This is part 40 of the The History of the World Series ; The History of the World is part 1.
Click here to read in series

MEANWHILE IN ISRAEL

Most Christians don’t realize this, but Jews and Israel are not synonymous; they in fact refer to two completely different nations after the time of Solomon. The name “Jew” derives from a shortening of the name Judah, who was one of twelve sons of Jacob, later renamed Israel by God.

Thus, all the sons of Israel were Israelites, but only the sons of Judah are properly called Jews. All tigers are cats, not all cats are tigers. That sort of thing. Which means Abraham, who was the great-grandfather of Judah was not, as popularly considered, “the first Jew.”

Obviously, no such thing as a Jew existed until after Abraham sired Isaac, who fathered Jacob, who had a son named Judah who then became the first Jew. Though whether anyone ever called him that is unknown.

Regardless this needs to be stressed because after the year ‑990, the word Jew or Judah referred to a different nation, with different kings, than the word Israel. This happened due to Solomon’s sins with other gods, which resulted in God telling him that as punishment, the bulk of the nation would rebel from his descendants.

Which is why after the death of Solomon, Israel was split into two under his son Rehoboam in the south and his former general Jeroboam in the north. Throughout its 270-year duration, the northern kingdom never had a single king whom God liked.

Despite several divinely ordained dynasty changes, most of which utterly wiped out the posterity of the previous king, the northern tribes never once produced a good king – by God’s standards at least.

The southern kingdom did somewhat better, due to some combination of the proximity to the temple, the presence of the Levites, and the line of David; about half were relatively good and half were bad – again, by God’s metrics.

These nations were sometimes allies, but more often enemies, until the northern ten tribes were taken captive by the Assyrians in ‑721 and the entire population deported to the far corners of their empire, following standard Assyrian practice to minimize rebellions.

The southern kingdom of Judah would likewise be taken captive and deported by Babylon 134 years later in ‑587, but much of their population would return over the next century to re-inhabit their ancestral homeland, where they remained in the time of Christ.

The details of this period are full of backstabbing and heroics, Baal-worshiping and miracles, but we are interested primarily with their interactions with their neighbors. We want to either substantiate or falsify the chronological relationship with the surrounding nations we have proposed, particularly Egypt, for such a radical revision as we have made should result in clear contradictions…

Unless we’re right.

THE MESHA STELA

Following the death of Jeroboam two kings ruled Israel, Nadab and Baasha, following which there was a brief civil war over the succession lasting 6 years from ‑946‑940 (1 Kings 16:21-22), from which Omri (‑940‑928) emerged victorious.

During this period there were various wars with Ammonites and Edomites and Moabites. But the most interesting of them from a historical standpoint is the one involving Mesha, the Moabite King. He was a tributary of Israel in the days of the son of Omri, Ahab (‑933‑911), but rebelled after his death.

Ahab’s son Jehoram (‑911‑899) mustered an army to reestablish control, and secured the help of Jehoshaphat king of Judah (‑929‑904) (2 Kings 3:4-8). They picked a bad path, wound up without water and almost dead, and Elisha the prophet – after an appropriately snarky comment – told them to dig ditches in a certain way.

The next morning there followed a miracle in which the Moabites let down their guard and thought the Israelites were dead, whereupon the Israelites had a great victory. They then chased the Moabites back, destroying as they went, and finally cornered them in a city called Kirharaseth…

2 Kings 3:26-27 When the king of Moab saw that the battle was too severe for him, he took with him seven hundred men who drew sword, to break through to the king of Edom; but they could not. Then he took his eldest son who would have reigned in his place, and offered him for a burnt offering on the wall. There was great wrath against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land.

It’s not clear why this caused the Israelites to retreat – horror at the sight, belief that the Moabites would never submit anyway, or something else. But suffice it to say, they left Moab greatly weakened, but intact.

Why this story is worth telling is because we have the king of Moab’s side of the story! Before this final battle, at the height of his power, he carved a stela which was found in the 19^th century. It remains today as the longest iron age inscription ever found in the region.

You can read the full text on Livius.org, but I’ll quote the most important parts to show how powerfully it corroborates exactly the Bible’s narrative – albeit from the other side of the war – which goes a long way towards making us believe that the stories in the Kings and Chronicles are an accurate history of the period.

I am Mesha, the son of Kemoš-yatti, the king of Moab, from Dibon. My father was king over Moab for thirty years, and I was king after my father… Omri was the king of Israel, and he oppressed Moab for many days, for Kemoš was angry with his land. And his son succeeded him, and he said – he too – “I will oppress Moab!” In my days he did so, but I looked down on him and on his house, and Israel has gone to ruin, yes, it has gone to ruin for ever! Omri had taken possession of the whole land of Medeba and he lived there in his days and half the days of his son, forty years, but Kemoš restored it in my days… (Mesha Stela, https://www.livius.org/sources/content/anet/320-the-stela-of-mesha/)

So in the reign of Omri he oppressed Moab, then his son (Ahab) did as well, and then his son Jehoram – here incorrectly called son of Omri, since the Canaanite languages were not always clear on the difference between “son” and “descendant.”

In the Bible’s chronology, the beginning of Omri’s reign falls 41 years from the end of Jehoram, which agrees well with Mesha’s stela and again, confirms the overall reliability of the Biblical narrative.

And the men of Gad lived in the land of Ataroth from ancient times, and the king of Israel built Ataroth for himself, and I fought against the city, and I captured, and I killed all the people from the city as a sacrifice for Kemoš and for Moab. (Mesha Stela)

Mesha then boasts of taking Ataroth from the Gadites – indirectly confirming the presence of the tribe of Gad, as well as the fact that they built the city of Ataroth as the Bible says in Numbers 32:34, which happened 700 years earlier; thus appropriately Mesha says they dwelt there “from ancient times.”

Kemoš said to me: “Go, take Nebo from Israel!” And I went in the night, and I fought against it from the break of dawn until noon, and I took it, and I killed its whole population, seven thousand male citizens and aliens, female citizens and aliens, and servant girls; for I had put it to the ban of Aštar Kemoš. And from there, I took the vessels of YHWH, and I hauled them before the face of Kemoš. (Mesha Stela)

This is one of the earliest mentions of Israel and of Yahweh in a non-Biblical source, and helps us to understand why Yahweh commanded the death of this religion – He was following the rule golden, doing unto them exactly as they did to their own enemies, killing every living soul.

One tiny difference… Yahweh didn’t ask for them to be burned alive, as Chemosh did.

So these were not good people, for not only did they do these things, they were proud of this. Their god wanted them to do this for its own sake, not, as Yahweh had done, so that this would never be done again.

I have built Karchoh, the wall of the woods and the wall of the citadel, and I have built its gates, and I have built its towers, and I have built the house of the king, and I have made the double reservoir for the spring, in the innermost of the city. Now, there was no cistern in the innermost of the city, in Karchoh, and I said to all the people: “Make, each one of you, a cistern in his house.” And I cut out the moat for Karchoh by means of prisoners from Israel. (Mesha Stela)

This is probably the city mentioned in the Bible as Kirharaseth, where Mesha would later make his last desperate stand. Thus, this stela was commemorated at the height of his power, and Mesha himself tells us why the Lord was willing to perform miracles to break that power:

And from there, I took the vessels of YHWH, and I hauled them before the face of Kemoš. (Mesha Stela)

This worked badly for the Philistines (1 Samuel 5-6), badly for the Babylonians (Daniel 5), and here it works badly for the Moabites. Because it was just after this that God, through Elisha, turned the tables and gave the victory to a nearly-defeated Israelite-Judean-Edomite force.

Regardless, the final quote worth mentioning is one of the first confirmed references to David, whom many secular historians consider a fictional character – but who of course, actually existed.

And Horonaim, the House of David lived in it. And Kemoš said to me: “Go down, fight against Horonaim!” I went down […] and Kemoš restored it in my days. (Mesha Stela)

Thus, this pagan king – doomed to lose most of the things he here celebrated – provides one of the most complete confirmations of many basic Biblical facts long considered by historians to be fictional. And they’ve known about it since 1868!

STRONG AND WEAK

One of the great ways to falsify our theory is that we obviously cannot have a powerful, conquering king of Egypt at a time when Palestine was at peace. A period of peace in Judah means there must have been a period of peaceful pharaohs in Egypt.

2 Chronicles 17:10 The fear of Yahweh fell on all the kingdoms of the lands that were around Judah, so that they made no war against Jehoshaphat.

Hence, we cannot have pharaohs rampaging across Palestine during the reign of kings like Jehoshaphat. So during these years (‑929‑904) we must have a pharaoh in Egypt who was not aggressive. If that’s not the case, then our theory is irredeemably wrong.

…And aren’t we are encouraged to find that this was precisely the period of Akhenaten, who was known to be a pacifist?

Are we lucky? Perhaps.

But as it happens, excepting the raid of Shishak whom we have identified as Amenhotep II, and who attacked by invitation of Jeroboam, the entire 18^th Dynasty had good relationships with most of southern Palestine – once you realize that the things ascribed to Amenhotep IIb and Thutmose IIIb actually took place in the 7^th century.

Under Amenhotep III and Akhenaten, Egypt was unable or unwilling to oppose the rise of the Hittites around Syria. The pharaohs seemed to eschew military confrontation at a time when the balance of power between Egypt’s neighbors and rivals was shifting, and the Hittites, a confrontational state, overtook the Mitanni in influence. (Wiki, Akhenaten)

This, again, encourages us that we are on the right track; according to our reconstruction, Egypt only invaded in that direction one time between Amenhotep II and Horemheb, which the Bible mentions as the invasion of Judah by Zerah the Ethiopian which we date to the end of Thutmose IV.

So we are again lucky; a strong, divinely favored Israel coincides precisely with a diplomatic and unwarlike Egypt “unable or unwilling to oppose the rise of the Hittites around Syria.” All in all, an excellent agreement between the geopolitical situation as expressed in the Bible and in the repositioned dynasties of Egypt.

From the time of David, the northern aggressors against Israel are consistently Syrians (1 Kings 15:18-20; 1 Kings 22, etc.); not because they were the dominant power per se – they were often vassals of the Hittites – but simply because they were the next-door neighbors, and often banded together various Syrian city-states under a single leader to attack Israel:

1 Kings 20:1 Ben Hadad the king of Syria gathered all his army together; and there were thirty-two kings with him, and horses and chariots: and he went up and besieged Samaria, and fought against it.

This was around ‑920, during the reign of Ahab – still during the Amarna period in Egypt, with their hands-off approach to Syria. The Syrians took a beating this time, because they annoyed God, which weakened them significantly (verses 21, 29).

But they recovered, then there was peace for a while; then war again. Israel and Syria had more or less constant war throughout the ‑900’s and ‑800’s. During one particular war, Syria was besieging the capital of Israel, Samaria, and the Samaritans were about to starve to death, and God miraculously sent the Syrians away.

2 Kings 7:6 For the Lord had made the host of the Syrians to hear a noise of chariots, and a noise of horses, even the noise of a great host: and they said one to another, Lo, the king of Israel hath hired against us the kings of the Hittites, and the kings of the Egyptians, to come upon us.

This was during the reign of Jehoram of Israel, ‑911‑899, probably early in it (2 Kings 8:16), so around ‑908. Several interesting things here; first, it shows us who the two great powers in the area were – Hittites and Egyptians, precisely as in the Amarna period.

That’s interesting because according to historians, the Hittites were non-functional as an empire from ‑1200‑800, meaning that finding them here is very odd to them. Also, in a traditional timeline this would coincide with a weak period in Egyptian history called the Third Intermediate Period. In ours, Egypt was at its peak, although Akhenaten’s reforms would soon weaken it.

Finally, when speaking of Egypt it uses a plural – the KINGS of Egypt. Up until this point in history, there were few periods when the word “kings” would make sense in Egypt; we are fortunate that at this point in the reign of Akhenaten there were several relatives associated in the throne with him, thus, kings of Egypt.

AMARNA LEADERS

The Amarna letters date from the final decade or so of Amenhotep III’s reign, through Akhenaten’s reign, and into the early years of Tutankhamun. So, depending on who you ask, anywhere from 15-40 years; we date it to ‑929‑892 or so.

These letters are either from competing empires like the Hittites, Mitanni, or Kassite Babylonians, or from vassal or semi-vassal states in Palestine; specifically cities like Gezer, Tyre, Shechem, Megiddo, Jerusalem, etc.

One of the reasons historians believe that the Amarna letters predate the kingdom of Israel is that none of the names mentioned in these letters coming from Palestine can be connected confidently to any of the kings known to have ruled in the ‑900’s. But there is a reason for this.

Abdi-Ḫeba… was a local chieftain of Jerusalem during the Amarna period (mid‑1330s B.C.). Egyptian documents have him deny he was a mayor (ḫazānu) and assert he is a soldier (we’w), the implication being he was the son of a local chief sent to Egypt to receive military training there.

Also unknown is whether he was part of a dynasty that governed Jerusalem or whether he was put on the throne by the Egyptians. Abdi-Ḫeba himself notes that he holds his position not through his parental lineage but by the grace of Pharaoh, but this might be flattery rather than an accurate representation of the situation. (Wiki, Abdi-hebda)

Our chronology places the Amarna period during the days of Asa and Jehoshaphat of Judah and Omri, Ahab, and Joram/Jehoram of Israel. None of these names sounds like “Abdi-hebda,” which seems to cast doubt on our theory. But was Abdi-hebda a king… or an ambassador/overlord?

2 Chronicles 12:7-8 (GWV) I will not use Shishak to pour my anger on Jerusalem. But they will become his servants so that they can learn the difference between serving me and serving foreign kings.

Rehoboam, and presumably later kings, were either vassals or tributaries of Pharaoh, by God’s own order; and therefore we would expect to find someone like Abdi-hebda watching over Egyptian concerns in Jerusalem.

The letter from Abdi-hebda doesn’t fit the character of a king, so we would not expect this to be Asa or some other Judean king; this is the Egyptian envoy sent to Jerusalem to watch over Pharaoh’s interests there, whatever those might be. Which, again, is precisely what he himself said:

Say to the king, my lord: Message of Abdi-Heba, your servant. I fall at the feet of my lord 7 times and 7 times … Consider Jerusalem! This neither my father nor my mother gave to me. The strong hand (arm) of the king gave it to me. Consider the deed! (EA 287)

Historians say that the “implication” is that he was a local prince from Jerusalem sent to Egypt to serve in the military and sent back by Pharaoh once indoctrinated to serve as his puppet king.

Another, easier to believe alternative, is that he was a career Egyptian soldier posted to supervise the collection of tribute from a Jewish king.

LABAYA

Another prominent king in the Amarna letters is Labaya, king of Shechem, the capital of Israel in the time of Jeroboam (1 Kings 12:1, 25).

Labaya (Labayu or Lib’ayu) was the ruler of Shechem and warlord in the central hill country of southern Canaan during the Amarna Period (c. 1350 B.C.). He lived contemporaneously with Pharaoh Akhenaten… Labaya was active over the whole length of Samaria and slightly beyond, as he gave land to Habiru in the vicinity of Šakmu (Shechem) and he and his sons threatened such powerful towns as Jerusalem and Gazru (Gezer) to the south, and Megiddo to the north. (Wiki, Labaya)

Now that’s interesting, because we can actually make a strong argument that this king Labaya did not live in the 13^th century B.C., but rather in the 10^th – because the Bible tells us that Jeroboam built Shechem.

1 Kings 12:25 Then Jeroboam built Shechem in mount Ephraim, and dwelt therein; and went out from thence, and built Penuel.

How could Labaya be king of a city which had not yet been built? To be sure, some sort of settlement existed here in the times of the Judges and Joshua (Judges 9, Joshua 21:21), but it seems to have referred to a region, not a specific city within that region:

Genesis 33:18 And Jacob came to Shalem, a city of Shechem, which in the land of Canaan, when he came from Padanaram; and pitched his tent before the city. (See also Genesis 37:12-13).

If this is true, then there was no city named Shechem as such, just cities within the region of Shechem until Jeroboam built it. And if that is true, then the Amarna letters can be conclusively dated after the reign of Jeroboam in ‑991!

Whatever the case, Shechem certainly was never a regional capital until Jeroboam made it so; and yet the preeminence of Shechem didn’t last, for not long after it was built, kings Omri (‑940‑928) and Ahab (‑933‑911) built Samaria and ruled from there, replacing Shechem as capital (1 Kings 16:23-24).

Even so, Samaria was a new city quite close to Shechem (about 7 miles apart), still in lands that were known as “the cities of Shechem,” according to Genesis 33:18 above. So while Ahab ruled from Samaria, it may have taken awhile – especially for foreign kings – to process the change in capital city since Ahab still technically “ruled in Shechem.”

All of this means someone writing to a “king of Shechem” would have had to do so in a narrow window between ‑991 and around ‑911, since by the end of the reign of Ahab his new city must have been clearly preeminent. And since the Amarna letters must have been written in ‑932‑892, most of them earlier in that period, we find this a nice fit.

Indeed, Ahab’s reign matches almost perfectly with the end of Amenhotep III’s reign and the earlier part of Akhenaten’s reign. Which means Ahab must be Labaya. I’m not qualified to discuss how the Hebrew name translated “Ahab” becomes the Egyptian “Labaya,” but the basic sound elements are there, and larger linguistic stretches have been made.

The only argument against it is that Abdi-hebda, the Egyptian overseer of Jerusalem, is clearly afraid of Labaya’s attacks from Shechem; while the Bible tells us that Jehoshaphat of Jerusalem was an ally of Ahab.

But perhaps it wasn’t the kingof Jerusalem who feared Labaya at all; perhaps it was only the Egyptian overlord who feared losing control of his territories as Ahab’s and Jehoshaphat’s armies grew more powerful?

Regardless, our main interest in him is that Labaya confirms the presence of Egyptian overseers in his kingdom, whom he fears.

To the king, my lord and my Sun: Thus Lab’ayu, your servant and the dirt on which you tread. I fall at the feet of the king, my lord and my Sun, 7 times and 7 times. I have obeyed the orders that the king wrote to me. Who am I that the king should lose his land on account of me? The fact is that I am a loyal servant of the king! I am not a rebel and I am not delinquent in duty. I have not held back my payments of tribute; I have not held back anything requested by my commissioner. He denounces me unjustly, but the king, my Lord, does not examine my (alleged) act of rebellion… I did not know that my son was consorting with the Apiru. I hereby hand him over to Addaya-(commissioner). … (Wiki, Labaya, quoting Amarna Letter EA254)

So clearly during the Amarna period Canaan was watched over by Egyptian commissioners/governors, such as Abdi-hebda and Addaya. In fact, it seems likely that Abdi-hebda was the nominal overlord of Canaan, and realized he was losing control over Ahab and with him, Jehoshaphat.

Ahab certainly wouldn’t have risked open war with Egypt, and neither did Labaya; he bows, scrapes, and licks Pharaoh’s boots in the letters… but then attacks whomever he feels like and apologizes profusely later.

EGYPTIAN MEDDLING

And we do have some evidence that Ahab was subject to Egypt during this time, at least in certain matters. When Ahab went to war against the Syrians in Ramoth-Gilead, he took with him his ally king Jehoshaphat of Judah.

God hated Ahab, but Jehoshaphat wasn’t so bad, and he asked for a prophet of Yahweh before they went to war. One was found, who prophesied Ahab would die, which of course he didn’t like hearing and ordered the prophet to be jailed. What’s interesting is to whom he sent the prophet:

2 Chronicles 18:25 The king of Israel said, “Take Micaiah, and carry him back to Amon the governor of the city, and to Joash the king’s son”

Amon was the “governor of the city.” Why would Ahab remand this prisoner into his custody and the custody of the king’s own son? This argues that there were two separate authorities ruling the city.

It’s also worth noting that Amon is an Egyptian name, as in “Amenhotep” (vowels are pretty variable in Egyptian and nonexistent in Hebrew). There is also a striking tendency among Egyptian nobles to take names like their king, or to honor his gods.

So given the Egyptian evidence, this is likely an Egyptian representative of Amenhotep III/IV who was more important than the king’s own son, which is why he was mentioned first.

Another piece of evidence for Egyptian presence in Israel is found in the fact that when Ahaziah fled from Jehu, he fled to Megiddo:

2 Kings 9:27 But when Ahaziah the king of Judah saw this, he fled by the way of the garden house. Jehu followed after him, and said, “Strike him also in the chariot!” They struck him at the ascent of Gur, which is by Ibleam. He fled to Megiddo, and died there.

Why was Megiddo a safe place to flee from an Israelite king in ‑910? Because during the Amarna age, it was firmly in Egyptian control.

In the Amarna Period… Megiddo was a vassal of the Egyptian Empire. The Amarna Letter E245 mentions local ruler Biridiya of Megiddo. Other contemporary rulers mentioned were Labaya of Shechem and Surata of Akka, nearby cities. (Wiki, Megiddo)

And, consistent with this story, Labaya attacked Megiddo which argues that it was not under Israelite or Judean control – just as here, Ahaziah felt that Megiddo would be a safe place to flee because Jehu couldn’t reach him there.

The Amarna letters are a big topic, with a lot of detail, so I won’t delve deeper than to show that the Bible gives evidence of significant Egyptian control in Canaan during the divided kingdom period; still, provided the taxes kept flowing, they were mostly free to war and bicker amongst themselves.

A MORE POWERFUL EGYPT

For nearly two centuries there had been a more or less constant state of war between Israel and the Syrians, ever since the days of Solomon. And except for some miraculous exceptions, the war tilted in favor of the Syrians. Until one day, on or before ‑852…

2 Kings 13:1-5 …Jehoahaz the son of Jehu began to reign over Israel… The anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel, and he delivered them into the hand of Hazael king of Syria, and into the hand of Benhadad the son of Hazael, continually. Jehoahaz begged Yahweh, and Yahweh listened to him; for he saw the oppression of Israel, how that the king of Syria oppressed them. (Yahweh gave Israel a saviour, so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians; and the children of Israel lived in their tents as before… Neither did he leave of the people to Jehoahaz but fifty horsemen, and ten chariots, and ten thousand footmen; for the king of Syria had destroyed them, and had made them like the dust by threshing.

Jehoahaz reigned ‑869‑852, and this “savior” came along after he had lost battles to Syria “continually.” Thus, was presumably somewhat later in his reign. Indeed, since this is the last event mentioned before his death, it might even be at the very end of his life.

Not long before this, Israel had fielded armies in the hundreds of thousands, which the king of Syria had destroyed, and now he was left with only 10,000 foot soldiers. But then along comes a “savior” from the Lord, that delivered them from the Syrians. Who could this possibly be?

Notice how ambiguous the Bible is about this “savior”; who could it be that saved them, “that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians?” And why is nothing about the deliverance or the identity of the deliverer in the Bible?

Always before, when God saved Israel, He would raise up a prophet or hero, bring about some divine deliverance – and then the Bible would talk about the awesome miracle. But here it was very enigmatic – not even a name was given, nor was the method of deliverance described in any way.

In all of the Bible, I think this is an absolutely unique tale – it tells us that a savior delivered them, but the Bible provides neither name nor method. And you know there has to be a reason for that. A reason the Bible preferred he remain anonymous.

And we, alone of all historians, can provide that reason.

And it’s a doozy.

BACK TO EGYPT

As mentioned, this probably happened in the last year of Jehoahaz of Israel, on or slightly before ‑852. The Syrians were very active that year.

2 Chronicles 24:23-24 It happened at the end of the year, that the host of Syria came up against him: and they came to Judah and Jerusalem, and destroyed all the princes of the people from among the people, and sent all the spoil of them unto the king of Damascus. For the army of the Syrians came, and the LORD delivered a very great host into their hand, because they had forsaken the LORD God of their fathers. So they executed judgment against Joash. When they were departed for him (for they left him very sick), his own servants conspired against him for the blood of the sons of Jehoiada the priest, and killed him on his bed, and he died…

This was certainly in year ‑852, when Joash of Judah died – not to be confused with the contemporary Joash/Jehoash of Israel. In this one year, both Jehoahaz of Israel and Joash of Judah died; Joash, at least, died for reasons directly related to the invasion of the Syrians.

The fact that both kings died at the same time is an odd coincidence, and one almost certainly related to the Syrian invasion. But our question is, why would the Syrians, having successfully overcome Israel and Jerusalem and taken the spoil, leaving its king on his death bed…

…then simply retreat back to Damascus? Why not occupy this incredibly valuable and defensible city? Because they didn’t dare! Because of the savior God sent to the Israelites. And who that is becomes obvious, once you realize that Ramesses II, also known as Ramesses the Great, had just begun to reign in ‑856, making this his 4^th year.

We wonder… what was he doing in his 4^th year?

[Ramesses II’s] first campaign seems to have taken place in the fourth year of his reign and was commemorated by the erection of what became the first of the Commemorative stelae of Nahr el-Kalb near what is now Beirut. The inscription is almost totally illegible due to weathering. In the fourth year of his reign, he captured the Hittite vassal state of the Amurru during his campaign in Syria. (Wiki, Ramesses II)

We are positively overjoyed to learn that precisely when Israel and Jerusalem were on the verge of being wiped out by the Syrians, and the Lord sent a mysterious savior to deliver them… Ramesses II marched on Syria and captured it!

Now we know why the Bible didn’t use a name – the scribes weren’t excited about giving credit to their longtime adversary Egypt for saving them from the Syrians! Nor did God want them to go to Egypt every time they had a problem in the future (see 2 Kings 18:21, validated by God in Ezekiel 29:6).

Again, we must point out how incredibly lucky we are to have a Syrian force mysteriously driven out of Israel at precisely the point our revised history of Egypt has Ramesses aggressively campaigning against Syrians in exactly the same place and time to the year.

Surely our harshest critic must, at this point, concede we are on a winning streak. After moving Egyptians 450 years into the future, and adjusting the Hebrew dates from what you find in Wikipedia by about 60 years to match the Bible’s literal reading, we find perfect agreement.

Remember, we have not chosen these dates; they have chosen us. We committed at the beginning to a literal Bible-based timeline, treating its dates with the same reverence we do those of Assyria, Egypt, or the SKL.

We noticed the coincidence of the end of the Hyksos under Ahmose with the end of the Amalekites under Saul with interest; but this was a coincidence, not solid proof. But that guided us to an approximate contemporary placement of Hatshepsut and Solomon.

Then we matched the marriage of Hatshepsut’s daughter to Solomon, and with it the death of Thutmose II; there, we simply followed the evidence in the text. And when we matched her death to the year after her visit to see his palaces, it gave us our first year-perfect synchronism.

These dates just happened to fall in place with the two invasions of Amenhotep II into Canaan to defend Jeroboam; first from Syria and then from Judah, which led to the sacking of the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem.

Following the accepted regnal lengths from the Egyptologists led us to correlate the invasion of Thutmose IV with Zerah of Ethiopia’s invasion in the Bible. We then noticed the money of Jerusalem flowed to Amenhotep III’s coffers.

That money, and the sacred vessels and books along with it, then naturally influenced Amenhotep III’s and Akhenaten’s religion. All of these things flowed naturally from the existing evidence, with events matching to the year.

Through it all, we have kept the relative chronology of the 18^th and 19^th Dynasties intact, matching that of conventional historians except in a few very defensible places like Thutmose III. In no place have we had to move a king to make a date fit.

And then we find Ramesses II invading Syria in his 4^th year, precisely when we need to find a mysterious savior who caused the Syrians to vanish just in the nick of time. All of these dates align to the year.

At some point, the word “lucky” no longer fits. What word would you use?

RAMESSES IN CANAAN

A critic might ask why, if the Egyptians were indeed campaigning throughout Canaan, the Bible makes no comment on it; nor does Ramesses II at any point boast of conquering Jerusalem, or Samaria, or any other city; and the answer is easy. It’s because the Egyptians were saviors of Israel, not captors.

There is no evidence in the Bible or in Egypt that the “savior” captured Samaria or even fought against a Syrian siege there; it simply says that “Yahweh gave Israel a saviour, so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians.”

Pharaoh’s presence, and his campaigning in the Syrian homeland, saved the Hebrews. God sent them a savior, and his identity was not recorded for posterity because he was an Egyptian king – not a domestic hero!

They shared a mutual enemy, the Hittites and their allies/vassals the Syrians. The Syrians brutally oppressed the Israelites and Jews, and so the Hebrews gratefully accepted the liberation of Pharaoh, meaning he never had to actually conquer these cities.

This is why Ramesses doesn’t include these in his list of captured cities – because they were liberated, not captured! The cities he boasted of capturing were the ones that the Syrians had already taken, where they fought back – something the Israelites were in no position to do.

And so when Ramesses II marched up, the Jews didn’t treat him as a conqueror, but as what he was – a deliverer, and that’s how they recorded him in their sacred histories, their savior! Historians believe these events must be in the 13^th century, partly because Ramesses’ victories mention none of the core Israelite or Jewish cities.

But the fact is, Ramesses II was motivated not by a hatred of Jews or a desire for conquest, but a fear that the Syrians and Hittites would completely conquer all of Canaan – which they very nearly did – which would leave him with a hostile nation at his front door.

So he didn’t need to attack Hebrew cities who were grateful for his intervention! Only those already captured or controlled by the Syrians, which were mostly those on the fringes of the Israelite nation like Megiddo, Gezer, and so on. For the rest, the locals were glad to see him and he wanted nothing from them (except perhaps a bit of tribute now and then).

And so here I want to pause to celebrate a delicious irony.

The world, if they believe the Exodus happened at all, believes that Ramesses II is the most likely candidate as the oppressor of the Hebrews, the brutal king who faced the plagues of Moses and died in the Red Sea.

And not only is that not true… not only was he not a brutal oppressor of the Jews… he was literally the exact opposite, called by God a savior of the Israelite people!

This is God showing off; for their conclusions literally could not be farther from the truth.

This is part 40 of The History of the World Series

Previous: After Amarna