon.

I watched another podcast by Ellis on David & Solomon. Like Rohl, at times I think he says things that do make sense, but then I wonder at his thoughts on others. I guess I have this view of all ancient historians etc. Still, playing that old name game, when Ellis compares things like Zoan to Zion, where ‘Zion’ has always seemed problematical word/name, I can allow myself to be a little persuaded a tiny bit at least on that, especially when the Tanis rulers Psusennes and Sheshonq are approximately contemporaneous with the United Monarchy stuff of Israël/Judah (but not if you’re Rohl!). And the idea that David/Solomon tales might have drawn on the story of other contemporary great kings, is appealing.

I return to the basic idea I wanted to persue by creating this thread: the whole David/Solomon complex in the Bible (David as Arthur) does seem to have involved much borrowing of tales and oral or written histories from diverse cultures throughout Egypt, the Levant and Anatolia, and the Mediterranean countries and Mesopotamia - duh! + and I am beginning to wonder if said David/Solomon complex might best be explained by seeking out what might have been borrowed (and improved on) from other annals, oral tales/history and legends/myths - duh!

So, as a tentative hypothesis, were parts of the David/Solomon complex derived from Tanis - the kings and politics - while the names David (Dadua, and Labaya (Saul?) derived from the Amarna Period, seeing an Egyptian pharaoh name was not a good fit for Jewish scribes who rarely mentioned Egypt in the tines of the alleged David/Solomon of the Bible? Why draw the attention to an Egyptian context when borrowing directly from those Egyptian contexts? Why give up the game? David could be a legendary Arthur type, fabricated from pieces of non Judaea sources, but why tell your readership that? Propaganda does not operate that way as a rule.

AlpinLuke · Oct 24, 2023

From a textual perspective, we have to remember that the details of the Exodus come from the version of the Tanakh composed in Hellenic Egypt.
This means that the tale had "built" not a few centuries after the events and that Egyptian interpolations are impossible to be excluded.

We should keep this in mind. Only the letter from Elephantine can allow us, from a historical perspective, to sustain that the Tradition of the Passover predates the composition of the Hellenic Tanakh.

Wickerman · Oct 24, 2023

Do you think the mention of Tirhaka in 2Kings & Isaiah, is the result of ancient records, or pure luck?

AlpinLuke · Oct 24, 2023

Wickerman said:
Do you think the mention of Tirhaka in 2Kings & Isaiah, is the result of ancient records, or pure luck?

It can be the result of the meeting with the Egyptian world. TIrhaka deeds are recorded on stelae in Kawa [the texts are today organized in Kawa I, Kawa II, Kawa III ...].
Jews settled at Elephantine and they could have collected historical information there. Or also in Babylon, why not? Sennacherib is the subject of the two verses.

Or, like in Babylon administrative records of a "Jewish" community [actually we don't know with accuracy something about the religiosity of that community] have been found, a local kingdom [the bible says that Hezekiah was king in that moment] could have preserved and transmitted that historical episode. So, if an administrative archive existed in Babylon, it's not so odd to imagine that they had also a historical archive. [The exile happened in early VI century BCE, so about a century after the reign of Tirhaka].

Ayrton · Oct 25, 2023

Wickerman said:
Do you think the mention of Tirhaka in 2Kings & Isaiah, is the result of ancient records, or pure luck?

I don’t understand your reference to ‘pure luck.’

Wickerman · Oct 26, 2023

Ayrton said:
I don’t understand your reference to ‘pure luck.’

The question is, did the Biblical chronology place the Egyptian Taharqa (Biblical Tirhaqah), in the mid 7th century by chronological means, or by pinning the tail on a donkey?
As Luka points out there were inscriptions available, but at best these only offer a year date. How would the Hebrews know which king came after him, and so on, in order to establish a viable chronology up to the Babylonian Captivity?
(This is assuming the Bible was composed at the time of the Captivity)

Did the Hebrews just create a story and throw that name they found on various stela in there, and by pure luck it just happened to fall "not only in the right stall, but in the correct pew" (as one scholar amusingly put it). Or, did these Hebrews have a genuine ancient chronology to use as the backbone of their Old Testament for the books of Kings & Chronicles, etc.?
There were several ancient records by Assyrians & Babylonians referring to 'Ahabu the Sirilian' (Israelite), 'Jehu of Omri', Hizkhia (Hezekiah), and Azaru, the son of a nobody' (Hazael of Syria), so a number of Old Testament characters are attested in genuine historical records outside the O.T.

Nabonidus is arguably regarded as the first archaeologist, there were other Babylonian kings before him who collected historical records, but Nabonidus exceeded all others.
It is quite possible during the Captivity Hebrew scribes had access to these historical records in order to provide background to their O.T. narrative.

Both alternatives are possible, it is just not possible to be sure exactly how or when their ancient stories were created. It is likely more accepted that the compilation of all these records (when they were first put together as a book) came around the 6-5th century BC, but that does not mean this is when these stories were created. In fact there are some Philologists who show a few stories within Judges?, are very old indeed, in fact originated from an oral tradition, much older than the 6-5th c. BC.

Search

Search

Was King David the King Arthur of the scribes of King Josiah?

Oldandeasilycofused

Tel Dan stele - Wikipedia

The Tel Dan Inscription: The First Historical Evidence of King David from the Bible

Ayrton

Ayrton

Tel Dan stele - Wikipedia

The Tel Dan Inscription: The First Historical Evidence of King David from the Bible

AlpinLuke

AlpinLuke

Ayrton

AlpinLuke

Florida

AlpinLuke

Wickerman

Ayrton

AlpinLuke

Ayrton

wenamun

Ayrton

AlpinLuke

Wickerman

AlpinLuke

Ayrton

Wickerman

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions