Books on ancient Egypt hardly give Nebuchednezzar a look in

 

  

by

 

Damien F. Mackey



 

“[Toby Wilkinson] devotes only a few paragraphs to the short reign of the hapless Tutankhamen but spends many pages on the rise to power of the general Horemheb,

who set the stage for the Ramesside Dynasty, the one that established Egypt

as a great imperial power”.

 

Kathryn Lang

  

 

I am enjoying reading select bits and pieces of Toby Wilkinson’s large (nearly 650 pages) book, The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt. The History of a Civilisation from 3000 BC to Cleopatra (Bloomsbury, 2010) – {even though it is based on the standard conventional dates} - because it is much easier reading than its forbidding size might at first suggest.

Something like, ‘you can’t judge a book by its cover’.

 

But what Kathryn Lang has written about Wilkinson’s meagre treatment of Tutankhamen, “only a few paragraphs”, is generous compared with his treatment of King Nebuchednezzar who actually conquered Egypt. As we shall see below, Wilkinson allows him only one mention.

 

Firstly, though, a review of the book by Kathryn Lang: books@dallasnews.com

 

Cambridge professor and eminent Egyptologist Toby Wilkinson, author of six earlier major works on ancient Egypt, has put four millennia of Egyptian lore into a lively, accessible one-volume history.

Beginning with the prehistoric peoples of the eastern Sahara who created Egypt’s “Stonehenge” at Nabta Playa, Wilkinson proceeds chronologically through the tumults and triumphs of the Pharaohs up to the final days of Cleopatra, the last Ptolemaic ruler, who spent her final intrigue-filled days in the decadent and cosmopolitan capital of Alexandria.

Written in informal, often colloquial language, Wilkinson’s history bristles with detail. Nearly 500 pages long, it’s a page-turner for anyone even modestly interested in his subject. For the more scholarly reader, he’s included a lengthy bibliographic essay and extensive bibliography, and at the front of the volume he’s provided a helpful nine-page timeline listing all of Egypt’s rulers through the Ptolemies.

In his introduction, Wilkinson says he’s become “increasingly uneasy” about ancient Egypt’s “darker side.” He intends this book to counterbalance the view that Egyptian rulers were benevolent despots and that life was good in the land of the Pharaohs. He shows in vivid and sometimes gruesome detail the brutality and ruthlessness of the kings, who came to see themselves not just as the gods’ representatives on Earth, but as living gods themselves.

His thesis is that the Pharaoh and the ruling class prospered on the backs of a peasant population that was illiterate, overtaxed and underpaid. The masses accepted this state of affairs because they believed their godlike kings would assure their safe passage from this brutish earthly existence into the heavenly one of the next.

At a fast clip, Wilkinson spins fascinating tales: of the first Pharaoh Narmer’s unification of Upper and Lower Egypt into a magnificent nation-state headquartered in the capital city of Memphis; of the astounding engineering feats and prodigious 20-year labors of 10,000 workers to build Khufu’s Great Pyramid of Giza; of the Middle Kingdom’s golden age of literature and the arts. He lingers on the 18th Dynasty, the “high-water mark of pharaonic civilization.” He tells of the accession through murder of the female Pharaoh Hatshepsut, and the rise and fall of the heretic king Akhenaten and his beauteous wife Nefertiti, who dared to banish all the gods but one, the solar god Aten.

He devotes only a few paragraphs to the short reign of the hapless Tutankhamen but spends many pages on the rise to power of the general Horemheb, who set the stage for the Ramesside Dynasty, the one that established Egypt as a great imperial power.

On through the centuries Wilkinson gallops, through bitter bloodshed and uncertain peacetimes, through ruler-sanctioned robbery of the earlier Pharaohs’ tombs, through the political fragmentation of a once-mighty empire, from the invasions of the Libyans in 1209 B.C. to the Roman conquest of 30 B.C.

Wilkinson’s is a full and rich, if hurried, march through the centuries of ancient Egypt’s glory days and ultimate domination by newer superpowers. It is also, Wilkinson warns, a cautionary tale for us as we witness the power politics of contemporary despots in the region today. ….

[End of quote]

 

The author Toby Wilkinson, I feel, really manages to bring to life various of the great pharaohs.

I am finding especially interesting his thorough treatment of the Twelfth Dynasty despot, Amenemes (Wilkinson’s “Amenemhat”) I, who is my choice for the “new king” (Exodus 1:8), oppressor of Israel when Moses was a baby. See e.g. my article:

 

Twelfth Dynasty oppressed Israel

 

https://www.academia.edu/38553314/Twelfth_Dynasty_oppressed_Israel

 

And I was rather keen to read about this Amenemes I in conjunction with Wilkinson’s treatment of Teti, founder of the so-called Sixth Dynasty, since I believe Teti to be an alter ego of the Twelfth Dynasty founder.

From a comparison in Wilkinson’s book we find, common to Teti, Amenemes I (over and above likenesses to which I have referred elsewhere): newness; lowly origins; surrounded by uncertainty; reliance upon trusty “lieutenants”.

 

·         Teti

 

P. 105

The throne passed instead to a commoner, a man called Teti, who swiftly married his predecessor’s daughter to secure his legitimacy. So began the Sixth Dynasty … in an atmosphere of uncertainty, court intrigue and barely managed crisis that was to haunt it until its very end.

With his rather tenuous claim to the kingship, Teti needed to surround himself with trusted lieutenants.

 

·         Amenemes I

 

P. 155 Amenmehat I, founder of a new dynasty and self-proclaimed renaissance king, was actually conscious of his non-royal origins and of the lingering resentment felt towards his rule in part of Egypt.

 

P. 161

There are strong indications that the new dynasty came to power in lawless times, by means of a coup d’état, rather than by peaceful succession ….

 

P. 162

 

Renaissance ruler

… Amenemhat I lost no time in appointing his royal lieutenants to key posts in the administration. …. Egypt’s new master was tightening his grip on the lever of government.

 

Also on p. 161, we read this startling comment: “[Nehri] … ‘I rescued my town on the day of fighting from the sickening terror of the royal house’. There is no more chilling reference to tyrannical monarchy in all of Egyptian history”.

 

Poor old Nebuchednezzar (Wilkinson’s “Nebuchadnezzar”), though, is named only once in the entire book, on p. 442 {N. Grimal has only about 4 pages on “Nebuchedrezzar”}: “Wahibra escaped with his life and fled abroad … to the court of Babylon. The Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar, could scarcely believe his luck. Here was an unmissable opportunity to meddle in Egypt’s internal affairs and put a Babylonian puppet on the Throne of Horus”.

No mention whatsoever of any invasion of Egypt.

Were pharaoh Ramses II and Esarhaddon contemporaries?

 

by

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

“The first march of Necho-Ramses II toward the Euphrates is related on the obelisk

of Tanis and on the rock inscription of Nahr el Kalb near Beirut, written in his second year. The rock inscriptions of Ramses II are not as old as that of Essarhadon on the same rock”.



Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky

 

 

Thus wrote Dr. Velikovsky in # 211 of his: https://www.varchive.org/ce/theses.htm

 

THESES FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION
OF ANCIENT HISTORY

 

He, retaining the potent king Esarhaddon in his conventional place following Sennacherib, but dramatically lowering the mighty Ramses II of Egypt’s Nineteenth Dynasty by some 700 years, from his conventional date of c. 1280 BC down to the time of Nebuchednezzar (so-called II), conventionally c. 580 BC, now saw Ramses II as being “not as old as … Essarhadon”.

 

This was in stark contrast to the conventional structure of things which has Ramses II (1280) ante-dating Esarhaddon (c. 680 BC) by some 600 years: 

https://www.livius.org/articles/place/lykos-nahr-al-kalb/

 

In the thirteenth century BCE, the Egyptian king Ramesses II left three reliefs on the south bank of the Nahr al-Kalb, north of Berytus, which commemorated the northern campaigns that culminated in the battle of Kadesh (1274 BCE). Several centuries later, the Assyrian king Esarhaddon, having forced cities like Tyre into submission, conquered Egypt, and chose to put a memorial of his own opposite the relief of Ramesses. Ever since, armies have left inscription at the Nahr al-Kalb, a custom that was known to the Greek researcher Herodotus of Halicarnassus (more).

[End of quote]

 

In Ramses II and his Time (1978), Velikovsky would develop his connection between pharaoh Ramses II and Nebuchednezzar by identifying the latter as the Hittite emperor, Hattsulis, who famously engaged in a treaty with Ramses II.  

What to say about all of this?

I had come to reject it completely, due to Dr. Velikovsky’s archaeologically highly dubious separation of Egypt’s Nineteenth Dynasty away from the Eighteenth in order for Ramses II and his dynasty now to be equated with Egypt’s Twenty-Sixth (Saïte) Dynasty at the approximate time of Nebuchednezzar king of Babylon.

But that earlier estimation of mine must needs be amended, at least to some degree, owing to my more recent identification of Esarhaddon with Nebuchednezzar himself in articles such as:

 

Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar

https://www.academia.edu/38017900/Esarhaddon_a_tolerable_fit_for_King_Nebuchednezzar

 

Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar. Part Two: Another writer has picked up this possible connection

 

https://www.academia.edu/37525605/Esarhaddon_a_tolerable_fit_for_King_Nebuchednezzar._Part_Two_Another_writer_has_picked_up_this_possible_connection

 

and again:

 

Aligning Neo-Babylonia with Book of Daniel. Part Two: Merging late neo-Assyrians with Chaldeans

 

https://www.academia.edu/38330399/Aligning_Neo-Babylonia_with_Book_of_Daniel._Part_Two_Merging_late_neo-Assyrians_with_Chaldeans

 

That big turnaround on my part would now lead me to conclude that the reason for the juxtaposition of Ramses II and Esarhaddon on the same rock inscription of Nahr el Kalb was because these two mighty men were contemporaneous.

 

It would also mean that Dr. Velikovsky was right after all in synchronising Ramses II with Nebuchednezzar.

Whether or not the latter was also the emperor Hattusilis, and Ramses II was also Necho II, are other considerations.

 

It does not mean however, I still think, that the Nineteenth Dynasty can be dragged right away from the Eighteenth. The necessary crunching in time comes from dragging backwards, so to speak, Nebuchednezzar, to slot into time as Esarhaddon.

 

In Ramses II and his Time (Chapter 2 Ramses II and Nebuchadnezzar in War and Peace), Velikovsky wrote (with his Nebuchednezzar as Hattusilis):

 

Treaty Between Ramses II and Nebuchadnezzar

 

Two giants, Egypt under Ramses II and Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar, fought nineteen years for domination over the Middle East. Judea was the victim in this deadly struggle. She was devastated by the troops first of one despot and then of the other, but the lands of the contestants were spared the horrors of the prolonged war.

To secure victory over rebellious Judea, Nebuchadnezzar finally proposed a peace treaty to the pharaoh. Historians take it for granted that during the last siege of Jerusalem a treaty was negotiated between Babylonia and Egypt.22 The pharaoh was glad to insure the integrity of his own country and sacrificed Judea, his ally.

Jerusalem suffered an eighteen months’ siege, followed by destruction. The war between Babylonia and Egypt had terminated, and Egypt did not come to the aid of the besieged. More than this, Egypt and Babylonia pledged loyalty to each other and obligated themselves to extradite political refugees.

The peace treaty is preserved in the Egyptian language, carved on the wall of the Karnak temple of Amon. A text in the Babylonian (Akkadian) language, written on clay in cuneiform and found at the beginning of this century at Boghazkoi, a village of eastern Anatolia, is a draft of the same document. The original of the treaty was written on a silver tablet not extant today. The original language of the treaty was Babylonian, and the Egyptian text is a translation, as some expressions reveal.

The treaty was signed by Usermare Setepnere, son of Menmare, grandson of Menpehtire (the royal name of Ramses II, son of Seti, grandson of Ramses I), and by Khetasar, son of Merosar, grandson of Seplel. The treaty in the Akkadian language was signed by Hattusilis, son of Mursilis, grandson of Subbiluliumas.23

The man whose name was read Khetasar in the Egyptian and Hattusilis in the Boghazkoi text must have been the king whom we know as Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nabopolassar. More than fifty times in the Scriptures his name is spelled Nebuchadrezzar; more than thirty times he is called Nebuchadnezzar.24

The adversary of Ramses II is called in the treaty the king of Hatti. Hatti, as can be learned from many cuneiform texts, was a broad ethnographical or territorial designation. In a Babylonian building inscription Nebuchadnezzar wrote: “The princes of the land of Hatti beyond the Euphrates to the westward, over whom I exercised lordship.”25

The treaty has an “oath and curse” clause. Gods of many places were invoked to keep vigilance over the treaty and to punish the one who should violate it. In the list of the gods and goddesses, the goddess of Tyre is followed by the “goddess of Dan.” But in the days before the conquest of Dan by the Danites, in the time of the Judges, that place was called Laish (Judges 18:29), and it was Jeroboam who built there a temple. The name of a place called Dan in a treaty of Ramses II, presumably of the first half of the thirteenth century, sounds like an anachronism.

The purpose of the treaty was to bring about the cessation of hostilities between the two lands. It is obvious from its text that Syria and Palestine no longer belonged to the domain of Egypt.

This is in agreement with the biblical data. The major part of the treaty is given over to the problem of political refugees. The paragraphs are written in a reciprocal manner; it is apparent that it was the great king of Hatti who was interested in the provisions for extradition of the political enemies of the Chaldeans. A special paragraph in the treaty deals with Syrian (Palestinian) fugitives:

 

Now if subjects of the great chief of Kheta transgress against him ... I will come after their punishment to Ramses-Meriamon, the great ruler of Egypt ... to cause that Usermare-Setepnere, the great ruler of Egypt, shall be silent ... and he shall turn [them] back again to the great chief of Kheta.26

[End of quotes]

 

Naqia also like Adad-guppi, Nabonidus’ mother

Naqia of Assyria and Semiramis

Part Two:

Naqia also like Adad-guppi, Nabonidus’ mother

 

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

“In addition to telling us a little of Semiramis, Herodotus narrates a story of a

Babylonian queen called Nitocris. While some have identified this legendary figure with Zakutu (Naqia), the wife of Sennacherib and mother of Esarhaddon,

others have proposed Adad-guppi, the mother of Nabonidus”.

 

Cambridge Ancient History

 

 

 

That Queen Naqia of Assyria, mother of Esarhaddon (c. 681-669 BC, conventional dating), invites strong comparisons with the legendary Queen Semiramis, has been noted by scholars. And I have discussed some of these perceived likenesses in Part One:

https://www.academia.edu/37775839/Naqia_of_Assyria_and_Semiramis

drawing upon examples to be found in, for instance, Dr. Stephanie Dalley’s tremendous book, The Mystery of the Hanging Garden of Babylon (2013).

For example, Dr. Dalley writes:

 

Here, then, we have a group of material that indicates attachment of Naqia’s deeds to the name ‘Semiramis’. As second wife of Sennacherib, she bears comparison with the historical Sammu-ramat for having her name on inscriptions written during her lifetime, and for supporting publicly first her husband and then her own son, both as kings.

There was every reason, therefore, to conflate the two great queens, two great builders, Naqia would be the wife of the later Assyrian king to whom Diodorus referred when he wrote: ‘the Hanging Garden, as it is called, which was built, not by Semiramis, but by a later Syrian [a Greek reference to Assyrian: Dalley] king …’ His account that ‘Semiramis alongside a Ninus founded ‘Babylon’ on the Euphrates gives details that are applicable to Nineveh: two palaces, technical details of water supply, walls adorned with hunting scenes. ….

[End of quote]

 

It becomes apparent from Dr. Dalley’s book that some Assyrian advancements and technology were wrongly attributed later (by e.g. the Greco-Romans) to Babylonia - Sennacherib of Assyria commonly being confused by them with Nebuchednezzar.

That is understandable to some extent if I am correct in my proposed collapsing of late neo-Assyria into early neo-Babylonia, and actually identifying Sennacherib of Assyria’s successor, Esarhaddon, with Nebuchednezzar. See e.g. my article:

 

Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar

 

https://www.academia.edu/38017900/Esarhaddon_a_tolerable_fit_for_King_Nebuchednezzar

 

The Cambridge Ancient History (Vol. III, pt. 1, 1982, pp. 243-244) tells, in regard to Nitocris, of scholars being unable to determine if she were meant to represent Naqia or Adad-guppi:

 

Related to this discussion is the matter of legends about Assyrian and Babylonian individuals which has been preserved in other languages and literatures, in particular the tales told of Semiramis, Nitocris, and Ahiqar. Legends about Semiramis are found in Greece, Armenia, and Persia but the best-known version is that of Ctesias, as preserved in Diodorus. Since the early days of Assyriology it has been widely accepted that the heroine of the tale should be identified with the historical Sammuramat, wife of Shamshi-Adad V and mother of Adad-nirari III …. In addition to telling us a little of Semiramis, Herodotus narrates a story of a Babylonian queen called Nitocris. While some have identified this legendary figure with Zakutu (Naqia), the wife of Sennacherib and mother of Esarhaddon, others have proposed Adad-guppi, the mother of Nabonidus.

[End of quote]

 

Similarly, Matt Waters in Ctesias’ “Persica” in Its Near Eastern Context (p. 46) ‘ties up’ altogether Semiramis, Naqia and Adad-guppi:

 

Semiramis’ legends as preserved in Greek traditions have been traced through prominent Assyrian and Babylonian women such as Naqia (also called “Zakutu”), the wife of Sennacherib (r. 705-681) and mother of Esarhaddon (r. 681-669), as well as Nabonidus’ mother, Adad-guppi.

 

Naqia may herself, in fact, have been a Babylonian: “Naqia was probably born in Babylonia, but her family may have originated in the Harran area”:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naqi%27a

 

That queen Naqia and Adad-guppi would be alike comes as no surprise to me, given that I have already identified Naqia’s son, Esarhaddon (= Nebuchednezzar) with Adad-guppi’s son, Nabonidus (= Nebuchednezzar). See e.g. my article:

 

Aligning Neo-Babylonia with Book of Daniel. Part Two: Merging late neo-Assyrians with Chaldeans

 

https://www.academia.edu/38330399/Aligning_Neo-Babylonia_with_Book_of_Daniel._Part_Two_Merging_late_neo-Assyrians_with_Chaldeans

 

Nor would it be surprising if Naqia’s “family may have originated in the Harran area”, given

Adad-guppi’s close association with Harran – some think she was born there: “Adad-guppi Princess of Assyria. Date, Place, Source. Born : -, b. 649 BC in Harran”: http://www.american-pictures.com/genealogy/persons/per01964.htm

“Adad-guppi, was an Assyrian priestess, a devotee of the moon god Sîn in the northern Assyrian city of Harran”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addagoppe_of_Harran

 

Editing of Scriptures

 

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

  

 

Occasionally one encounters someone who will insist that

Moses wrote every single word of the entire Pentateuch.

 

 

 

 

 

A self-confessed “amateur” writes:

 

Mr Mackey,

I’ve been studying egyptology for many years now and also the theories of dr. Velikovsky.

Without a doubt he was on the right track but as you probably have discovered very difficult to convince the hardcore believers of the conventional chronology.

Mackey’s comment: Along these lines, see my three-part series regarding entrenched academia:

 

Robert K. G. Temple's Trenchant Criticisms of "the Academic World"

commencing with Part One:

 

https://www.academia.edu/35925085/Robert_K._G._Temples_Trenchant_Criticisms_of_the_Academic_World_

 

Now, according to Part Two:

https://www.academia.edu/people/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=mackey+Robert+K.+G.+Temple%27s+Trenchant+Criticisms+of+%22the+Academic+World%22

there has been a “failure of nerve”. Truth demands sacrifice:

 

A Kingdom of Truth not Power

 

https://www.academia.edu/11838251/A_Kingdom_of_Truth_not_Power

 

It is so much easier to fall in with the received scholarly opinion.

 

One of the errors both sides make is in the use of the title “pharao”. Forgive me my impudence but you yourself make this error too.
For some reason or other we seem to assume that the Scriptures have not been edited in any form whatsoever.

 

Mackey’s comment: The term “Pharaoh” actually comes from the Greeks.

Regarding scriptural editing, I, in my series:

 

Tracing the Hand of Moses in Genesis

 

commencing with Part One:

 

https://www.academia.edu/8175774/Tracing_the_Hand_of_Moses_in_Genesis

 

have argued for significant editorial activity of the Pentateuch, commencing with Moses’ work on the original Genesis documents, or sources. I commenced that article by writing: “Three lines of evidence will be presented here in support of the traditional view that Moses was substantially the editor, or compiler (though not actual author), of the Book of Genesis”.

I would allow for further editorial intervention by the likes of Samuel, Solomon, and Ezra.

You are not being ‘impudent’, just honestly stating your opinion. I appreciate that.

Editing can cause confusion, as in the famous case of the appearance of “Ramses” in Exodus 1:11. That has led many to presume - quite wrongly, I believe - that Ramses II was contemporaneous with the Oppression of Israel – a huge anachronism!

 

However, most of the books of the Old Testament have only been assembled during the babylonean exile and the Septuagint was translated from Hebrew to Greek during the Ptolemaic period.

 

Mackey’s comment: I do not accept the conventional late dating of either the Old, or New, Testaments. Regarding Genesis, see e.g. my article:

 

If Genesis Borrowed from Babylonian Epic, why an Egyptian ‘loan word’ for Noah’s Ark?

 

https://www.academia.edu/9230563/If_Genesis_Borrowed_from_Babylonian_Epic_why_an_Egyptian_loan_word_for_Noah_s_Ark

 

Scholars tend to overlook completely the pervasive Egyptian element.

As professor A. S. Yahuda, expert in both Hebrew and Egyptian (not to mention Akkadian), wrote:

 

Whereas those books of Sacred Scripture which were admittedly written during and after the Babylonian Exile reveal in language and style such an unmistakable Babylonian influence that these newly-entered foreign elements leap to the eye, by contrast in the first  part of the Book of Genesis, which describes the earlier Babylonian [sic] period, the Babylonian influence in the language is so minute as to be almost non-existent.

 

Similarly, regarding the New Testament Gospels, and other texts, Dead Sea Scrolls expert, Fr. Jean Carmignac (Birth of the Synoptic Gospels), had been able to apply the same sort of bilingual expertise - in his case, Greek and Hebrew - to gainsay the received scholarly opinion and show that the New Testament writings in Greek had Hebrew originals: his argument for a much earlier dating than is usual for the New Testament books.

 

Fr Jean Carmignac dates Gospels early

 

https://www.academia.edu/30807628/Fr_Jean_Carmignac_dates_Gospels_early

 

So if we assume Solomon to have lived in 900BC, the first editing would occur in 500BC, the babylonean episode and the Septuagint around 300BC or so. This means a period of about 600 years in which is ‘assumed’ that no editing or change from the original text occured.
To be honest, that’s preposterous and contrary to any human behaviour however rigid their belief is.

 

Mackey’s comment: Occasionally one encounters someone who will insist that Moses wrote every single word of the entire Pentateuch. Now that is “rigid … belief”.

 

Language is a fluid human endeavour and changes from generation to generation. Old words become archaic and new ones in vogue.
A beautiful example is the word ‘sharpshooter’. The correct term would be ‘sniper’. During the american civil war a union regiment of snipers used a breech loading and very accurate rifle made by Christian Sharps.

They were known as Sharps shooters. Very few today know this and assume it has to do something with a sharp eye.

There’s not such thing as a ‘sharp’ eye.
And that’s only after a century and a half...

 

Mackey’s comment: I love reading about the American Civil War, the names and the characters – but not the blood and the guts. I do know something about “Sharps” – namely, that (the Battle of) Antietam (1862) was also called Sharpsburg.

So what’s my point:

 

Mackey’s comment: I thought that you had already made it.

The title “pharao” in any of the books of Kings or Exodus is anachronistic. In hieroglyps, it only appears in the late 18th dynasty and never as a stand alone title. We have to wait until the 21st dynasty for it to appear as a title in itself. This means that Hatshepsut never was called Pharao! Nor Shishak, Zera or So for that matter. They were “Nesu Bity” and Lord of the 2 lands. Simply translated they were kings.
The first ‘Pharao’ is Siamun of the 21st dynasty who came after Ramses III. In Velikovsky’s chronology that’s fairly late.

 

This alone proofs the anachronistic and late editing of the Scriptures. Since the time of the Ptolemaic era, King of Egypt and Pharao are synonyms, and the latter simply unknown in the days of Solomon!

In another example a scolar tries to refute Velikovsky by analysing Hebrew so to make a difference between king x and king of x. His analysis of the Hebrew title is probably correct but he does not take the late Hebrew date of editing in account.
Written in the same timeframe (500 to 300 bc) and Hatshepsut/Sheba a contemporary of Solomon (900bc), nobody knew who Hatshepsut/Sheba was anymore. The Egyptians themselves made sure we would forget. Tuthmose III had everything destroyed or covered that mentioned Hatshepsut. He even had her temple completely covered with rubble. So 4 to 6 centuries later when Jewish scolars were assembling their books nobody knew who or what they were writing about. So a change from king x to king of x was easily made.

In any case, just an opinion from an amateur so don’t mind me.
Thank you for your work.

….