The Amarna Age

        The Berlin chronology presented in table one tells us that Amenhotep III was ruling Egypt minimally from 949-933 B.C. plus some undetermined years at either end of that span. Since the monuments clearly assign a minimum of 37 years to this king we are compelled to add an additional twenty years. And since, according to our table, Ay was on the throne in the year 917 B.C., we are compelled to assign most of these twenty years to the upper end of temporal spectrum, leaving as much space as possible at the lower end (between Amenhotep III and Ay) in which to insert the reigns of Amenhotep IV (17 years), Smenkhare (3 years) and Tutankhamon (9 years). Tentatively we assign to Amenhotep III the years 964-928 B.C.. Even at that the genealogy all but demands that we assume a lengthy period of coregency between Amenhotop III and his son Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten), a possibility much discussed and disputed in the literature. For the time being we assign to Akhenaten the years 940-923 B.C. The genealogy further suggests that the years of Smenkhare must have overlapped the reign of Tutankhamon, another subject much debated. We cannot be far wrong in assigning to Tutankhamon a brief 5 year reign in the approximate time frame 923-918 B.C., his remaining 4 years overlapping the reign of Ay who usurped the throne, and to whom we assign the years 918-914 B.C. Only by assuming these co-regencies can we possible accommodate the reigns of the three kings in the time available between Amenhotep III and Ay. (1)

        Before proceeding we should acknowledge one last time that the suggested absolute chronology for the 18th dynasty kings which results from the Berlin genealogy can only be considered as approximate. The "iffy" nature of the assumptions which undergirded our reasoning and the vexed questions regarding co-regencies, suggest the need for caution regarding the conclusions that we now draw from an examination of that chronology. In the final analysis it will be the ends that justify our means. The Berlin genealogy as interpreted above clearly places the Amarna age, which ranges from the terminal years of Amenhotep III through the reigns of Akhenaten and Tutankhamon, near the end of the 10th century B.C., somewhere in the time frame 930-910 B.C.. and perhaps a few years beyond. It is incumbent on us to show the reasonableness of those dates, thus vindicating our methodology.
 

The Jewish Background of the Amarna Letters 

        If Amenhotep III ruled Egypt in the time frame 964-928 B.C., then it must be the case that he ruled as a contemporary of the Israelite king Solomon (970-931 B.C.) and briefly into the reign of Solomon's son and successor Rehoboam (931-913 B.C.) and his antagonist Jeroboam I (931-910 B.C.) It must also be true that Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) (940-923 B.C.) began joint rule with his father late in the reign of Solomon, succeeded his father early in the reign of Rehoboam, and ruled as a contemporary of Rehoboam (and Jeroboam) for much of his life. We cannot be more specific than this. There are simply too many variables, including the Jewish chronology which is followed here.

        Fortunately this "Berlin chronology" places the Amarna age squarely within the kingdom age of Israel, specifically at the beginning of the divided kingdom period (931-722 B.C.) It should be possible therefore to confirm its accuracy by comparison with the political history of Israel as revealed in the Hebrew Bible.

        According to Jewish historians, Jeroboam, who dispossessed Rehoboam as the leader of the northern Palestinian tribal groups immediately following the death of Solomon, and initiated the prolonged period of the divided monarchy, had earlier had a falling out with Solomon and had fled to Egypt to seek the protection of an Egyptian pharaoh named Shishak. While there, according to one late source, he married a sister of Shishak's wife. (2) When Solomon died Jeroboam returned to Israel and almost immediately led a coalition of northern Israelite tribes in rebellion against Rehoboam, establishing a rival kingdom. It follows that Egypt, which we assume supported Jeroboam's rebellion, thereby established dominance in the region, receiving tribute from Jeroboam and the other tribal leaders, while Rehoboam for a time maintained the independence of the southern tribes. This temporary independence was brought to an end five years later (926 B.C.) when Shishak, for reasons unknown, attacked Rehoboam, overthrew Jerusalem, and pillaged the treasury of the Jerusalem temple (1 Kings 14:25,26) While Rehoboam remained as titulary head of the southern tribal region until his death fifteen years later, we must assume that Egypt maintained a military presence in the Jerusalem area, and perhaps as well imposed some form of secondary political control. Thus by the year 925 B.C. we find in Palestine a quite distinctive political situation. The overriding authority is clearly that of Egypt, to whom Jereboam was aligned, possibly by marriage and certainly by sentiment, and under whom Rehoboam served as a reluctant vassal. The land was partitioned into two distinct tribal regions with an east-west boundary line roughly located along the Jezreel valley. For the next fifteen years Jeroboam and Rehoboam clashed ideologically, and at times militarily, as each attempted to unseat the other. The Jewish historians are silent regarding the role of Egypt. Its presence is assumed, but not defined..

        Two identifications follow directly from this chronology.

        In the first place we are compelled to identify pharaoh Shishak with either Amenhotep III or Akhenaton, who ruled jointly during the years immediately preceding the death of Solomon and alone qualify as candidates for the pharaoh who befriended Jeroboam. If we had complete confidence in the regnal dates assigned earlier we should rule out Amenhotep III, whose death in 927 B.C. preceded Shishak's attack on Jerusalem by several years. But those dates remain open to question, as do the precise absolute dates for Rehoboam's reign. We should therefore maintain the viability of both possibilities.

        Secondly, there can be no question but that the biblical figure Zerah the Cushite who clashed with Rehoboam's grandson Asa around the year 900 B.C. (2 Chron. 14:9-13) must be Horemheb, who succeeded Ay around 914 B.C. and ruled Egypt for 27 years.

        We will spend no time defending these identifications. As did Velikovsky fifty years ago, we base our assumptions solely on chronological synchronisms supported on other grounds, leaving defense of this aspect of our thesis to others, or to ourselves at a later date. Sufficient here to note that in the Amarna correspondence from Palestine the pharaoh is never addressed by his cartouche names, rather by some honorific epithet that alludes to his splendour, usually Shimshi, "my Sun".   An original alteration of Shimshi to Shimshak "your Sun" (hence over time to Shishaq) may have been a deliberate circumlocution on the part of scribes who passed on the Jeroboam story through the ages until its final post-exilic editing four hundred years after the fact.  The fact that the "mem" elided over time and that terminal "qoph" replaced the "kaph" cannot be considered a strong objection.  In the transmission of names it was the sound that was of paramount concern.   As for Zerah, we can only surmise a guess that the initial part of the throne name Hera-em-heb was the possible source of the biblical phoneme, though we have no explanation for the alteration of "h" to "z". The fact that Zerah is not identified as a pharaoh is consistent with the non-regal status of Horemheb early in his career. He began as a commander of the army under Tutankhamon and Ay. Precisely when he assumed pharaonic status is not known for certain, and ambiguity regarding his rank may explain the lack of title accorded him by the Jewish historians.

        There remains for us to summarize the Amarna letters from Palestine and compare the situation therein revealed with the emerging divided monarchy described in the Jewish historical books.
 

The Amarna Correspondence

Time Frame

        It is most fortunate for our argument that the "Berlin chronology" places the Amarna correspondence in the time frame 930-910 B.C. In that correspondence we find multiple references to the city of Jerusalem, the name assigned to the southern capital by king David, the father of Solomon. The beginning of the reign of David, approximately 1010 B.C. in the Jewish chronology we are following here, thus acts as a terminus a quo for the Amarna letters. On the other hand Shechem, the most prominent city of the northern kingdom in the Amarna letters, yielded its dominance in time to Samaria, a city founded by king Omri, a near descendent of Jeroboam, around the year 885 B.C. The fact that Shechem remains dominant in the letters, while Samaria is never mentioned in spite of a prolific correspondence from cities in the same geographical area, implies that the reign of Omri lies yet in the future, providing a terminus ad quem for those same letters.

        But not all dates between 1010 B.C. and 885 B.C. would be appropriate contexts for the Amarna letters. That correspondence, as we will soon see, clearly represents Egypt as the dominant power in the Levant, sovereign over the entire eastern coast of the Mediterranean, from the Philistine cities on the southern coastal plain to Simyra and Biblos on the northern coast, and inland as far as Kadesh on the Orontes. Though its sovereignty is being threatened in the north by the emerging power of the Hittite and Mitannian kingdoms, and by internal feuds wherein at least one powerful family threatens to usurp the authority of the semi-autonomous city nomarchs, Egypt continues to rule the Levant throughout the brief duration of the Amarna correspondence. This situation could clearly not arise during the reigns of kings David and Solomon, whose kingdoms controlled not only the Phoenician coastline, but the Syrian hinterland as far as the Euphrates (3). The Amarna letters must postdate the reigns of both David and Solomon. They must date therefore between the years 930 B.C. and 885 B.C., the onset of the reign of Omri. And even these limits should be further narrowed. In the tenth year of Asa, who succeeded Jeroboam after the brief tenure of Abijam (Jeroboam's son), thus roughly 900 B.C., Egypt's sovereignty over the Levant was abruptly terminated when Asa defeated and expelled the Egyptian army led by Zerah. The Amarna letters must date therefore in the thirty year interval from 930-900 B.C. No earlier or later date would be acceptable. Is it mere happens chance that the Berlin chronology positions the Amarna age precisely in this narrow temporal window of opportunity?

        But how precisely does the data from the Amarna letters fit the known circumstances of the initial decades of the divided monarchy?

The Rebel Labaya

        When Velikovsky discussed the Amarna correspondence in his Ages In Chaos, and attempted to compare the data contained therein with the historical situation which prevailed during the time of Ahab the son of Omri in the middle of the 9th century, he made two serious mistakes. In the first place he read the letters emanating from Sumura, a coastal town near Gubla (Biblos) on the northern shore of the Mediterranean, as if the name referred to Samaria, the inland capital of the northern kingdom of Israel founded by Omri. The effort was disingenuous at best. Sumura in the letters is clearly the Phoenician port city of Simyra, located hundreds of miles to the north. But a more serious error, this time of omission rather than commission, was his failure to discuss the activity of the most prominent character in the southern correspondence - the rebel Labaya. One is hard pressed to find a reference to this individual in the whole of Velikovsky's work, (4) rather surprising, since he figures directly or indirectly in almost every letter. We need to set forth the details relating to this intriguing character, comparing them at every turn with the life and times of Jeroboam, son of Nabat. We state our intention at the outset, namely, to demonstrate that Labaya and Jeroboam are one and the same person. If not, we are seriously mistaken in our temporal placement of the Amarna correspondence.

Political Background: We have already noted the involvement of Egypt in the split that emerged between the northern and southern Israelite tribes at the time of Solomon's death. Though not discussed in the Jewish historical literature, where the activities of Jeroboam and Rehoboam are summarized in a few succinct paragraphs, the dominance of Egypt in the region is nevertheless understood, particularly in the aftermath of Shishak's conquest of Jerusalem. The Amarna letters provide us a glimpse into this political background as it existed sometime late in the "reign" of Jeroboam. In order to understand much of the discussion that follows the reader needs to be informed concerning the broad details of this backdrop. Sufficient here to quote the words of the late William Albright, one of the world's most renowned experts on the Amarna documents, in his Cambridge Ancient History article on the subject:

As far as practicable the Egyptians had left the local princely houses in control of their own territories, but under the close supervision of Egyptian agents whom we may conveniently designate as 'commissioner' (Akkadian rabisu, Canaanite sokinu, Hebrew soken) and "envoy" (Egyptian upitu [wpwty]). These agents were generally Egyptians, but they were not infrequently Canaanites of Semitic stock, as in the case of Iankhamu and Addayu. Sometimes native princes played an important role in Egyptian administration, as in the case of Iapa-Adda, who was probably prince of Tyre, or Piryawaza, prince of the Damascus region. The chief centers of Egyptian administration in Palestine were Gaza and Joppa on the coast; Gaza is mentioned several times as the residence of an Egyptian commissioner in one letter, and it appears already in that role in an earlier letter from Ta'anach. (CAH 2nd II part 2 p. 102) [emphasis added]
        This scenario fits reasonably well the assumed political situation that prevailed in the days of Jeroboam and Rehoboam. From the point of view of the Hebrew Bible these two princes were fully in control of their own territory. Nothing is said about their subservience to a higher authority, a matter of little concern to the Jewish scribes, as elsewhere in the historical literature. The Amarna letters merely augment our understanding of the situation.

        While Egypt discouraged rivalry between the local princes, it is clear in the letters that this rivalry, at times erupting into armed conflict, did exist. And in the Palestine area the hostility was between Labayu, and the territory controlled by him, and cities loyal to Jerusalem. Clearly this is a subject of great interest to our thesis. The Hebrew Bible omits the details of the Jeroboam/Rehoboam rivalry, providing only a summary statement. A single paragraph describes the invasion of Shishak in Rehoboam's fifth year. The next paragraph describes Rehoboam's death.

As for the other events of Rehoboam's reign, and all he did, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Judah? There was continual warfare between Rehoboam and Jeroboam. And Rehoboam rested with his fathers and was buried with them in the City of David... And Abijah his son succeeded him as king. 1 Kings 14:29-31. (emphasis added)
        For details of the warfare we must read the Amarna letters.
 

Geographical Background: Mid-way through his reign, perhaps sensing the possibility of internal revolt or attack from without, Solomon set about fortifying several key cities in the country, in addition to Jerusalem.

Here is the account of the forced labor King Solomon conscripted to build the LORD's temple, his own palace, the supporting terraces, the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer. (Pharaoh king of Egypt had attacked and captured Gezer. He had set it on fire. He killed its Canaanite inhabitants and then gave it as a wedding gift to his daughter, Solomon's wife. And Solomon rebuilt Gezer.) 1 Kings 9:15-17 [emphasis added]
        From this and other texts we see that in addition to Jerusalem Solomon selected three cities in which to house the chariots and horses used by his standing army - Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer. All three are mentioned in the Amarna letters.

        Hazor is located in the far north of Palestine, near lake Huleh. It belonged traditionally to the tribe of Naphtali, and in the division of the kingdom at Solomon's death its allegiance would be with Jeroboam. Either this or it remained unaligned. The two letters which eminate from Hazor are uninformative. The head man of the city, Abdi-Tirši (5), merely used the opportunity to convey to the Egyptian king expressions of steadfast loyalty 

        Megiddo, the coastal city at the western end of the Esdraelon valley, almost certainly remained part of Rehoboam's southern kingdom when Solomon died, though the Jewish historians are silent on the matter. Considering its strategic location it would have been a prime candidate for conquest by Jeroboam in the years of his warfare with Rehoboam. In the Amarna letters its "mayor" was a man named Biridia (6), the author of at least six letters to the Egyptian king (nos. 242-246, 248a) Letters 244-246 complain incessantly about the threatening activity of Labaya. Letter 244 is typical: 

 
To the king, my lord and my sun (shimshi), say.
Thus saith Biridija, the faithful servant of the king: 
At the two feet of the king, my lord and my sun (shimshi),
seven times and seven times I fall down.
Let the king my lord know that since the archers have returned
Labaja (Labaya) has made hostility against me.
And we are unable to mow the plants (kaziga),
and we are unable to go out of the gate because of Labaja,
since he learned (this)
[A]nd (still) thou hast n[o]t [giv]en archers.
[A]nd, behold, he has, [ver]ily, directed [his] endeavour to take Magidda
But verily, let the king rescue his city, in order that Labaja may not conquer it. (7) (244:1-29)
        Biridia goes on to request that Egypt send one hundred garrison troops to save his city from conquest by Labaya, a request ignored judging from later correspondence. 

        Letter 245 suggests that an Egyptian governor did subsequently intervene and order Labaya (lit "took him and sent him") to return to his home, presumably the city of Shechem (8), in spite of Biridia's plea that he be taken to Egypt. As we will observe in a moment, Labaya, though a constant threat to cities loyal to the pharaoh, was nevertheless treated leniently by the Egyptian king, and for reasons unknown accorded special treatment. If we are correct, and Labaya is indeed Jeroboam, a brother-in-law of the pharaoh, we understand why. 

        Gezer is located on the eastern edge of the plain of Sharon, on the important road leading from Joppa (Iapu? in letter 138:6) to Jerusalem. As such it was fortified by Solomon as the last line of defense against an attack from the west. We naturally expect that Jeroboam would invest Gezer at or around the same time he was threatening Megiddo. In fact, he had already conquered the city. Three letters from Labaya to the pharaoh have been preserved in the Amarna archives - numbers 252-254. In all of them Labaya protests his innocence against accusations of insurrection, claims he has been misrepresented, and vows his loyalty to pharaoh. In two of them he acknowledges only one possible "crime". He has captured Gezer. We quote from letter 252 as representative.
 

[To the kin]g, [my lord a]nd my [sun] (shimshi). 
Thus saith [L]abaja, thy [servan]t and the d[ust] [whereon thou] treadest:
[A]t the feet of the ki[ng], my [lo]rd, 
seven times and seven times I fall down.
[I h]ave heard the words [whi]ch the king, my lord, has [wr]itten to m[e] [u]pon a tablet.
[Ve]ri[ly], I am a servant of the king [as m]y [fathe]r and [g]randfa[th]er, servants of [th]e ki[n]g fo[r]me[r]ly
were
And I [ have n]o[t] committed a crime nor have I sinned. This is my crime, an[d] this is my [s]in
that I have entered Gazri.
Thus I say: May the king be gracious to us. For, verily, now I have no other intention than to server the king
and to all that [the ki]ng [ha]s said I [ha]ve hearkened (253:1-31) [emphasis added]
        The investure of Megiddo and Gezer are entirely consistent with our thesis that Labaya and Jeroboam are one and the same person. But there are yet other indications that we are on the right track.

        We have noted in passing the association of Labaya with the city of Shechem. Authorities on the Amarna documents are unanimous that this city was his home, based in part on a letter from a Jerusalem army commandant to the Egyptian pharaoh reporting the situation in Palestine.

Labaja and the land of Shakmi have given (all) to the Habiru (289:22-24)
        Shechem, located about thirty miles north of Jerusalem, near Mt. Ephraim, was the capital of Jeroboam's realm from the beginning of its existence. 
Then Jeroboam fortified Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim and lived there. From there he went up and built up Peniel. 1 Kings 12:25
        The extent of Jeroboam's influence is not clearly spelt out in the Jewish literature, but since he set up shrines in Bethel and Dan, we can assume he "ruled over" territory from a line just north of Jerusalem to somewhere near lake Huleh. The fact that he "built up Peniel" tells us that his influence extended east of the Jordan to the region of Gilead. This is precisely the territory over which Labaya held sway. According to Albright:
By one means or another Labaya was able to extend his control from the Mediterranean to the hills of Gilead and from the plain of Esdraelon to the frontiers of Jerusalem. Milkilu of Gezer and Tagu of Gath in Sharon were more or less faithful allies of his, and he kept the princes of Megiddo and Jerusalem in a perpetual state of apprehension. A son of his (?), Mut-Ba'al, became chief of Pella on the eastern side of Jordan south of Beth-shan. (p. 116)
        It is interesting that in the Jewish historical books and in the Amarna letters alike, the two rulers, Jeroboam and Labaya , were associated uniquely with two cities which might legitimately be called "theirs", while "controlling" a larger territory which contained numerous other cities, presumably under the political guidance of others. Thus Jeroboam is associated particularly with Shechem and Peniel. And Labaya, in an otherwise confusing passage in one of his letters, declares: 
When I was hard pressed, on that very day my two cities were conquered (252:20-22) [emphasis added]
        Geographically, the parallels between the two rebel leaders are nothing short of remarkable. Which leaves us only to compare the two men on a personal level.
 

Personal Background. Jeroboam, we know, was a commoner, the son of an otherwise unknown Israelite named Nabat. Solomon, recognizing his potential, had elevated him to a position "in charge of the whole labor force of the house of Joseph" (1 Ki. 11:28) A falling out between the two led to Jeroboam's flight to Egypt, a (possible) subsequent marriage to the pharaoh's sister-in-law, and to his eventual rebellion. The biblical literature glosses over the details of his personal life. 

... Jeroboam son of Nebat rebelled against the king. He was one of Solomon's officials, and Ephraimite from Zeredah, and his mother was a widow named Zeruah. 1 Ki. 11:26
        That the two individuals, Jeroboam and Labaya were equally possessed of a rebellious nature goes without saying. In character they are strikingly similar. Both apparently had humble beginnings yet both exude a confidence/arrogance which might arise from being politically well connected. So Albright writes:. 
That the latter's (Labaya's) beginnings were insignificant also appears in one of the earliest letters from him to pharaoh ... The truculence of Labaya's tone in writing to the court contrasts oddly with the grovelling subservience of most Palentinian chieftains. (p. 115)
        It is not only Labaya's untoward confidence vis-a-vis his Egyptian overlord, and the lenient treatment he is accorded, that suggest he is somehow related to the pharaoh. In one of his letters to the Egyptian king Labaya mentions that the king has enquired regarding the well being of either his son (Mercer) or his father-in-law (Albright) (9). In the same letter he makes a statement that translators construe as a declaration of absolute loyalty:
In case the king should write for my wife would I refuse her? (254:38-40)
        Admittedly this could be mere hyperbole, a gesture of absolute allegiance to the Egyptian king. But there may be a deeper meaning behind the words, a suggestion that pharaoh is acquainted with Labaya's wife and an acknowledgment that occasion might arise where she would be summoned (back) to Egypt. This would imply for her an Egyptian origin.

        Taken at face value these political, geographical and personal parallels between Jeroboam and Labaya at minimum allow for the possibility that the two names relate to the same person. And considering that they have been placed independently in precisely the same historical time frame, one by a Jewish chronology generally accepted by scholars, the other by the Berlin genealogy chronology which has proved reliable in our earlier revisions, all but seals that conclusion. Only the difference in name seems problematic. If indeed there is a difference. 
 

Labaya's Name. It is the opinion of most scholars that the name of Jeroboam means "the people ('am) are multiplied/great (yarab)", a rather unusual name to assign to a young child to say least. Albright, in an attempt to circumvent this criticism, broadened both the verbal and nominal aspects of the name and understood it to mean "the family is extended," but his argument is unconvincing (AJSL 38 (1922) 140ff. Problems with this stream of interpretation caused many critical interpreters to take 'am as a reference to an otherwise unknown pagan god and translate "(the god) 'am is great". The point of this discussion is simply to call in question whether this was indeed Jeroboam's true name. 

        The similarity (both in sound and in meaning) of the name Jeroboam to that of his southern counterpart Rehoboam, the latter name taken by some to be that king's throne name (Albright in AASOR 21-22 (1943), 67 ) suggested to a few scholars that the name Jeroboam may have been adopted as a parody on the name of Rehoboam, what one commentator has called "a defiant alias" on the part of the rebel king (Montgomery, The Book of Kings ICC 248) If so then Jeroboam's birth name has been lost in the process. 

        A variant of the last hypothesis is the notion that the name of Rehoboam's rival has been supplied by scribes in the process of editing and transmitting the name over the centuries, until the final draft of the books of Kings and Chronicles were composed during and immediately following the exile. The fact that another king of identical name, Jeroboam II, ruled over Israel in that interim, suggests the possibility that the original name of Rehoboam's rival may have been assimilated to that of the later king in the process of transmission, a possibility all the more likely if the original name was vocally similar to that of the later king. The alteration  may have been intentional. (10)

        This preamble leads us to speculate on the three most reasonable explanations for the difference in name between Jeroboam and Labaya.

        In the first place it is possible that the rebel "king" had several names, and that Labaya and Jeroboam are two among these. It is immaterial which was his birth name and which a variation of a "throne name", though the suggestions of the commentators in this regard seem reasonable. This alternative name thesis is precisely that proposed by Velikovsky by way of explaining the identical problem related to the Amarna names in his Ages In Chaos:

The kings of Jerusalem, as well as the kings of Samaria and Damascus also had more than one name. Five different names for Solomon are preserved. King Hezekiah of Jerusalem had nine names. In view of this practice, there is only a limited chance of finding in the el-Amarna letters the names of the kings of Palestine as we know them from the Scriptures. (Ages in Chaos, p. 234)
        Alternatively we could assume that Labaya, the original name (but see below) was altered somehow during the course of transmission, perhaps deliberately changed by scribes to mimic the name of his rival Rehoboam, perhaps intentionally or unintentionally assimilated to the name of the later Jeroboam, so that in time Labaya became Jeroboam. This is particularly likely because the names, as they now stand, bear a remarkable resemblance to one another.

        This resemblance, yet to be explained, suggests yet a third possibility, somewhat disguised by the form taken by the two names in transliterations of those names in English translations. The two names properly transliterated may actually be variant orthographic forms of a single name. A word of explanation is clearly in order. 

        It is the unanimous opinion of translators and commentators of the Amarna texts that the name of Labaya is derived from lb' (lamed, beth, aleph or lamed, beth, yod) the Semitic word for "lion". But the letters which denote this name were written in cuneiform Akkadian, leaving the transliteration less than clear and the original pronunciation of the name even more uncertain. As it stands if the spelling lb' is correct and if the suffix "ia" is a reference to the Jewish god Yahweh, then the name means something like "Yahweh is a lion". [If "ia" refers to some other Semitic phonetic element then some other word play on "lion" is intended, though it is not clear precisely what that would be.] 

        But this interpretation is not so certain as we are led to believe by the unanimity among scholars. The Akkadian writing of the name in the Amarna documents typically consists of four cunieform characters, la-ab-a-ia. It is assumed by scholars that none of these elements is written ideographically. (11) It is further assumed that the third consonant in the name, if indeed there is one, is either an aleph or a yod. That there was a phoetic element following the "b" seems to be indicated in the writing by the presence of an "a", which leaves open the possibility that it represent only a vowel sound, or the vowel indicator "he", or even the gutteral 'ayin, rather than an 'aleph. This leaves the interpretation of the name an open question. We cannot even say for sure whether the suffixed element "ia" was actually sounded at the end of the name. If it refers to the divine name Yahweh as we suspect, the possibility remains that it might have been sounded initially. At least once in the Amarna correspondence the name of Milkilu ("the god (ilu) is king (melek)") is written in reverse order (Ilumelek), leaving open the question how this name was actually pronounced. Thus Lab'aya might be a written representation of Yalaba' without regard to the meaning of the name. Labaya's Egyptian overlords would pronounce the name Yaraba' (Jeraba'), there being no "l" sound (or phoneme) in the Egyptian syllabary. Assuming the biblical spelling is the end result of a lengthy oral tradition,  we can see how the name Jeroboam might arise. The names are practically identical.

        We have encountered this type of problem before. In the first book of our series we discussed how the name of an Egyptian rebel, likely named Terek, became Tarku in Akkadian texts, Tirhakah in the biblical texts and has come to be transcribed Takeloth or Takeroth by Egyptologists. Names are fluid. In the course of time they change, usually maintaining key consonantal elements, but at times mutating with the addition of superfluous and at times meaningless glide elements.

        Regardless of which explanation ultimately holds for the name of the rebel Labaya, we are confident in the identification we have made. But we anticipate at least one critical objection to our thesis. We have discussed the presence of Jeroboam in the Amarna texts. But what about Rehoboam?
 

Rehoboam.

        The Amarna archives contain at least six lengthy letters (nos. 285-90) forthcoming from Jerusalem, all written by a single individual named Abdi-Hiba, and all complaining about the aggression of Labaya, though not always naming the aggressor.   In his letters Abdi-Hiba laments that "the lands of the king, my lord, are lost" (286:22,23) and that "Ilimilku has devastated the whole land of the king" (286:36,37) Ilimilku, the editors note, "is to be identified with Milkilu" the author of several letters to the king and an ally of Libaya, who was apparently installed as "mayor" of Gezer after its conquest by the latter. Abdi-Hiba complains that the threat of still further losses is imminent. He asks for military assistance.

"The lands of the king are going to ruin." (But) you do not listen to me.
All regents are lost; there remains not a regent to the king, the lord.
Let the king turn his attention to the archers
so that archers of the king, my lord, will go forth.
No lands of the king remain.
The Habiru plunder all lands of the king. (286:49-56)
        In letter 289 he is more specific on the origins of the threat. The Philistine towns around Gezer are assisting the rebels.
Verily, the land of [G]azri, the land of Asqaluna, and the city of of Lakisi
have given them food, oil and all (their) needs (mâhziramu)
So, let the king provide archers.
Let him send archers against the people who commit evil against the king, my lord...
Verily this is the deed of Milkili and the deed of Labaja
which have given the land of the king to the Habiru . (289:14-19)
        It is assumed by all commentators on the Amarna letters that Abdi-Hiba writes these letters in his capacity as the king of Jerusalem. If so then he must be Rehoboam and we are confronted with the identical problem we had with Labaya, namely, the difference of name. Assuming that the scholars are correct we can do no better than quote Velikovsky's opinion on the matter, in defense of his theory that Abdi-Hiba is another name for Jehoshophat, king of Judah during the reign of Ahab. At minimum these comments contribute to our discussion regarding the variant names of Labaya/Jeroboam.
The name of the king of Jerusalem of the el-Amarna letters is read Abdi-Hiba. However, the same characters, if regarded as ideographic, permit another reading; at first it was proposed to read it Ebed-Tov ("The Good Servant" in Hebrew), and then Puti-Hiba; others read it Aradhepa or Arthahepa. From this fact we see that names written in cuneiform may be read in many ways, and the reading Abdi-Hiba is only one surmise among a number of others. It would appear that the original reading Ebed-Tov is preferable. (Ages In Chaos, pp. 235-236)
        Velikovsky goes on to suggest that this lauditory epithet "The Good Servant" may have been another of the names of Jehoshophat. The argument, however strong it may be, may well be applied to Rehoboam, the name "good servant" arising in order to contrast his behavior with that of his evil northern counterpart. 

        Having said that, we proceed to argue otherwise. In our opinion Abdi-Hiba is not Rehoboam, the king of Jerusalem. These letters certainly date years after the conquest of Jerusalem by Shishak. Rehoboam remained king in the aftermath of that devastating defeat, but we assume that an Egyptian garrison was left behind to administer Egyptian interests in the area. Abdi-Hiba in these letters is clearly an agent acting on behalf of the Egyptian pharaoh, commissioned to receive and transmit tribute from Rehoboam to the Egyptian treasury. Rehoboam remains in the background and apparently has authored no letters, at least none that are extant. We are not guessing. Abdi-Hiba. clearly articulates his position.

Verily, I am not a regent;
I am an officer of the king, my lord.
Behold, I am a shepherd of the king,
and one who bears tribute of the king (288:9-12)
        Here and elsewhere he speaks of the king of Jerusalem in the third person, alluding to him but omitting his name. (12) Nowhere in the letters does he refer to himself as king of Jerusalem.
Let the king listen to Abdi-Hiba, thy servant, and send archers 
that they may again restore the land of the king to the king. (289:19-21) 
        In other contexts he speaks of his appointment to office at the hand of the pharaoh, and makes it clear that his is not an inherited office, passed down from generation to generation as was the case with "kingship".
Neither my father nor my mother, (but) the mighty hand of the king
[has] se[t me] in the house [of my father] (288:13-15)

[Ve]rily, this land of Urusalim, neither my father nor m[y] mother has given (it) to me; the [mi]ghty hand [of the king] gave (it) to me. (287:25-28) 

        The phrase "of my father" is added by the editors to the quote from letter 288. It almost certainly was not the original wording of the elided portion of text, which may well have referred to Rehoboam by name..

Addendum

        At minimum the preceding discussion allows the possibility that our theory regarding the Berlin genealogy chronology is correct. If we are wrong then even the staunchest critic of our revision must admit that we have been most fortunate. The Berlin chronology was nothing more than an extrapolation of the genealogy already applied successfully to the 7th century revisions of our earlier book and to the 8th century revisions proposed in the first chapter of the present book. This extension compelled us to place the Amarna correspondence roughly in the time frame 930-910 B.C., the time of the division of the Israelite kingdom. We had no choice in the matter. Consquently, had we not already read the Amarna letters from the Palestine region we would have expected to find in them reference to a rebel king, residing in Shechem and in control of the entire region north of that city,  ranging from the Medierranean to the trans-Jordon. We would have expected that he would be in conflict with Megiddo and Gezer and Jerusalem, the cities in the southern region fortified by Solomon several decades earlier and now held by Rehoboam. We would have anticipated that Egypt, the former sanctuary of the rebel king, and more recently the conqueror of Jerusalem, would have an established presence in the area. And we could have predicted that Egypt would be siding with the rebel king, considering his previous liason with the Egyptian court, even if we discounted the midrash contained in the Septuagint regarding a marriage between him and pharaoh's sister-in-law. We would have demanded that the city of Rehoboam be named Jerusalem and that ethic references to the rebels, if any were given, would allude to them as Hebrews. There is nothing in the Jewish historical books describing the actions of Jeroboam and Rehoboam that conflicts with the data in the Amarna letters, in spite of the fact that many dozens of letters are forthcoming from the region of Palestine. The reader can believe, if he so choose, that this is merely a happy coincidence. Or he can accept the ever increasing volume of data, by now filling well over 500 pages of closely reasoned text in two books and the beginning of a third, arguing for the accuracy of our revised chronology.