See for example, A. Leo Oppenheim, trans., “Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts,” in James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts (ANET) (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1950), p. 279.


We need to allow a brief co-regency of Jehoshaphat with his sick and aged father, King Asa, when the new Israelite king, Ahab, may have posed a threat to Judah. It is significant that the two most competent scholars on Hebrew monarchy chronology, E.R. Thiele and Gershon Galil, both come to this same basic date of 931/930 B.C., from two quite independent approaches. See Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986); and Galil, The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996).


For all these matters, see the full treatment in Kenneth A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 B.C.) (Warminster: Aris & Phillips Ltd., revised 2nd ed., 1996), pp. xxxiv–xii, 72–76, 174–183, 293–302, 324–325, 372–376, 383–388, 546–559, 575–576 and 583–586. On updated Egyptian chronology, see Kitchen, “The Historical Chronology of Ancient Egypt, A Current Assessment,” in Acta Archaeologica 67 (1996), pp. 1–13; also in K. Randsborg, ed., Absolute Chronology, Archaeological Europe 2500–5000 BC (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1996), pp. 1–13; and an updated version including evaluation of the new Tang I-Var text in Manfred Bietak, ed., The Synchronization of Civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Second Millennium BC (Vienna: Austrian Academy, 2000), pp. 29–42.


Ricardo A. Caminos, “Gebel Es-Silsilah No. 100, ” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 38 (1952), pp. 46–61, plates 10–13; recent translation by Kitchen in Lowell K. Handy, ed., The Age of Solomon, Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium (Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 124–125.


Pierre Montet, Le tombeau d’Osorkon II (Paris: Mission Montet, 1947), plate IX:1, in photo, which should always be used, and not just the crude and inaccurate line-drawing which is reproduced ad infinitum. The scene was wrongly described as anonymous (“unidentified king,” and its ax equally wrongly as anachronistic) by James M. Weinstein, in Seymour Gitin, Amihai Mazar and Ephraim Stern, eds., Mediterranean Peoples in Transition (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1998), p. 193 and note 10, by a crass slip of the pen, with a touch of unjustified hypercriticism.


It is certainly neither a shield (see Alberto R. W. Green, “Solomon and Siamun: a Synchronism between Early Dynastic Israel and Twenty-first Dynasty Egypt,” Journal of Biblical Literature 97 [1978], pp. 364–365; H. Darrell Lance, “Solomon, Siamun and the Double-Ax,” in Frank Moore Cross, et al, eds., Magnolia Dei … in Memory of G. Ernest Wright [New York: Doubleday, 1976], pp. 213–124, 220, notes 33–37) nor a halter, nor a set of handcuffs (see Paul S. Ash, David, Solomon and Egypt, a Reassessment [Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999], pp. 41 and 45), which were ovals with a central slot! The foe grasps the ax at its socket, from which protrudes a (wooden) handle, possibly shown broken at a shallow angle, so that (magically) he and it could not harm the king.


William L. Moran, The Amarna Letters (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1992), pp. 8–9, letter 4:4–22.


For all of these matters, see Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, and “Egyptian Interventions in the Levant in Iron Age II,” in William G. Dever, ed., Symbiosis, Symbolism and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel and their Neighbors (American Schools of Oriental Research), in press.


Book III, par. 3.


Kenneth A. Kitchen, “The Controlling Role of External Evidence in Assessing the Historical Status of the Israelite United Monarchy,” in B.W. Winter, ed., Supplement to the Tyndale Bulletin (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), in press.