by
Damien F. Mackey
In his Ages in Chaos, I (Chapter 5: “Ras Shamra”), Dr. I. Velikovsky
elaborated upon his choice of the physically strong pharaoh, Amenhotep II,
for the biblical “Zerah the Ethiopian”.
VELIKOVSKY’S “ZERAH”
Dr. Velikovsky’s 1945 “Theses”
Here Dr. Velikovsky outlined, in point fashion, what he would elaborate upon later, in his series Ages in Chaos (http://www.varchive.org/ce/theses.htm):
THESES FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION
OF ANCIENT HISTORY
FROM THE END OF THE MIDDLE KINGDOM IN EGYPT
TO THE ADVENT OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT
BY
IMMANUEL VELIKOVSKY
….
81. Amenhotep II lived not in the fifteenth but in the ninth century, and was the scriptural Zerah.
82. The theory that the Ethiopian Zerah came from Arabia is wrong; equally wrong is the theory that he is a mythological figure.
83. The battle of Ain-Reshet, referred to by Amenhotep II, is the battle of Mareshet-Gath, which was lost by Amenhotep II and won by Asa.
84. This intrusion of Amenhotep II-Zerah is also narrated in the poem of Keret found in Ras Shamra.
85. The theory that Terah of the Poem, who invaded the south of Palestine with millions of soldiers, is the father of Abraham, is wrong.
86. The Shemesh-Edom of the war-annals of Amenhotep II is the Edomite city of Shapesh (Shemesh) referred to in the Poem of Keret.
….
89. The texts found in Ras Shamra are not of the fifteenth, but of the ninth century.
90. The close resemblance of the texts of Ras Shamra with diverse books of the Scriptures repudiates most of the assertions of the Bible criticism (late origin of the texts), as well as the modern theory about the Canaanite heritage in the Scriptures (early origin of the texts).
91. The theory that alphabetic writing was perfected in the sixteenth century cannot be supported by the Ras Shamra texts of the ninth century.
92. As the alphabetic writing of Hebrew in cuneiform of Ras Shamra is contemporaneous with the stela of Mesha written in Hebrew alphabetic characters, the alphabet most probably did not originate in Phoenicia but in Palestine”. ….
[End of quote]
In his Ages in Chaos, I (Chapter 5: “Ras Shamra”), Dr. I. Velikovsky elaborated upon his choice of the physically strong pharaoh, Amenhotep II, for the biblical “Zerah the Ethiopian”:
Amenhotep II
Syria-Palestine of the period we are discussing was a region coveted by the pharaohs and striving for independence.
When the long and successful reign of Thutmose III came to its end, Amenhotep II (his royal name is usually read Okheperure) took the scepter. To the Asiatic provinces the death of Thutmose III was a signal for insurrection and the casting off of the Egyptian yoke.
Amenhotep II marched at the head of a vast army of chariots, horsemen, and foot warriors to suppress the rebellion in Syria and Palestine. His Majesty “went against Retenu (Palestine) in his first victorious campaign, in order to extend his frontier.
... His Majesty came to Shamash-Edom and devastated it. ... His Majesty came to Ugarit and subdued all his adversaries. . . .” ….
On the way to Syria Amenhotep II displayed his ability to use the bow in a demonstration before the local princes in order to impress and intimidate them.
He returned to Memphis with a few hundred nobles as war prisoners and a booty of some hundred horses and chariots or war carriages. On his return to Egypt he hanged some of the prisoners to the mast of his ship on the Nile with their heads down.
In his ninth year he repeated his expedition to Palestine, his goal being Aphek in lower Galilee. He plundered two villages “west of Socoh,” and after pillaging other unimportant localities, he returned to Memphis with more prisoners. His harassing visits made him a common enemy of the kingdoms of Palestine and Syria.
When he came again to Palestine, the main, and seemingly the only, battle was fought at a place called “y-r’-s-t”. Various solutions have been proposed for the identification of this locality. ….
However, it is an important fact that according to Amenhotep’s annals he reached the place one day after his army left the Egyptian border. …. Thus the place of the battle could have been only in southern Palestine.
Amenhotep called himself victorious, and it is accepted that this campaign was a victorious one. But was it really? What was the booty in the battle of y-r’-s-t?
List of that which his majesty captured on this day: his horses 2, chariots 1, a coat of mail, 2 bows, a quiver full of arrows, a corselet and –100 some object the reading of which is no longer possible. But whatever may have been that last object, the complete spoils were pitiful indeed if all the king of Egypt could count after his victorious battle were one chariot, two horses, two bows, and one quiver “full of arrows.” It was a defeat. ….
After a victory an army usually marches deeper into the enemy’s territory. But the lines directly following the enumeration of the spoils say that, “passing southward toward Egypt, his majesty proceeded by horse.” …. Immediately after the battle, the king turned toward Egypt.
When a king returns from a successful campaign of restoring order in the provinces, the cities located on his triumphal route home do not choose that moment for revolt. Vassal cities rebel on seeing their oppressor in flight, and this is just what happened, for the war annals relate that Asiatics of a city on the way to Egypt “plotted to make a plan for casting out the infantry of his majesty.” ….
During the remainder of his reign, for some decades, Amenhotep II did not return to Palestine, and there is no mention of any yearly tribute from there. ….
To ascertain whether his expedition was a defeat, his subjective evaluation of the campaign must be compared with the scriptural record.
The son of Rehoboam, Abijah, king of Judah, succeeded in winning a decisive battle against Jeroboam, king of Israel (II Chronicles 13). This must mean that Egyptian domination was already declining.
After the short reign of Abijah, Asa, his son, followed him. “In his days the land was quiet ten years.”
He built fortified cities in Judah, constructed walls and towers, gates and bars. He said to Judah: “We have sought the Lord our God, and he hath given us rest on every side” (II Chronicles 14:7). So they built and prospered.
The destruction of the images of the pagan gods was in itself a rebellion (II Chronicles 14:5), for among them the first place surely belonged to the Egyptian gods, as the land since Shishak (Thutmose III) had been subject to the Egyptian crown. By fortifying the cities of Judah and recruiting his warriors, Asa clearly rejected Egyptian rule.
II CHRONICLES 14:8 And Asa had an army of men that bare targets and spears, out of Judah three hundred thousand; and out of Benjamin, that bare shields and drew bows, two hundred and fourscore thousand: all these were mighty men of valor. The cities were fortified, the army stood ready.
II CHRONICLES 14:9-10 And there came out against them Zerah the Ethiopian with a host of a thousand thousand, and three hundred chariots; and came unto Mareshah.
Then Asa went out against him, and they set the battle in array in the valley of Zephathah at Mareshah. Asa prayed to God for help.
II CHRONICLES 14:12-13 So the Lord smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled.
And Asa and the people that were with him pursued them unto Gerar; and the Ethiopians were overthrown, that they could not recover themselves; for they were destroyed before the Lord, and before his host; and they carried away very much spoil.
Zerah the Ethiopian, who led an army of Ethiopians and Libyans (II Chronicles 16:8) from the southern and western borders of Egypt (like the army of the pharaoh Shishak), could be none other than a pharaoh.
The way from Ethiopia to Palestine is along the valley of the Nile, and an Ethiopian army, in order to reach Palestine, would have had to conquer Egypt first. Moreover, the presence of Libyan soldiers in the army leaves little doubt that the king was the pharaoh of Egypt.
In the opinion of the exegetes (Graf, Erbt) the story of the Chronicles must have a historical basis in an Egyptian or an Arabian invasion.
The description of the battle of Mareshah or Moresheth … reveals why the pharaoh turned his back speedily on Palestine and his face toward Egypt, why from the field of this battle his army carried away “one bow and two horses,” and why the population of the cities, presumably in Edomite southern Palestine, plotted against his garrisons.
It is a token of defeat when an Egyptian king recounts his own personal valor and fierceness on the battlefield, fighting himself against the soldiers of the enemy.
It means that, when everyone had fled, His Majesty fought alone. In bombastic phrases, which do not refer to any special encounter, the inscription glorifies the ruler who battled alone: “Behold, he was like a fierce-eyed lion.”
He was pursued only to Gerar. So he still had the satisfaction of taking with him on his return to Egypt a few chiefs of some villages, whom he burned alive in Egypt: his Memphis stele records this holocaust.
Amenhotep II was not a great man, but he was a large one. He was proud of his physical strength and boasted that no one could draw his bow. A large bow inscribed with his name was found a few decades ago in his sepulcher.
“There is not one who can draw his bow among his army, among the hill-country sheiks [or] among the princes of Retenu [Palestine] because his strength is so much greater than [that of] any king who has ever existed,” says the Elephantine stele. ….
“It is his story which furnished Herodotus with the legend that Cambyses was unable to draw the bow of the king of Ethiopia.” …. A modern scholar saw a common origin in this story, which survived in legendary form in Herodotus (Book III, 21ff), and in the historical boast written on the stele of Elephantine by Amenhotep II, who lived many centuries earlier. The story of Herodotus has an Ethiopian king as the bragging bender of the bow of Amenhotep II. Was Amenhotep II an Ethiopian on the Egyptian throne?
In the veins of the Theban Dynasty there was Ethiopian blood. …. Was the royal wife of Thutmose III a full-blooded Ethiopian and did she bear him a dark-skinned son? Or was Amenhotep II not the son of Thutmose III at all? He called himself son of Thutmose, but this claim need not have been literally true.
He called his mother Hatshepsut. …. Is it possible that before ascending the throne of Egypt he was a viceroy in Ethiopia? ….
Conventional chronology identifying Zerah with Osorkon of the Libyan Dynasty encounters difficulty in the biblical reference to Zerah as an Ethiopian.
It was a glorious accomplishment to carry away so decisive a victory from the battlefield, when the foe was not a petty Arabian prince – as some exegetes have thought … or a pharaoh of the ignominious Twenty-second Dynasty – as other exegetes have assumed – but Amenhotep II, the great pharaoh, the successor to Thutmose III, the greatest of all the pharaohs. It was a victory as sweeping as the defeat of the Hyksos-Amalekites by Saul, but, as we shall see, its effect on the subsequent period was not of equal importance. Politically, the victory was not sufficiently exploited, but this fact does not detract from its military value. Egypt, at the very zenith of its imperial might, was beaten by Asa, king of Judah, and this was not a victory over an Egyptian garrison or a detachment dispatched to collect tribute, but over the multitude of the Egyptian-Ethiopian and Libyan hosts, at the head of whom stood the emperor-pharaoh himself.
With the rout of the Egyptian army in the south of Palestine, all of Syria-Palestine naturally was freed of the Egyptian yoke. The pharaoh had previously laid Ugarit waste and threatened all the kingdoms in this area; it is conceivable that the king of Judah had some help from the north, and the sympathy of the Syrian maritime peoples must certainly have been with Asa. The inscriptions of Amenhotep II reveal his ambition to dominate, in addition to the land of the Nile, the lands of the Jordan, Orontes, and Euphrates, which had rebelled after the death of Thutmose III.
The great victory at Mareshah carried a message of freedom to all these peoples; the repercussions of the battle should have been heard in many countries and for many generations. But only once again does the Book of Chronicles pay tribute to this victory, and this in the words of the seer Hanani: “Were not the Ethiopians and the Lubim (Libyans) a huge host, with very many chariots and horsemen?” (II Chronicles 16:8.) It is also said that the population of the northern tribes went over to Judah because of the high esteem this country enjoyed after it had successfully repelled the pharaoh and his army (II Chronicles 15:9).
Is no more material concerning the victory of Asa over Amenhotep II preserved? Such a great triumph should have had a greater echo. …”.
[End of quotes]
CONVENTIONAL ESTIMATE OF “ZERAH”
“Zerah” as a king Osorkon
C. M. Cobern explains the standard estimation of “Zerah the Ethiopian” (in ISBE) as follows: http://biblehub.com/topical/z/zerah_the_ethiopian.htm
ZERAH (THE ETHIOPIAN)
(zerach ha-kushi (2 Chronicles 14:9); Zare): A generation ago the entire story of Zerah's conquest of Asa, coming as it did from a late source (2 Chronicles 14:9-15), was regarded as "apocryphal": "If the incredibilities are deducted nothing at all is left" (Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, 207, 208); but most modern scholars, while accepting certain textual mistakes and making allowance for customary oriental hyperbole in description; accept this as an honest historical narrative, "nothing" in the Egyptian inscriptions being "inconsistent" with it (Nicol in BD; and compare Sayce, HCM, 362-64).
The name "Zerah" is a "very likely corruption" of "Usarkon" (U-Serak-on), which it closely resembles (see Petrie, Egypt and Israel, 74), and most writers now identify Zerah with Usarkon II, though the Egyptian records of this particular era are deficient and some competent scholars still hold to Usarkon I (Wiedemann, Petrie, McCurdy, etc.). The publication by Naville (1891) of an inscription in which Usarkon II claims to have invaded "Lower and Upper Palestine" seemed to favor this Pharaoh as the victor over Asa; but the chronological question is difficult (Eighth Memoir of the Egyptian Exploration Fund, 51). The title "the Cushite" (Hebrew) is hard to understand. There are several explanations possible.
(1) Wiedemann holds that this may refer to a real Ethiopian prince, who, though unrecorded in the monuments, may have been reigning at the Asa era. There is so little known from this era "that it is not beyond the bounds of probability for an Ethiopian invader to have made himself master of the Nile Valley for a time" (Geschichte von Alt-Aegypten, 155).
(2) Recently it has been the fashion to refer this term "Cushite" to some unknown ruler in South or North Arabia (Winckler, Cheyne, etc.). The term "Cushite" permits this, for although it ordinarily corresponds to ETHIOPIA … yet sometimes it designates the tract of Arabia which must be passed over in order to reach Ethiopia (Jeremias, The Old Testament in the Light of Ancient East, I, 280) or perhaps a much larger district (see BD; EB; Hommel, Ancient Hebrew Tradition; Winckler, KAT, etc.). This view, however, is forced to explain the geographical and racial terms in the narrative differently from the ordinary Biblical usage (see Cheyne, EB). Dr. W. M. Flinders Petrie points out that, according to the natural sense of the narrative, this army must have been Egyptian for
(a) after the defeat it fled toward Egypt, not eastward toward Arabia;
(b) the cities around Gerar (probably Egyptian towns on the frontier of Palestine), toward which they naturally fled when defeated, were plundered;
(c) the invaders were Cushim and Lubim (Libyans), and this could only be the case in an Egyptian army;
(d) Mareshah is a well-known town close to the Egyptian frontier (History of Egypt, III, 242-43; compare Konig, Funf neue arab. Landschaftsnamen im Altes Testament, 53-57).
(3) One of the Usarkons [Osorkons] might be called a "Cushite" in an anticipatory sense, since in the next dynasty (XXIII) Egypt was ruled by Ethiopian kings. ….
OTHER REVISIONISTS AND “ZERAH”
Critical assessment so far
Chronologically, Dr. Velikovsky’s placement of the biblical “Zerah the Ethiopian” during Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty must inevitably (according to my revision) be far closer to reality than the conventional version, somewhere during the Twenty-Second Dynasty.
Biblically calculated, we must still be in the reign of pharaoh Thutmose III.
For, a comparison of Philip Mauro’s spacings (The Wonders of Bible Chronology) with the estimate for Zerah’s invasion by Peter James and Peter Van der Veen, would yield approximately 25-30 years after the Shishak incident.
James and Van der Veen have written (“Zerah the Kushite: A New Proposal Regarding His Identity”):
https://www.academia.edu/13445553/Zerah_the_Kushite_A_New_Proposal_Reg
“… Shishak invasion in Year 5 of Rehoboam … when would the Zerah episode have occurred in Egyptian terms? Chronicles records that there was peace in the land for the first ten years of Asa’s reign; also that some of the livestock captured after the defeat of Zerah were sacrificed in the year 15 (2 Chron. 14:1; 15:11). This places the Zerah episode in a fairly narrow window, between the years 11 and 14 of Asa. With 12 years for the remainder of Rehoboam’s reign and 3 for Abijah, the invasion of Zerah would thus have fallen 26 to 29 years after that of Shishak”.
Halfway versions of “Zerah”
We might expect that the likes of Dr. David Rohl and Peter James, having abandoned Velikovsky’s Eighteenth Dynasty revision for more of a middle course - or version situated ‘halfway’ between Velikovsky and convention - would find their “Zerah the Ethiopian” somewhere between the era of Velikovsky’s pharaoh Amenhotep II (late C15th BC, conventional dating) and convention’s Osorkon I (c. 900 BC, conventional dating) or II (c. 850 BC, conventional dating).
And that is just what we do find.
David Rohl has located Zerah to the time of his “Shishak”, pharaoh Ramses II (c. 1300 BC, conventional dating); whilst Peter James has, in league with Peter Van der Veen, located Zerah to “the final years” of pharaoh Ramses IV (c. 1150 BC, conventional dating).
On a positive note, neither of these moderate versions has considered to identify “Zerah the Ethiopian” as a pharaoh, but, instead, as an officer of a current pharaoh, be he Ramses II or Ramses IV.
On a negative note, both choices suffer for their failure to accept the Thutmose III = “Shishak” Velikovskian equation - according to my previous arguments, such as:
The Shishak Redemption
(9) The Shishak Redemption | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Commenting on the biblical pharaoh, a blogger has written (“Who was Shishak?”):
http://kabane52.tumblr.com/post/133301488410/who-was-shishak
“Any revised chronology must identify a plausible candidate for the “Shishak king of Egypt” who plunders the Temple in the fifth year of King Rehoboam.
Conventionally, Shishak is identified with Shoshenq, founded of the 22nd Dynasty. The names are a good match and Shoshenq did campaign in Palestine, but otherwise the match is implausible. The stela recording his campaign does not mention Jerusalem, thought to be the center of his attack. David Rohl proposes Rameses II under his nickname “Sheshi” as the Shishak who sacked the Temple. Still, the larger chronological framework proposed by Rohl is not workable: within a few decades, Asa decisively defeats “Zerah the Ethiopian.” On Rohl’s chronology, Ethiopia is not under Egyptian jurisdiction at this point in time: Asa would be fortifying Judah right under the watchful eye of the powerful 19th Dynasty of Egypt, and Zerah would have to move through Egypt to battle Asa. Peter James has proposed Rameses III [or IV] (again, under the nickname “Sheshi”) as the Shishak who sacked Jerusalem. Yet again, however, the chronological framework does not work. David would be establishing the kingdom of David right under the nose of the powerful Rameses II. The only way James can work this is by denying the figure of 80 years for the reign of David and Solomon and reducing it to 40 years. This is the theory driving the facts”.
“Zerah” for David Rohl
Dr. John Osgood would, in his review of Rohl’s A Test of Time (Vol. I), both praise Rohl for having at last located King Solomon to a plausible archaeological setting, but criticise him for not having followed up his Ramses II as “Shishak” with a candidate for “Zerah the Ethiopian”:
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j11_1/j11_1_33-35.pdf
“In chapter 8 Rohl then attempts to date the Solomonic period presently assigned to Iron Age IIA, and rightly concludes, as he must, that 'the cultural wealth of the era of Solomon . . . is not reflected in the archaeology of Iron Age Palestine . . .'. (page 175)
He puts forward the Late Bronze Age as the era of Solomon — the only period consistent with the Solomonic milieu. At last a member of the archaeological discipline begins to make archaeological sense of the Palestine archaeological strata!
In choosing Rameses II as Shishak, Rohl has failed however to follow up and identify a candidate for 'Zerah the Ethiopian' (II Chronicles 14:9) who followed soon after Shishak, nor an explanation for the Queen of Sheba”.
Eric J. Aitchison would comment similarly (now including Peter James as well) in his book, Revisiting Velikovsky: An Audit of an Innovative Revisionist Attempt:
SO; WHO WAS ZERAH?
….
“It is of some moment that I draw to your attention that neither in “A Test of Time”, (David Rohl), nor in “Centuries of Darkness” (Peter James) is any attempt made to identify this historical character; this is subsequently rectified in Academia posts …. The word, “Zerah” is not in either book’s index. Each author identifies who might be Shishak and thus a relationship with Rehoboam, but neither goes on to identify whom [sic] Zerah might be in relation to an activity that occurs those twenty-eight years later ….
In his later book, “The Lost Testament” David Rohl … offers the suggestion that Zerah was a general under Ramesses II. Thus Velikovsky was the braver scholar over his identification of Zerah as Amenhotep II. Murphie … in his work on “A Test of Time”, draws to our attention that under Rohl’s scheme Zerah must be active under Ramesses II, and then points out to us the resultant incongruities that flow there from”.
Whilst I must reject David Rohl’s proposed era for the biblical Zerah as too late, I think that his later suggestion that Zerah the Ethiopian was a “general” is preferable to Velikovsky’s view that he was a pharaoh.
“Zerah” for James and Van der Veen
Era-wise for Zerah, James and Van der Veen are even further away from the mark than is David Rohl.
What can be gleaned from their choice for the biblical Zerah, though, is that they have, like Rohl finally did, accepted that Zerah was an official rather than a pharaoh.
In “Zerah the Kushite: A New Proposal Regarding His Identity”:
https://www.academia.edu/13445553/Zerah_the_Kushite_A_New_Proposal_Reg
James and Van der Veen have chosen for Zerah an official of pharaoh Ramses IV, Userḫau.
Whilst this choice suffers further from the fact that there appears to be nothing to suggest that Userḫau was an “Ethiopian”, it does have in its favour that the name Userḫau is compatible with Zeraḥ. “The resemblance of his name to that of Zeraḥ prompts further investigation”.
Biblically whenever a Pharaoh is involved - from the time of Joseph of Egypt all the way down to Necho during the late C7th BC (conventional dating) - the Bible specifies either “Pharaoh” or “King [so-and-so] of Egypt”.
We also have (Isaiah 37:9): “… Tirhakah king of Ethiopia …”.
Thus, whilst I would flatly reject convention’s era, designation and (perhaps) ethnicity for “Zerah”, I would also have to - whilst accepting Dr. Velikovky’s approximate era - reject his designation for “Zerah” as a pharaoh. If he had been a pharaoh, biblical consistency would demand that he be designated either as “King Zerah of Egypt” or as “Zerah king of Ethiopia”.
Zerah is neither.
Zerah the Ethiopian may be Usersatet,
a Viceroy of Kush
There is no strong evidence at all to indicate that Amenhotep II was an Ethiopian.
There is no biblical evidence at all that Zerah was a pharaoh of Egypt.
The names are quite un-alike (though that also applied with
Thutmose III as “Shishak”).
ONE MILLION MEN?
Common sense ought to tell us that this is a ridiculous figure for that most ancient (and virtually any) time, and that the text, in order to make sense, must stand in need of a more reasonable translation.
The great neo-Assyrian king, Shalmaneser (so-called III), probably boasted the largest army of history to date - which was well after Zerah - consisting of 120,000 men at the Battle of Qarqar.
“Asa had an army of three hundred thousand men from Judah, equipped with large shields and with spears, and two hundred and eighty thousand from Benjamin, armed with small shields
and with bows. All these were brave fighting men.
Zerah the Ethiopian came out against them with an army of
a million men and 300 chariots, and came as far as Mareshah”.
2 Chronicles 14:8-9
I have previously suggested that the size of the armies of Abijah-Asa and opponent, Jeroboam I, have been wildly inflated owing to a poorly selected translation.
The writer of the following blog is therefore entirely correct in mounting this direct challenge, though wrong in attributing it to a fault of the Bible, “the bible is false, it is all false”:
https://thechurchoftruth.org/the-bible-is-wrong-about-1000000-ethiopians-being-murdered/
The Bible is Wrong About
1,000,000 Ethiopians Being Murdered
…. I am using the murder [sic] of one million Ethiopians to represent all of God’s murders in the Old Testament. Steve Wells documents the 158 separate instances where God either commands, condones or participates in the murder of approximately 25 million people in his book, Drunk With Blood. He also provides a complete listing and description of each of the 158 murderous events …. I will leave it to his website to describe each event; I will just look at the one with the highest toll. I will show beyond a doubt that it never happened. That is, I will provide yet another biblical story that is falsified. One can conclude that if any story of the bible is false, it is all false.
POPULATION OF ETHIOPIA
The story of killing 1,000,000 Ethiopians is an example of the ridiculous nature of all of the old testament. In order to mount an army of one million, the population would have to be at least 4 million. There were nowhere near four million Ethiopians alive at that time.Only Egypt came close to those numbers in those days. According to Colin McEvedy in his reference book “Atlas of World Population History”, Ethiopia had a population of 200,000 in 1000 BC. McEvedy makes the case that the entire continent of Africa had a population of only 6.5 million in 1000 BC with 3 million of those living in Egypt. There was no Ethiopian dynasty of over 4 million back in the times of King David.
WHAT ABOUT EGYPT?
To get to the land of the children of Israel, the [Ethiopians] would have had to march through Egypt. Just how would this have been accomplished? How were 1 million soldiers supplied? Where did the water come from?
In addition, do you suppose that Egypt would have stood still while one million Ethiopians marched through their land. Or, did the Lord change the hearts of the Egyptians, his hated people. Remember, he was going to show them (the Egyptians) who was Lord with his plagues. He failed to do so.
They still worshiped many gods, Ra chief among them. So, the Ethiopians would not even have been able to get to the Children’s promised land.
NO OTHER ACCOUNTING OF THIS EVENT
The real proof is in the total lack of any corroborating stories about the murder of 1 million Ethiopians. If their culture was advanced enough to support 4+ million people, they would be capable of recording their history. It is not there. ….
[End of quote]
We actually have here the same problem as with the numbers involved in the Exodus event, which have, owing to unreasonable translation of the texts, been inflated to millions.
The above questions: “How were 1 million soldiers supplied? Where did the water come from?”, are similarly applicable to the Exodus event.
They are entirely relevant questions.
Once again it is our old friend the Hebrew word elef (eleph) that has been over used.
On this, see e.g. my article:
Abandonment of common sense is not a necessary prerequisite for biblical interpretation
(9) Abandonment of common sense is not a necessary prerequisite for biblical interpretation | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
The solution to the numbers of Zerah the Ethiopian’s army and of the inflated Exodus numbers - and even of King Asa of Judah’s massive army of upwards of half a million, which would have made him potentially a world conqueror - is in the proper interpretation of the key Hebrew word, eleph (אֶלֶף), common to all three situations (Exodus; Asa; and Zerah).
Dr. Bryant Wood (a conventional archaeologist) explains the situation in his answer below, in “The Number of Israelites in the Exodus”: “At the heart of the issue is the meaning of the Hebrew word eleph …”:
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/04/16/The-Number-of-Israelites-in-the-Exodus.aspx
“In several places, the Bible seems to suggest that the Israelites involved in the Exodus and Conquest numbered more than two million people (e.g., Ex. 12:37; Num. 1: 46; Num. 26: 51). This figure seems extraordinarily large and skeptics often cite it as proof of the biblical account's inaccuracy. I know that various solutions have been offered, by James Hoffmeier amongst others, but there appears to be insurmountable difficulties with taking the texts at anything other than face value.
Is there archaeological evidence that the Promised Land received such a large influx of people during the period under discussion?
I would appreciate any perspective you might give me on this problem”.
Thank you for the question: “Is there archaeological evidence that the Promised Land received such a large influx of people during the period under discussion?”
The number of Israelites who left Egypt at the time of the Exodus is a vexed problem. It is possible, however, to make a rough estimate. Following the Conquest, 1406–1400 B.C., in the subsequent Late Bronze II period [sic] (14th and 13th centuries), the urban population in the highlands where the Israelites settled remained approximately the same as it was prior to the Conquest (Gonen 1984: Table 4). Based on highland burials, however, which includes both urbanites and non-urbanites, the population seems to have increased from the pre-Conquest period to the post-Conquest period (Gonen 1992: Table 5). The overall population is difficult to access. We do not have estimates for the Late Bronze I and II periods, but an estimate of the highland population for the previous Middle Bronze II period is ca. 65,000 (Broshi and Gophna 1986: Tables 1, 2, 6, 7,10, 11). Another possible way to estimate the number of Israelites who left Egypt is by means of the number of captives the Egyptians acquired in Canaan four years after the Exodus, which amounted to ca. 100,000 (Wood 2008:105–106).
At the heart of the issue is the meaning of the Hebrew word eleph. It is usually translated “thousand,” but has a complex semantic history. The word is etymologically connected with “head of cattle,” like the letter aleph, implying that the term was originally applied to the village or population unit in a pastoral-agricultural society. From that it came to mean the quota supplied by one village or “clan” (Hebrew Mišpāḥā) for the military muster (Malamat 1967: 135). Originally the contingent was quite small, five to fourteen men in the quota lists of Numbers 1 and 26, as shown by Mendenhall (1958).
Finally the word became a technical term for a military unit of considerable size, which together with the use of the same word for the number 1,000 has tended to obscure its broader semantic range. See also Humphreys 1998 and 2000, and Hoffmeier 2005: 153–59. ….
[End of quotes]
Obviously, to reduce the “thousand” to, for instance, Bryant’s “five to fourteen men” would make a considerable difference to the overall sum of fighting men involved.
Translations whose outcome is to defy common sense make the Bible very easy pickings for hostile critics.
Here is another such example, “God killed 27,000 Syrians with a falling wall”: http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com.au/2010/02/gods-83rd-killing-god-killed-27000.html
“In his last killing, God killed the 100,000 Syrians for calling him a hill god. But some of the name-calling Syrians escaped. God took care of them by having a wall fall on them, killing 27,000.
But the rest fled to Aphek, into the city; and there a wall fell upon twenty and seven thousand of the men that were left. 1 Kings 20.30a
It was a really big wall”.
Once again, though, we encounter that Hebrew word, elef:
וַתִּפֹּל הַחוֹמָה, עַל-עֶשְׂרִים וְשִׁבְעָה אֶלֶף אִישׁ הַנּוֹתָרִים
Falling walls, especially those relatively small ancient ones, do not tend to kill 27,000 men.
Common sense ought to tell us that straight off.
But a falling wall might flatten, say, 27 “chiefs” – a possible translation of elef.
Era of Zerah
Our first critic above is right to argue for a lesser population estimate at the approximate era of Zerah the Ethiopian (give or take the conventional 500 years of error): “There were nowhere near four million Ethiopians alive at that time. Only Egypt came close to those numbers in those days. According to Colin McEvedy in his reference book “Atlas of World Population History”, Ethiopia had a population of 200,000 in 1000 BC”.
I have firmly fixed Zerah the Ethiopian’s invasion, during the early reign of King Asa of Judah (c. 900 BC, conventional dating), to Asa’s 11th-14th year “window” (following James and Van der Veen).
And I have estimated that this must have occurred whilst pharaoh Thutmose III (whose Year 23 may have corresponded with Rehoboam’s Year 5) was still ruling Egypt, to very late in his 54-year reign. At this stage, Thutmose is considered to have adopted his son, Amenhotep II, as co-regent.
Hence, chronologically, Amenhotep II was a co-ruler of Egypt at the time of Zerah’s invasion.
Despite this nice coincidence, I am not inclined to accept Dr. Velikovsky’s identification of Amenhotep II as “Zerah the Ethiopian”.
There is no strong evidence at all to indicate that Amenhotep II was an Ethiopian.
There is no biblical evidence at all that Zerah was a pharaoh of Egypt.
The names are quite un-alike (though that also applied with Thutmose III as “Shishak”).
As David Rohl has correctly discerned, this was the Late Bronze Era.
Dr. Bryant Wood is quite wrong in his locating of the Conquest era (Joshua) to this approximate archaeological phase: “Following the Conquest, 1406–1400 B.C., in the subsequent Late Bronze II period (14th and 13th centuries) …”.
Dr. John Bimson had, in his fundamentally important article, “Can There be a Revised Chronology Without a Revised Stratigraphy?” (SIS Review, VI, 1-3), pin-pointed the archaeological phase for Thutmose III (which must also be the age of “Zerah the Ethiopian”).
As we move away, to Babylon for instance, we must at this time encounter the Hammurabic dynasty – given that we have revised King Hammurabi of Babylon as a close contemporary of King Solomon.
For almost four decades after Hammurabi’s death, we are told, his son Samsuiluna ruled Babylon (c. 1750-1712 BC, conventional dating).
I, however, have suggested that Samsuiluna may actually have been Hammurabi.
Samsuiluna’s reign may have overlapped in part with that of the long-reigning Thutmose III.
This necessitates that Samsuiluna must now be shifted downwards by some eight centuries.
He must be now dragged out of the Middle Bronze Age II
1750 BCE – 1650 BCE
and be re-located closer to Late Bronze II.
No longer a contemporary of Egypt’s Thirteenth Dynasty, Samsuiluna now becomes - as he was - a contemporary of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty, the New Kingdom era.
What was going on at this time in the rest of the ancient world?
According to the conventional view:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsu-iluna
“In the 9th year of Samsu-iluna's reign a man calling himself Rim-sin (known in the literature as Rim-sin II, and thought to perhaps be a nephew of the Rim-sin who opposed Hammurabi)[3]:48–49 raised a rebellion against Babylonian authority in Larsa which spread to include some 26 cities, among them Uruk, Ur, Isin and Kisurra in the south, and Eshnunna.[2]:243[3]:48–49[4]:115 in the north.
Samsu-iluna seems to have had the upper-hand militarily. Within a year he dealt the coalition a shattering blow which took the northern cities out of the fight.[Note 1] In the aftermath the king of Eshnunna, Iluni, was dragged to Babylon and executed by strangulation.[2]:243 Over the course of the next 4 years, Samsu-iluna's armies tangled with Rim-sin's forces up and down the borderlands between Babylon, Sumer and Elam. Eventually Samsu-iluna attacked Ur, pulled down its walls and put the city to the sack, he then did the same to Uruk, and Isin as well.[3]:48–49[Note 2] Finally Larsa itself was defeated and Rim-sin II was killed, thus ending the struggle.[2]:243
Unfortunately the floodgates had opened. A few years later, a pretender calling himself Ilum-ma-ili, and claiming descent from the last king of Isin, raised another pan-Sumerian revolt. Samsu-iluna marched an army to Sumer, and the two met in a battle which proved indecisive; a second battle sometime later went Ilum-ma-ili's way, and in its aftermath, he founded the First Dynasty of Sea-Land,[2]:243[Note 3], which would remain in control of Sumer for the next 300 years. Samsu-iluna seems to have taken a defensive approach after this; in the 18th year of his reign, he saw to the rebuilding of 6 fortresses in the vicinity of Nippur[5]:380–382, which might have been intended to keep that city under Babylonian control. Ultimately, this proved fruitless; by the time of Samsu-iluna's death, Nippur recognized Ilum-ma-ili as king.[3]:48–49
Apparently, Eshnunna had not reconciled itself to Babylonian control either, because in Samsu-iluna's 20th year they rebelled again.[3]:48–49
Samsu-iluna marched his army through the region and, presumably after some bloodshed, constructed the fortress of Dur-samsuiluna to keep them in line. This seems to have done the trick, as later documents see Samsu-iluna take a more conciliatory stance repairing infrastructure and restoring waterways.[3]:48–49
As if this weren't enough, both Assyria and Elam used the general chaos to re-assert their independence. Kuturnahunte I of Elam, seizing the opportunity left by Samsu-iluna's attack on Uruk, marched into the (now wall-less) city and plundered it, among the items looted was a statue of Inanna which wouldn't be returned until the reign of Ashurbanipal 11 centuries [sic] later.[2]:243 In Assyria, a native vice regent named Puzur-Sin ejected Asinum who had been a vassal king of his fellow Amorite Hammurabi. A native king Ashur-dugul seized the throne, and a period of civil war in Assyria ensued. Samsu-Iluna seems to have been powerless to intervene, and finally a king named Adasi, restored a stable native dynasty in Assyria, removing any vestages [sic] of Amorite-Babylonian influence[6]:section 576 apud[2]:243
In the end, Samsu-iluna was left with a kingdom that was only fractionally larger than the one his father had started out with 50 years prior (but which did leave him mastery of the Euphrates up to and including the ruins of Mari and its dependencies).[4]:115[Note 4] The status of Eshnunna is difficult to determine with any accuracy, and while it may have remained in Babylonian hands the city was exhausted and its political influence at an end”.
[End of quote]
But see for example, with regard to all of this (notably Elam), the geographical revolution as proposed by Royce (Richard) Erickson):
More geographical ‘tsunamis’: lands of Elam and Chaldea
(2) More geographical ‘tsunamis’: lands of Elam and Chaldea | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
as well as my:
Called Sumerian History, but isn’t
(3) Called Sumerian History, but isn’t. | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
and:
King David set pattern for Hammurabi and Rim-Sin as desirable shepherd kings
(5) King David set pattern for Hammurabi and Rim-Sin as desirable shepherd kings | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Pharaoh Amenhotep II himself appears to have continued a peaceful relationship with Babylon and Mitanni in his time:
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/amenhotep2.htm
“Yet these stele, erected after year nine of Amenhotep II's rule, that provide us with this information do not bear hostile references to either Mitanni or Nahrin, the general regions of the campaigns. This is probably intentional, because apparently the king had finally made peace with these former foes.
In fact, an addition at the end of the Memphis stele records that the chiefs of Nahrin, Hatti and Sangar (Babylon) arrived before the king bearing gifts and requesting offering gifts (hetepu) in exchange, as well as asking for the breath of life. Though good relations with Babylon existed during the reign of Tuthmosis III, this was the first mention of a Mitanni peace, and it is very possible that a treaty existed allowing Egypt to keep Palestine and part of the Mediterranean coast in exchange for Mitannian control of northern Syria. Underscoring this new alliance, with Nahrin, Amenhotep II had inscribed on a column between the fourth and fifth pylons at Karnak, "The chiefs (weru) of Mitanni (My-tn) come to him, their deliveries upon their backs, to request offering gifts from his majesty in quest of the breath of life".”
ZERAH ETHNICALLY ETHIOPIAN?
Whilst I had written previously, regarding the proposed identification of Zerah as the official, Userḫau, according to Peter James and Peter Van der Veen, that “… this choice suffers further from the fact that there appears to be nothing to suggest that Userḫau was an “Ethiopian” …”, it has since occurred to me that biblical practice may use such a term geographically, rather than ethnically.
For instance, we have considered that Ruth was only a “Moabite” (Ruth 1:22) in terms of where she lived.
For Ruth was, by race, an Israelite. On this, see my article:
Bible critics can overstate idea of ‘enlightened pagan’
(3) Bible critics can overstate idea of 'enlightened pagan' | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
So it may also be that “Zerah the Ethiopian” was simply dwelling in Ethiopia and may not necessarily have been an Ethiopian by race – may not necessarily have been black.
The largest armies of this particular time probably comprised closer to 10,000 men (not Zerah’s one million), the number some historians have estimated for the size of the army employed by Thutmose III in his First Campaign.
Tightening the historical context
Thutmose III would apparently, in his Year 50, complete his final campaign.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Thutmose_III#Nubian_Campaign
“Thutmose took one last campaign in his 50th regnal year, very late in his life. He attacked Nubia, but only went as far as the fourth cataract of the Nile. Although no king of Egypt had ever penetrated as far as he did with an army, previous kings' campaigns had spread Egyptian culture that far already, and the earliest Egyptian document found at Gebel Barkal in fact comes from three years before Thutmose's campaign. …”.
Year 50 of pharaoh Thutmose III would approximate to, based on my earlier calculations, about Year 13 of Asa.
It (i) falls within that “fairly narrow window” of possible years for Zerah’s campaign; it (ii) concludes Thutmose III’s military activity; and it (iii) involves a conquest of Nubia (Ethiopia) which provided soldiers, “Cushites”, for the large army of Zerah.
2 Chronicles 16:8: ‘Were not the Cushites [Ethiopians] and Libyans a vast army with many chariots and horsemen? When you depended on Yahweh, He handed them over to you’.
The military campaigns of Amenhotep II’s 7th Year and 9th Year - the ones favoured for Zerah’s invasion, including by Dr. Velikovsky - would be well outside the range of possible dates for Zerah.
With Thutmose III having just ‘faded out’, and with Amenhotep yet to emerge, still very young: “Amenhotep III (who is my II) was only a child of about five years of age upon his succession” (Charles Pope), then the suggestion by some revisionists that Zerah the Ethiopian was an official rather than a pharaoh (supported by the scriptural description of him) becomes an attractive one.
Peter James and Peter Van der Veen had, as we read, favoured the official, Userḫau, whose name is compatible with that of Zerah.
But I believe that Userḫau is far too late in history for Zerah.
However, we may be able to identify an important official who has the same name element User (“Powerful”), but who belongs to the approximate time range that we have established above for Zerah.
He is: Usersatet Viceroy of Kush.
Hence he also has the advantage over Userḫau of having ruled Kush, or Ethiopia, from whence Zerah the Ethiopian and his army will emerge.
http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Usersatet
“Usersatet was an Ancient Egyptian official with the titles king's son of Kush (Viceroy of Kush) and overseer of the southern countries. He was in office under king Amenhotep II and perhaps in the early years of the reign [sic] of Thutmosis IV. As king's son of Kush he was the main official in charge of the Nubian provinces.
Usersatet was perhaps born in Elephantine or at least the region around this island.
The name Usersatet means Satet is strong; Satet being the main deity of Elephantine. Usersatet's father was Siamun, and his mother was Nenwenhermenetes, king's ornament, both of which [sic] not much is known. ….
It seems that Usersatet grew up in the royal palace and followed the king on his military campaign to Syria. He cleared 5 canals in the region of Aswan. The canals were already more than 700 years old and most likely had been filled with sand earlier in the 18th Dynasty. …. Usersatet is known from a high number of monuments, especially in Lower Nubia. Near Qasr Ibrim, he erected a chapel in honour of king Amenhotep II. A stela found at Semna bears a copy of a king's letter to Usersatet. However, no biography of this official survived.
Therefore there is not much known about his life and career. His name had been removed from many monuments, therefore it seems that he fell into dishonour at some point in his career. His tomb has not yet been identified. …”.
It is highly unlikely that Zerah’s embarrassing defeat at the hands of Asa king of Judah would have been recorded in any of the Egyptian records, and it could be expected that he, too, like Usersatet (perhaps), “fell into dishonour”.
