Damien – thank you for introducing me to your paper on T3 [Thutmose III] and Shishak. Good to see so much of the relevant evidence being brought together in one place, and I agree with much of what you say on this subject. I remember reading Danelius in Pensee and being impressed, even though Vel[ikovsky] chose to be rather disparaging about her. That was some 15yr ago, and I’ve not seen since collective evidence favouring any other pharaoh which come even close to Vel’s case for T3=S. Nor have I seen any Egyptologist challenge this evidence in the way Lorton challenged Hatshepsut = Sheba. He chose the soft target.
Am presently reading GW Ahlstrom’s History of Ancient Palestine, so am unlikely to be persuaded that Saul, David and Solomon were also kings of Egypt. Perhaps Metzler is related to the equally brilliant Von Daniken.
Damien Mackey replies
Nice to hear from you … and I am glad that my article defending Velikovsky’s Thutmose III as Shishak was of benefit to you.
It is part of a set, its ‘twin’ being:
“Why Hatshepsut can be the ‘Queen of Sheba’”
I probably already mentioned that.
To my mind there have been pitiably few worthwhile developments of the sound aspects of Velikovsky’s revision. Danelius is one; the Glasgow School came to light with some gems – alas, come and gone like a thief in the night.
From left field then came Dr Metzler, many of whose views I would not identify with. But I would hardly place him in the Von Daniken category.
David fits perfectly as the biblical pharaoh who sacked Gezer. Then there is the chronologically neat correlation of biblical Ahimaatz with Ahmose, and the queen connection as well.
No surprise to me that the Davidides would have had influence over Egypt, culminating in King Solomon (Senenmut), and probably even escalating under the latter’s mighty descendant, King Asa of Judah (my Amenhotep III – who some revisionists think was Solomon himself).