[1] Abundant evidence has now been produced by revisionists to show that the conventional Sothic system of chronology is seriously defective. Apart from the works by Velikovsky and Courville referred to in this article, there are now newer classics dedicated to this study: namely, P. James' Centuries of Darkness (Jonathan Cape, London, 1991) and D. Rohl's A Test of Time (Century, London, 1995).
[2] Velikovsly had noted that: "... not only personal but even geographical names were spelled in the letters in different ways: ... Biridia (in one instance he wrote his name Biridri) announced to the pharaoh that he was defending Makida; another time he wrote that he was defending Magiidda. There are many similar examples in the letters". Urusalim is also given in the letters as Buruzilim, whilst Sumur is also given as Sumura". Ages in Chaos, 300.
[3] See EA letters 74 and 290.
[4] I have shown this to be the case in relation to Israel and Egypt in "Solomon and Sheba", SIS C&C Review (1997:1), 4-15; and, in relation to Israel and Greece, in "Beware of Greeks Bearing Myths" (1997).
[5] E.g. J. Tyldesley, in Nefertiti (Penguin, 1999), 4, regards Velikovsky's attempt to delve into the psyche of Akhnaton as being "perhaps the most devastating, and in [her] view inaccurate, analysis …".
CIAS Comment: In contrast to her view, we should point out that Egyptian custom of matrilineal succession juxtaposed against Israel's taboo against such practices but at the same time telling of the existence of such practices during the reigns of King Saul and David, makes one wonder how well informed she was to judge Velikovsky on this subject.
[6] Ages, 236-237.
[7] Ibid., 237-238.
[8] Ibid., 300-301.
[9] Ibid., 233.
II. EA's Judaeans and Philistines
Revision subsequent to Velikovsky has shown that a near-perfect fit can be achieved between the EA data and the Bible if, not the pious Jehoshaphat, but his ne'er do well son, Jehoram, is recognised as EA's Abdi-Hiba of Urusalim. As we are now going to find, Jehoram matches the king of Urusalim down to almost the last detail.
The King of Jerusalem
The credit must go to P. James and M. Sieff [1] for having satisfactorily, as it seems to me, identified EA's Abdi-Hiba of Urusalim as king Jehoram of Jerusalem. What apparently prompted them in part to reassess Velikovsky in this case was an article written by J. Day, in which the author raised the following fundamental objection to Velikovsky's identification of Abdi-Hiba with king Jehoshaphat [2]:
Velikovsky claims that Abdi-Hiba, king of Jerusalem, is to be equated with Jehoshaphat. Abdi-Hiba means 'servant of Hiba' - Hiba being the name of a Hittite goddess. Can one really believe that Jehoshaphat, whom the Old Testament praises for his loyalty to the Israelite god, could also have borne this name involving a Hittite goddess?
Whilst James had initially thought that Velikovsky had good reason for his conclusion, his deeper research into the suitability of Jehoshaphat convinced him that the comparison was quite untenable [3]:
Velikovsky did in fact prefer the earlier reading of the name [Abdi-Hiba], Ebed-Tov ("Good Servant"), a name without idolatrous connotations. And he also claimed that:
"The King of Jerusalem, unlike other vassal kings, omits expressions of respect for the gods of Egypt; he does not call the pharaoh 'my sun, my god', as all other vassal correspondents did ...".
It would seem, on the face of it, that Velikovsky had good grounds for identifying Abdi-Hiba with the pious Jehoshaphat. But unfortunately, his belief that Abdi-Hiba did not address the Pharaoh in the same way as the other vassal rulers seems to be based on an oversight: letter no. 288 begins as follows:-
"To the king, my lord, my Sun-god, say: Thus, 'Abdu-Heba, thy servant. At the two feet of the king, my lord, seven times and seven times I fall ...".
This fact led James to re-think Abdi-Hiba, and to consider the possibility that he may instead have been Jehoram, denounced by the writers of Kings and Chronicles as an idolater, and hence - as James added - conceivably a worshipper of the Hittite/Hurrian goddess Hiba or Hepat. Such a re-identification coincided with James' growing belief anyway that the lowering of the date of the EA letters (within a revised model) was demanded by "several chronological and other considerations ...".
Mesha of Moab
James began his critique of Velikovsky with a geographical estimation of EA activities, from which he concluded that the lands of habiru incursion were, not Transjordanian - as Velikovsky had argued - but clearly the coastal lands (Shephelah) of the Philistines [4]:
... before turning to a detailed comparison of the reigns of Jehoram, as recorded in the Books of Kings and Chronicles, and Abdi-Hiba, as known from the el-Amarna letters, it would be as well to reconsider Velikovsky's reasons for originally identifying the latter with Jehoshaphat. In a section of Chapter VII entitled "Jerusalem in peril", he pointed to various passages in the letters of Abdi-Hiba which he believed described the invasion of Judah by bands of Moabites, Ammonites and Seirites in the days of Jehoshaphat. (See 2. Chronicles 10:1-30). The invaders of the letters were the famous habiru, once thought to be the invading Hebrews under Joshua, and the subject of over eighty years of controversy.
Velikovsky suggested that this term should be understood, simply, as the Hebrew for "members of a band", "bandits", a suggestion which may meet with some philological objections ..., but which is eminently plausible for the contexts it is used in, particularly since habiru has been discovered to be interchangeable with the ideogram SA.GAZ, "bandits", "cut-throats" .... The term habiru occurs only in the letters from the south of Palestine, notably in those of Abdi-Hiba himself, while in the northern letters of the collection the invaders are invariably referred to as SA.GAZ .... Velikovsky made a convincing case for identifying these SA.GAZ, particularly those of Rib-Addi's letters, with the Moabites, rebelling under King Mesha. He even identified the name of Mesha in the letters, although this must be regarded with some caution ....
Mesha was the king of Moab who rebelled against Israel in c.850 BC, after the death of Ahab at Ramoth-gilead (cf. 1.Kings 22:29-37 & 2.Kings 1:1). His black basalt stele, discovered in the 1860's, is considered to be one of the most famous inscriptions of antiquity. We saw in D that André Lemaire considered the Moabite Stele to contain a reference even to the "House of David". Here is the relevant portion [5]:
[Moabite Stone, lines 32-33]: And the House [of D]ud dwelt in Horonen […] and (the god) Chemosh said to me, 'Go down! Fight against Horonen', And I went down, and [I fought against the town and took it] and Chemosh [resto]red it in my days. And I took up there ten […].
As to the language used in the Moabite stele, Velikovsky [6] noted that "at the time of its discovery [it] was estimated to be the oldest inscription in Hebrew characters in the hands of the archaeologists, [it] established the fact that the Moabites used Hebrew".
Habiru as Philistines
James continues on the subject of the habiru [7]: "The identity of these SA.GAZ, northern invaders, is not questioned here, but the difference in nomenclature between them and the southern habiru should give us cause to doubt whether the same people are actually referred to in both cases". He then proceeds to pinpoint their theatre of action [7]:
Rubuta of the letters, a town seized by the habiru, [Velikovsky] associates with Rabbath-Ammon, a Transjordanian city …. It is, however, usually identified as Biblical Rabbah (Joshua 15:60), in the northern Shephelah …. this location is well supported by Egyptian townlists - the list of Thutmose III places a r-b-t next to Gezer, while that of Shoshenk I … lists r-b-t between Gezer and Aijalon ….
And the context in which Rubuta is mentioned in the letters leaves no doubt that a city in the Shephelah, and not Transjordania, is intended. EA 290 states:
"Behold the deed which Milkilu and Shuwardata did to the land of the king, my lord! They rushed troops of Gezer, troops of Gath and troops of Keilah; they took the land of Rubutu" ….
Gezer, Gath and Keilah are all cities on the border of Judah and Philistia, and Milkilu is known from his own letters as the ruler of Gezer ....
Continuing, James is able most satisfactorily, as I think, to solve the long-standing problem of the identity of the habiru with whom the king of Jerusalem was now contending [7]:
A reading of the letters of Abdi-Hiba can leave little doubt as to the identity of the invaders described as habiru. Several of their leaders are referred to by name: as well as Milkilu of Gezer, there is Lab'ayu and his sons from Shechem, Tagu from Gath-Carmel, and Shuwardata from Keilah or Gath .... Lachish and Sile (the first Egyptian fortress in Sinai) were also involved in the revolt:
"Behold Zimreda, the townsmen of Lachish have smitten him, slaves who had become 'Apiru [i.e. Habiru]. Yaptih-Hadad has been slain in the (very) gate of Sile". (EA 288).
Elsewhere, 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).
James is then able to conclude that the habiru were Philistine rebels against the Egyptian crown [7]:
All the cities accused by Abdi-Hiba of participating in the habiru uprising are to the west or south-west of Judah, with the exception of Shechem in Israel. The idea, then, that Abdi-Hiba's letters are describing an invasion from Transjordania, is quite untenable. It is clear from his letters that rebellions are occurring in, and on the border with, Philistia, and that the invaders of Abdi-Hiba's territories are, in the main, the Philistine rebels.
This view would be in good accord with the current opinion of Biblical scholars that "the Apiru are not a foreign element in the land, coming from outside, but an indigenous element", as expressed by Edward F. Campbell Jr.:
"If instead the term 'Apiru is seen to be a label simply meaning 'outlaw' or 'rebellious' in this context it is at least possible, and to me very probable, that to 'become 'Apiru' means 'to defy the authority of the crown' ...".
Such intensive activity by the Philistines and their allies was unlikely during the strong reign of Jehoshaphat. II Chronicles, far from mentioning that the Philistines took common cause with the Moabite invaders against Jehoshaphat, records that: "Also some of the Philistines brought Jehoshaphat presents and tribute silver" (17:11). It was only after Jehoshaphat's death, when his son Jehoram was on the throne, that Judah gradually began to lose control of the Shephelah. And I think 'gradual' is the operative word here as it is apparent that some of those named in EA as enemies of Abdi-Hiba had formerly been his allies. It is perhaps an indication of the prominence of Jerusalem that Abdi-Hiba could insist that he was no 'prefect' (khazân) like the rest, but a 'shepherd' (ú-e-ú) of the pharaoh; a title employed too by great kings like Hammurabi and Seti I.
But Jehoram's power was to become greatly diminished, and James believed that "something of this waning hegemony over Philistia can be detected in the letters of Abdi-Hiba" [7]:
Comparing Abdi-Hiba with Jehoram of Judah
James, honing in on the true historical setting for the drama involving Abdi-Hiba, then went on to provide an in-depth comparison between him and Jehoram. Whilst the Chronicler did not bother to give very much space to the idolatrous Jehoram, James found nevertheless what he thought to be "... enough given on the important events of his reign to test the hypothesis identifying him with Abdi-Hiba of the el-Amarna letters".
Thus [7]:
After recounting the coup in which Jehoram disposed of his brothers, and how he "wrought that which was evil in the eyes of the Lord", Chronicles goes on to describe a revolt of the Edomites (II Chron. 21:8-10). Edom had been tributary to Judah during the reign of Jehoshaphat, and had been ruled by his deputy (I Kings 22:47). Jehoram led his chariotry into Edom in an attempt to crush the revolt, but suffered a serious defeat ..., and Edom remained independent of Judah "unto this day". Libnah, a city in the northern Shephelah, rebelled with Edom:
"The same time did also Libnah revolt from under his hand, because he had forsaken the Lord God of his fathers" (v.10).
James notes that Jehoram at this stage was contacted by his nemesis, Elijah [7]:
The Chronicler continues with an account of Jehoram's lapse from Yahweh-worship, and of the letter sent to him by the prophet Elijah, foretelling disaster for Jehoram, his family and his kingdom. This is followed by a short, but very informative passage given here in full:-
"Moreover, the Lord stirred up against Jehoram the spirit of the Philistines, and the Arabians, that were near the Ethiopians:
and they came up into Judah, and brake into it, and carried away all the substance that was found in the king's house, and his sons also, and his wives; so that there was never a son left to him, save Jehoahaz, the youngest of his sons" (2.Chron. 21: 16-17).
This is clearly a description of Judah in a critically dangerous state.
James believed that such a parlous situation, with Judah on the verge of collapse, was "... amply reflected in the desperate letters of Abdi-Hiba, full of pleas to his Egyptian overlord [Akhnaton] for the troops needed to defend his fief - "Let the king ... my lord, send out troops of archers, for the king has no hands left!" (EA 286).
EA 288 is most useful especially for the geographical information that it supplies; for as James notes [7]: "... Abdi-Hiba defines the extent of the revolts against his authority: "Let my king take thought for his land ... is lost; in its entirety it is taken from me; there is war against me, as far as the lands of Seir and as far as Gath-carmel!..."." Since, according to James, Seir is Edom and Gath-Carmel is almost certainly the famous Gath, one of the five old Philistine capitals - and possibly, according to J. Gray [8], the same place as Libnah - he can go on to say that [9]: "... EA 288, describing the rebellion of Seir (= Edom) and Gath-carmel (= Libnah?) parallels exactly the account in II Chron. 21:10, which says that Edom and Libnah broke away from Judah at the same time".
Equally useful is the next letter in the series: "From EA 289 we learn that Gath-carmel was now in the hands of Tagu, an ally of Milkilu of Gezer: "Behold the land of the town of Gath-carmel, it belongs to Tagu ..."." James regarded this letter by Abdi-Hiba "... as a complaint to the Pharaoh that all his subject territories from Edom to Philistia had revolted against him".
CAH [Chronology & Ancient History], which describes from a conventional viewpoint the duplicitous tactics of Abdi-Hiba of Urusalim, "full of complaints against Labaya and other anti-Egyptian leaders", but denounced by Shuwardata of Keilah as "another Labaya", shows that the king of Jerusalem was under assault from the very same opposition as James had described [10]:
…we may recognize Jerusalem as an influential city with extensive interests, exposed to the attacks of hostile neighbours in the west and the north - corresponding to the Philistines and (north) Israelites of a later time [sic] - and ready to seize any opportunity to extend its influence.
Having seen that Jehoram and Abdi-Hiba had both suffered revolts in Edom and Philistia, we can now follow James further through the passage from Chronicles quoted above to compare the later events of their reigns [7]:
... two questions spring to mind immediately - did the Arabians attack in concert with the Philistines, or was one group responsible for the sack of Jehoram's palace, and the other for invading Judah? And who were these "Arabians that were near the Ethiopians [Cushites]"?
In answer to his own questions James is able to solve a further problem of long-standing for the biblical commentators [7]:
A later passage in Chronicles (II, 22:1) concerned with the succession after Jehoram, suggests that it was the Arabs, rather than the Philistines, that were responsible for the sack of Jehoram's palace and the murder of his sons:
"Then the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead: for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest"....
It may be that the clipped account in Chronicles has run together the actions of the Philistines, in invading Judah, and the Arabs, in sacking Jehoram's palace, its brevity obscuring the distinction between the two .... The question of the "Arabians that were near the Cushites" has been a vexed one for Biblical scholars. ... the phrase ... applied to Arabians occurs only once in the whole of the Old Testament and is certainly a peculiarity. This singularity has suggested to me a different solution, one which agrees better with a literal interpretation of the phrase ...
Eva Danelius ... and Martin Sieff ..., in their discussions of the identity of the Queen of Sheba, have already drawn attention to the presence of Arabian colonies in Ethiopia, known from both literary and archaeological records. ... Now, the presence of Arabs in Ethiopia (Cush) is a historical fact. What better description could the Chronicler have used for them than "the Arabians that were near the Cushites"? I would suggest that here lies the solution to a much-argued problem of Old Testament studies ....
On the conventional chronology, Egypt was a separate state from Ethiopia during the time of Jehoram, and was ruled by the Libyan monarch Takeloth II, who conducted no military campaigns in Palestine. Is it credible that a band of Arab raiders worked their way through this Libyan kingdom and into the heart of Judah? Or that a band from south-eastern Arabia were so far from their homeland and somehow in a position to sack the palace of the King of Judah?
The revised chronology solves the problem entirely, and makes good sense out of the Biblical narrative. Amenhotep III was the ruler of Ethiopia as well as Palestine.... After the suppression of a revolt in his fifth year, the south was at peace, and Amenhotep was able to construct two massive temples near the Third Cataract.... Troops were conscripted by Amenhotep III in Ethiopia and these were used in Palestine, as we know from the letters of Rib-Addi of Gubla:
"If the heart of the king, my lord, is in favour of Gubla, then let my lord send four hundred soldiers and one hundred people of the Kasi lands that they may protect Gubla, the city of my lord"....
This term, Kaši, James explains [11]:
... is acknowledged to be a cuneiform spelling of "Cush" or Ethiopia .... In which case the solution to the problem of the "Arabians that were near the Cushites" is clear - they were simply conscripts of the Egyptian army from the "Kasi lands" that were on service in Palestine....
Now tying together all the threads of what has been a most enlightening reconstruction, James writes [12]:
It now remains to examine the letters of Abdi-Hiba for an account of a Philistine invasion, coupled with a sack of his palace by rioting troops from the "lands of Kasi", in order to leave no doubt that he was Jehoram of Judah. El-Amarna letter 287 describes the Philistine invasion, discussed earlier in this paper: Milkilu of Gezer and Tagu of Gath-carmel ..., supported by the lands of Ashkelon and Lachish, invaded Abdi-Hiba's kingdom and "caused their troops to enter the town of Rubutu".
Another letter, EA 290, describes a later stage of their advance, when they were joined by the rebel Shuwardata of Keilah:
"They rushed troops of Gezer, troops of Gath and troops of Keilah: they took the land of Rubutu; the land of the king went over to the 'Apiru people."
As the letter goes on to show, even Jerusalem itself came under grave threat. I continue with James [12]:
... the Moabites did not reach Jerusalem, but, as we shall see, the royal palace itself was sacked during Jehoram's reign, for which we return to EA 287:-
"With reference to the Nubians [Kasi], let my king ask the commissioners whether my house is not very strong! Yet they attempted a very great crime; they took their implements and breached ... of the roof. If they send into the land of Jerusalem troops, let them come up with an Egyptian officer for regular service. Let my king take heed for them - for all the lands are impoverished by them - and let my king requisition for them much grain, much oil and much clothing ... the men of the land of Nubia have committed an evil deed against me; I was almost killed by the men of the land of Nubia in my own house. Let the king call them to account. Seven times and seven times let the king, my lord, avenge me".
This is the very context, too, for the reference to Beth Šulmân. James has noted the impact that the description of this striking incident has had upon the conventionally bound scholar [12]:
A commentator on 2.Chronicles 21:17 could hardly believe the Biblical claim that the Arabs "that were near the Cushites" had actually sacked Jehoram's palace: "This curious verse can hardly signify that the Arabians took and plundered Jerusalem".... But the letters of Abdi-Hiba confirm that this was actually done by "men from the land of Kasi". Evidently, they had been stationed in Jerusalem as a garrison, but their Egyptian master had neglected to supply them with provisions, and they took to plundering ...., "for all the lands are impoverished by them".
I do not think that James has at all exaggerated in his conclusion, in which he has noted that the same distinctive circumstances could not have befallen two different kings of Jerusalem, separated in time the one from the other by half a millennium [12]:
To sum up: the disasters that befell Jehoram of Judah and Abdi-Hiba of Jerusalem were identical. Both suffered revolts of their subject territories from Philistia to Edom. During the reign of both the Philistines invaded and swept right across Judah, entering Jerusalem itself, in concert with the sack of the king's palace by "men of the land of Kaši" or men "that were near the Cushites". These peculiar circumstances could hardly be duplicated in such detail after a period of five hundred years. It is clear that Velikovsky's general placement of the el-Amarna letters in the mid-ninth century must be correct, and that the modification of his original model suggested here, that Abdi-Hiba was Jehoram rather than Jehoshaphat, is preferable.
Officials of the King of Jerusalem
Velikovsky had, under a section entitled "The Letters of Jehoshaphat's Captains", explored 2.Chronicles 17:14-19 in which are named 5 of Jehoshaphat's military chiefs. He believed he could identify 3 of these 5 leaders from the EA letters: namely, "Adna"; "Amaziah the son of Zichri"; and "Jehozabad". I take up Velikovsky's account of it [13]:
We identify letters written by three of the five military chiefs of Jehoshaphat. Their position as military chiefs is the same in the letters as in … Chronicles; their names are easily recognizable. A slight variation in one of the names has a connotation that will lead us to reflect on the development of religion in Judah and on the reform that took place shortly after the death of Jehoshaphat. Addudani (also spelled Addadani) of the el-Amarna letters is called in the Scriptures Adna. But the inscription of Shamsi-Ramman [Shamsi-Adad], who became the Assyrian king after Shalmaneser in -825, contains a reference to a gift he received from Adadanu, prince of Gaza (Azati).
The "Son of Zuchru" of the el-Amarna letters is called the "son of Zichri" in the Bible.
Iahzibada of the el-Amarna letters is Iehozabad (Jehozabad) in the Scriptures.
These officers were really important chiefs of the army, as the pharaoh corresponded directly with them; yet in their letters the expressions of obeisance disclose their more subordinate role and differ from those in the letters of the king of Jerusalem. In keeping with his position as chief among the captains, Addudani carried on an extensive correspondence with the pharaoh, and four of his letters, written at length, are preserved. From them we learn the complicated system in which a chief was bound directly to the pharaoh, to the local deputy of the pharaoh, and to the king (regent) in Jerusalem. The pharaoh wrote to Addudani:
Letter 294: Hearken to thy deputy and protect the cities of the king, thy lord, which are in thy care.
Addudani replied with assurances of his loyalty:
Letter 292: Thus saith Addudani, thy servant ... I have heard the words, which the king, my lord, has written to his servant: "Protect thy deputy and protect the cities of the king, thy lord".
Behold, I protect, and behold, I hearken day and night to the words of the king, my lord. And let the king, my lord, pay attention to his servant.
... The same words were written to the son "of Zuchru" .... The first name of the writer is not preserved, only his second name, "of Zuchru". In the scriptural list of the five chiefs of Jehoshaphat, only one is called by the name of his father: Amaziah, son of Zichri. It is interesting to note that in the el-Amarna letters also, only in the case of the son of Zuchru is the name of his father attached. The scriptural text explains the distinction: Zichri sacrificed himself willingly to God; his descendants were honored by the name "sons of Zichri" (2.Chronicles 17:16, 23:1). Zichri of the (Massorete) Bible is Zuchru of the el-Amarna letters;
Amaziah, the son of Zichri, is the "son of Zuchru", the captain who wrote to the pharaoh on matters relating to the security of his district.
The last of the three captains of whom Velikovsky wrote is [13]:
Iehozabad (Jehozabad) of the Second Book of Chronicles is called Iahzibada in the letters he wrote to the pharaoh. These few short letters are acknowledgments of Pharaoh's orders. The place from which they were written is not indicated, but they were written from southern Palestine; in the Second Book of Chronicles (17:17-18) it is said that he was a chief in the land of Benjamin.
Storck though, in his reassessment of Velikovsky with reference to the latter's EA identifications of Jehoshaphat's captains, is highly critical of this method. He regards it as being quite an unsatisfactory methodology used by Velikovsky, and indeed of his followers, of precariously cross-identifying historical personages by mere name association [14]:
Such is the case with a certain Zuchru in the Bible with a toponym in the Amarna letters (see Peter James, SIS Workshop, Vol. 5/4, 1982/83). James insists that a certain Iahzibada in the Amarna letters is the captain of Jehoshaphat.... However, we are not led into a discussion as to why Iahzibada could not have been one of the two captains of David by this name (I Chronicles 12:20) or some of the other namesakes in the Bible, as any concordance reveals. The similarity of a few random names is meaningless.
I take Storck's point here as a general rule. Certainly a chronology should not be built upon such flimsy foundations as mere name associations. Velikovsky was not limited to that, however. And hopefully I have, in this Excursus, laid deep foundations, historical and stratigraphical, not depending upon mere name links. My logical reconstruction has led me to the same conclusion as Velikovsky's, that EA belonged to the early divided monarchy period of Israel's history.
Thus I can say for instance, in response to one of Storck's points, that the Iahzibada of David's time would not have been contemporaneous with EA, but rather with Shamsi-Adad I and (an older contemporary of) Hammurabi, whose descendants will thus have to be accounted for later in E. Again, in light of the compelling case above in favour of EA's Abdi-Hiba being Jehoram, there is at least a very good chance that these Palestinian officials who wrote to pharaoh were the Judaean captains referred to in Chronicles. Certainly in the case of the rather unique "son of Zuchru" (EA) = "son of Zichri" (Bible), I can paraphrase James' summing up by saying that it is hardly likely that so distinctive a (name-)case could recur after 500 years.
Jehozabad (the name is virtually the same as that of king Jehoshaphat himself, father of Jehoram), a chieftain in Benjamin, might even be one of those "dawidum of the Benjamites" of whom Zimri-Lim had spoken about a century earlier.
Addudani is perhaps the most problematical of these three captains for Velikovsky, who looked to link him with a somewhat different name, Adnah. Moreover, we know from the EA letters that Addudani was the son of Milkilu of Gezer, who was in fact a habiru opponent of the king of Jerusalem; probably a Philistine.
Adaia, the Deputy
In the sixteenth year after Jehoshaphat - still in the EA period - "Elishaphat, son of Zichri" had replaced Amaziah his brother, presumably. In that same year there was a chief named Maaseiah, son of Adaia. Velikovsky claimed also to have found Adaia in the EA letters, which he thought gave more information about this official [15]:
Adaia must have lived in the days of Jehoshaphat and must have been in the service of the king. The el-Amarna letters give us the clue to his role. He was apparently the king's deputy in Edom … and for some time also had charge over the gateway of Gaza through which traffic with Egypt was maintained. In the Scriptures it is said that in the time of Jehoshaphat "there was no king in Edom: a deputy was king" (1.Kings 22:47). This land was under the control of the king of Jerusalem and was a dependency of Judah (2.Chronicles 21:8).
Four times Adaia's name is mentioned in three passages in the letters of the king of Jerusalem:
Letter 285: Addaia, the deputy of the king [pharaoh] ...
Letter 287: ... Addaia has departed together with the garrison of the officers which the king has given. Let the king know that Addaia has said to me: "Verily, let me depart".
Letter 289: The garrison which thou has sent ... Addaia has taken and placed in his house in Hazati [Gaza]. These letters inform us that Adaia was a deputy of the pharaoh, and that he was subordinate to the king-regent in Jerusalem. The deputy in Edom, a dependent land of Judah, was actually subordinate to the king of Jerusalem.
A Precise Chronology of the Two Jehoram's
M. Anstey has very usefully interwoven the chronology of this era, linking the Judaean kings with the kings of Israel, and tying them all to Shalmaneser III of Assyria. Though somewhat long - and describing an era complicated by co-regencies - Anstey's chronological argument will serve as a handy point of reference throughout E.
Firstly regarding Jehoram of Israel, Anstey explained [16]:
The fact that Ahab and his two successors, Ahaziah ... and Jehoram ..., all reigned in the same calendar year, is illustrated by the knowledge gained from the Assyrian inscriptions that Ahab of Israel and Ben-Hadad of Syria, were engaged in military operations against Shalmaneser [III] ... of Assyria in the 21st year of Ahab's reign, which led to the appointment of Ahaziah of Israel as Co-Rex during his father's absence at the war. But Ahaziah was incapacitated by his fall through a lattice in his upper chamber (2.Kings 1:2). Hence the appointment of his brother Jehoram, either as Deputy or Pro-Rex, whilst Ahaziah was ill, or as Co-Rex with his father Ahab on Ahaziah's death. In that 18th year of Jehoshaphat, Ahab was in his 22nd year and died. Ahaziah was in his 2nd year as Co-Rex with his father Ahab, and he died. Thereupon Jehoram of Israel ascended the throne, and, in the usual Israelite mode of computation, the same year, the 18th of Jehoshaphat, is also given to him as the incoming King, and reckoned as his first year.
... the character of Jehoram of Judah, one of the most wicked Kings that ever sat upon the throne of Judah (2.Chron. 21), explains why he should have been made Pro-Rex with his father in the 17th year of Jehoshaphat (the 18th year of Jehoshaphat = the 1st year of Jehoram of Israel being his second year - 2.Kings 1:17, 3:1), then deposed by his godly father Jehoshaphat and subsequently re-appointed, or possibly, prompted by his own wickedness to usurp (2.Chron. 21:4) the throne of his father, in the 22nd year of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat himself being then (in the 22nd year of Jehoshaphat = the 5th of Jehoram of Israel) King of Judah (2.Kings 8:16).
Now interweaving Shalmaneser III of Assyria with all this, Anstey, in his discussion of the battle of Qarqar, has provided a useful synchronisation of the first part of Ben-Hadad's reign with Ahab and Shalmaneser III [17]:
Shalmaneser's long reign of 35 years was a protracted military campaign against Babylon, Mesopotamia, Armenia and the peoples of Asia Minor. The Hittites of Carchemish were compelled to pay tribute, and Hamath and Damascus were subdued.
Prof. Sayce says:
"In 854 ..., a league formed by Hamath, Arvad, Ammon, Ahab of Israel and other neighbouring Princes, under the leadership of Damascus, fought an indecisive battle against [Shalmaneser] at Karkar, and other battles followed in 849 ...".