One of the most illustrious pharaohs of the 18th Dynasty was Pharaoh Amenhotep III, `heqawaset' of whom Amun is pleased, `nub-maat-re' lord of truth Re, husband to Tiy, daughter of Yuya and Tuya of common paternity. In the conventional arrangement he reigned from 1386 - 1349 BC, after the Exodus, some 50 years after the death of Moses and during the period of the judges in Israel.

However, in revised view Amenhotep III reigned from about 911 - 874 BC. Amenhotep III began his term toward the beginning of the reign of the Judean king Asa whom we met having turned back the large Ethiopian/Egyptian army of Zerah in the poem of Keret. In the land of the Ten tribes [2], Israel, Ahab reigned supreme during their days and in Judah it was Jehoshaphat. We are now in the known but not yet well understood Amarna Age. Can we elucidate any further information about this period with their kings and personalities not possible to obtain in the conventional scenario?

Some Facts known about Thutmose IV
We now equate Thutmose III his name sake, Thutmose IV, so that there is nothing further to present at this time, but his mother was Tio and both are represented seated together on a statue now in the museum of Cairo. The famous 105 feet tall obelisk of Thutmose IV still stands outside the Lateran (Vatican) in Rome. His large, decorated tomb KV43 contained a beautiful sarcophagus with hieroglyphic writing on its sides. His mummy was found in the tomb of Amenhotep II among other royal mummies stored there.

Survey of the El Amarna Letters

Found in the dust of a building at Amarna with `kitba mismari' nail writing on them, their value were at first not recognized until E.A. Budge heard of them. Later Sir Fl. Petrie would locate the exact spots were they were found - inside ancient `Egypt's Foreign Office'. [E.A.W.Budge in, `Ancient Egypt - The Great Discoveries', p. 72]

It stands to reason that the EA letters can be subdivided into at least 3 categories and 3 main branches:

I) chronologically helpful letters;
II) chronologically not helpful letters;
III) marginally helpful letters;

1. The chronologically helpful letters do not cover the period of a 9th century Amenhotep Akhnaton;
2. They do;
3. They are only contemporary with Amenhotep III;

A List of Historically Meaningful El Amarna Letters as tabulated by Frederick John Giles and designed to show that Rohl's Identifications are not meaningful. Now, having embarked on identifying Akhnaton as Ahab, how can Labaya be Ahab and write like he does to the king of Egypt? It can only be during the ca. 6 six years (876-870) before Amenhotep III had died.

How can EA 245 write about the death of Ahab, if he was Labaya?

It must have been after he was shot by an arrow by the troops of Ben Hadad/Yuya, according to 1.Kings 22. To be sure, the death reported in EA245 is intriguing, it means when Labaya died, Ahab died, Baasha died, and Akhnaton died since to our current working proposal all four were the same alter-ego person whose reign length agrees. EA#245 says, that the deceased Labaya was to be transported by ship to the king, but instead it says, "Zurata took him and sent him from Hinatuna to his house." (EA#245, lines 30-33); of course that may mean to the royal house in Egypt, but does it for sure? The Bible says, Labaya/Ahab/Baasha/Akhnaton was buried in Samaria, Israel, not anywhere else, 1.Kings 22:37. Question, if Ahab was Akhnaton, then who was the king in Egypt who was to receive his body? It could have only been Quen Tiy/Nefertiti. Even though addressed as king, it may not rule out that they meant Queen. [5]

It becomes apparent that Gile considered those letters written to Akhnaton/Amenophis IV as non-meaningful.

Removing the non-meaningful letters yields the list below:

According to our updated presentations, Amenhotep III as Contemporary to King Asa of Judah.
How long was the reign of Amenhotep III? Conventional historians give him almost 40 years, according to Manetho where he is known as Orus he reigned some 36 or 37 years. In revised view the length of his reign is not contested, only the period in which it occurred is. First we shall turn our attention to Egyptian evidence for this king.

Monumental Written Evidence for Amenhotep III

Sorting out opposing viewpoints
Mercer translated the sentence: "anuma ₃taan iziz muhhiia sanâti annita ù 2 satta ammasahu seim^zun-ia ianu seim"
as "Verily, three times, these years, he has opposed me, and two years I measure my grain. There is no grain for our support." [EA#85]
How are we to understand the words `years' and `opposed'? F.J.Giles and J.E. Aitchison [20] claim that William L. Moran's translation of the EA letters is better than that of Mercer and Moran translates the phrase as "Since he has attacked me three times this year, and for two years I have been repeatedly robbed of my grain, we have no grain to eat." Presumably during times of drought, severe enough to produce famine, the drought does not prevent at least some plots of land to bear fruit - just not in sufficient quantities to feed many. It appears the essential difference between the two translations is

a) Mercer translates `years' were Moran translates `year'. Was he attacked three times in one year or three times over a period of several (2 or at least 3) years?
b) Do the grain thefts imply that the thieves came before the harvest at the exact time of harvest or after it was stored away? Either case may make a considerable difference on methods of preventing future losses on the part of the peasants.
c) In practicality, didn't the people of the land learn a lesson after the second time at least to either protect themselves, refrain from planting those types of crops which could be carried off easily or find hiding places? It seems Giles and Aitchison make the people of the land out to be easily and repeatedly duped which this writer has trouble accepting. When it comes to survival peasants throughout history have often been very clever in finding ways to protect themselves.
d) The subsequent request to send grain in ships certainly implies that the ruler of the people thought he could safeguard such a shipment from meeting the same fate.
e) Therefore, something in the assessment of Giles and Aitchison does not help to explain the situation any better than Velikovsky did, in this writers opinion.
f) Most of all, however, the reason the Syrians stole the grain was probably due to the situation that their land was also in drought and famine conditions and they took to violence to help themselves through that difficult period of time.

In summary then, this writer believes that those who want to make EA#85 into a statement proving Velikovsky wrong that the famine was due to weather have failed to do so. Though the word `rain' does not appear in Mercer's translation of the EA Letters or it did not survive undamaged, the phrase `no water' does and it does so in EA#85. We read: "The king of Mitana has marched as far as Sumura, and desired to go as far as Gubla, but there was no water for him to drink, and so he has returned to his land." [lines 51-55] At any rate ancient writers, in this writer's opinion, were very practical people. When they make statements mentioning `for the saving of our lives', `my field is a wife without a husband, deficient in cultivation', logically it is the same as saying, `hey, folks, we are having a famine here' without having to explain that it didn't rain. That was simply an understood fact. It reminds me of story books I used to read about white man in the Old West befriending Indian hunters who authors sometimes portraid as very short on words because many things that went on were obvious and self understood facts, why talk about them?

Fish and Famine

While references to famine are numerous, these famines are due to a lack of staple goods, i.e. grain while others sources for food like fish are not mentioned [200]. Should we take this as another indication that Rib-Addi and Sumura are indeed land based entities far enough removed from coastal waters not to benefit from its resources directly?

The geographical information in this letter (#85) may be of interest. If the king of Mitana is the king of Mitania/Damascus, then this line could mean that even at the foot of the mountains of Lebanon was not sufficient water for the king of Mitana, for he could have certainly brought along enough to satisfy the thirst of his men. It may also imply that Gubla was located beyond Samaria, either to the south or east to southeast of it, unless it was nearer the coast. It is also amazing that the Sea of Galilee, first mentioned in Numbers 34:11, and the Jordan River are not mentioned in the EA letters. Certainly water runoff in rainy years should have created that lake many years before. The Sea of Galilee is located some 70 km to the north of Samaria.

Names of Cities

1. Sumur , Samaria; others identify it with Simurrum or Simyra near Byblos. The problem with a coastal location for Sumur is that it is hard to envision a famine period in a harbor town where it should be possible to obtain fish for food. Samaria on the other hand, though in our thinking, not terrible far away from the Sea either, had probably `habiru' and `Gaz' people blocking their way to harbor locations. At any rate, Samaria was closer to the Mediterranean Sea than to the Sea of Galilee;
2. Sigata
3. Batruna/Beruna? - most likely located close to Gubla since they are mentioned frequently together; EA#78,19; 31, 9,11?; 87,20; 88, 16; 90, 14; 93, 20; 95, 46?; 124, 34; 79, 25;
4. Bit-hara
5. Iarimmuta - EA#68, 27; 86, 33; from rimuate, Ramoth in Gilead? - EA#85, 14; 68, 27; 75, 13; 78, 31?; 81, 40; 82, 29; 85, 14, 35, 50; 86, 22?, 33?, 46?; 90, 38; 105, 48?, 86; 112, 29; 114, 55; 116, 74; 125, 17;
6. Gubla - EA#67, 14; 68, 4, 10, 21, 26; 70, 8; 72, 7; 74, 12, 22, 32, 48; 75, 8; 78, 16; 79, 24, 38; 81, 9; 84, 20, 22, 36, 37; 85, 37, 50, 53; 88, 22, 31, 43, 44; 90, 7, 22, 42; 91, 13, 20, 35; 98, 8; 103, 17; 104, 51; 106, 4; 109, 65?; 116, 47, 79; 123, 12; 124, 9, 13, 33, 42, 54; 126, 37, 60; 127, 14, 17, 20, 25, 45; 128, 20; 129, 31, 33, 42, 43, 46; 129a, 12, 24, 26, 28; 131, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 58, 60; 132, 9, 23; 133, 4; 134, 3, 6, 25, 38; 136, 8; 137, 17, 31, 41, 73; 138, 10, 18, 36, 122; 139, 3, 8, 9, 21, 33; 140, 2, 6, 16; 142, 15, 20; 152, 13; 162, 2; cf. 162, 9-11;

By implication ships trafficked between Iarimuta and Gubla, EA#68 lines 27-28;. If Sumura was not Samaria as some maintain, and if it was in the coastal vicinity of Byblos, the king of Mitana would have had to cross the Lebanon mountains to get there. To suggest that there was no water in the mountains seems rather difficult to accept. This writer posites, the fact, that the Syrians fell repeatedly into the land shows the drought and famine conditions involved a large region and EA#85 fulfills the requirements of the Biblical scenario of famine due to weather rather then merely roving bands of robbers. The Amalekites were such robbers of produce, their actions did not result in such dire conditions that the peaseants gave away their children as far as we know.

5. It was a time of particular customs in economy and figures of speech which we find in place in the Palestine we describe here.

The El Amarna Period was mainly that of the Pharaohs Amenhotep III and Akhnaton in Egypt. In Palestine it was the era of Kings Jehoshaphat and his son in Judah, Ahab and his sons in Israel. In Ugarit there was Niqmadu who had married princess Tiy, daughter of Pharaoh Amenophis IV. A fragment of an alabaster vase located in the Museum of Damascus shows Niqmadu with an Egyptian princess [See left image].[300]

The first siege of Samaria by the king of Damascus
The kings of Judah and Israel were loyal to the Egyptian crown; but the king of the Syrian kingdom [Ben Hadad I] with his capital Damascus, used the balance of strength in the north and the south to increase his domain. The letters of Abdi-Ashirta (Ben Hadad I) of Damascus are humble despite or because of his treacherous intentions. The usual form of respectful address toward a potentate was: "I fall down seven and seven times to the feet of my lord..."; to this the king of Damascus usually added when writing to the pharaoh: "Thy servant and the mud of thy feet, thy dog."

Rezon (Zimri Lim) was the first who had organized a band of marauders: "...Rezon...fled from his lord" and "gathered men unto him, and became a captain over a band; ... and they went to Damascus...and reigned in Damascus." 1.Kings 11:23-24. Rib-Addi and other vassal kings called the king of Damascus "the slave". "What is Abdi-Ashirta, the servant, the dog, that he should take the land of the king to himself? What is his family?" EA 71. Ever since the days of Rezon, Damascus encouraged a spirit of rivalry between Israel and Judah making these two countries hostile to each other.

Baasha, King of Israel, built Ramah against Judah and threatened her.

Asa, King of Judah, sent presents to Ben Hadad I, and Ben Hadad I turned against Baasha and "smote Ijon, and Dan, and Abel-beth-maachah, and all Cimmeroth, with all the land of Naphthali" 1.Kings 15:20. Judah took Mount Ephraim, 2.Chronicles 17:2.

This happened two generations after Solomon and a few decades before the EA period. The new dynasty of Omri at its beginning strengthened the kingdom of Israel. It was the time when the Egyptian influence over Palestine had been reestablished by Thutmose IV, the father of Amenhotep III.

In the time of Ahab, the son of Omri, Ben Hadad II renewed hostilities and arranged a coalition of chieftains depending on him: "And Ben Hadad the king of Syria gathered all his host together: and there were 32 kings with him, and horses and chariots....and he [Ben Hadad II] went up and besieged Samaria, and warred against it." 1.Kings 20:1. This campaign started a long series of sieges, battles, short truces, and renewed oppressions that occupied the period described in the 6 chapters from 1.Kings 16-22 and the first 9 chapters of 2.Kings 1-9.

Who was Rib-Addi, King Ahab of Israel or King Nikmed of Ras Shamra?

I. Velikovsky had identified Rib Addi with Ahab, D. Mackey with Nikmed of Gubla/Ras Shamra.

"Hostility against Sumur has become very great" is repeated in several EA letters. The time for trouble was ideal. The land of Israel endured drought (1.Kings 17:1-7; 18:1-2), national feelings were dwindling among the Ten Tribes. The worship of pagan idols laid the northern kingdom open to the spiritual influences of the surrounding nations. Religious ties between Samaria, Sidon, and Damascus melted away the borders of this land. Other cities to the north, like Ras Shamra/Ugarit flourished at this same time. Even the prophets, Elijah and Elisha, intervened in the state of affairs of Damascus, visited Damascus, anointed their kings and were visited by people from Damascus. In this state of spiritual and material decline Samaria became a pawn to the shrewd warrior and politician of Damascus. The Syrian king knew that the pharaoh would not like to see him make friends with the war-minded Assyrians, the conquerors who had pounded on the strong cities of northern Syria without declaring war on Egypt. The dangerous policy of Damascus was to look for a victim. Israel was chosen to be it. Comparing the biblical account with EA letters 71, 83, 85, 117, 121, 127, 129, 132, 138 explains this part of history.

On the other hand if Rib-Addi was Nikmed of Ugarit/Ras Shamra, then it might be regarded as odd that an otherwise unknown Phoenician Sumur would take a center stage in Assyrian aspirations.

II. The Ships of Rib-Addi

Rib-Addi refers rather frequently in his letters to a `ship' (in ca. 2 letters) or `ships' (in ca. 10 letters) this fact supporting more the theory that he was living near the coast.

Summary on the Rib-Addi/Ahab Question: We read: "The Ahab of the Amarna letters ends his life in Beirut and Sidon, apparently with relatives of his wife Jezebel. This detail is not mentioned in the scriptures but may be responsible for the belief that he was dead. From Beirut, in his last letter to Egypt, he wrote: `When they had said Rib-Addi is dead, and we are out of his power, did I not write to the lands of Egypt that he (the king) might take us with our children, and that the people of Aziru be driven out of the city?'" [EA#138, lines 65-70; Henry, Roger, `Synchronized Chronology', p. 83]

With this last quotation in mind, could it be possible that Rib-Addi was Ahab? According to this information from EA#138 Ahab would have composed numerous letters from Byblos/Sidon and that is why he appears to be living there. It would explain his references to and familiarity with ship traffic, underscore the possibility that he indeed survived the dangerous wounding in battle and spend his time of recovery away from Samaria in the hometowns of his late wife Jezebel. Having been lost sight of for a long time people may have believed he had died and that is what got into scripture.

What happens, if we consider Labaya of Shechem as King Ahab of Samaria?

Shechem is only 5 miles southeast of Samaria. Labaya was not given the title of king of Shechem and that probably so because he was the king of Samaria who elected to live in Shechem, which Professor Aharoni identified as his capital. Campbell wrote: "The Amarna letters tell us very little about Shechem ... it is mentioned only once ... and even leave a trace of doubt that Labaya really had his headquarters there; but that its fate was in his hands is made clear..."

Labaya was a serious contender with the kings of Jerusalem and Gezer. Labayu was no timid lackey of pharaoh. As Albright wrote: "The truculence of Labaya's tone in writing to the court contrasts oddly with the groveling subservience of most Palestinian chieftains." Most notable was Abdi Ashirta in this respect. Like Labayu, the biblical Ahab was an outspoken person, bold in speech to both, fellow kings and prophets. "And it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, Are you who is troubling Israel?" 1.Kings 18:17; "And the king of Israel answered and said, Tell him, Let not him that is girding on his harness boast as he that is taking it off." 1.Kings 20:11. We also can show that Labayu also called Ayyab (as in Ahab) spoke Hebrew.

The EA letters are written in Akkadian cuneiform. One letter (EA 252) proved to be very difficult to translate. Albright published in 1943 a more satisfactory translation by realizing that the letter writer had used several `Canaanite' (read Hebrew) words plus two Hebrew proverbs! As far as his name is concerned the root word is `lb' with the common ending `ay' like in Ayab [Ahab].

We know Labayu had two sons just like Ahab also had two sons. Jehoram, Ahab's son, is Mut-Baal of the EA letters. He figures as the king of Transjordan (no doubt as a sub-king to his father), and had been accused to the Egyptian deputy, Ianhama, of hiding Ayyab (that is his father Ahab). Mut-Baal protested against this accusation, using the excuse that Ayyab (Ayab, Ahab) was actually on a campaign elsewhere: "Say to Ianhama, my lord: `Message of Mutbaal, your servant. I fall at the feet of my lord. How can it be said in your presence: Mutbaal has fled. He has hidden Ayab?' How can the king of Pella flee from the deputy, agent of the king my lord? As the king, my lord, lives...I swear Ayab is not in Pella. In fact, he has [been in the field] (i.e. on a campaign) for two months.'" EA 255, 256.

What happens, if we consider Labaya as Mesha, the king of Moab?

It may also be possible that Mesha, king of Moab, was Labaya. If and how he fits the details of Labaya has not been worked out yet. Please refer to the Mesha Stele.

Where in Egypt did the messengers of the Palestine based EA authors travel to?

While the EA letters contain no direct information if the messengers from Palestine met the royalty they were sent to in the Nile Delta, at Memphis or even as far south as Thebes, the impression we have at least from EA#7, where caravanseris are mentioned, is that the locations they aimed for where closer associated with caravan routes then, for example, travelling part of the way on a Nile boat to Thebes. We therefore visualize a Nile Delta location as the arrival point for these messengers probably at Tanis or Memphis. Remains of great palace structures of the 18th Dynasty were unearthed in the estern Delta region, attesting to the presence of 18th Dynasty kings or their lower Egypt representatives in the region. It appears that not all palaces of the 18th Dynasty kings in Egypt where known in their time as belonging inside the confines of city limits.

The Habiru/Apiru are the Philistine rebels against the crown of Egypt

The word `Hebrew' is found for the first time in Genesis 14:13:

"And there came one that had escaped and told Abram the Hebrew..."

The word `Philistines' occurs for the first time in Genesis 21:32:

"Thus they made a covenant at Bersheba: then Abimelech rose up, and Pichol the chief captain of his host and they returned into the land of the Philistines." [1000]

Both words occur in what we may call the Toledoth tablet(s) of the family of Abram/Abraham. Tablets which were edited by Moses. This, in revised view, was nearly a millenium before the El Amarna period. We have some evidence that during the time of pharaoh Thutmose III the word `Israel' was used as `Isr', leaving out the theophoric `el' part on Egyptian monuments from the time of this pharaoh as well as Seti the Great and Ramses II. According to this information then, `Israel' was known as `Israel' to the Egyptians but after the falling away of the Ten Tribes, `Israel' was the northern kingdom and `Judah' the southern, the latter of which also considered themselves Israelites. The EA period ought to reflect this situation. However since only about 10 letters out of some 365 letters of the El Amarna correspondence was written from a king of Egypt to someone in Palestine or Syria, to recover all these terms is unlikely. Worse still, none of the EA letters were written by a pharaoh to a king of Israel or Judah. Therefore we do not know how they would have been addressed.

Among themselves, the EA correspondents also used at least two main terms to refer to trouble causing, roving bands of men - the `habiru' and `Sa-Gaz' people. At other times they seemed to have collaborated with groups like the Philistines to conquer cities (EA#88,185). Clearly not a life style espoused by Israelites or Judaites unless provoked into war.

In later El Amarna times, the term read as `habiru' occurs only in the letters from the south of Palestine, in particular from the letters of Abdi-Hiba [Jehoram of Jerusalem], while in those from the northern parts they are referred to as `Sa.Gaz'. One of the towns seized by the Habiru was Rubuta which we know from the city list of Shoshenk I (#13) was between Gezer and Aijalon in the Shephelah region. The city list of Thutmoses III also places it next to Gezer. Gezer, Gath and Keilah were all cities on the border of Judah and Philistia. Milkili is known from his own letters as the ruler of Gezer. Several of their leaders are referred to by name. Among them is Milkili, Labaya and his sons from Shechem, Tagu from Gath-Carmel, and Shuwardata from Keilah or Gath. Lachish and Sile, the first Egyptian fortresses in Sinai, were also involved in the revolt, EA 288.

In another letter written by Abdi Hiba to the king, the cities of Gezer, Ashkelon, and Lachish are accused of supplying the Habiru.

"Behold the land of Gezer, the land of Ashkelon, and Lachish, they have given them grain, oil, and all their requirements."EA 287.

This rebellion must be seen in conjunction with the "the spirit of the Philistines, and of the Arabians" (2.Chronicles 21:16,17) which we present on the website.'

The 5 Captains of King Jehoshaphat in the EA letters
"And Jehoshaphat waxed exceedingly great..and had much business in the cities of Judah: and the mighty men of war were in Jerusalem. And these are the numbers of them according to the house of their fathers: Of Judah...1. Adnah, 2. Jehohanan, 3. Amasiah the son of Zichri, 4. Eliada, 5. Jehozabad. 2.Chronicles 17:14-18.

Three of these captains we can identify in the EA letters:

1. Adnah is Addudani (or Addadani) [EA 88, 292, 294]
2. Amasiah the son of Zichri is called `son of Zuchru' [EA 334, 335]
3. Jehozabad is Ihazibada [EA 89, 275]

In the 16th year after Jehoshaphat, Elishaphat replaced Amasiah. In that same year there was a chief named Maaseiah, son of Adaia, 2.Chronicles 23:1. This Adaia was a contemporary of Jehoshaphat, probably the king's deputy in Edom [1.Kings 22:47]. We read his name four times in the letters of the king of Jerusalem, EA 92, 285, 287, 289.

Biridiya of the EA letters is presumably the Adad-idri of Damasqus (Imerisu). [1190] Velikovsky gives no detailed references on Biridri in the Assyrian records but presumably followed German translations of Pritchard/Luckenbill and, also Josephus on `Mut-Baal (Baal-azzor/Matgenus', in his selection of names[1200]. How `Damascus' can be read from `Imerisu' is still another problem. Luckenbill's ARA gives no explanation how he derived `Hadad-ezer, [king] of Aram (?Damascus)' out of the Assyrian cuneiform originals. Clearly his source(s) must have been influenced heavily by interpretation of these names. But significantly enough he presents `king' in brackets, since he may have not been a king but a governor, and presents `Damascus' with a question mark since, presumably, it may have been another location, i.e. Megiddo(?). As we already have shown, Ben-Hadad/Kadshmen-enlil was the father of Burnaburiash/Shalmaneser III and therefore the cuneiform reading of this `Hadad-ezer' may have been a reference to the Egyptian governor Biridri, leader of the coalition of kings, residing in Megiddo. (In the next section we have more positive proof that the EA period belongs into the `ivory age' of Shalmaneser and the story of Naaman.) [1210]

EA#8 was the 2nd letter of Burraburiash to an Egyptian pharaoh who, according to the contents, just recently succeeded his father. This is based on references like: "According as our fathers were friendly with one another, so we will be friends. ..." in EA#8. The reasoning goes then, since this letter also mentions `Sutatna/Zatatna, son of Saratum/Zarata' Sutatna's adult lifetime falls under this new king of Egypt, Akhnaton, and his father's (Zurata), under the predecessor Amenhotep III. Which EA letters were written by SaratumZurata? Letter #232 was written by `Zurata of Acco to the king', the king therefore must be Amenhotep III.

Since EA#85 was written by Rib-Addi to an Egyptian king, who was this king? EA#85 makes a reference to `Zurata' who, as we saw above, was the father of Sutatna. Accordingly the Egyptian king must be Amenophis III, contemporary of Rib-Addi. Who then reigned in Israel during the life time of Amenhotep III who we date from ca. 892-861 BC? Jehoshaphat's reigned from ca. 872-848 and his son Jehoram from ca. 853-841 BC. Both of these Judean rulers therefore reigned in or near the lifetime of Amenhotep III. Akhnaton/Amenophis IV reigned from ca. 843-826 BC. EA#8 therefore was written after 843 BC. In Israel Ahab reigned from ca. 874-853 BC and his son Jehoram from ca. 852-840 BC. However, we shall leave open the possiblity that Ahab did not die in 853 BC but some 10 years later as we explain below under `Stating the Problem'.

Using Velikovsky's identifiactions: If Abdi-Hiba was Jehoshaphat and Rib-Addi was Ahab, how do things come out?

List of Pros and Cons about the Identity of Rib-Addi

This color coded list, to identify the relationship of terms, is still tentative until we are able to take all aspects into account. At this time we are considering if Ahab was Akhnaton but have not made changes below this line.
Rib-Addi is the author of this letter which is addressed to Ianhamu who is a representative of the king of Egypt in Palestine.

Nikmed was a contemporary of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III (858 - 832 BC).

1. Our first question is who does the red phrase `the king' relate to?
a) is `the king' the king of Egypt?
b) is `the king' referring to Nikmed himself?
2. Who does the lavender color phrase `my lord' relate to?
a) `my lord' is the king of Egypt
b) `my lord' is Ba'alat of Gubla?
c) `my lord' is Ianhamu
c) Is Nikmed saying, Ba'alat is his goddess and the king of Egypt's goddess?
d) or, is Nikmed saying, Ba'alat is only the goddess of the king of Egypt leaving it unstated that she is also his goddess?
3. Who does the green `the king' relate too?
a) it appears `the king' must be the king of Egypt, Ianhamu's king
b) the phrase `the sun of the lands' is an Egyptianism and refers to the king of Egypt
4. Who does the lavender `thy lord' relate to?
a) `thy lord' refers to the king of Egypt
b) no other choice seems to be available

Ahab reigned from about 874-853 BC.

1. Our first question is who does the red phrase `the king' relate to?
a) is `the king' the king of Egypt?
b) is `the king' referring to Ahab himself?
2. Who does the lavender color phrase `my lord' relate to?
a) `my lord' is the king of Egypt
b) `my lord' is Ba'alat of Gubla?
c) `my lord' is Naaman
c) Is Ahab saying, Ba'alat is his goddess and the king of Egypt's goddess?
d) or, is Ahab saying, Ba'alat is only the goddess of the king of Egypt leaving it unstated that she is also his goddess?
3. Who does the green `the king' relate too?
a) it appears `the king' must be the king of Egypt, Naaman's king
b) the phrase `the sun of the lands' is an Egyptianism and refers to the king of Egypt
4. Who does the lavender `thy lord' relate to?
a) `thy lord' refers to the king of Egypt
b) no other choice seems to be available

We don't know where `Jezreel' was located but assume it was east of the Jordan river and east of Samaria - therefore, probably within less than 60-70 miles.

EA#83: At first Rib-Addi looked upon Ianhamu as a problem to himself, `rescue me out of the hand of Ianhamu' he wrote to pharaoh. Ianhama, the pharaoh's deputy [EA#106,95: `sarri' or `sar'] in Syria, was sent to the king of Damscus with prerogatives similar to those which Aman-appa had when he was with the king of Samaria.
Later, when Aman-appa left Samaria and died in Egypt (EA#106), the king of Samaria wrote to pharaoh asking him to appoint Ianhamu to be his governor in Samaria (EA#106), since his people told him that he was a wise man.
This remarkable turn about on Rib-Addi's opinion of Ianhamu finds no ready explanation unless one agrees Ianhmau to have been the biblical Naaman. If Rib-Addi was king Nikmed it would be more difficult to suggest who Ianhamu was.

2. Elisha's servant accepted 2 talents of silver and 2 changes of garments when Elisha refused to accept 10 talents of silver, 6000 pieces of gold and 10 changes of raiment;

At once we can see that the revised chronology here defended has many more identities to offer than that of D. Rohl. But here at CIAS we are tentatively following the identifications of D. Mackey unless contrary evidence can be found and have not entirely dismissed Velikovsky's view.

The big question is how can we make Rib Addi into Nikmed of Ugarit/Ras Shamra and not King Ahab? While some identities must remain tentative on account of the paucity of source material, we prefer Nikmed as Rib Addi because he too had interest along the coastal region of the entire Levant and was under continual threat of the Assyrian king just like Ahab was from the rulers of Damascus. However, there is little doubt that Velikovsky's identifications provide for more correlations with known biblical personalities.

The Velikovsky Dilemma on Ahab - Did he or didn't he?

As Velikovsky pointed out the king who wrote more than 60 of the EA letters called himself - if the reading is correct- Rib-Addi. Who was Rib-Addi? Velikovsky's choice was between either Ahab or his son Jehoram. Next Velikovsky points out two versions in the scriptures pertaining to the death/end of King Ahab of Israel. He states that the problem he encountered was not one between the scriptures and the EA letters, but rather one scripture compared to another. We shall attempt to graphically compare these two divergent sources to help our readers understand the situation.

The question is then:
1. Did the charioteer turn and obey Ahab's request to be taken away from the battle or
2. was he propped up and kept standing until the end of the battle?

So did the evil overtake Ahab or did it not?
Velikovsky concluded: "The effort of the scribe to unify the diverse elements was unsuccessful, as there are inconsistencies in the text. The editor of the Books of Kings was helpless in the face of two different versions, and while giving preference to the tradition that Jehoram was king in Israel during the last 7 years of Jehoshaphat in Jerusalem, he did not suppress the other version, but in describing the history of the period, he evaded the issue by writing in a number of chapters the impersonal and indefinite "king of Israel" leaving out his name."
See 1.Kings 22 for this. [1650]

Next Velikovsky tries to support his view with the help of the `Mesha Stele' and the records of Shalmaneser, king of Assyria. Here is what is being presented:

During the 12 years between the 6th and the 18th year of Shalmaneser's reign [853-841 BC], the reign of Ahab had come to an end, Ahaziah had to reign 2 years, Jehoram 12 years, and Jehu had to reign for some undefined period. But even if Ahab had died right after the battle of Karkar [1667] which took place in the 6th year of Shalmaneser (853 BC), and Jehu's tribute mentioned in the inscription was paid immediately after he seized the throne, there would still not be 12 years left for Jehoram's reign but 14 years [2 yrs of Ahaziah + 12 years of Jehoram], counting from Shalmaneser's 18th year when he received the tribute. If in that 18th year Jehu was already king the 18th year should be just about 841 BC but we do well to realize that in the scriptures we find no hint that Jehu gave tribute to Shalmaneser. This fact led Damien Mackey in recent times to theorize that Shalmaneser may have been the same person as Tiglath-Pileser and that it was not Jehu represented on the Black Obelisk but rather Hosea-Yahu.

"So, if not Jehu, who was this king of Israel featured in the Black Obelisk? My inclination by this stage was to identify Iaua of the Black Obelisk as the last king of Israel, Hosea(-yahu), who did in fact kneel before a king Shalmaneser of Assyria:

`King Shalmaneser of Assyria came up against ... Hoshea [who] became his vassal and paid him tribute. But the king of Assyria found treachery in Hoshea for he had sent messengers to King So of Egypt, and offered no tribute to the king of Assyria, as he had done year by year; therefore the king of Assyria confined him and imprisoned him.' [2.Kings 17:4]

Perhaps not such a cautious risk manager after all! Hosea had in fact been double-dealing with the Egyptians behind Assyria's back. The incident quoted above from the Second Book of Kings may well be the exact incident that is depicted in Shalmaneser III's Black Obelisk!" [1720]

In our current view another possibility for Jehu being the tribute payer may be what we presented already, that this event happened very early in his reign and therefore is not mentioned in the Bible.

The Second Book of Kings opens with these words:"Then Moab rebelled against Israel after the death of Ahab." This contradicts the `Stele of Mesha', which says that Mesha rebelled when Omri's son (Ahab) had reigned only half his years, namely 11 out of his 22 years as king.

The `Mesha Stele' problem then is this: The figure of 40 years in the `Mesha Stele' could mean 1) 40 literal years of oppression, 2) a figure of speech meaning 2 generations, 3) or a period of time similar to our counting of centuries. But we would expect the period of time to be an approximate number close to 40 years. This number then may suggest either a longer reign for Omri and Ahab or for one of these two Israelite kings. [Compare 1.Kings 16:23 and 16:29]

Taken together, the inscription of Shalmaneser requires a shortening of Jehoram's reign so as to bring Ahab closer to Jehu, and the `Mesha Stele' requires a lengthening of Ahab's reign unless the rebellion Mesha refers to is a different one, not mentioned in scripture.

In one of his last letters the king of Sumur (Samaria) wrote of himself to Pharaoh Akhnaton:

"Behold, I cannot come to the lands of Egypt. I am old, and my body is afflicted with a severe disease." [EA Letter #137]

Ahab could have said that he was old; not so a second son of his in the first part of his reign.

May this serve to illustrate the problem Velikovsky dealt with on the issue of the reign of Ahab, did he die from the arrow or not? In his book he goes into some more details. Some may be quick to disregard this chronological study of Velikovsky but the scriptural and Assyrian years problem exists and one probably should consider them before coming to hasty conclusions.

The EA Letters were written on both sides of flat rectangular and round shaped baked clay pieces. Another culture produced similarly shaped wooden boards and engraved into these their own script. These are known as the `talking boards' of Easter Island in part translated by a German scholar, Thomas Barthel, and found to contain prayers to gods, instructions to priests and accounts of island mythology. They were written across the board, then taking a turn and coming back the other direction as a farmer plows his field in minute ideographic symbols arranged to represent words rather than alphabetic script.

Here are some City names found in the EA letters:
EA 287 (Ashkelon, Lachish), EA 288 (Sile), EA 289 (Gath, Beth Shan), EA 290 (Gezer, Gath, Keilah), EA 68-70, 72-79,81, 83-88, 90, 91, 95-142 etc. (Gubla)

EA 74

The Assyriologist Professor Jules Lewy wrote in an article entitled "The Sulman Temple in Jerusalem" that the city at that time was also known by the name of `Temple of Sulman'. [1778]

Still others read the ideogram as `Beth-Ninurta' and locate it in Beth-Horon. This is an error; but they have brought the pertinent references together. [1780]

The translators could not imagine that the reference was to the `House of Solomon' because in their conventional chronology these letters belonged into a time long before Solomon. In the Hebrew Bible the king's name has no terminal `n' and is written as `Solomo' as it is also in the translation of Martin Luther which translates `Salomo', however, in the Septuagint the name is written as `Solomon', with a terminal `n'. The Septuagint dates from the 3rd century BC, thus it precedes the extant texts of the Old Testament and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Solomon lived in the 10th century BC. In revised view the El Amarna Letters belong into the 9th century BC. Under these conditions we ought not to be surprised to find the `House of Solomon' mentioned in the EA letters.

The `House of David' Inscription [See also Here for a somewhat variant reading!]

While the EA letters were written in cuneiform another inscription found at Tel Dan in 1994 mentions the `House of David'. This block of stone was reportedly reused as a foundation stone underneath a wall and destruction debris from Tiglath-Pileser. It was written in the Early Aramaic language in what is called paleo-Hebrew script which was apparently easier to carve into stone than ink written Hebrew.
The readable text states:
02. "...my father went up ... and my father died, he went to [his fate ... Is-]
03. rael formerly in my father's land ...
04. I [fought against Israel?] and Hadad went in front of me ...
05. ... my king. And I slew of [them x footmen, Y cha-]
06. riots and two thousand horsemen ...
07. the king of Israel. And [I] slew [... the kin-]
08. g of the House of David. And I put ...
09. their land ...
10. other ... [ ... ru-]
11. led over Is[rael ...]
12. siege upon ..."
The stone could also describe events in the war of Ben Hadad I against King Baasha of Israel in 885 BC. [1.Kings 15:16-22; 2.Chronicles 16:1-6] The interesting fact is that this inscription was written by an enemy of Israel and perhaps therefore was eventually destroyed by the Israelites.

"[I killed Jeho]ram son of [Ahab] king of Israel, and [I] killed [Ahaz]jahu son of [Jehoram kin]g of the House of David. And I set [their towns into ruins and turned] their land into [desolation]."

The Bible attributes the killing of the many sons of Ahab, and most notably Jehoram and Ahaziah, king of Judah, to Jehu, son of Nimshi. [2.Kings 9:14-10:14] Finkelstein and Silberman insist that it was Hazael who boasted in the Tell Dan Stele [2000] of killing these two kings. As Damien points out, there is a good chance that Hazael was involved to some degree in the massacre because Jehu had made a conspiracy against Jehoram of Israel while the latter was engaged in hostilities with Hazael [2.Kings 9:14]. Even though Hazael may not have personally slain the two kings, he might take credit for the act as kings do in regard to their subordinate's actions.

It was Avraham Biran (1908-2009), who directed the excavations from 1966 to 1999. The more remarkable discoveries made included: The Tell Dan Inscription, a gate from the age of the Patriarchs and a horn from the altar on the bama (high place) where Jeroboam installed a golden calf as Israel's god (1.Kings 12:28-30).

As to this day the sepulcher of the Israelite kings has not been found even though Samaria, which the scriptures state to have been the location of the burials, has been excavated. It is desirable to locate the place of burial of these kings. Perhaps `Samaria' could mean a larger region rather than a particular location. New ideas (i.e. perhaps far deeper with a steeper access shaft than might imagine) on surveying the estates in the vicinity may help in this effort.

Well, since all of this was written, a lot of water has flowed below all bridges. Now we think that Ahab was Akhnaton, and Jehoram was Tutankhamun. We have now two EA letters mentioning the `House of Ninib' or `Bit Ninib', the Tel Dan Stele mentioning the `House of David', the Mesha Stele mentions `the king of Israel', and Pharaoh Merneptah's `Israel Stele' mentions `Israel'.

[2] The 10 tribes of Israel were: Ruben, Levi, Dan, Naphthali, Gad, Asher, Isachar, Zebulun, Manassah and Ephraim. Judah and Benjamin comprised the land of Judah.

[5] To find out to whom EA#245 was likely sent, we investigated the hieroglyphics for `king' and `queen'. We assume, since it was a letter from afar, that a short form of the hieroglyphic word written in cuneiform, "sarri", was used. In hieroglyphics, likely words may be `at' or `nesu', both of which can mean either king or queen. The other form of writing may be `Queen of Egypt' which occurs in the EA letters, in EA#26 and EA#28, where we read, "belit Miisrii", `Queen of Egypt'. The question is now, can "belit" mean king or queen? Both letters were written by Tusratta to Amenophis IV, who had married his daughter. No doubt, that is why he used proudly `Queen of Egypt'. The word for king in the same letter is `sar'. So this does not help us to decide if `sar' in EA#245 could mean either king or queen. The only other source I found that uses "queen" is letter #4001 from Ugarit, but I don't have the cuneiform on that one. Perhaps someone can look up the source and check if it is given?

[10] In the EA letters Amenhotep III is called `Nimmuria' [var. Ni-ib-mu'-wa-ri-ia, Mi-im-mu-ri-ia, Im-mu-ri-ia, Nam-huria] and Akhnaton/Amenhotep IV is called `Naphuria' [var. Na-ap-hu-ru-ri-ia, Nam-hur-ia].
For a labeled, artful image of the layout of the city of Amarna see: 1. A. Rosalie David, `The Making of the Past - The Egyptian Kingdoms', 1975, p. 120.; For a well done, full page sketch drawing of the plan of the central and northern parts of El-Amarna see Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 62, 1976, p. 94,95 (fig. 4).

[20] In an e-mail entitled `Ages Still in Chaos: Defending the Indefensible', J. E. Aitchison, (2002).

[0200] For a good quality, B&W images of Sea of Galilee fish, Barbus longiceps, known as Long-Headed Barbel, musht fish, also known as St. Peter's fish and sardines can be seen in Mendel Nun, Net Upon the Waters in BAR, Nov/Dec 1993, p. 47ff. Also shown is drawn catfish.

[300] Niqmadu; I tried to interpret the hieroglyphics. Here is what I think I see or want to see. I tried two ways. I think I see the circle for `king' or `ruler' all right and that there should be the wavy line for "N" at the bottom. The angled forward stroke line is a problem for I found only one example in my `Hieroglyphic Dictionary' and that one is very unlikely to be seen in a name. If it is by chance a reversed bird like a poorly sketched eagle, it could stand for `m' or `ma' - that would help a bit. If not, it could by chance be the triangle which can stand for the letter "q", that would help also, except for the two dots below the sloped line. The upright straight lines are unclear and we must wait on those. The right-most glyph sign, if it was the sign for `maa' (truth), and the bird was a triangle, see #2. So far I could find nothing on the Internet that would help. Results: We may have the following signs for choice #1: `N - ma' or for #2: `N - q - ma(a)'. I think I would prefer #2. However, if the circle for king would be used for a foreign king may be a problem, at least if the producers were Egyptians. - - By the way, the circled cartouche in the right oval is the one for Pharaoh Amenhotep III.

[1000] See Tunip-Tessup of Tikunani in BAR, Nov. 1996, p. 22. States that there were apparently two kinds of Habiru: 1) soldiers or servants and 2) independent bands of people.

[1190] Pritchard, `Assyrian and Babylonian Historical Texts', p. 190; R.Henry, `Synchronized History', p. 135.

[1200] For an colorphoto of the statue supposed to show the Egyptian goddess Mut see KMT, Vol. 18, No. 2, Summer, 2007, p. 20.

[1210] Josephus, `Against Apion', Bk I, Sec. 18.

[1500] The simplest hieroglyphic representation for Amon-re is typically a hunched figure with a chin beard.

[1510] For more on Rimmon see O. Borrowski, The Biblical Identity of Tel Halif, BA, Vol. 51, Mar 1988, p. 21-27; "Which Israelite city is Tel Halif? ... on the whole, the evidence is better for Rimmon then for Ziklag." See also Oded Borowski, In the Path of Sennacherib, BAR, May 2005, p. 24-35.

[1530] Damien Mackey, `The Black Obelisk', September, 2001.

[1565] Velikovsky, `Ages in Chaos', p. 256, 257.

[1570] BAR, Vol. 22, Jan/Feb 1996, p. 34.

[1650] Velikovsky, `Ages in Chaos', p. 258; italics by us.

[1660] Luckenbill, `Records of Assyria', Vol. I, Sec. 610.

[1665] Ibid, Luckenbill, Sec. 672.

[1667] "Within these 13 years from 854-842 BC, must fall the death of Ahab, the reigns of Ahaziah and Jehoram, and the accession of Jehu. There appears to be no time left for Ahab after 854 BC. The death of Ahab, however, cannot be assigned to so early a date as 854 BC." [See K. Marti in `Encyclopedia Biblica', Vol. I (New York, 1899), "Chronology".]

[1720] 1.Kings 17:4; Damien Mackey, `Re-Interpreting the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III'.

[ [1748] Bit Ninib can also be translated as Bit Sulmani (House of Solomon).

[1762] PSBA, Vol. XVI, Nov 1893 - Dec 1894, p. 225.

[1775] `Orientalische Literaturzeitung', Vol. XVIII, 1915, cols. 71-72.

[1778] The Journal of Biblical Archaeology', Vol. 59 (1940), pp. 519 ff.

[1780] Tadmor & Kalai in `Hebrew-Eretz-Israel', Vol. IX (Jerusalem, 1969).

[2000] For information on Tell Dan and its Mycenaean tomb see James D. Muhly, Mycenaeans where there before the Israelites in BAR, Sep 2005, p. 44-51. The images include: 1) a full page color image of an elongated horse and a chariot, 2) the location of the tom under the wall in area T, 3) a curious clay wall bracket, 4) and a skull with surgical marks. The author's title is based on the conventional view that the Mycenaean Age parallels largely the 18th dynasty which we show to date some 500 years later. We also provided evidence that Ramses II, dated to the time of Nebuchadnezzar and Jeremiah, and that the Mycenaean Age reached down to their time. Therefore, the Mycenaean Age need not precede the arrival of the Israelites and the Tell Dan Mycenaean artifacts probably belong in later period times for Israel. See Avraham Biran, Tell Dan, Five years later' in BA, Summer 1980, p. 168-182.