Joseph and Asenath

                                                                                    by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

“No one like Joseph has ever been born …”.

(Sirach 49:15)

 

 

 

 

Introduction

 

The Third Dynasty of ancient Egypt’s Old Kingdom has proven to be something of a rich goldmine for discovering historical proof of the reality of Joseph and the Famine, as recorded late in the Book of Genesis (esp. Chapters 41-43).

 

Joseph as the celebrated vizier, Imhotep, the pious sage serving Horus Netjerikhet, had saved Egypt from a seven-year Famine.

 

This is famously recorded in a late (Ptolemaïc) document, the Sehel Famine Stela.

 

But there may now have been identified much earlier, apparent originals of this Ptolemaïc inscription. On this, see my article:

 

Was this the original ‘Famine Stela’?

 

(6) Was this the original 'Famine Stela'?

 

Imhotep was the quasi-pharaonic Khasekhemwy-Hetep-Imef (= Im-hotep), who built huge enclosures (storage facilities) at Nekhen, at Abydos (known as Shunet ez Zebib), and the massive Gisr el-Mudir at Saqqara – all in preparation for the Famine.

He was also the like-named (to Khasekhemwy) Sekhemkhet-Djoser-ti (see below). Thus Imhotep was Djoser (Zoser).

And Horus Netjerikhet, thought to have been Djoser, was not.

 

https://www.ancient-egypt.org/history/early-dynastic-period/2nd-dynasty/horus-seth-khasekhemwi/great-enclosure-at-saqqara.html

 

Great Enclosure at Saqqara

 

To the west of the unfinished pyramid of Sekhemkhet, a large rectangular structure was discovered composed mainly of a gigantic enclosure wall.

 

With its 600 by 300 metres, this enclosure encompasses an area that is even considerably larger than Netjerikhet’s neighbouring complex.

 

It as long been assumed -without any substantial examination of this structure- that this wall, known as the ‘Great Enclosure‘ or by its Arab name ‘Gisr el-Mudir‘ (wall of the director), was part of an unfinished mortuary complex of an unidentified 3rd Dynasty king. There is, however, no trace of a step pyramid inside this wall. Furthermore, this wall seems to have been completed, which would make the building of a pyramid within its compounds quite impossible.
Recent research by the EES has shown that Gisr el-Mudir may at least be one generation older than the Horus Netjerikhet, thus dating to the 2nd Dynasty.

 

Traces of other such enclosures have also been found: one to the immediate west of Netjerikhet’s complex and one apparently between Sekhemkhet’s pyramid and the ‘Great Enclosure’.

 

It has been suggested that these enclosures bear a striking resemblance to similar structures found near Umm el-Qa’ab. The largest of these enclosures, named Shunet ez-Zebib, has been identified as having belonged to Khasekhemwi. It is believed that this structure was intended as a simulacrum of the royal palace [sic], a copy that the king would take with him to the hereafter. If indeed these palace-copies are similar to the Saqqara enclosures, then it is likely that the Saqqara enclosures were related to the 2nd Dynasty tombs which were located in the vicinity.

 

If the enclosures at Saqqara are indeed of 2nd Dynasty date and not, as was assumed in the past, of the 3rd Dynasty, then the ‘Great Enclosure’ is to be considered the oldest known building constructed, at least partially, in stone!

 

[End of quote]

 

These were ‘gigantic enclosures’ built for storing vast quantities of grain.

They were not, as wrongly thought, mortuary complexes, or copies of palaces.

 

This was all Joseph-Imhotep’s divinely inspired work.

Absolutely amazing to think that all of this infrastructure was built in anticipation of a great and protracted Famine, as foretold to Pharaoh by the prescient Joseph.

 

Whenever, before, or even after, has the like of this been done!

 

“No one like Joseph has ever been born …”.

(Sirach 49:15)

 

Waterways and canals were also constructed by Joseph the water bringer, along with large dams. One immediately thinks of the Bahr Yusef canal, named after Joseph.

 

Much of this infrastructure was erected hastily, without the usual Egyptian decoration, purpose-built to serve for only a specified period of time.

Then it fell into disuse – or was appropriated and enhanced by the mighty Pyramid building oppressor-pharaohs of the subsequent Fourth Dynasty: the era of Moses. 

 

With a necessary folding of Egypt’s Old Kingdom into its so-called ‘Middle’ Kingdom, which simply duplicates the Old Kingdom, we encounter all over again the Famine era, including, among other things, mention of “seven empty years” (Heqanakht papyri).

 

For Horus Netjerikhet of Egypt’s Third Dynasty was the same king as the powerful Netjerihedjet (Mentuhotep II) of the Eleventh Dynasty – the Famine Pharaoh. 

 

 

Having come to these twin conclusions some time ago now, that the biblical Famine belonged historically to the Old Kingdom, but is duplicated with the ‘Middle’ Kingdom, I never expected to find a ‘third’ manifestation of it all, back in Egypt’s Archaïc Period.

 

Archaic Period: Dynasties 1-2;

Old Kingdom: Dynasties 3-6;

First Intermediate Period: Dynasties 7-11 (part of);

Middle Kingdom: Dynasties 11-12.

 

First Dynasty biblical scenario

 

Although Egypt’s First Dynasty is conventionally set out like this:

http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn01/dyn01.html

 

Menes
Djer
Merneith
Djet
Den
Anedjib
Semerkhet
Qa'a
Sneferka

 

the listing, I would strongly suggest, is in need of a major overhaul.

 

While the famous Menes, the first mentioned king in this list, traditionally belongs to the time of Abram (Abraham), with which syncretism I would agree (see my article):

 

Dr. W.F. Albright’s game-changing chronological shift

 

(6) Dr. W.F. Albright's game-changing chronological shift

 

the next four listed personages, Djer, Merneith, Djet and Den, all belong to - as we are going to find out - the era of Joseph (c. 1700 BC), which era is, roughly speaking, two centuries later than that of Abram (Abraham) (c. 1900 BC).

 

Perhaps that yawning gap in the First Dynasty list is filled out by the Second Dynasty that we read earlier to be potentially causing complications with the First Dynasty: “Recent research by the EES has shown that Gisr el-Mudir may at least be one generation older than the Horus Netjerikhet, thus dating to the 2nd Dynasty”.

 

But, then again, perhaps not!

http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn02/dyn02.html

 

Hetepsekhemwy Reneb (Nebre) Weneg Ninetjer Sened Nubnefer Neferkare Neferkaseker Hudjefa I Peribsen-Sekhemib Khasekhemwy

 

There immediately appear to be some obstacles to such a suggestion, with the first listed ruler, Hetepsekhemwy, being, yet once again, I would suggest, Joseph-Imhotep himself, as Hotep-Im (= Hetep-Imef) Khasekhemwy, who, it needs to be noted, emerges again at the end of this Second Dynasty list.

 

Here, I do not intend to become bogged down with the Second Dynasty, which, to date, I have not studied at any great length.

 

However, I would just like to suggest, tentatively, that I think a case could be mounted also for Ninetjer (Nynetjer) in this list to be the same ruler as Djer (Nine-tjer) in the First Dynasty list, a contemporary of Joseph as I shall be arguing – for Ninetjer, too, may have experienced a great famine (see 1. below).

 

And, intriguingly, Peribsen in the list was once thought (the idea is not popular today) to have introduced monotheism to Egypt (as could perhaps be expected from Joseph) along the lines of Akhnaton at a much later date. On this last, see e.g. my article:

 

Akhnaton’s Theophany

 

(11) Akhnaton's Theophany

 

Whilst, in the lengthy Phouka king list above, a full five regal names separate Ninetjer (potential Famine Pharaoh) from Seth-Peribsen (most tentatively, Joseph), Peribsen immediately follows Ninetjer in the (roughly) half as long list here at Higher Intellect:

https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/other/crystalinks/dynasty2.html

 

Hotepsekhemwy - 'Pleasing in Powers'

Reneb - Re is the Lord

Ninetjer - Godlike

Peribsen - Sekhemib - 'Powerful in Heart'

Khasekhemwy - "The Two Powerful Ones Appear"

 

Could it be that more than half (8 out of 14) of the names listed for these supposedly two distinct dynasties – {here following the shortened version of the Second Dynasty} - pertain to the era of the biblical Joseph?

 

There could well be much more to be said about all of this!

 

1.    Famine Pharaoh: Archaïc Period

Returning to the First Dynasty list, to Djer, Merneith, Djet and Den, about all of whom I wrote above that they belonged to the era of the biblical Joseph, we can put aside Merneith, a female, who obviously could not have been Joseph’s Pharaoh.

 

Den (Udimu) was, I have already concluded most emphatically, Joseph himself:

 

Joseph also as Den, ‘he who brings water’

 

(6) Joseph also as Den, 'he who brings water'

 

Djer and Djet I would consider to be two manifestations of just the one Pharaoh - paralleling the already discussed Third Dynasty and Eleventh Dynasty syncretism - respectively, Horus Netjerikhet as Djer, and Mentuhotep Netjerihedjet as Djet.

For an easy explanation of this, see my article:

 

Symmetrical dynastic links for Famine Pharaoh and Joseph

 

(6) Symmetrical dynastic links for Famine Pharaoh and Joseph

 

Above, I tentatively included the long-reigning Second Dynasty ruler, Ninetjer (-djer). 

 

Djet and Ninetjer had in common long reigns and celebration of the Heb Sed festival, which (supposedly occurring every 30 years) was probably far less common in those early times as may be thought, but which may have become duplicated (or more) due to an inaccurate, repetitive Egyptology.

 

Not only did Djet and Ninetjer, in common, enjoy a Heb Sed festival, however, but Djet, certainly, and Ninetjer, potentially, experienced a severe Famine.

 

Regarding pharaoh Djet and the Famine, see e.g. my article (revised, with Imhotep now intended as Djoser):

 

Taking a Djet to Djoser’s Famine

 

(6) Taking a Djet to Djoser's Famine

 

And, regarding a possible lengthy famine at the time of Ninetjer, we read as follows:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nynetjer

“Egyptologists such as Barbara Bell believe that an economic catastrophe such as a famine or a long lasting drought affected Egypt around this time. Therefore, to address the problem of feeding the Egyptian population, Nynetjer split the realm into two and his successors ruled two independent states until the famine came to an end. Bell points to the inscriptions of the Palermo stone, where, in her opinion, the records of the annual Nile floods show constantly low levels during this period”.

 

Likewise, Miroslav Bárta has written in his article:

 

Journey to the West The world of the Old Kingdom tombs in Ancient Egypt. Prague 2012

 

https://www.academia.edu/23316703/Journey_to_the_West_The_world_of_the_Old_Kingdom_tombs_in_Ancient_Egypt_Prague_2012

 

that: “… probably at the end of the First and start of the Second Dynasty, a time marked by internal conflicts connected with low levels of flooding and failed harvests …”:

 

“… low levels of flooding and failed harvests …” the perfect mix of ingredients for Famine in ancient Egypt.

 

 

2.   Joseph and Asenath: Archaïc Period

 

No need to repeat here what I have already written (in my “Joseph also as Den …” article above) about Den (Udimu) as Joseph-Imhotep.

While the name Den, “he who brings water”, so fitting of Joseph, may have been posthumously assigned, it, and his other names, especially Usafais (Manetho) - clearly Joseph (Usaf-) - and Khasti, “the one of the desert”, or “foreigner”, mark him as:

 

Joseph;

foreigner from the desert;

the one who brings water.

 

I have further identified Joseph with the famous Chancellor of this time:

 

Joseph as Chancellor of Egypt, Hemaka

 

https://www.academia.edu/121954546/Joseph_as_Chancellor_of_Egypt_Hemaka

 

More recently, I believe that I may have found evidence for Joseph’s wife, Asenath:

 

A possible identification of Asenath, the wife of Joseph

 

(4) A possible identification of Asenath, the wife of Joseph

 

The name is obviously an Egyptian one, whose later element, - nath, pertains to the goddess Neith.

 

The woman in question is the highly important, Ahaneith (wikipedia.org):

 

“Ahaneith was an ancient Egyptian woman, who lived during the

First Dynasty of Egypt. She was named after the goddess Neith”.

 

The name Ahaneith is essentially the same name as Asenath, bar one consonantal variation.

And she lived at the right Archaïc period for my revised Asenath.

 

Whether or not Merneith of the First Dynasty was also Joseph’s wife, Asenath, under a variant name form, I would not be able to determine at this stage.

 

What is apparent, though, is that scholars cannot decide between whether Merneith was the wife of Djet or the mother of Den (impossible if Den was Joseph as I am claiming him to have been): https://www.livius.org/articles/person/merneith/

 

“Queen Merneith lived during Egypt’s Early Dynastic Period and was presumably the great wife of King Djet and mother of King Den. She is named in one of Egypt’s earliest known King Lists, which has led scholars to believe that Merneith may have been a pharaoh in her own right”. 

 

 

Reflecting on the biblical Egyptology of Ron Wyatt’s wife, Mary Nell (Lee)

by Damien F. Mackey According to Mary Nell, Ron believed that he had been able to work out the complexities of Egyptian dynastic history in relation to the Bible only because God had enabled him to do so. Otherwise, it would have been impossible considering the intricacies of the subject. Yesterday, the eve of today’s feast-day of the Immaculate Conception (8th December, 2025), I came across a video by Mary Nell (Lee) Wyatt on the high official, Senenmut, of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty: NEW Discovery | Ron Wyatt Found Evidence For Moses In Egypt! Prior to this, Mary Nell Wyatt was for me just a name that I had seen associated with, as his wife, the well-known Ron Wyatt. Thus I was stunned to hear her expatiate at great length and fluency on Egyptology, from the First Dynasty all the way through to the Eighteenth, in relation to her large book: Battle for the Firstborn: The Exodus and the Death of Tutankhamen (2020). Mary Nell’s narrative, heavily based upon the research of her deceased husband, gives as plausible account as most have been able to do of biblical history, from Abram (Abraham) to Moses, in its relation to the Egyptian dynasties. And it is highly original. Apparently, before the pair (met or) married, Ron had lived in Hawaii and had there, in the library, voraciously devoured books on history. What enhances Mary Nell’s presentation is she herself, a very likeable person who can listen patiently to her interviewer’s questions – unlike some guest speakers who want to talk all the time, talk all over the interviewer, and, when they do pause to listen, ostensibly, seem tense and impatient to re-commence their diatribe. According to Mary Nell, Ron believed that he had been able to work out the complexities of Egyptian dynastic history in relation to the Bible only because God had enabled him to do so. Otherwise, it would have been impossible considering the intricacies of the subject. Now she, as Ron’s successor, believes that the model that she has laid out in her book is the correct one. + + + + + Today’s feast of the Immaculate Conception recalls the one human person (Jesus, though having a fully human nature, was a Divine Person) in history who was not deceived, over whom the Devil never had any dominance. It is one thing to say that we are instruments of the Holy Spirit, but are we really? Might we be deceiving ourselves – or allowing the Devil, the Father of Lies (John 8:44), to deceive us? I remember years ago being turned off Ron Wyatt when I read that he would come to some mound and go all rigid with the Holy Spirit, standing there and pointing at the mound, within which some great biblical discovery, presumably, was waiting to be revealed. His gullible followers would then hasten keenly to start digging there. But nothing ever seemed to come to fruition. At the fateful moment, for example, the Israeli authorities (or some other unforeseen situation) would intervene, preventing the team from continuing. Nothing was ever able to come to fruition. The fact of the matter was, there was no fruition! Apparently the state of Israel is quite prepared to let loose such Christian Zionist amateur archaeologist types to dig in areas of no significance, looking on benignly while the Christians hope to add to their ‘amazing’ discoveries of no significance: Christian Zionists a boon to Israel, but sadly mistaken about Final Coming and Third Temple (7) Christian Zionists a boon to Israel, but sadly mistaken about Final Coming and Third Temple Another key point that we need to consider in studies such as this is that there is a world of difference between knowledge and wisdom, which is an inspired gift of the Holy Spirit. Knowledge is, too, of course (cf. Isaiah 11:2), but here I am talking about knowledge in natural terms, as knowing a whole lot of stuff. Our academic world is full of purveyors of much stuff, but wisdom can often seem to be in very short supply: Trenchant Criticisms of the Academic World (5) Trenchant Criticisms of the Academic World There is nothing self-deceptive in the wise man – the wise woman, Mary Immaculate. Take the prophet Daniel, as an example. He knew by the power of the Holy Spirit that what he had interpreted in relation to King Nebuchednezzar’s Dream, a humanly impossible assignment, was absolutely correct, coming as it did from God (Daniel 2:45): “The dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy”. This is what the Wyatt’s appear to have been claiming, as well. But can the same be said, “true”, “trustworthy” for their admittedly impressive (at least superficially) biblical Egyptology? The prophet Daniel’s wisdom was built upon prayer and fasting, and strict obedience. And there was no self-seeking, or ego, in it. Once the ego takes over, and a reputation is gained, one may feel pressure to ‘doctor’ digging sites, to start planting artefacts, as Ron Wyatt has often been accused of doing. All in the name of God, of course: Abandonment of common sense, telling lies for God, not necessary prerequisites for biblical interpretation (4) Abandonment of common sense, telling lies for God, not necessary prerequisites for biblical interpretation Professor Ian Plimer is not the problem here! The Wyatt version of Egyptology I like the fact that Ron Wyatt had approached Egyptology from the point of view of covering the extensive biblical phase from Abram (Abraham) to Moses, rather than simply focussing upon just one segment, e.g. the Famine era of Joseph. A holistic approach. How well, though, does he and his wife’s Egyptological platform serve for setting up later major events, archaeologically and/or geographically verifiable, such as Joshua’s Conquest of Jericho, and Shishak of Egypt’s despoliation of the Temple of Yahweh? If it be a case of a Danielic type of inspiration from the Holy Spirit, then the whole thing must, like Nebuchednezzar’s Dream, fall lock, stock and barrel, right into place. Sadly, as we are going to find out, this will not be the case. Once again, there will be a lack of fruition, unlike: An accurate revision of history is a ‘tree’ bearing ample fruit (7) An accurate revision of history is a 'tree' bearing ample fruit And if such be so, then it cannot justifiably be claimed to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit. Abraham and Joseph Mary Nell gets off to a very good start, so I believe, by supposing Abraham to have lived at the beginning of Egyptian dynastic history, First or Second Dynasty. It gets even better with her identification of Joseph with the great Imhotep, who served Horus Netjerikhet, a Famine Pharaoh, of Egypt’s Third Dynasty. Creationist Patrick Clarke, who will locate Joseph during Egypt’s Eleventh Dynasty, will refer critically to the Wyatt thesis here in his article: “Joseph’s Zaphenath Paaneah—a chronological key” (JOURNAL OF CREATION 27(3) 2013 || VIEWPOINT): …. Wyatt creates far greater problems by linking Joseph to the famous Imhotep. …. Wyatt (using the conventional Egyptian chronology as the guide) must move Imhotep and Zoser around seven centuries nearer the birth of Christ. …. Given the unsuitability of the choices of pharaohs and names for Joseph above, is there a suitable pharaonic candidate who meets the biblical requirements? Mentuhotep II appears to meet these requirements perfectly, needing a movement of three centuries rather that the stress-inducing seven centuries required by Wyatt above. …. The fact is (my opinion) that, to identify Joseph and Moses, one needs to knit together, as one, several Egyptian dynasties, even kingdoms. Both Wyatt and Clarke are correct that (Wyatt) Joseph is the Third Dynasty Imhotep and (Clarke) that he belonged to the Eleventh Dynasty Famine era of Mentuhotep II. See how I have connected all this, and more, in my article: Symmetrical dynastic links for Famine Pharaoh and Joseph (4) Symmetrical dynastic links for Famine Pharaoh and Joseph But both Wyatt and Clarke are wrong, however, in naming the Third Dynasty (Famine) Pharaoh as Zoser (see my article again). As far back as 1987, Tom Chetwynd had opined that Joseph may have been Imhotep (“A Seven Year Famine in the Reign of King Djoser with Other Parallels between Imhotep and Joseph”, Catastrophism and Ancient History, Volume IX, Part I). Did the Wyatt’s come to this conclusion independently? That can happen. Whatever be the case, it would be nice as a general courtesy if writers would indicate whenever they had adopted an idea from someone else. Whilst listening to Mary Nell most capably deliver her long account of Egyptian history, I wondered at times what happened to certain very important dynasties or rulers. For instance – and perhaps she has dealt with this in her book – the mighty Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt did not seem to get any reasonable mention at all. This, I believe, to have been the very dynasty (or one of them, as merging is necessary) that had begun the Oppression of Israel when Moses was born: Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty oppressed Israel (6) Egypt's Twelfth Dynasty oppressed Israel Mary Nell scoots through a whole swathe of dynasties and ends up in the Seventeenth, with Pharaoh Kamose as her first Oppressor King of Israel (cf. Exodus 1:8). This is a startlingly long jump from Imhotep as Joseph, in Egypt’s Third Dynasty (c. 2600 BC, conventional dating) to the infancy of Moses presumably under Kamose (c. 1550 BC, conventional dating). Biblically estimated, Moses was born only about 65 years after the death of Joseph. And now for the intriguing identification of Moses as the high Eighteenth Dynasty official, Senenmut – a view that has become extremely popular in recent times – with Moses’s Egyptian foster-mother as Hatshepsut. Bizarrely, Mary Nell chooses to identify the male Senenmut in statues as a female: Quite missing from her treatment of the Eighteenth Dynasty (at least in the video) is another much favoured candidate for Moses, the monotheistic pharaoh, Akhnaton. I do not recall Mary Nell even mentioning him. After Akhnaton came the famous Tutankhamun, Pharaoh’s ill-fated first born (see title of Mary Nell’s book). Actually, Smenkhkare is considered to have been Tutankhamun’s older brother, and apparently his features, and not those of Tutankhamun, are what adorn the royal mask. (Mary Nell claims that these are Tut’s father’s features): Tut’s famous middle coffin probably belonged to his predecessor Smenkhkare (6) Tut's famous middle coffin probably belonged to his predecessor Smenkhkare Dr. I. Velikovsky’s intuitive (though not properly worked out) identifications of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty, with, respectively, the biblical Queen of Sheba and King Shishak (Ages in Chaos, I, 1952), are far preferable, I would think, to Mary Nell’s admittedly intriguing and original scenario. And I was able in 1997 to include the addition of Senenmut, as (not Mary Nell’s Moses) King Solomon in Egypt (pairing with the Queen of Sheba, Hatshepsut): Solomon and Sheba (8) Solomon and Sheba All of this segues very nicely into Dr. Velikovsky’s thesis that pharaoh Thutmose III (Shishak), in his Year 22-23 (First Campaign) despoiled the Temple in Jerusalem, about 5 years after the death of King Solomon. The chronology is virtually exact, locking in, as it does, with Senenmut’s (as Solomon) fading from the Egyptian records around Year 16 (of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III). Dr. Velikovsky had made quite a mess, though, of putting together the geography of Thutmose III’s campaign unto Jerusalem, which I hope to have rectified in articles such as: Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III’s march on Jerusalem (6) Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III's march on Jerusalem I do not know if Mary Nell’s version of Egyptian history has projected this far ahead. But why I do know that the Egyptological reconstruction of the Wyatt’s is faulty, and thus not locked in as “trustworthy” by the Holy Spirit, is because any New Kingdom reconstruction of the Exodus will have as its consequence the sore fact that, when Joshua will arrive at Jericho, there will be no city there for him to attack. As I wrote in my article (favouring that holistic approach): From Raamses to the ‘Sea of Reeds’ (8) From Raamses to the 'Sea of Reeds' …. Why the new Kingdom is totally inappropriate While, superficially, a New Kingdom (Eighteenth or Nineteenth Dynasty) setting for the Exodus might appear to fit the bill, it would actually cause far more problems than it may seemingly manage to solve. For it is not sufficient simply to grab a particular phase out of history and claim that it attaches nicely to a biblical event. The Bible records a long, developing history which necessitates that the whole thing be fitted into an historical and archaeological framework. If, for instance, one were to take Ramses II as the Pharaoh of the Exodus, one would then need to be able to situate, each into its own proper place, Joseph and the Famine at an earlier phase of Egyptian history, and, then, Abram (Abraham), before Joseph. On this note, Dr. John Osgood has rightly, in a recent article (2024): https://assets.answersresearchjournal.org/doc/v17/ jericho_dating_joshuas_conquest_of_canaan_comments_osgood.pdf Answers Research Journal 17 (2024): 221–222, “The Walls of Jericho: Dating Joshua’s Conquest of Canaan—Comments”, expressed his ‘amazement’ when those involved in biblico-historical reconstructions exclude “a whole saga of history”: …. Habermehl tells us that “we note that the Bible does not say that Hiel built a city, but only a wall.” Really, then what do the words “Hiel of Bethel built Jericho” mean? It had a foundation (not specifically of a wall) and it had gates (1 Kings 16:34). But the archaeologists have clearly and categorically found a large city during Middle Bronze on the site of Jericho and therefore before Hiel. That city needs an explanation, as it won’t go away. This is where I am amazed at the blindness of both conventional and revisionist discussions, as if the pages of the book of Judges are stuck together and a whole saga of history is excluded. Namely, there was the attack on Jericho, the city of palm trees, by Eglon of Moab, and for 20 years that site was occupied by 10,000 of his troops (Judges 3:12– 30, see also Deuteronomy 34:3; Judges 1:16; 2 Chronicles 28:15—the city of palm trees). …. [End of quote] Nor will it be sufficient to focus only upon Egypt – though that nation was, admittedly, the main power during the biblical era from the patriarchs Abram (Abraham) to Moses. Mesopotamia, Syria, Canaan, and so on, must likewise be properly accounted for, both historically and archaeologically. Key to a biblico-historical synthesis will obviously be the Conquest of Canaan and its centrepiece, the Fall of Jericho, which outstanding episode should be archaeologically verifiable. Pharaoh Ramses II may indeed have had his wonderful horses and chariots, but, for those who hold him to have been the Pharaoh of the Exodus, these are now faced with a Late Bronze Age (LBA) archology for the Conquest, and for Jericho, that is hopelessly inadequate. Much has been written about this. Stuart Zachary Steinberg briefly sums it up here: Redating the Conquest of the Promised Land | by Stuart Zachary Steinberg | Medium “For nearly 150 years the conquest by the Israelites has been dated to the Late Bronze Age. The reason for that has been primarily placing the Exodus in the Late Kingdom to have Raamses II as the pharaoh of the Exodus, to correspond with Exodus where it states that the children of Israel built the store cities of Pithom and Raamses. The problem is that there are nearly no correspondence[s] between the destruction of various cities and archaeology in the Late Bronze Age (LBA). Most [of] the cities mentioned do not exist or were destroyed much earlier. Case in point is Jericho. During the Late Bronze Age there was no city at Jericho for Joshua to destroy”. This is the dire situation that confronts the conventional scholars and whoever else might look to situate the Exodus at the time of Egypt’s New Kingdom. The high point of the Conquest of Canaan by Joshua was the destruction of Jericho, whose walls famously fell down. However: “During the Late Bronze Age there was no city at Jericho for Joshua to destroy”. Boom, boom. This is that lack of fruition, again – no lock, stock and barrel co-ordination.