Qadesh doubly problematical for Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky

Part One: Qadesh of the Annals of Thutmose III by Damien F. Mackey “The north side of my town faced east / And the east was facing south”. The Who In somewhat similar fashion, with geography all askew, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky once had Qadesh (Kadesh) facing southwards, when it should have been facing northwards, and once had Qadesh facing northwards, when it should have been facing southwards. The first instance concerned Kadesh in the records of Thutmose III, the warrior-pharaoh whom Dr. Velikovsky would re-locate from his conventional placement in the mid-C15th BC to the C10th BC era of King Solomon and his son, Rehoboam. (Ages in Chaos, I, 1952). Despite this radical downwards time-shift, I fully accept the correctness of it, as well as accepting Dr. Velikovsky’s identification of Thutmose III, ‘the Napoleon of Egypt’ (professor Henry Breasted), as the biblical “Shishak king of Egypt” (I Kings 14:25-26): “In the fifth year of King Rehoboam, Shishak king of Egypt attacked Jerusalem. He carried off the treasures of the Temple of the Lord and the treasures of the royal palace. He took everything, including all the gold shields Solomon had made”. Thirdly, I am likewise convinced with Dr. Velikovsky (though by no means in harmony with his details) that this, the First Campaign of Thutmose III, his Year 22-23 (c. 1460 BC, conventional dating; c. 922 BC, revised), was the same as the biblical episode as narrated above in the First Book of Kings. It is commonly agreed that Kd-šw/Qd-šw in the Egyptian Annals refers to Kadesh/ Qadesh, though not all agree as to which geographical location was intended. Ironically, in this singular instance, Dr. Velikovsky’s reconstruction would rigidly follow the conventional path, northwards from Gaza (Egyptian G3-d3-tw], to Yemma? (Egyptian Y-hm), via a narrow defile, Aruna (Egyptian '3-rw-n3), to Megiddo (Egyptian My-k-ty). Megiddo’s close association with Taanach (Egyptian T3-'3-n3-k3) in the Egyptian Annals, appears positively to secure the identification of My-k-ty with Megiddo - as both professor James Henry Breasted and Dr. Velikovsky had accepted. Whilst I, also, shall be embracing their identifications of Gaza, Megiddo and Taanach, I shall be vehemently rejecting those of the in-between locations of Yehem (Y-hm) and Aruna. A conventional path was never going to hold Dr. Velikovsky too long in its embrace. For, while the conventionalists had the Egyptian army continuing its push northwards, to Syrian Qadesh - which progression I think is correct - Dr. Velikovsky, in order to make this campaign fit his brilliant “Shishak” identification, will have the Egyptian army suddenly lurch back southwards from Megiddo, to attack Jerusalem, the “Holy” - Dr. Velikovsky here attempting to draw a connection between the Kd-šw/Qd-šw of the Egyptian Annals and the Hebrew word for “Holy”, qodesh (קֹ֔דֶשׁ). Consequently, Egypt’s “wretched foe”, the king of Qadesh, Dr. Velikovsky will now identify as King Rehoboam of Jerusalem, in full southward flight from the Egyptians, only managing to have himself hauled into Jerusalem before the Egyptians can seize him. A similar narrow type of escape is narrated in the Egyptian Annals in the case of the real King of Kd-šw. Those ever hoping to find evidence for the Bible in historical records can be thrilled by such excitingly reconstructed scenarios as this. Now, though Dr. Velikovsky’s reconstruction (and also its conventional counterpart) of the right biblical campaign, is wrong, those thrilled by the prospect of having a biblical event confirmed in the historical records need not cease being thrilled. The First Campaign of Thutmose III, in his Year 22-23 (c. 922 BC, revised), was, indeed the same as the biblical episode as narrated above in I Kings 14:25-26. But it needs to be properly re-presented. This was typical Dr. Velikovsky, intuiting the correct conclusion - namely, here, that Thutmose III was the biblical “Shishak”, whose assault on Jerusalem occurred during the pharaoh’s First Campaign - but erecting his thesis in a most unconvincing fashion. Glaringly wrong is the conventional identification (accepted by Dr. Velikovsky) of the Aruna ('3-rw-n3) road with some obscure Wadi 'Ara near Megiddo. Thankfully, Dr. Eva Danelius came to the rescue here with her most important article, “Did Thutmose III Despoil the Temple in Jerusalem?” (1977/78): https://saturniancosmology.org/files/egypt/thutmos.htm Breasted identified this defile, the road called "Aruna" in Egyptian records, with the Wadi 'Ara which connects the Palestine maritime plain with the Valley of Esdraelon (4). It was this identification which aroused my curiosity, and my doubt. …. As an afterthought, Nelson warns not to be deceived by the Arabic name (wadi) 'Ara: "Etymologically, it seems hardly possible to equate (Egyptian) 'Aruna with (Arab) 'Ar'arah." (51). …. Not only etymologically, but, far more importantly, topographically - the major contribution made by Dr. Danelius - does the Wadi 'Ara not at all fit the Egyptian description of the dread Aruna road, whose Egyptian rendering, '3-rw-n3, however, transliterates perfectly into the Hebrew Araunah. This road was connected, via the name of Araunah the Jebusite (2 Samuel 24:15-16), directly to Jerusalem and its Temple. To conclude, without repeating all the details of what I have already written by way of correction of Dr. Velikovsky, and modification of Dr. Danelius, in: The Shishak Redemption (1) The Shishak Redemption and: Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III’s march on Jerusalem (2) Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III's march on Jerusalem - with Yehem (Y-hm) newly identified as Jerusalem itself - here is the brief summing up of my “Yehem near Aruna …” article: The Aruna road, the most difficult, but most direct, was the one that the brilliant pharaoh chose, for a surprise assault upon Megiddo. Jimmy Dunn writes regarding pharaoh’s tactic …: … the Aruna road was through a narrow and difficult pass over a ridge that was presumed (particularly for the enemy coalition) to be too difficult for any army to use. Taking that route meant that ‘horse must follow horse, and man after man’…. Also, many modern commentators, and perhaps the Canaanite coalition as well, seem to forget the major virtues of the Egyptian Chariots. They were light vehicles, and it was certainly conceivable that many could be carried through the pass, while the horses were led separately …. The pass was named from its beginning at Araunah, near king Rehoboam’s capital, Jerusalem, “Yehem near Aruna”. Dr. Danelius had got the name right, but she had the Egyptian military negotiating it the wrong way around, with Araunah as its destination point, rather than its being … [the] starting point. This road is variously known to us today as the Way of the Patriarchs, the Hill Road, or the Ridge Route, since it included, as we read, “a narrow and difficult pass over a ridge”. It was not a proper road, even as late as the time of Jesus, not one of the international highways then to be found in Palestine. This would have been a most tricky road, indeed, to negotiate, especially for an army that greatly relied upon its chariots. From Gaza (as all agree), pharaoh marched to Jerusalem (Dr. Danelius got the sequence right, but mis-identified Jerusalem), and then by the narrow Aruna road (Dr. Danelius got the name right only, not the direction) on to Megiddo (as per the conventional view and Velikovsky), and then on to Syrian Kadesh (as per the conventional view ….). For Dr. Velikovsky, this one was a case of: Qadesh facing southwards, when it should have been facing northwards. Part Two: Battle of Pharaoh Ramses II near Qadesh “The north side of my town faced east / And the east was facing south”. The Who In somewhat similar fashion, with geography all askew, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky once had Qadesh (Kadesh) facing southwards, when it should have been facing northwards, and once had Qadesh facing northwards, when it should have been facing southwards. The second instance concerned Kadesh in the inscriptions of Ramses II ‘the Great’ and in those of his mighty foe, the Hittites. Dr. Velikovsky would re-locate Ramses II from his conventional placement in c. 1300 BC to c. 600 BC, identifying him as pharaoh Necho II of Egypt’s Twenty-Sixth Dynasty. And the Hittite king, Hattusilis, known to have made a treaty with Ramses II, Dr. Velikovsky would shockingly (by conventional estimates) identify with the Chaldean king, Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’. (Ramses II and His Time, 1978). Despite this radical downwards time-shift, I believe that Dr. Velikovsky was very much on the right track here. However, rather than Ramses II being Necho II, and Egypt’s Nineteenth Dynasty being the same as the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty, my preference would be for Ramses II being, instead, Tirhakah (Taharqa) of the (Ethiopian) Twenty-Fifth Dynasty. For my comprehensive treatment of this subject, see my article: The Complete Ramses II (3) The Complete Ramses II which is no less shocking than Dr. Velikovsky’s thesis. In fact, it is more so, considering that I claim here that textbook ancient history has scattered the bits and pieces of Ramses II ‘the Great’ over almost a whole millennium, from c. 1300 BC to c. 350 BC (Tachos = Taharqa). Importantly, Ramses II was the same as Ramses Psibkhanno (Twenty-First Dynasty), leading me to conclude that: Sargon II’s Šilkanni of Egypt was Psibkhenno, not Osorkon (3) Sargon II’s Šilkanni of Egypt was Psibkhenno, not Osorkon This conclusion of mine, that Ramses II was a contemporary of Sargon II, would probably strain (even with my radically truncated chronology) Dr. Velikovsky’s identification of Nebuchednezzar with Hattusilis. It was considered in Part One that Dr. Velikovsky had been compelled - to keep alive his “Shishak” thesis - to re-identify Thutmose III’s Qadesh as Jerusalem. Now, similarly, to keep alive his thesis that Ramses II was the same as Necho II, who is known to have marched towards Carchemish (Jeremiah 46:2; 2 Chronicles 35:20), Dr. Velikovsky will geographically force Qadesh in this case - no longer as the “Holy” city of Jerusalem - into becoming what he called “the Sacred City” of Carchemish. (Ramses II and His Time, Chapter. 1: THE BATTLE OF KADESH-CARCHEMISH …. Carchemish, the Sacred City). Given that Necho II had fought “on the plain of Megiddo”, where King Josiah of Judah was slain (2 Chronicles 35:22-24), and given that pharaoh Shoshenq so-called I campaigned against Megiddo, I would rather suggest that (along with Ramses II as Tirhakah) Necho II was the same pharaoh as Shoshenq. https://cojs.org/shoshenq_megiddo_fragment/ A fragment of Pharaoh Shoshenq’s commemorative stele found at Megiddo. The fragment is not well-preserved and only the name of the king and some phrases glorifying him can be read. Although the fragment does not prove that Shoshenq conquered Megiddo, it does imply that he had some control over the city. Taking an Occam’s Razor approach, the whole thing can be simplified by identifying Qadesh (Kadesh) in the records both of Thutmose III and of Ramses II as Syrian Qadesh on the Orontes. This is the usual interpretation in each case. AI Overview The ancient city of Kadesh is believed to have been located near the Orontes River in modern-day Syria, while Carchemish was situated on the west bank of the Euphrates River, also in modern-day Syria. The distance between the two locations is approximately 150-200 kilometers (93-124 miles). For Dr. Velikovsky, this one was a case of: Qadesh facing northwards, when it should have been facing southwards.