by
Damien F. Mackey
Creationist Patrick Clarke, holding to the conventional route,
will misidentify certain locations that Dr. Velikovsky had claimed
were the newly fortified forts of Rehoboam.
Following on from Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky’s biblically maximalising identification of “Shishak king of Egypt” (I Kings 14:25-26) with ancient Egypt’s “Napoleon” (professor Breasted), Thutmose III, of the Eighteenth Dynasty (in Ages in Chaos, I, 1952), I undertook the extremely challenging task of solving the geographical and topographical problems associated with that pharaoh’s First Campaign (Year 22/23), the one that Dr. Velikovsky had rightly identified as being the biblical campaign against Jerusalem in Year 5 of king Rehoboam of Judah.
My reconstruction of this campaign can be read in articles such as:
The Shishak Redemption
(4) The Shishak Redemption | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
and:
Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III’s march on Jerusalem
(3) Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III's march on Jerusalem | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Whereas convention, and Dr. Velikovsky - surprisingly in agreement with it for once - have the pharaonic campaign proceeding from Gaza, northwards, following a relatively easy coastal route to Megiddo (at which point Dr. Velikovsky will veer south, while convention will continue to go northwards, to Syrian Kadesh), I would have the Egyptian force, instead, proceeding from Gaza directly to Jerusalem - called Y-hm (Yehem) in the Egyptian Annals - which location was, as the above articles show, near the Aruna (of Araunah the Jebusite) road.
As is apparent from these articles, I am much indebted to Dr. Eva Danelius for the identification of the ancient Aruna road with its tortuous topography that cannot be found anywhere in convention’s, or in Dr. Velikovsky’s, route northwards to Megiddo.
Creationist Patrick Clarke, holding to the conventional route, will misidentify certain locations that Dr. Velikovsky had claimed were the newly fortified forts of Rehoboam:
Was Jerusalem the Kadesh of Thutmose III’s 1st Asiatic campaign—topographic and petrographic evidence
(4) Was Jerusalem the Kadesh of Thutmose III’s 1st Asiatic campaign—topographic and petrographic evidence | Patrick Clarke - Academia.edu
Clarke, who is highly critical of Dr. Velikovsky’s reconstructions, will write as follows in this article:
….
Velikovsky mentions three locations as being part of Rehoboam’s fifteen fortified cities. He wrote:
“The walled cities fortified by Rehoboam … may be found on the Egyptian list [referring to Thutmose III]. It appears that Etam is Itmm; Beth-Zur – Bt sir; Socoh – Sk. …. Here is a new field for scholarly inquiry: the examination of the list of the Palestinian cities of Thutmose III, comparing their names with the names of the cities in the kingdom of Judah. The work will be fruitful.”
….
Socoh – Sk Here Velikovsky is actually right about the name equivalence, i.e. Sk really is Socoh; but unfortunately for his thesis, there is an additional issue to consider, inasmuch as there were three towns called Socoh. Socoh 1 was the town fortified by Rehoboam … Socoh 2, mentioned only once in the Bible, in Joshua 15:48, is located in the southernmost district of the Judean hill country … Socoh 3 lies on the Sharon plain
and not in Judah.
The following explains which of the three is relevant to this paper:
“Amenhotep II in his campaign against recalcitrant peoples mentioned it [Socoh], again in association with Yaham and other places in the Sharon. Socoh was strategically located not only on the N-S highway but also near the mouth of the Naḥal Shekhem, the main entryway to Samaria and Shechem from the west. The town appears three times in Egyptian records, and the contexts confirm its location vis-à-vis the other towns along
the great international trunk route along the eastern edge of the Sharon plain. In the topographical list of Thutmose III, Socoh (no. 67) appears after Aphek and before Yaham [Yehem].”
Thus the Socoh which Velikovsky so confidently held to be one of Rehoboam’s Judean fortresses is shown to be the wrong Socoh for his purposes; the one claimed as a conquest by Thutmose III, the one we have labelled Socoh 3, above, lies some 80 km to the north. ….
[End of quote]
Whilst Clarke’s placement of “Socoh (no. 67)” might apply if the conventional interpretation of the route of pharaoh Thutmose III’s First Campaign were valid, it cannot possibly apply in the close association of it with a Yehem (Y-hm) that I have identified in the above articles as Jerusalem.
It will be, as Clarke himself puts it, “some 80 km” too far away.
Thus I believe that the intuitive Dr. Velikovsky was quite correct in identifying Thutmose III’s Sk with Rehoboam’s fort of Socoh in the Shephelah.
Unfortunately, the Socoh in the Shephelah, which concerns us here, has not yet been unequivocally identified. What is certain from the Bible is that it lay close to Azekah:
https://leonmauldin.blog/2010/10/21/socoh-in-the-david-goliath-narrative/
Socoh, in the David & Goliath Narrative
Our recent posts have included aerial photos of Azekah and Khirbet-Qeiyaffa (Elah Fortress), both of which are in the Valley of Elah. (Some suggest that Khirbet-Qeiyaffa may turn out to be the biblical Ephes Dammim.)
Another site mentioned in the biblical record and featured in today’s post Socoh. 1 Sam. 17 includes this site as the geographical setting is provided for the battle between the Philistines and the Israelites, when David killed Goliath. The text reads:
Now the Philistines gathered their armies for battle; and they were gathered at Socoh which belongs to Judah, and they camped between Socoh and Azekah, in Ephes-dammim. Saul and the men of Israel were gathered and camped in the valley of Elah, and drew up in battle array to encounter the Philistines. The Philistines stood on the mountain on one side while Israel stood on the mountain on the other side, with the valley between them. (1 Sam. 17:1-3)
Our photo shows tel Socoh in center (look to the left and above the horizontal road that dissects the field in center).
If you note the tiny tree-line above tel Socoh, across the road, this is the brook from which David selected five smooth stones, one of which he used to slay Goliath.
In the distance (just right of wing brace at top) you can see tel Azekah. For 40 days this valley rang out with the threatening voice of loud-mouth Goliath, until the shepherd David rose to the challenge, prompted by this faith in the God of Israel.
Socoh (also spelled Sochoh and Soco) had earlier been assigned to the territory of Judah (Josh. 15:35). Later it was fortified by Solomons’ son King Rehoboam (2 Chron. 11:7). Later still, in the days of King Kezekiah, Socoh was among the cities of the Shephelah listed in 2 Chron. 28:18 as raided and conquered by the Philistines. Apparently Socho had been an administrative center during Hezekiah’s reign as indicated by the numerous stamped jar handles with the seal of Socoh.
Amenhotep II at Jerusalem
If this pharaoh, son of Thutmose III and considered to have been immensely strong, physically, had engaged Jerusalem in the course of his Syro-Canaanite campaigns, so significant a moment ought to be recorded in the Scriptures.
Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky had hopefully identified pharaoh Amenhotep II as the biblical “Zerah the Ethiopian” (2 Chronicles 14:9-15), which - though wrong, as I think - comes far closer to the truth of the matter, chronologically speaking, than do the conventional efforts (e.g., Osorkon I of the Twenty-Second Dynasty as Zerah).
I have written differently on this subject:
Viceroy Usersatet my favoured choice for Zerah the Ethiopian
(4) Viceroy Usersatet my favoured choice for Zerah the Ethiopian | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
My next task, hopefully, will be trying to determine what is the right biblical context of pharaoh Amenhotep II’s engagement with Jerusalem (Egyptian Yehem).
If such can be pinpointed, then it ought to serve to reinforce my view that the Yehem (Y-hm) of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II was, in fact, ancient Jerusalem.
Comments