All posts for the month September, 2018

Ramses II, Ramses III

Published September 25, 2018 by amaic

Image result for ramses

New Revision for Ramses II




Damien F. Mackey





“[Rameses III’s] … children turned out to resemble Rameses II’s

not only in their names but also in their early deaths”.


  1. Grimal





Part One:

Some ‘ramifying’ similarities




Should revisionists perhaps have realised, in their efforts to streamline the later Egyptian history, that the troublesome Ramses II ought to be merged with the similarly troublesome Ramses III?


From N. Grimal (A History of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell, 1994) we can pick up certain amazing similarities between pharaoh Ramses (or Rameses, Ramesses) II, conventionally – but quite wrongly – dated to c. 1200 BC, and Ramses III, conventionally dated to c. 1150 BC.


  1. 271:


From the very outset Ramesses III’s role-model was Ramesses II. His successors also modelled themselves on the earlier Ramesses, but it was Ramesses III who went to the greatest lengths, from the choice of his titulature to the construction of a mortuary temple copying the plan of the Ramesseum.

…. Like Ramesses II, he had to deal with a very delicate state of affairs in his foreign policy. The Libyans … in the western Delta …. Ramesses managed to defeat this new [sic] onslaught, and was even able to incorporate a number of the Libyan captives into the Egyptian army.


Pp. 274-275


…. The [Medinet Habu] texts and military representations were a monument … to the fact that Ramesses III’s exploits could transform him into an archetypal figure removed from his own specific place in time.


My comment: This is precisely what conventional history has done to Ramses III, ‘removed him from his own specific place in time’].


… the king was represented as eternally victorious not only over the Libyan confederations, but also over the enemies conquered by Ramesses II.

…. The wars of Ramesses III were also depicted on the inner walls of the temple in the first and second courts. They stood alongside …. political representations, such as the list of Ramesses III’s sons on the west portico in the second court, in imitation of the list of the sons of Ramesses II in the Ramesseum.

… his children turned out to resemble Rameses II’s not only in their names but also in their early deaths.


  1. 276


The reign of Ramesses III was followed by a rapid succession of eight kings …. All of them bore the name Ramesses and all claimed varying degrees of blood-link with Ramesses II.



Was it a case of same era; same dynasty; same titulature; same sons (pre-deceased); same Libyans; same Sea Peoples; and same person?



Part Two:

What other revisionists think





Dr. Velikovsky would choose the methodology that

I, too, have often favoured: alter egos.





With Dr. I Velikovsky’s lowering of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty by some 500-600 years on the time scale (his Ages in Chaos series), to coincide now with Israel’s United Monarchy and the early Divided Monarchy, the challenge for revisionists became to show how the later dynasties (19th-26th) could be fitted in to a much tighter time space.


Dr. Velikovsky would choose the methodology that I, too, have often favoured: alter egos.


He, in defiance of good archaeological sense – as conventional and astute revisionist scholars alike have agreed – well separated Egypt’s Nineteenth Dynasty (that of Ramses II ‘the Great’) from the Eighteenth Dynasty, and identified the Nineteenth Dynasty with the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty.


Ramses II, conventionally dated to c. 1279-1213 BC, Velikovsky identified with pharaoh Necho II, conventionally dated to c. 610-595 BC:


…. In Rameses II and His Time, Velikovsky identified each of the major 19th dynasty pharaohs with a corresponding pharaoh of the 26th dynasty. Thus, Rameses I becomes Necho I, Seti I becomes Psamtik I, Rameses II is Necho II, and Merneptah is Apries.

In order to make these identifications work, Velikovsky claims that the Hittite Empire is an invention of modern historians, and the supposedly Hittite archaeological remains in modern Turkey are actually Chaldean i.e. Neo-Babylonian.

The Hittite kings are held to be “ghost doubles” of the Neo-Babylonian kings, and therefore Rameses II’s battle with the Hittites at Kadesh is identical to Necho’s fight against Nebuchadrezzar II at Carchemish, Nabopolassar is Mursili II, Neriglissar is Muwatalli, Labashi-Marduk is Urhi-Teshup, and Nebuchadrezzar II is Hattusili III. ….


This, whilst ingenious, did not work.

For one thing, the neo-Hittite empire faced by Ramses II, and the neo-Babylonian empire, were geographically incompatible. They were also ethnically quite distinct.


In the case of pharaoh Ramses III, conventionally dated to c. 1186-1155 BC – and who has also become a problem for revisionism – Velikovsky, in Peoples of the Sea, moved that pharaoh all the way down to the C4th BC, to be identified with the Thirtieth Dynasty’s Nectanebo I, conventionally dated to c. 379/8-361/0 BC.


Dr. Donovan Courville, in his 2-volume The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications (1971), whilst following Dr. Velikovsky’s approximate re-location of the Eighteenth Dynasty, had shown a better appreciation of the archaeology involved by making the Nineteenth Dynasty follow on directly from the Eighteenth. As it should do.


For Dr. Courville, Ramses II was the biblical pharaoh “So” at the time (late C8th BC) of kings Hoshea of Israel and Shalmaneser [so-called V] of Assyria (2 Kings 17:4).

This, I suspect, is getting far closer to the mark.

It enabled for the Merenptah or “Israel” Stele of Ramses II’s son to coincide with the Fall of Samaria, appearing nicely to account for Merenptah’s statement: “… Israel is desolated, her seed is not …”.

Though, as scholars have since pointed out, why would an Egyptian pharaoh be memorialising a victory over Israel by the hated Assyrians (by Shalmaneser)?


Dr. Courville’s attempt to account for Ramses III in a now confined chronology saw him have to resort to dismissing the pharaoh as a fairly insignificant ruler of only a limited portion of Egypt (the Delta region) – which does not accord with the facts pertaining to the potent Ramses III.


Around 1978, the Glasgow Conference likewise rejected Dr. Velikovsky’s Ramses II initiative:


John Bimson writes:


“The Glasgow Conference was a watershed. It saw erstwhile supporters of Velikovsky’s chronology parting company with him on important points, while still affirming his dating of the Exodus, the Hyksos period and the 18th Dynasty. The biggest departure was a rejection of his attempts to separate the 18th, 19th and 20th Dynasties.”[2]


The result of the Conference was that Peter James, John Bimson and Geoffrey Gammon developed the “Glasgow Chronology”, a major modification of Velikovsky’s proposals.


The James-Rohl Chronology


David Rohl and Peter James write:


“For some years now a number of the Society‘s historians have been endeavouring to provide a new model for ancient Near Eastern chronology in an attempt to answer the criticisms levelled at Velikovsky‘s work in Ages in Chaos, Ramses II and His Time and Peoples of the Sea. The original imaginative concept of Velikovsky’s reconstruction has run into serious problems with regard to the method by which the so-called “phantom years” are eliminated from the conventional (and apparently extended) history of the region. [..]

“As a result of this disquiet over Velikovsky’s later revision there grew a body of scholars whose objective was to provide an alternative method of reducing the history of Egypt by some 500 years as demanded by Ages in Chaos whilst retaining the synchronisms put forward in that volume. Some tentative steps in this direction were first made at the Glasgow Conference in April 1978, the Proceedings of which have now finally been published (SISR VI:1/2/3). Whilst it was agreed that Velikovsky’s separation of the XVIIIth, XIXth and XXth Dynasties was impossible, it was still hoped that a revised chronology for the ancient Near East could be developed with Ages in Chaos as its starting point. An incomplete model embodying this approach subsequently became known as the “Glasgow Chronology”. ….


Whether its proponents would be prepared to admit it or not, the Glasgow School was heavily influenced in many ways by the systematic and painstaking revision of Dr. Donovan Courville.

They, properly (e.g. on archaeological grounds) refusing to drag the Nineteenth Dynasty well away from the Eighteenth, made it inevitable that a new location for pharaoh Ramses II would be proposed.


Actually, some of those who were involved with the Glasgow School have more recently come to propose various different locations for Ramses II, for Ramses III.


Peter James set the ball rolling by locating Ramses II to the era of the long-reigning king of Israel, Jeroboam II (conventionally mid-C8th BC) (“A Critique of “Ramses II and His Time”,” SIS Review v.3 No.2, Autumn 1978).

This was, I believe, at least a great improvement on both the conventional location of Ramses II and Velikovsky’s version of it. It was also the era that I would choose for Ramses II when writing my postgraduate thesis, with Ramses II then straddling c. 800 BC.

I now believe that this date is somewhat too early for him.


Martin Sieff (in “The Libyans in Egypt: Resolving the Third Intermediate Period”), bravely coming to grips with the troublesome TIP, would propose the following interesting location for Ramses III, with reference to Peter van der Veen:


Ramses III in the Age of the Libyans


Here I will follow Peter Van Der Veen’s challenging points.[33] He brings out how Ramses III’s army was led by “The first charioteer of his majesty Pre-hir-wen-hef, and the king’s scribe and overseer of horses, prince Amon-hir-khopshef.” Alongside the “Marjannu” charioteers of Ramses III’s army, we may compare the horses and chariots of Egypt described by the Prophet Isaiah[34] in a context I have already argued belongs to the conditions of Ramses III’s reign in the 720’s, when the Twentieth Dynasty was riding high on the prestige of having defeated the Sea Peoples, but with a strength which, as Isaiah saw, was only adequate for defensive holding actions in the decline of Egyptian power.

Van Der Veen[35] compares Ramesses and Sethosis in the Manetho extract used by Josephus (Against Apion) to Ramses III. The Manetho pair had a naval force and destroyed those who met them at sea, just as Ramses III defeated the Peoples of the Sea. They led an expedition against Cyprus, and there is suggestive evidence that Ramses III’s fleet raided that island.[36] This Sethosis campaigned against Phoenicia, the Assyrians, and the Medes. Ramses III fought against Tyre, Sidon, and the Philistines, and even against “Amor” which, Van Der Veen suggests, may have been an archaic term for Assyria.

Sethosis and Ramses had “an army of horses,” which fits perfectly the might of Ramses III’s chariot arm, also recorded by Isaiah. As Van Der Veen concludes, “It is likely that the Egyptian army of this time was famous for its powerful force of chariots.”[37]


Decline and Fall of the Twentieth Dynasty


The Assyrian king Sennacherib, in his defeat of the Egyptian army, proudly boasted that he “personally captured alive the Egyptian charioteers with their princes and the charioteers of the king of Ethiopia.”

This is a startling parallel to Josephus’ report that after Sennacherib’s army was destroyed at Jerusalem, Tirhaka, King of Ethiopia, and an (unnamed) pharaoh both escaped from his camp. With my 750-720 B.C. dates for Ramses III, and 710 for the destruction of the Assyrian army at Jerusalem,[38] I have identified this pharaoh as Ramses IV, an identification strongly supported by the star maps of his tomb. Michael Reade associates these with the Sennacherib catastrophe event when the sundial of Hezekiah regressed 10 degrees.[39]

Ramses IV died shortly afterward. The later Twentieth Dynasty rulers, the later Ramessides, were feeble and ineffectual. More and more, it was the Ethiopian Twenty-Fifth Dynasty, equipped with iron military technology, as the Assyrians were, far in advance of Egypt’s weaponry,[40] who were the power in the land. But the great days of the Twenty-Second Dynasty had also passed. Presumably mauled in Ramses III’s campaigns, they continued to hold local rule in their cities, but as the record of Shoshenq III — as we take it — in Assur-bani-pal’s list indicates, it was simply one further line of princes aspiring to a long-past glory.

We may also note that Sennacherib in his great campaign recorded on the Taylor prism, described his meeting with the kings (plural) of Egypt. As Dirkzwager concludes, “The use of the plural squares with our conclusion that Libyans and Ramessids (and perhaps other dynasties) reigned simultaneously.” It should be added that Dirkzwager assumes a 702 B.C. date for this event, whereas, following Antsey, I would place it at 710.

[End of quote]

More recently, the likes of David Rohl and Peter van der Veen have removed themselves far away from the Glasgow model, by identifying either Ramses II with the biblical “Shishak” (at the time of king Rehoboam of Judah, I Kings 14:25), or, Ramses III as “Shishak”.

Whilst David Rohl has opted for Ramses II as “Shishak”, Peter van der Veen, writing alongside David Ellis, has instead opted for Ramses III (“He Placed His Name in Jerusalem’: Ramesside Finds from Judah’s Capital”):…/He_Placed_His_Name_in_Jerusalem_Ramesside_Finds_from

Thus the authors write (p. 271):



The late reign of Ramesses II, together with that of his son and successor Merenptah, would now overlap with the late reign of David and the early reign of Solomon; and the reign of Ramesses III would now be dated to the late years of Solomon and the years of his successor Rehoboam. ….

[End of quote]


Had not these new chronologists boldly promised back in the day:\


The James-Rohl Chronology


“[..] For the last two years the writers, with the help of other historians, notably Geoffrey Gammon, have been actively pursuing yet another alternative revision – one which we hope involves no preconceptions based on anything which has gone before. The work has progressed slowly due to the immense amount of data that needs to be researched and collated but a new model for the history of Ancient Egypt is gradually evolving which appears to answer a great many of the anomalies of both the conventional and Velikovskian chronologies”.[3]


[End of quote]


Their model “… involves no preconceptions based on anything which has gone before”.


It reminds me of the great “Un-learn” currently the fad at the University of Sydney (Australia).

Un-learn everything that has gone before Truth: Love; etc.

See my article:

Sydney University’s descent into a very dark ignorance



Part Three:

A proposed new model for the Ramessides




We have already found in this series that Ramses III is something of a mirror-image of Ramses II,

as are the sons of Ramses III of the sons of Ramses II.





The Twentieth Dynasty of Egypt consisted of a revered founder, Seti-nakht (Setnakhte), followed by the potent Ramses III, and then by a run of further Ramessides (IV – XI) all inferior to Ramses III.

In my revised model, with Ramses III identified as Ramses II, then Seti-nakht would be Seti, the father of Ramses II.


The other Ramessides (IV – XI) would then consist of the many sons and descendants of Ramses II.

Did the pharaoh not boast of having at least 100 sons (his many daughters being un-counted)?




Seti-nakht is not well-known per se, but he was someone much revered by his descendants, by contrast with the despised Aziru of the Great Harris Papyrus:


Is El Amarna’s Aziru Biblically Identifiable? Part Two: Aziru of Papyrus Harris


In my postgraduate thesis I wrote of Seti-nakht (Volume One, p. 248):



By stark contrast, the so-called 20th dynasty Ramessides looked to the founder of that dynasty, Seti-nakht, as a hero, and it is he, not Aziru, who is celebrated in the papyrus:671

“But the writer’s only purpose here was to extol the new sovereign of Egypt … Setnakhte …”. Gardiner, having highlighted the contrast, then has to fall back here upon that stock phrase:672 “Little is known about Setnakhte except that he was the father of the great king

Ramesses III and the husband of the latter’s mother Tiye-merenese”. According to Grimal:673 “[Seti-nakht] … announced that he had ‘driven out the usurper’ … and Papyrus Harris I cites him as the reorganizer of the country”. ….



Ramses III


We have already found in this series that Ramses III is something of a mirror-image of Ramses II, as are the sons of Ramses III of the sons of Ramses II.

One significant difference, at least from a conventional point of view, is that the reign of Ramses III is thought to have been only half the length of that of Ramses II.


I would now favour for pharaoh Ramses II an era closer to that assigned to him by Dr. Courville, around the late C8th BC – rather than straddling c. 800 BC as I had him before.

And with Ramses II now identified with Ramses III (as I see it), then that would accord with the view of Martin Sieff that Ramses III approximates to the neo-Assyrian era of Sennacherib.


With my later (than Sennacherib) neo-Assyrian era collapsing into the neo-Babylonian era,


Ashurbanipal the Great


then I would now also expect to find Ramses II continuing on into the Chaldean times – which does accord with Velikovsky’s placement of him. Though my details and identifications, and archaeology, would differ greatly from Velikovsky’s here.



Piankhi same as Bible’s Tirhakah?

Published September 21, 2018 by amaic
Image result for piankhi



Damien F. Mackey



Now Sennacherib received a report that Tirhakah, the king of Cush,

was marching out to fight against him”.

2 Kings 19:9



As part of my effort to reform the later Egyptian dynastic history in my postgraduate thesis:


A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah


I had identified the long-reigning 25th (Kushite) dynasty pharaoh, Piankhi (or Piye) (c. 744-714 BC, conventional dating) with the biblical Tirhakah (or Taharko) (hopelessly mis-dated to c. 690-664 BC, conventional dating).

There is a scarab that seems to attest to this identification directly:



It is discussed in a most interesting article entitled by R. Clover, entitled “The Sabbath and Jubilee Cycle”, section Tirhakah Piankhi (commencing on p. 118):


I wrote about this on p. 384 of my thesis (Volume One):


Now Piye [Piankhi], conventionally considered to have been the first major 25th dynasty pharaoh, and whose beginning of reign (revised) must have been very close to 730 BC (given that he reigned for 31 years), and whose 21st year (Stele) fell during the reign of Tefnakht – had also adopted the name of Usermaatre. Thus Grimal: … “[Piankhy] identified himself with the two great rulers who were most represented in the Nubian monuments, Tuthmosis III and Ramesses II, and adopted each of their coronation names: Menkheperre and Usermaatra respectively”. In other words, Piye was an eclectic in regard to early Egyptian history; and this fact may provide us with a certain opportunity for manoeuvring, alter ego wise.

Fortunately we do not need to guess who Piye was, because there is a scarab that tells us

precisely that Snefer-Ra Piankhi was Tirhakah, much to the puzzlement of Petrie. …. It reads:


“King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Tirhakah, Son of Ra, Piankhi”.


Part Two:

25th (Ethiopian) Dynasty not clear cut




“… that is by no means the only problem with the current arrangement of the 25th dynasty. In fact there appears to be a significant problem in the case of virtually each … of its major kings”.


If Piankhi is really to be identified with Tirhakah as according to a piece of evidence referred to in Part One: then – with Piankhi conventionally beginning in c. 744 BC, and Tirhakah conventionally ending in 664 BC – such a union will necessitate yet a further significant revision (no surprise there) of later Egyptian history. Whilst this would come as a surprise, though, for conventional historians, who generally consider the 25th dynasty to be rather secure, based upon the (as is thought) well-attested and accurate neo-Assyrian chronology, it would come as no surprise whatever to anyone who considers the conventional neo-Assyrian chronology to be in need of considerable reform.

Regarding the shakiness of the conventional reconstruction of even the supposedly “authentic history”

(Gardiner) of the 25th (Ethiopian) dynasty, I wrote in my postgraduate thesis (with inspiration from Peter James et al., Centuries of Darkness):


A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah


(Volume One, beginning on p. 373):


The Presumed ‘Ethiopians’


The conventional chronology offers a scenario entirely different from the one that I have just proposed for the era of the Fall of Samaria in c. 722 BC. But at least it gives us an ‘Ethiopian’ ruler for that era; though somewhat wrongly dated as I shall attempt to show: namely, Piye (c. 747-716 BC, conventional dates). Piye of the 25th Ethiopian dynasty is known from his detailed stele to have been at odds with the 24th dynasty pharaoh, Tefnakht (c. 727-716 BC, conventional dates). I discussed this particular scenario above (pp. 368-370), where I however rejected any such a view that would date Piye’s Stele (in his 21st year) to the approximate time of ‘So’, as is conventionally done. Instead, I argued for an era somewhat later (viz., Ashurbanipal’s, revised) for this document. We recall that the name of Piye’s northern opponent, Tefnakht, was included in the Annals of Ashurbanipal; apparently indicating that Piye continued to rule into a period significantly later than according to convention. “Here at last”, wrote Gardiner, with an apparent sigh of relief upon his introduction of the 25th dynasty,[1] “we are heartened by some resemblance to authentic history …”. Perhaps though, from a conventional perspective, he could not have been more wrong. The Tang-i Var inscription dated to Sargon II’s Year 15 (c. 707 BC), according to which Shebitku – not Shabaka as was long thought – was the 25th dynasty pharaoh who had dispatched the rebel Iatna-Iamani in chains to Sargon II, has brought new confusion. Here is the pertinent section of this document:[2]



… I (… Sargon) plundered the city of Ashdod, Iamani, its king, feared [my weapons] and …. he fled to the region of the land of Meluhha and lived (there) stealthfully (lit. like a thief) …. Shapataku’ (Shabatka) king of … Meluhha … put (Iamani) in manacles and handcuffs … he had him brought captive into my presence ….


This means that Shebitku and Tirhakah must now be re-located upwards by at least a decade in relation to Sargon II. Perhaps nowhere does the conventional separation of Sargon II from Sennacherib show up as in this case. Yet even revisionist Rohl, as late as 2002, was ignoring the Tang-i Var evidence, dating Tirhakah’s first appearance, at the battle of Eltekeh, to 702 BC, an incredible “thirty-one years earlier” than his actual rule of 690-665 BC,[3] which is, however, about two decades too late. Thus he wrote:[4]


For five years the new king of Napata (ruling from Kush) had reigned in co-operation with his cousin Shabataka [Shebitku], king of Egypt (son of Shabaka). Then Taharka [Tirhakah] became sole 25th Dynasty ruler of both Kush and Egypt in his sixth regnal year following the death of Shabataka in 684 BC. There were other Libyan pharaohs in Egypt (such as Shoshenk V of Tanis and Rudamun of Thebes) but they were all subservient to the Kushite king.


The year 684 BC is far too late for the beginning of Tirhakah’s sole rule in relation to Shebitku and his known connection with Sargon II’s 15th year! And that is by no means the only problem with the current arrangement of the 25th dynasty. In fact there appears to be a significant problem in the case of virtually each one of its major kings. Regarding its first (according to convention) major ruler, Piye, for instance, Gardiner has written:[5]


It is strange … that Manetho makes no mention of the great Sudanese or Cushite warrior Pi‘ankhy who about 730 B.C. suddenly altered the entire complexion of Egyptian affairs. He was the son of a … Kashta … and apparently a brother of the Shabako [Shabaka] whom Manetho presents under the name Sabacōn.


And whilst, according to Herodotus, Shabaka (his Sabacos) reigned for some 50 years,[6] he has been reduced by the Egyptologists to a mere 15-year reign.[7] Furthermore:[8] “The absence of the names of Shabako and Shebitku from the Assyrian and Hebrew records is no less remarkable than the scarcity of their monuments in the lands over which they extended their sway”. These anomalies, coupled with the surprise data from the Iranian Tang-i Var inscription (which is in fact an Assyrian reference to Shebitku), suggest that there are deep problems right the way through the current arrangement of the 25th dynasty. I hope that I am now beginning to propose plausible solutions to at least some of these.



Piye’s chronology now heavily overlaps with the chronologies of Shebitku and Tirhakah. And soon I shall provide definite proof that Piye was in fact also the fascinating Tirhakah (= Shabaka) – a contemporary already of Sennacherib’s Third Campaign – the chronological problems peculiar to whom will be discussed in more detail chiefly in 7. below. There also I shall attempt to reconstruct in outline Tirhakah’s entire rule, now in relation to a much revised neo-Assyrian history.

And little wonder that the history of the 25th dynasty is confused, built as it is upon an apparently faulty archaeology and certainly a faulty neo-Assyrian based chronology. James’ chapter on the ‘Dark Age’ in Nubia[9] shows again – consistent with his evidence as discussed in the previous chapter (and consistent also with the epigraphical and art-historical evidence of Velikovsky and Professor Greenberg) – how the Sothic chronology of Egypt has yielded certain baffling anomalies in the archaeology of associated nations. I give here some relevant parts from James’ chapter:[10]


Having created a Dark Age in Nubia, it is not surprising that historians have treated the appearance of the Egyptianized ‘Kingdom of Kurru’ … [mid C9th BC] as a new beginning, largely unrelated to the end of the Viceregal period. So firmly entrenched has this idea become that Adams was forced to make the bizarre comment that ‘it took some time for the lesson of the pharaohs to sink in’.

…. Indeed, few writers considering the end of the viceregal administration and the rise of the Kingdom of Kurru discuss the Dark Age itself; most restrict themselves to a passing comment on the lack of evidence from this period. Accordingly, the sudden expansion of Kurru power in the second half of the 8th century BC has baffled Nubian archaeologists. As rulers of Egypt the Kushite kings became involved in the politics of the Near East, and their conflict with Assyria for the mastery of Palestine and Phoenicia ensured them a place in the biblical record.


We recall that Gardiner had considered himself to be closer to the realm of true history when discussing the 25th dynasty. James though, whilst noting that such is the general view of scholars today, adds that this was not always so:[11]


Scholars can say that with the 25th Dynasty Egyptian history is once again on firm ground after the problems of interpreting the evidence for the preceding dynasties (21-24) of Libyan rule. But this confidence is relatively new. Earlier Egyptologists, notably Petrie, had profoundly different understandings of what was essentially the same evidence. The classical tradition has it that the Kushite king who conquered Egypt was Shabako, and, indeed, he is acknowledged as the first ruler of the Dynasty in the King List of Manetho …. However, because the massive Invasion Stela of Piye (or Piankhy) … unearthed by Auguste Mariette records his conquest of Egypt and the submission of the Delta dynasts, Piye is now accredited with the foundation of … the 25th Dynasty and it is assumed that Shabako’s invasion was later, and simply consolidated Kushite power.



Here James gives Gardiner’s very quote about Piye that I used on p. 374. He continues:[12]


A number of factors in the inscriptions of Piye, and the building activities in the Sudan which carry his name, created such difficulties that scholars, including Petrie and the brilliant German Egyptologist Richard Lepsius, thought that there were as many as three kings of this name; the earliest the conqueror of Egypt, and the others ruling after the 25th Dynasty withdrawal from Egypt …. Although Egyptology is doubtless correct to accept the existence of only one Piye, the material still presents a number of problems and focuses attention on a further question – the origins of the 25th Dynasty in Nubia.


I want to take just one more section of James’ discussion here, because he now goes on to consider the early Ethiopians in connection with the 20th dynasty. Here James, discussing the el-Kurru cemetery, concludes – right in line with my own thesis, in which the 20th and 25th dynasties partly overlap – that the 20th dynasty was much closer in time to the 25th than convention would have it:[13]


The Kurru cemetery was excavated by George Reisner, the founder of Nubian archaeology, on behalf of Harvard University and the Boston Museum of Fine Arts in 1918 and 1919 …. The latest burials were of those kings well-known from inscriptional evidence as the founders of Kushite power, Kashta and Piye (Piankhy), and as rulers over Egypt, Shabaqo, Shebitqo [Shebitku] and Tanwetamani [or Tantamani] …. The prime position in the site was dominated by a sequence of burials which Reisner attributed to five ancestral ‘generations’ ending with Alara. Allowing twenty years per generation and a base date for Alara of c. 760 BC, Reisner calculated the date of the commencement of the el-Kurru cemetery at about 860 BC. Reisner based his interpretation on the developmental nature of the graves in the cemetery, moving from simple tumuli to pyramids. This sequence is logical, and given the small number of tombs there seems to be no good reason to increase Reisner’s number of generations ….

However, some of the artefacts from the earliest of the ‘ancestral’ burials have recently been identified as 20th Dynasty (i.e. 12th-11th century BC) in date …. This material is, by its nature, unlikely to be ‘heirloom’ or acquired from rifled New Kingdom tombs. Some of the most significant is painted pottery which was clearly manufactured for the funeral ceremony and ritually broken at the time ….

It seems that this first generation must indeed be attributed to the later 20th Dynasty … However, the radiocarbon tests carried out on the material, admittedly insufficient and so far unpublished, would seem to fit Reisner’s calculated 9th-century BC date for the earliest graves …. The re-examination of the material from el-Kurru presents Nubian studies with a serious problem: either Reisner’s chronology (internal and exact) is correct, or the cemetery comprises two or more groups of graves, of different periods, having no relationship to each other.



It is impossible to have a compromise solution which spreads the ancestral burials over the 300 or so years from the late 20th Dynasty to the mid-8th century, because of the limited number of graves …. If Reisner’s interpretation is correct, then the 20th Dynasty finds were deposited in the 9th rather than the 11th century BC. Such a radical compression of the length of time from the end of the 20th Dynasty until the beginning of the 25th, whilst flying in the face of conventional Egyptology, removes the Nubian Dark Age at a single stroke. ….

[End of quotes]


The very close proximity of the Twentieth Egyptian Dynasty to the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty, as determined above, must now have some ‘ramifying’ ramifications for Ramses III as Ramses II, as according to my article:


New Revision for Ramses II


[1] Ibid, p. 335.

[2] Wikipedia’s Shebitku.

[3] The Lost Testament, p. 463.

[4] Ibid., footnote **.

[5] Op. cit., ibid.

[6] The Histories, II, pp. 137 & 140.

[7] Gardiner’s figure for example. Op. cit, p. 450.

[8] Ibid, p. 344.

[9] Centuries of Darkness, ch: “The Empty Years of Nubian History”.

[10] Ibid, p. 208.

[11] Ibid, p. 209.

[12] Ibid, pp. 209-210.

[13] Ibid, pp. 212-213.

Hezekiah, Josiah, similarities

Published September 21, 2018 by amaic
Image result for king josiah]


 Damien F. Mackey



The reason why various commentators have been able to point to a host of comparisons and similarities between Hezekiah and Josiah is because, according to my biblico-historical revision at least, e.g.:


A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah


Hezekiah was Josiah.


My above-mentioned article, by the way, significantly revises – and raises out of a certain former obscurity – king Hezekiah of Judah as he is to be found in my earlier postgraduate thesis:


A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background





The author of “The Passovers of Hezekiah and Josiah in Chronicles: Meals in the Persian Period”, for instance, who accepts the conventional view that Hezekiah and Josiah were two different kings – and who does not tend to believe in the historicity of Hezekiah’s Passover – has pointed to certain similarities:



The descriptions of the Passovers of Hezekiah and Josiah in Chronicles are centralized festivals, held in Jerusalem and linked in both cases to the feast of Unleavened Bread (2 Chr 30:13, 21 and 2 Chr 35:17), and linked to an additional second week of celebration in the case of Hezekiah (2 Chr 30:23). In 2 Chronicles 30 this two-week celebration is followed by various reform activities by all Israel in the territories of Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim and Manasseh. In Chronicles this festive celebration forms the climax of the reign of Josiah, followed only by his death at the hands of Necho. These two Unleavened Bread and Passover feasts enhance the reputation of two of the Chronicler’s favorite kings, Hezekiah and Josiah.


The meals in both cases are accompanied by a full array of the clergy from the Persian period [sic]. The addition of the Passover of Hezekiah and baroque expansion and development of the three-verse celebration of the Passover of Josiah may conform the story of this eighth and seventh century kings to the tradition of royal banquets associated with kings in the Persian period. Ahasuerus, for example, gave a 180-day banquet for all his officials, ministers, the army of Persia and Media and the nobles and governors of the province (Esth 1:2-4), only to be followed by a seven day banquet for everyone (1:5-8). Vashti held a simultaneous banquet for the women (1:9).16 Unlike the Persian banquets, the Passovers of Hezekiah and Josiah in Chronicles were not characterized by excessive drinking. In fact, alcohol is not mentioned at all. ….

[End of quote]


John Mayne investigates it more deeply in “Hezekiah and Josiah: Comparisons and Contrasts”:




Hezekiah and Josiah were the joint authors of unparalleled and unprecedented religious reforms that found their purpose in Yahweh, and their presence in Jerusalem.  Through dissecting their methods and motivations, we can begin to uncover the full extent to which their reforming stratagem converged, diverged, or existed in parallel.  Factoring in the contribution of the Historian and Chronicler, the geopolitical situation, personal devotion to Yahweh, monarchical relationships with the prophetic conscience and each king’s lasting historical legacy, we can begin to also shed light on what role their transformative measures carried out on the macro scale of Israelite history. ….

[End of quote]


Previously I have written:


“There was no one like him [Hezekiah] among all the kings of Judah, either before him or after him.”  2 Kings 18:5 (NIV?) “Neither before nor after Josiah was there a king like him …”  2 Kings 23:25 (NIV?)



“The reigns of the goodly, reforming kings Hezekiah and Josiah are so alike – with quite an amazing collection of same-named officials – that I had actually once begun a series (but then scrapped it) in which I had attempted an identification of Hezekiah with Josiah”.


Since writing this I have stumbled (again) on The Domain of Man’s Chart 37, which shows up some striking comparisons between Hezekiah and Josiah (I do not necessarily endorse every single detail to be found in this chart):



Comparison of Hezekiah and Josiah Narratives



Hezekiah Narrative
2 Chron. 29-32
2 Kings 18-20
Book of Isaiah
Josiah Narrative
2 Chron. 34-35
2 Kings 22-23
Book of Jeremiah
Hezekiah, “son” of Ahaz
mother:  Abijah daughter of Zechariah
Josiah, “son” of Amon
mother:  Jedidah daughter of Adaiah
25 years at ascension, reigned 29 years 8 years at ascension, reigned 31 years
“There was no one like him [Hezekiah] among all the kings of Judah, either before him or after him.”  2 Kings 18:5 (NIV?) “Neither before nor after Josiah was there a king like him …”  2 Kings 23:25 (NIV?)
Jerusalem to be spared destruction in his lifetime
2 Kings 19:1; 20:2-19; 2 Chron. 32:20,26
Jerusalem to be spared destruction in his lifetime
(2 Kings 22:14-20; 2 Chron. 34:22-28)
Revival of Laws of Moses
“according to what was written”
2 Chron. 30:5,16, 18; 31:2-7,15
Discovery of the Book of the Law (of Moses)
2 Kings 22:8-10; 2 Chron. 34:14-15
Passover Celebration Passover Celebration
“For since the days of Solomon son of David king of Israel there had been nothing like this in Jerusalem.”
2 Chron. 30:26
“Not since the days of the Judges (Samuel) who led Israel, nor throughout the days of the kings of Israel and the kings of Judah, had any such Passover been observed.”  2 Kings 23:22
Year not given
14th day of the second month
Year 18
14th day of the first month
17,000 sheep and goats, 1,000 bulls
(not including the sacrifices of the first seven days)  (1 Chron. 30:24)
30,000 sheep and goats, 3,000 cattle
Participating tribes:  Judah and Benjamin,
Manasseh, Ephraim,
Asher, Zebulun & Issachar
(2 Chron. 31:1)
Participating tribes: Judah and Benjamin,
Manasseh, Ephraim,
Simeon & Naphtali
(2 Chron. 34:9,32)
Temporary priests consecrated for service Employed “lay people” 2 Chron. 35:5
“. smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles”  2 Kings 18:4; 2 Chron. 31:1 “. smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles”  2 Kings 23:14
High places and altars torn down High places and altars torn down
“. broke into pieces the bronze snake” “. burned the chariots dedicated to the sun”
Name Comparisons
Hezekiah Narrative Josiah Narrative
Sennacherib oppresses Jerusalem Assyrian oppression omitted
Name of High Priest omitted Hilkiah, “High Priest”
Eliakim son of Hilkiah, palace administrator Eliakim “son” (?) of Josiah (future Jehoiakim)
Zechariah (descendant of Asaph)
Azariah, the priest (from family of Zadok)
(variant of Azariah)
Shaban/Shebna/Shebniah, scribe Shaphan, scribe
(son of Azaliah son of Meshullam)
Hashabiah/Hashabniah  (2 Chron. 35:9)
Isaiah son of Amoz, prophet
Joshua, “city governor”
Hoshaiah (Jer. 42:1; 43:2)
Asaiah, “king’s attendant”
Ma’aseiah, “ruler of the city”
Jerimoth Jeremiah son of Hilkiah
Conaniah and his brother Shemei, supervisors
(2 Chron. 31:12)
Conaniah/Cononiah, along with his brothers Shemaiah and Nethanel (2 Chron. 35:9)
Hananiah the prophet, son of Azzur/Azur (Azariah)  (Jer. 28)
Nahath Nathan-el/Nathan-e-el/El-Nathan/Nathan-Melech
2 Kings 23:11
Mattaniah, Mahath Mattaniah (future Zedekiah)
Jehiel Jehiel, “administrator of God’s temple”
Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun
2 Chron. 29:13-14
Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun
(2 Chron. 35:15)
Shallum/Meshillemoth (reign of Ahaz) Meshullam (the Kohathite)
Shellemiah son of Cushi (Jer. 36:14)
No mention of a prophetess

[Mackey: What about Judith?]

Huldah, wife of Shallam/Meshullam,
prophetess (spokeswoman of the “Lord”)
Shemaiah Shemaiah
Jozabad Jozabad
Jeiel Jeiel
Joah son of Zimmah (“wicked”)
Joah son of Asaph, recorder
Joah son of “wicked” Jo-Ahaz (King Ahaz)/
Obed, prophet (reign of Ahaz), Abde-el, Tabeel Obadiah



The least reconcilable detail of comparison at this stage has to be this one:



Hezekiah                                                Josiah


25 years at ascension, reigned 29 years 8 years at ascension, reigned 31 years


I do not have any convincing solution for this one.

A thought: Could it be that some biographical details for Josiah were confused with those of the earlier Joash (Jehoash), also a boy-king, who worked at restoring the Temple in much the same fashion as would Josiah?



A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah

Published September 20, 2018 by amaic

Image result for king hezekiah


 Damien F. Mackey



Part One:

A conventional overview of this period



My intention in this series will be to contrast the conventional king-lists for Judah; Egypt-Ethiopia; and Assyro-Babylonia for this period (c. 716 – c. 596 BC) with my recently revised version of it which will lop off almost half a century from this approximately 120–year span.


{The following dates are all conventional, and approximate only, BC dates}


Later Kings of Judah


Hezekiah                                 716-687

Manasseh                                687-643

Amon                                       643-641

Josiah                                      641-609


Jehoiakim                                608-596

Jehoiachin (Jeconiah)             596



Later Pharaohs of Egypt-Ethiopia


                                    Piye                                         744-714

                                    Shebitku                                   714-705

                                    Shabaka                                  705-690

                                    Taharqa (Tirhakah)                690-664           Necho I            672-664

                                    Tantamani                               664-653           Psamtik I         664-610                                                                                                           Necho II          610-595

                                                                                                            Psamtik II        595-


Neo-Assyrian-Babylonian Kings


                                    Sargon II                                 722-705

                                    Sennacherib                            705-681

                                    Esarhaddon                             681-669

                                    Ashurbanipal                           669-627

                                    Ashur-etil-ilani                        631-627

                                    Sin-shumu-lishir                      626

                                    Sin-shar-ishkun                       627-612


                                    Nabopolassar                          626-605

                                    Nebuchednezzar II                  605-562





Part Two (i): Sorting out later kings of Judah



Looking at the conventional version of the:


Later Kings of Judah


Hezekiah                                 716-687

Manasseh                                687-643

Amon                                      643-641

Josiah                                      641-609


Jehoiakim                                608-596

Jehoiachin (Jeconiah)              596


I can see some serious problems here, but also, now, I perceive the need to re-organise various things.




With the Fall of Samaria conventionally dated to c. 722/21 BC, then the favoured date these days for the beginning of the reign of King Hezekiah of Judah, c. 716 BC, is blatantly contrary to the flat statement of the OT (e.g. 2 Kings 18:10): “Three years later, during the sixth year of King Hezekiah’s reign and the ninth year of King Hoshea’s reign in Israel, Samaria fell”. The Bible here assists us with a 3-way synchronism (Hezekiah; Hoshea; and Fall of Samaria) which scholars, though, choose completely to brush aside, they preferring to follow the confusing and erroneous (neo-Assyrian-based) chronology of Edwin R. Thiele, in The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings.


If the Fall of Samaria is to be dated c. 722 BC (a conventional date which will end up in the long run being hopelessly inaccurate – but which can serve as a ‘sighter’ for the time being), then King Hezekiah’s regnal beginning has to be set at c. 729/8 BC, and not at 716 BC.


More will be said on King Hezekiah later, as we find an important regal alter ego for him.





Although Manasseh would indeed continue on for 55 years, it now needs to be understood (and this is certainly radical) that more than forty of those years were spent in Babylonian (and probably also Susan) captivity.

This situation serves to explain why the prophet Jeremiah could point the finger at (the conventionally well dead) Manasseh as the cause of the Jewish deportations (Jeremiah 15:4): “And I will cause them to be removed into all kingdoms of the earth, because of Manasseh the son of Hezekiah king of Judah, for that which he did in Jerusalem”.


More will be said on Manasseh later, as we find a regal alter ego for him.





How could this young king of only two years of reign in Jerusalem have gone down in biblical history as being even worse than his long-reigning father, Manasseh?

Thus 2 Chronicles 33:21-23:


Amon was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem two years. He did evil in the eyes of the Lord, as his father Manasseh had done. Amon worshiped and offered sacrifices to all the idols Manasseh had made. But unlike his father Manasseh, he did not humble himself before the Lord; Amon increased his guilt.


Once again the explanation lies in the facts that (i) the king continued on for a very long time in captivity, and (ii) he acquired a very nasty alter ego.

For a full account of all of this, see my article:


King Amon’s descent into Aman (Haman)




‘Alter egos’ now come into play


While I accept this standard sequence of Judaean kings so far, Hezekiah, father of Manasseh, father of Amon, I now believe that the remaining kings, Josiah, Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin, are simply duplicates of the first trio, so that:


Hezekiah = Josiah;

Manasseh = Jehoiakim;

Amon = Jehoiachin.


Sorting out some complications


There are complications, though, as I have discussed before, insofar as various biblical texts, including Matthew’s ‘Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah’, give Amon as the father of Josiah (Matthew 1:10), plus the fact that different names are given for the mothers of kings who I am arguing are duplicates.

Some versions of Matthew 1:10, however, give “Amos” as the father of Josiah, and Amos is a name very different from the apparently Egyptian name, Amon – probably given to Jehoiachin by his Egypt-leaning father, Jehoiakim, or by the pharaoh:

Jehoiakim, who was 25 when he ascended the throne (according to I Chron. 3:15 he was the second son of Josiah), was most likely selected because of his known support of a pro-Egyptian policy. Jehoiakim’s original name Eliakim was changed by the Pharaoh in order to indicate the Judahite king’s subservience to Egypt (II Kings 23:34; II Chron. 36:4). Egypt also imposed a heavy tax on Judah – 100 talents of silver and a talent of gold – which Jehoiakim exacted by levying a tax upon all people of the land (II Kings 23:33, 35).


Father’s names


I would now re-identify this “Amos” with Ahaz – whether this was another name for Ahaz, or simply a scribal error, perhaps a confusion with Amon – thus refining my above list to:


Ahaz = Amos;

Hezekiah = Josiah;

Manasseh = Jehoiakim;

Amon = Jehoiachin.


The fact that the various kings of Judah at this time had more than the one name (e.g., Jehoiakim was formerly Eliakim, 2 Kings 23:34; Zedekiah was formerly Mattaniah, 2 Kings 24:17) assists me somewhat in my case for alter egos.


Mothers’ names


The differing names of the women (mothers) can be accounted for, at least to some extent, by the fact that sometimes a woman was named “mother” who was not the biological mother. King Amon was, for instance, in his guise as the evil Haman (see above article on “Haman”) the “son of Hammedatha” (Esther 3:1); Hammedatha, a woman, being the mother of Amon’s (i.e., Jehoiachin’s) uncles (Jehoahaz and Zedekiah), as (queen) Ham[m]utal (cf. 2 Kings 23:31 and 24:18).

In the case of my Manasseh = Jehoiakim identification, Manasseh’s mother (2 Kings 21:1), Hephzibah, could perhaps be the same person as king Jehoiakim’s mother (2 Kings 23:36): “[Jehoiakim’s] mother’s name was Zebidah daughter of Pedaiah; she was from Rumah”.

Heph-zibah = Zebi-dah?


According to 2 Kings 18:2: “[Hezekiah’s] mother’s name was Abijah [or Abi], daughter of Zechariah”, whilst (his alter ego) “[Josiah’s] mother’s name was Jedidah daughter of Adaiah; she was from Bozkath”.

The latter, I find, bears some resemblance to Jehoiakim’s [= Manasseh’s] mother, “Zebidah daughter of Pedaiah” – compare with “Jedidah daughter of Adaiah”.

The location of Rumah (for Jehoiakim’s mother) “is disputed” (Nadav Na’aman, Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors: Interaction and Counteraction, p. 355).



Previously we found that certain complications inevitably arise from my re-casting of the later kings of Judah as follows:


Ahaz = Amos;

Hezekiah = Josiah;

Manasseh = Jehoiakim;

Amon = Jehoiachin.


But I was also gratified to find that, with regard to my dependence upon alter egos for my reconstruction, some of the kings of Judah at the time were biblically known to have had more than the one name.

We also found that, whilst mother’s names may appear to be inconsistent with my revision, at least one of those designated as a “mother” of a particular king was not in fact his biological mother, but was the mother of that king’s uncles.


The complications that arise from my revision do become more severe, though, for this next category:


Regnal years, ages at accession


In the case of Amon = Jehoiachin, the differences in regnal years and ages at commencement of reign can fairly easily be accounted for by co-regency, as I have already suggested.

And, whilst the 55-years of reign attributed to Manasseh (2 Kings 21:1) far outnumber the eleven years attributed to (my alter ego for him) Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:36), the count of Manasseh’s years continued on, as I have suggested, into his long captivity in Babylon.

In the same way, Jehoiachin’s reign of only “three months” in Jerusalem (2 Kings 24:8), will be extended to his “thirty-seventh year” in captivity in 2 Kings 25:27.


However, there is a big discrepancy, much harder to account for, in the case of my:


Hezekiah = Josiah.


“[Hezekiah] was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem twenty-nine years” (2 King 18:2).

Josiah was eight years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem thirty-one years (2 Kings 22:1)”.


At this stage, I do not have a satisfactory solution to this very large discrepancy in age at accession (25 years versus 8 years).

Added to this is the fact that Sirach praises Hezekiah (48:17-22) and Josiah (49:1-3) as if referring to two separate kings, concluding with (49:4): “Except for David and Hezekiah and Josiah, all of them were great sinners, for they abandoned the law of the Most High; the kings of Judah came to an end”.


Places of burial


Francesca Stavrakopoulou provides a useful comment on the burials of the kings in question in this article, “Exploring the Garden of Uzza: Death, Burial and Ideologies of Kingship”:


As is well known, almost every Judahite monarch up to and including Ahaz is said to have been buried “with his ancestors in the City of David” (2), whilst the burial notices for Ahaz’s successors are either inconsistent or non-existent: Manasseh is buried “in the garden of his house in the Garden of Uzza” (2 Kgs 21,18); Amon’s body is interred “in his tomb in the Garden of Uzza” (21 ,26); Josiah is buried “in his tomb” (23,30); the resting places of Hezekiah and Jehoiakim go unmentioned though their deaths are acknowledged (20,21; 24,6); Jehoahaz is said to die whilst in Egyptian captivity (23,34); and neither the deaths nor the burials of Jehoiachin and Zedekiah are noted. Given the important theological and narrative functions of the death and burial notices in emphasizing the continuity of the Davidic dynasty (3), these variations have proved problematic for many commentators. ….


Interestingly, here, the two kings of Judah who went into long captivity, Manasseh and Amon, were buried in the same place, in their palace garden (“the Garden of Uzza”).

Considering that Amon, as Haman, was killed in his palace, in Susa, then this unknown “Garden” must have been situated in Susa.

And that would explain why neither Manasseh, nor Amon, was buried – like their ancestors were – “in the City of David”.

‘The death and burial of king Jehoiachin is not noted’ because these details have been noted in two other instances, in the cases of Jehoiachin’s alter egos, (i) Amon:


(2 Kings 21:23-24): “Amon’s officials conspired against him and assassinated the king in his palace. Then the people of the land killed all who had plotted against King Amon, and they made Josiah his son king in his place”.


and (ii) Haman:


(Esther 7:9-10): “Then Harbona, one of the eunuchs attending the king, said, ‘A pole reaching to a height of fifty cubits stands by Haman’s house [palace]. He had it set up for Mordecai, who spoke up to help the king’. The king said, ‘Impale him on it!’ So they impaled Haman on the pole he had set up for Mordecai. Then the king’s fury subsided”.


“The people of the land” who then avenged Amon would have been the people of the land of Susa, some of whom would eventually swing over to the side of the Jews:

The Book of Esther tells that many of the peoples of the land became Jews or passed themselves off as Jews. While the obvious motive for this behavior was fear of the new Jewish power, the result was that people now saw Jews as a religious community that all could join, not just a tribe living in a certain land.


Part Two (ii):

Benefits from sorting out later kings of Judah



What are some of these benefits?


For one, with several of the later kings of Judah now identified as duplicates, namely:


Ahaz = Amos;

Hezekiah = Josiah;

Manasseh = Jehoiakim;

Amon = Jehoiachin,


then certain kings of Judah inexplicably omitted from Matthew’s Genealogy can be re-instated. I refer to kings Joash (Jehoash) and Amaziah, and possibly even their predecessor Ahaziah.

And, does king Jehoiachin (= Amon = Haman) need to figure anymore in Matthew’s Genealogy, considering that he and his sons were all slain?

This latter situation may also be the key to Daniel 9:26: “… an anointed one will be put to death and will have nothing”.


Secondly, with Hezekiah now expanded to include Josiah, this would fill out an important king of Judah who almost seems to disappear from the scene after only his 14th year.

That Hezekiah, Josiah, shared the same officials is apparent from this:

Chart 37

Comparison of Hezekiah and Josiah Narratives

which I accept in general – though not in every detail.

Hezekiah’s merging with Josiah would solve problems like this legitimate one:


Who was a greater king: Hezekiah or Josiah?


About Hezekiah, we read in 2 Kings 18:5-6:

Hezekiah trusted in the LORD, the God of Israel. There was no one like him among all the kings of Judah, either before him or after him. He held fast to the LORD and did not cease to follow him; he kept the commands the LORD had given Moses.


But then about Josiah a couple chapters later in 2 Kings 23:25:

Neither before nor after Josiah was there a king like him who turned to the LORD as he did—with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his strength, in accordance with all the Law of Moses.


How can the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah both be the greatest, especially when it is said of both that neither before nor after him was there a king like him? Is this a contradiction?

[End of quotes]


Thirdly, with the eras of Hezekiah, of Josiah, now crunched together, the respective great prophets, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, would become contemporaneous.

This enables for Isaiah’s “Suffering Servant”, so reminiscent of the prophet Jeremiah (but culminating perfectly in Jesus Christ), to be Jeremiah, now personally known to Isaiah (Jeremiah’s older contemporary).  


Fourthly, the traditionally well attested ‘Martyrdom of Isaiah’ at the hands of king Manasseh – unknown, however, from the biblical record of Manasseh, qua Manasseh – can be found in the martyrdom of the prophet Uriah (Urijah) at the hands of Manasseh’s alter ego, king Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 26:23).


Fifthly, Manasseh’s identification with Jehoiakim would explain why Jeremiah could attribute to Manasseh – instead of Jehoiakim – the guilt for the deportations of the Jews (Jeremiah 15:4).


Sixthly, we can now count the regnal years of Manasseh through the eleven years of Jehoiakim (the latter’s 4th corresponding with the 1st of king Nebuchednezzar, Jeremiah 25:1), through Nebuchednezzar’s 43rd (= Manasseh’s 46th); 3-4 of Evil-Merodach (= Manasseh’s 50th); and on for approximately another 5 years into the Medo-Persian era. This means that:


Seventhly, Manasseh can now likely be identified with the “Sheshbazzar the prince of Judah” (Ezra 1:8), who returns briefly to restore to Jerusalem the treasures stolen by the Babylonians, but who dies a few years later and is buried in the “Garden of Uzza”, in Susa (as I have estimated), where the executed king Amon (Haman) will later be buried.


Part Three:

Merging pharaoh Necho I and pharaoh Necho II



If king Hezekiah of Judah is to be identified with king Josiah, as according to this series, then it becomes inevitable that there can be only one pharaoh Necho, and that Necho so-called II, who killed Josiah, must be the same as Necho I of the approximate era of king Hezekiah.


Art historians find it hard to determine whether a pharaonic statue represents Necho I or II. Moreover, Necho I is poorly known – as is apparent from the following:



This sculpture [see next page] probably belonged to a group showing the king presenting an offering to a god. The inscription indicates that the royal figure was King Necho. Two [sic] Saite rulers had this name, the little-known Necho I and the more celebrated Necho II in whose reign the Egyptians circumnavigated Africa and attempted to link the Mediterranean and Red seas with a canal. Which Necho is represented is not known.  


Again, we do not know at least the Horus Name, Nebty Name, or Golden Horus Name, of pharaoh Necho I:

Kneeling Statuette of King Necho, ca. 610-595 B.C.E. Bronze, 5 1/2 x 2 1/4 x 2 3/4in. (14 x 5.7 x 7cm). Brooklyn Museum, Charles Edwin Wilbour Fund, 71.11. Creative Commons-BY (Photo: Brooklyn Museum, 71.11_threequarter_PS1.jpg)” src=”” border=”0″ v:shapes=”Picture_x0020_6″>



It becomes inevitable now, also, that Psamtik (Psammetichus) I, son of Necho I, be identified with Psamtik (Psammetichus) II, son of Necho II.




Part Four:

Merging neo-Assyrians and neo-Babylonians




If pharaoh Necho I is to be identified with pharaoh Necho II, as according to this series, then it becomes inevitable now that Necho I’s Mesopotamian contemporaries, Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, must be the same as Necho II’s Mesopotamian contemporaries, respectively Nabopolassar and Nebuchednezzar II.


For more on this, see e.g. my article:


Ashurbanipal the Great