Friday, February 16, 2024

Abishag-Tamar-Shunammite

by Damien F. Mackey ‘O FAIREST AMONG WOMEN’. Song of Songs 1:8 She is a Shunammite (not a “Shulammite”. e.g., ‘belonging to Solomon’), simply because she, Abishag, came from the town of Shunem (in northern Israel). Shumen is the town where the prophet Elisha will be hospitably accommodated by a ‘Great Woman’, whose son Elisha would revive after the son had died (2 Kings 4:8-37). A tradition has it that this rich woman of Shunem was a sister of Abishag. But at least a century separates them. Despite Abishag’s living in Shunem, her name may not be Hebrew. According to John L. Mackenzie (The Dictionary Of The Bible, p. 4): “Abishag … [the] meaning [is] uncertain”. Now, at this same period of time - in King David’s old age (but he was then closer to 60 than to 70) - there was a girl the description of whom was similar to that of Abishag, one who, though, had a Hebrew name, “Tamar” (תָּמָר: meaning “date palm”, or “palm tree”). We learn about Tamar in 2 Samuel 13 (whereas we had encountered Abishag in I Kings). Tamar was, just like Abishag, “a virgin”, “beautiful”, and living “at the palace”. Thus 2 Samuel 13:1-2, 7: “… Tamar … beautiful … a virgin … Tamar at the palace”. Conclusion 1: Abishag, of uncertain name, is the same girl as Tamar (her given Hebrew name). Two different names, two different authors! Therefore, expect the possibility of this girl’s origins being at least partly non-Israelite. 2 Samuel 13:1 apprises us of the further detail that young Tamar was prince Absalom’s sister: “… Tamar, the beautiful sister of Absalom son of David”. Now prince Absalom was, for his part, descended from kings both paternally and maternally. For, while King David of Israel was his father, he was born of David’s wife, Maakah (Maacah), who was the daughter of a (Canaanite?) king (I Chronicles 3:3): “[David’s] third [son], Absalom the son of Maakah daughter of Talmai [var. Tolmai] king of Geshur …”. However, when Hebrew uses relational words like “son”, ben (בֶּן), and “daughter”, bat (בַּת) - which we generally take in a literal sense - it may be that, in some cases at least, there is intended a less obvious meaning (e.g., in the first case, it could mean “grandson”, “official”). {Sir Alan Gardiner will lament, in Egypt of the Pharaohs (1960), the difficulty Egyptologists experience in trying to determine whether “son” literally means that, or something broader}. So, while we would immediately think to connect Tamar to Absalom as his blood sister, according to what we read in 2 Samuel 13:1, it may turn out to be not quite so simple as that. Some Jewish legends, in fact, will outright claim that Tamar was not Absalom’s sister – e.g., she may have been a foreign captive girl adopted into the family. Moses Maimonides, for his part (in Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Melakhim), will write: “… Tamar was Absalom’s sister only from his mother [but she was not related to David or his son Amnon] …”. Or perhaps her mother, Maakah, was a concubine (Song of Songs 6:7-9): Your cheeks are like halves of a pomegranate behind your veil. There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and maidens without number. My dove, my perfect one, is only one, the darling of her mother, flawless to her that bore her. (Song 6:7-9 RSV) Now, similarly as the girl was ‘sister’ to prince Absalom, so, too, was she ‘sister’ to Solomon (Song of Songs 4:9): ‘You have stolen my heart, my sister, my bride’ (cf. Song of Songs 4:12). The common denominator in biblical descriptions of the girl, now as Abishag, now as Tamar, now as “the Shunammite”, is her incomparable beauty. When King David’s attendants “searched throughout Israel for a beautiful young woman and found Abishag”, it should not be expected that they had bothered to check out every single girl in the land of Israel, but probably only the noble (princess) ones. Likely the chosen girl was then living with her mother, Maakah, and with Absalom, in their family house (or palace) at Shunem. Her epithet would become from now on (Song of Songs 1:8): ‘O FAIREST AMONG WOMEN’. Now, this is similar in meaning to the Egyptian, HATSHEPSUT (“Foremost of Noble Women”), whose throne name in Egypt would be, in turn, very like the name, Maakah (Maa[t]-ka-[re]), without the inclusion of the pagan theophoric, re (the sun god, Ra): thus Maakah = Maa[t]ka-. Were these two women, Abishag and her ‘mother’, Maakah, ethnically Egyptians? And was the name of “uncertain” meaning, “Abishag”, a Hebraïsed attempt at “Ha[tshe]psut? (Gardiner calls her “Ḥashepsowe”)? Or, perhaps it was a combination of the Hebrew words, yapheh-ishshah (“beautiful” - “woman”)? Abishag = Yaph-isha? King David had determined, following Divine prompting (I Chronicles 28:6), for his son, Solomon, to succeed him afterwards on the throne of Jerusalem. This despite the fact that Solomon was by no means David’s oldest son. Before Solomon there were born at Hebron, for instance, those first six sons of David (each one by a different wife) (3:1-3): Amnon; Daniel; Absalom; Adonijah; Shephatiah and Ithream. Three of these first four, as well as Solomon himself, will be involved with the Shunammite, one way or the other. And two of these will die because of her. Abishag will even emerge, as consort of King David, as the veritable key to the kingdom (I Kings 2:22). The young Solomon was, for his part, madly in love with the Shunammite. No doubt, King David had promised her to Solomon along with the throne. The idyllic love between young prince Solomon and the Shunammite is reflected in the Song of Songs. But there is also much tension there, the pair having to endure a wait, opposition from hot-headed “brothers” (Song of Songs 1:6): “My mother’s sons [brothers] were angry with me …”. Then, into this halçyon pastoral scene of sun, vineyards, flocks, goats, shepherds, lillies, valleys and fruit trees - a veritable Garden of Eden - there will emerge a bitter and cunning “adviser”. Like the serpent of old. This dark character will bring down Amnon. And he will leave the Shunammite “desolate”. He will foment Absalom’s rebellion, forcing King David to leave his city of Jerusalem in tears. And he will finally, like Judas, commit suicide. He was Jonadab-Achitophel. Conclusion 2: Abishag, of uncertain name, the same as Tamar (her given Hebrew name), hailing from Shunem, was hence “the Shunammite” of King Solomon’s Song of Songs. Ethnically, she may have been Egypto-Canaanite, which thought will lead to the consideration (to be discussed later) that she was also Velikovsky’s Hatshepsut = “Queen of Sheba”. The virgin’s foreign-ness may perhaps be adduced further from what she will say in shocked reaction to Amnon’s attempt to seduce her based on advice from Jonadab. Here is the account of it, with King David now also making an appearance in the drama (2 Samuel 13:6-11): So Amnon lay down and pretended to be ill. When the king came to see him, Amnon said to him, ‘I would like my sister Tamar to come and make some special bread in my sight, so I may eat from her hand’. David sent word to Tamar at the palace: ‘Go to the house of your brother Amnon and prepare some food for him’. So Tamar went to the house of her brother Amnon, who was lying down. She took some dough, kneaded it, made the bread in his sight and baked it. Then she took the pan and served him the bread, but he refused to eat. ‘Send everyone out of here’, Amnon said. So everyone left him. Then Amnon said to Tamar, ‘Bring the food here into my bedroom so I may eat from your hand’. And Tamar took the bread she had prepared and brought it to her brother Amnon in his bedroom. But when she took it to him to eat, he grabbed her and said, ‘Come to bed with me, my sister’. Equally blunt would be Potiphar’s wife in her attempt to seduce the honourable Joseph (Genesis 39:7): ‘Come to bed with me!’ Tamar responds pleadingly to Amnon (2 Samuel 13:12-14): “‘No, my brother!’ she said to him. ‘Don’t force me! Such a thing should not be done in Israel! Don’t do this wicked thing. What about me? Where could I get rid of my disgrace? And what about you? You would be like one of the wicked fools in Israel. Please speak to the king; he will not keep me from being married to you’. But he refused to listen to her, and since he was stronger than she, he raped her”. No longer is she (Song of Songs 4:12): “A garden enclosed … a fountain sealed”? Regarding Absalom’s outstanding physical demeanour, we read of it in 2 Samuel 14:25-26: In all Israel there was not a man so highly praised for his handsome appearance as Absalom. From the top of his head to the sole of his foot there was no blemish in him. Whenever he cut the hair of his head—he used to cut his hair once a year because it became too heavy for him—he would weigh it, and its weight was two hundred shekels by the royal standard. Some commentators will suggest that Absalom may have been, with all that hair, a Nazirite. But, as with Samson the Nazirite (Judges 13:7), Absalom’s hair will be his undoing. This particular era was one of obelisk (pillar) building (e.g., the Eighteenth Dynasty pharaohs). Correspondingly, we read (2 Samuel 18:18): “Prior to this Absalom had set up a pillar and dedicated it to himself in the King’s Valley, reasoning ‘I have no son who will carry on my name’. He named [it] after himself, and to this day it is known as Absalom's Memorial”. The contemporary pharaohs, too, had their “King’s Valley” (or “Valley of the Kings”). The reaction of King David and his two sons, Amnon and Absalom, to the rape of Tamar, is instructive. “When King David heard all this, he was furious” (2 Samuel 13:21). Still, he does nothing. “Then Amnon hated [Tamar] with intense hatred. In fact, he hated her more than he had loved her. Amnon said to her, ‘Get up and get out!’” (v. 15). “Her brother Absalom said to her, ‘Has that Amnon, your brother, been with you? Be quiet for now, my sister; he is your brother. Don’t take this thing to heart’. …. And Absalom never said a word to Amnon, either good or bad; he hated Amnon because he had disgraced his sister Tamar’.” (vv. 20, 22) In part, these most unsympathetic reactions towards the female victim might be accounted for according to the ethics of the day, due to her possibly lowly status (e.g., as a foreigner or a commoner). One has only to consider the off-handed response by Jesus Christ himself, initially - and of his disciples - to the pleas of the Canaanite woman (Matthew 15:23, 24, 26, 28): Jesus did not answer her a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, ‘Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us’. Then: ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel’. Then: ‘It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs’. But finally: ‘Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted’. And her daughter was healed at that moment’. Tamar fully anticipated what would be the result of Amnon’s assault, both for her and for him: ‘What about me? Where could I get rid of my disgrace? And what about you? You would be like one of the wicked fools in Israel’. And so, when he ordered her to: ‘Get up and get out!’, she answered emphatically: ‘No!’ (2 Samuel 13:16-19): ‘No!’ she said to him. ‘Sending me away would be a greater wrong than what you have already done to me’. But he refused to listen to her. He called his personal servant and said, ‘Get this woman out of my sight and bolt the door after her’. So his servant put her out and bolted the door after her. She was wearing an ornate robe, for this was the kind of garment the virgin daughters of the king wore. Tamar put ashes on her head and tore the ornate robe she was wearing. She put her hands on her head and went away, weeping aloud as she went. Cf. Song of Songs 5:7: ‘The watchmen found me as they made their rounds in the city. They beat me, they bruised me; they took away my cloak, those watchmen of the walls!’ There was apparently no question of Tamar, now a damaged woman, returning to the palace of King David. He would be “furious” when he heard about the incident, but “furious” at whom? Heir Amnon would continue on for another “two years”. And so would his brother, Absalom. Their éminence grise adviser, Jonadab-Achitophel, would insinuate himself into being the power behind the throne. Tamar’s only place to go would be back to Shunem, to her adoring mother, but also to the calculating Absalom (2 Samuel 13:20): “And Tamar lived in her brother Absalom’s house, a desolate woman”. Whilst scholarly critiques, such as Bimson’s and Clarke’s, are to be encouraged, these two have succeeded in creating a vacuum - no appropriate “Queen”. SIS editor in 1997, Alasdair Beal, commenting on the effect that Bimson’s 1986 critique had had on readers, wrote: Probably few articles caused more disappointment in SIS circles than John Bimson’s 1986 ‘Hatshepsut and the Queen of Sheba’, which presented strong evidence and argument against Velikovsky’s proposal that the … queen who visited King Solomon was none other than the famous Egyptian female pharaoh. This removed one of the key identifications in Velikovsky’s Ages in Chaos historical reconstruction and was a key factor in the rejection of his proposed chronology by Bimson and others in favour of the more moderate ‘New Chronology’. It also took away what had seemed a romantic and satisfactory solution to the mystery of the identity and origins of Solomon’s visitor, leaving her once more as an historical enigma. …. So, can “Sheba” yet be identified with any part of Egypt and/or Ethiopia, where Josephus said that the biblical woman had ruled as queen? No - Egypt/Ethiopia will be figuring only at a later stage in our story. We can actually give a definitive answer to the question of the location of “Sheba”, based on the highest authority: JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF. In what might initially seem like a very vague statement (Luke 11:31): ‘The Queen of the South … came from the ends of the earth …’, Jesus is here providing the most precise co-ordinates. This text offers us an excellent example of why the Bible needs to be read in its proper context, and not superficially, in a literal Western manner. Creationists are wont to read phrases like “the earth” (Greek tes ges, της γης) in a global sense. Though Patrick Clarke, himself a Creationist, will limit his horizons geographically, in this case, by suggesting that the biblical queen may have been from Yemen. (Logically, should he have located “Sheba” somewhere in the Southern Hemisphere?). However, for the Israelite audience which Jesus was addressing, “the earth” was “the land”, the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel). Now, the “ends” (or borders) of the land of Israel were Dan (North) and Beersheba (South). For example I Samuel 3:20: “And all Israel from Dan to Beersheba recognized that Samuel was attested as a prophet of the LORD”. The “end” to which Jesus is referring, “the South”, is obviously, then, Beersheba. “The south” is a common biblical term for the Negev (desert). So, we are here being unerringly directed by Jesus to the chief town, Beersheba, that stands at the southern border of Israel, in the Negev – and known as “the Capital of the Negev”. The Old Testament fully supports this geography, giving the name of the Queen’s realm as “Sheba”, which is just another name for Beersheba (Joshua 19:2): “… Beersheba (or Sheba) …”. And, given the ancient city’s strategic location of intersecting trade routes, we ought not be surprised to read that the Queen of (Beer)sheba travelled to Jerusalem with so richly-laden a camel train as she did (I Kings 10:2, 10), and that: “Never again were so many spices brought in as those the Queen of Sheba gave to King Solomon”. But that is still a bit in the future. Why were her ‘brothers … angry with’ the Shunammite? (Song of Songs 1:6) Because, as she continues: ‘… my own vineyard I had to neglect’. Professor Claude Mariottini concurs with others that this is a reference to her virginity, though he wrongly adds “that she gave herself sexually” to her lover: “The reason for the punishment her brothers inflicted on her was because she did not keep her own vineyard … probably a reference to her virginity, that is, that she gave herself sexually to her shepherd lover and as a result her brothers punished her for her indiscretion”. https://claudemariottini.com/2022/08/22/the-shulammite-black-and-beautiful-or-black-but-beautiful/ We know, though, that she was entirely guiltless in this affair - she having firstly obeyed the order of King David to attend the ailing Amnon, and then having been taken against her will by Amnon. Solomon, too, in fact, “lovesick” as Amnon had been, will plead for the Shunammite’s attention (Song of Songs 2:5): ‘Sustain me with raisin cakes, refresh me with apples, because I am lovesick’. When the Shunammite was at home, a veritable prisoner of Absalom and her other brothers, young Solomon was constrained to creep around the place surreptitiously, “behind the wall”, “gazing”, “peering through the lattice” (Song of Songs 2:8-9): ‘Listen! My beloved! Look! Here he comes, leaping across the mountains, bounding over the hills. My beloved is like a gazelle or a young stag. Look! There he stands behind our wall, gazing through the windows, peering through the lattice’.

Sunday, February 11, 2024

Akkadian dynasty famous but archaeologically impoverished, Ur III dynasty, un-heralded but lavishly documented

by Damien F. Mackey “The Halaf culture as it is traditionally understood appears to have evolved over a very large area, which comprises the Euphrates valley (until recently considered to be a peripheral area), the Balikh valley and the Khabur in Syria but also northern Iraq, southern Turkey and the Upper Tigris area”. Roger Matthews An apparent lack of archaeology for the Akkadians had prompted recently deceased professor Gunnar Heinsohn, of the University of Bremen, to the desperate measure of identifying the Akkadians with the Assyrians, two clearly distinct and chronologically separated peoples. In controversial articles of Heinsohn’s such as, “Did the Sumerians and the Akkadians Ever Exist?” http://saturniancosmology.org/files/.cdrom/journals/aeon/vol0102/017sumer.htm Heinsohn argued that Ur and Sumeria in general had been wrongly located 2000 years too early, based on hopeful attempts to align the biblical account of Abraham with Mesopotamian history. Emmet Sweeney, a fan of some of professor Heinsohn’s radical revision, explained the situation in “Gunnar Heinsohn’s Mesopotamian Historiography” (C and C Workshop, 1987, no. 2, p. 20): The peoples thus duplicated in the second millennia were the Akkadians, the Amorites, the Old Babylonians, and of course the Sumerians themselves. The weight of Heinsohn's argument therefore rests on the following identifications. The Sumerians themselves, who should date between c.1500 and c.500 BC are the alter-egos of the Chaldaeans: the Akkadians are simply the alter-egos of the Assyrians: the Amorites are Persians; and the Old Babylonians are Persians in Babylon. The detailed evidence presented by Heinsohn for each of these identifications is impressive, and we shall deal with each separately. …. The real problem, however, was not with Abraham. The problem was the failure to realise, what Dr. John Osgood had appreciated, that so-called Stone Age cultures overlapped with Bronze Age ones, enabling Dr. Osgood to recognise ‘Ubaid culture, conventionally dated c. 6500-3800 BC, as dovetailing with Abram (Abraham) and the Chaldeans in c. 2000 BC (round date). Likewise I, following Osgood’s pattern, have identified the so-called Stone Age Halaf culture, conventionally dated c. 6100-5100 BC, as Akkadian – also dovetailing with Abram and the Chaldeans. It is my view that, regarding the Akkadian empire, one needs to look substantially towards Syria and the Mosul region, rather than to “Lower Mesopotamia”. And that one needs to fuse the Halaf culture with the Akkadian one. The potentate Nimrod, one might now expect, had begun his empire building, not in Sumer, but in the NE Syrian region, and had then moved on to northern Assyria. Thus Genesis 10:10-11: “The beginning of [Nimrod’s] kingdom was Babel and Erech and Accad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. From that land he went forth into Assyria, where he built Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Calah and Resen, which is between Nineveh and Calah—which is the great city”. And these are precisely the sorts of regions where we find that the spectacular Halaf culture arose and chiefly developed: NE Syria and the Mosul region of Assyria. Understandably once again, in a conventional context, with the Halaf cultural phase dated to c. 6100-5100 BC, there can be no question of meeting these dates with the Akkadian empire of the late C3rd millennium BC. That is where Dr. Osgood’s A Better Model for the Stone Age http://creation.com/a-better-model-for-the-stone-age becomes so vital, with its revising of Halaf down to the Late Chalcolithic period in Palestine, to the time of Abram (Abraham): 1. In 1982, under the title 'A Four-Stage Sequence for the Levantine Neolithic', Andrew M.T. Moore presented evidence to show that the fourth stage of the Syrian Neolithic was in fact usurped by the Halaf Chalcolithic culture of Northern Mesopotamia, and that this particular Chalcolithic culture was contemporary with the Neolithic IV of Palestine and Lebanon.5:25 Figure 5. Diagram showing compatability of a sertial and parallel arrangement (mushroom effect) of Mesopotamian Chalcolithic cultures. This was very significant, especially as the phase of Halaf culture so embodied was a late phase of the Halaf Chalcolithic culture of Mesopotamia, implying some degree of contemporaneity of the earlier part of Chalcolithic Mesopotamia with the early part of the Neolithic of Palestine, Lebanon and Syria, as illustrated in Figure 6. This finding was not a theory but a fact, slowly and very cautiously realized, but devastating in its effect upon the presently held developmental history of the ancient world. This being the case, and bearing in mind the impossibility of absolute dating by any scientific means despite the claims to the contrary, the door is opened very wide for the possible acceptance of the complete contemporaneity of the whole of the Chalcolithic of Mesopotamia with the whole of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic of Palestine. (The last period of the Chalcolithic of Palestine is seen to be contemporary with the last Chalcolithic period of Mesopotamia.) [End of quote] Dr. John Osgood has written further of Halaf in: A Better Model for the Stone Age Part 2 http://creation.com/a-better-model-for-the-stone-age-part-2 but he regards the Halaf people as the biblical “Aramites” [Aramaeans]. Since the Aramaeans, though, tended to be a wandering nomadic people (Deuteronomy 26:5), I would not expect their existence to be reflected in a culture as sophisticated as Halaf. Though they themselves may have absorbed some of it. My preference, therefore, is for Halaf to represent the Akkadians. This is how Dr. Osgood sees it (though I would not accept all of his geography here): Now if we date Babel to approximately 2,200 B.C. (as reasoned by implication from Noah's Flood 3) and if Abraham came from Mesopotamia (the region of Aram) approximately 1875 B.C., then we would expect that there is archaeological evidence that a people who can fit the description generally of the Aramites should be found well established in this area .... What in fact do we find? Taking the former supposition of the Jemdat Nasr culture being identified with the biblical story of Genesis 14 and the Elamite Chedarloamer,4 we would expect to find some evidence in Aram or northern Mesopotamia of Jemdat Nasr influence, but this would only be the latest of cultural influences in this region superseding and dominant on other cultures. The dominant culture that had been in this area prior to the Jemdat Nasr period was a culture that is known to the archaeologist as the Halaf culture, named after Tell Halaf where it was first identified. One of the best summaries of our present knowledge of the Halafian culture is found in the publication, 'The Hilly Flanks'5. It seems clear from the present state of knowledge that the Halaf culture was a fairly extensive culture, but it was mostly dominant in the area that we recognise as Aram Naharaim. It is found in the following regions. First, its main base in earliest distribution seems to have been the Mosul region. From there it later spread to the Sinjar region to the west, further westward in the Khabur head-waters, further west again to the Balikh River system, and then into the middle Euphrates valley. It also spread a little north of these areas. It influenced areas west of the Middle Euphrates valley and a few sites east of the Tigris River, but as a general statement, in its fully spread condition, the Halaf culture dominated Aram Naharaim …. The site of Arpachiyah just west of Nineveh across the Tigris River appears to have been the longest occupied site and perhaps the original settlement of the Halaf people. This and Tepe Gawra were important early Halaf towns. The settlement of the Halaf people at these cities continued for some considerable time, finally to be replaced by the Al Ubaid people from southern Mesopotamia. When Mallowan excavated the site of Tell Arpachiyah, he found that the top five levels belonged to the Al Ubaid period. The fifth level down had some admixture of Halaf material within it. He says: ‘The more spacious rooms of T.T.5 indicate that it is the work of Tell Halaf builders; that the two stocks did not live together in harmony is shown by the complete change of material in T.T.l-4, where all traces of the older elements had vanished. Nor did any of the burials suggest an overlap between graves of the A 'Ubaid and Tell Halaf period; on the contrary, there was evidence that in the Al 'Ubaid cemetery grave- diggers of the Al 'Ubaid period had deliberately destroyed Tell Halaf house remains.’6 He further comments the following: ‘It is more than probable that the Tell Halaf peoples abandoned the site on the arrival of the newcomers from Babylonia; and with the disappearance of the old element prosperity the site rapidly declined; for, although the newcomers were apparently strong enough to eject the older inhabitants, yet they appear to have been a poor community, already degenerate; their houses were poorly built and meanly planned, their streets no longer cobbled as in the Tell Halaf period and the general appearance of their settlement dirty and poverty stricken in comparison with the cleaner buildings of the healthier northern peoples who were their predecessors.’7 He further says: ‘The invaders had evidently made a wholesale destruction of all standing buildings converted some of them into a cemetery.’8 It is clear from the discussion of Patty Jo Watson9 that the later periods of the Halaf people were found in the other regions, particularly in a westward direction across the whole area of Aram Naharaim, namely the Sinjar region, the Khabur head-waters, the Balikh River system and the middle Euphrates. While the site of Arpachiyah had been destroyed by the Al Ubaid people and the former inhabitants either dispersed or destroyed, it seems clear that the Al Ubaid culture had not been so devastating upon other areas where the Halaf people were but had been assimilated in some way into their culture even though the Al Ubaid culture became dominant later. We find this particularly suggested by Mallowan while discussing findings at Tell Mefesh in the Balikh region (Balih). He says: ‘The pottery discovered in the house was particularly interesting, although unmistakably of the Al Ubaid period, it revealed certain characteristics of the T. Halaf phase of culture suggesting that the Al Ubaid period occupants at Mefesh were, at all events in their ceramic, considerably influenced by their predecessors.’10 He goes on in speaking of the ceramics by saying: ‘But I believe on grounds of the style of painting and the fabric that this is a hybrid ware, and that it may indicate a fusion on the Balih of the peoples representing the intrusive Al 'Ubaid culture with those of the older T. Halaf stock. Elsewhere, the evidence generally indicates that with the intrusion of the Al Ubaid peoples, the ceramic of T. Halaf rapidly disappeared but at Tepe Gawra Dr E.A. Speiser indicates that he has found evidence of a pottery representing a fusion of the two cultures and it is possible that when this detailed evidence is finally published, it may tally with that obtained at T. Mefesh.’11(emphasis ours) So it seems that the culture of Upper Mesopotamia, previously Halaf, became affected by the Al Ubaid culture from the south resulting in a continuous but changed culture, with no doubt an admixture of the population in some way and in some proportion. I will later attempt to show that the Al Ubaid culture is deeply associated with the name of the Chaldeans, and that the Halaf people were subjected to a northern migration and conquest as evidenced by the presence of southern names (from Southern Mesopotamia) in the north. Such an example may be found at the site of Harran, which represents a southern name and a religion that essentially had its roots in the south, but was in fact a city in the north. This point becomes greafly significant when we come to the migration of Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees in the south up to the city of Harran and finally to Canaan. The way had already been prepared by migration of Chaldean peoples who apparently had attacked the major stronghold of the Halaf peoples in the north (which here I am equating with the Aramites), but finally to dominate them in the Aram Naharaim area culturally at least for some time to come. There is now no question that the early Halaf people in the north were contemporary with the early Al Ubaid people in the south, here equated with a contemporaneity of the Aramites with the Chaldeans. Joan Oates discusses this fact: ‘It is quite clear that in the Hamrin at this time there were potters working in both the Halaf and Ubaid traditions, perhaps even side by side in the same villages. Certainly, the contemporaneity of these two very distinctive ceramic styles cannot be in doubt. Such contemporaneity has always seemed a possible explanation of certain chronological anomalies (Oates 1968 p. 1973, p.176) and is indeed the only explanation that makes sense of the late Halaf 'intrusion' at Choga Mami, where the Samarran and early Ubaid materials are very closely related. The modern situation may perhaps provide a relevant parallel in that villages of Arabs, Kurds, Lurs and Turcomans exist side by side, their inhabitants often distinguishable by their dress and other cultural appurtenances. In the Hamrin we have the first unequivocal evidence of such a situation in near Eastern pre-history, where previously we had assumed a 'chest-of-drawers' sequence of cultures.’12 There is a need, of course, to show that there was a general continuity of the culture from the days of Halaf in the majority of Aram Naharaim through to at least the days of Jemdat Nasr. [End of quote] Now that we have our chronology and geography in proper place, hopefully, we can expect to find a convergence between the high quality Halafian and Akkadian cultures. Art, for example: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Akkadian_Empire#Culture A finely executed bas relief representing Naram-Sin, and bearing a striking resemblance to early Egyptian art in many of its features, has been found at Diarbekr, in modern Turkey. Babylonian art, however, had already attained a high degree of excellence; two cylinder seals of the time of Sargon I are among the most beautiful specimens of the gem-cutter's art ever discovered. And in an article, “Samarra culture, Tell Halaf and Tell Ubaid”, we read: https://aratta.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/figuring-out-identity-the-body-and-identity-in-the-ubaid/ In the period 6500–5500 B.C., a farming society emerged in northern Mesopotamia and Syria which shared a common culture and produced pottery that is among the finest ever made in the Near East. This culture is known as Halaf, after the site of Tell Halaf in northeastern Syria where it was first identified. The Halaf culture is a prehistoric period which lasted between about 6100 and 5500 BC. The period is a continuous development out of the earlier Pottery Neolithic and is located primarily in the Euphrates valley in south-eastern Turkey, the Balikh valley and the Khabur in Syria, and the Upper Tigris area in Iraq, although Halaf-influenced material is found throughout Greater Mesopotamia. The term «Proto-Halaf period» refers to the gradual emergence of the Halaf culture. It reformulates the «Halafcultural package» as this has been traditionally understood, and it shows that the Halaf emerged rapidly, but gradually, at the end of 7000 BC. Dr. Matthews’ “… problems [above] of fitting material cultural assemblages, especially pottery, into historical sequences …”, are, I think, solved by the following ‘assemblages’: The term refers to a distinct ceramic assemblage characterised by the introduction of painted Fine Ware within the later Pre-Halafceramic assemblage. Although these new wares represent changes in ceramic technology and production, other cultural aspects continue without abrupt change. The recent discoveries at various Late Neolithic sites in Syrian and elsewhere that have been reviews here are really changing the old, traditional schemes, which often presupposed abrupt transitions from one culture-historical entity to another. At present, there is growing evidence for considerable continuity during 7000-6000 BC. At the northern Syrian sites, where the Proto-Halaf stage was first defined, there is no perceptible break and at several sites (Tell Sabi Abyad, Tell Halula) the Proto-Halaf ceramic assemblage appears to be closely linked to the preceding late Pre-Halaf. The key evidence for the Proto-Halaf period is the appearance of new ceramic categories that did not existed before, manufactured according to high technological standards and complexly decorated. The similarities of these new painted wares from one Proto-Halaf site to another points to strong relationships between different communities. On the other hand, the evidence of local variety in ceramic production would indicate a certain level of independence of local groups. …. The Halaf culture as it is traditionally understood appears to have evolved over a very large area, which comprises the Euphrates valley (until recently considered to be a peripheral area), the Balikh valley and the Khabur in Syria but also northern Iraq, southern Turkey and the Upper Tigris area. The Halaf potters used different sources of clay from their neighbors and achieved outstanding elaboration and elegance of design with their superior quality ware. Some of the most beautifully painted polychrome ceramics were produced toward the end of the Halaf period. This distinctive pottery has been found from southeastern Turkey to Iran, but may have its origins in the region of the River Khabur (modern Syria). How and why it spread so widely is a matter of continuing debate, although analysis of the clay indicates the existence of production centers and regional copying. It is possible that such high-quality pottery was exchanged as a prestige item between local elites. “From that land [Nimrod] went forth into Assyria, where he built Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Calah and Resen, which is between Nineveh and Calah—which is the great city”. The most important site for the Halaf tradition was the site of Tell Arpachiyah located about 4 miles from Nineveh, now located in the suburbs of Mosul, Iraq. The site was occupied in the Halaf and Ubaid periods. It appears to have been heavily involved in the manufacture of pottery. The pottery recovered there formed the basis of the internal chronology of the Halaf period. The Halaf culture was eventually absorbed into the so-called Ubaid culture, with changes in pottery and building styles. Early in the chalcolithic period the potters of Arpachiyah in the Khabur Valley carried on the Tell Halaf tradition with a technical ability and with a sense of artistry far superior to that attained by the earlier masters; their polychrome designs, executed in rous paint, show a richness of invention and a painstaking skill in draughtsmanship which is unrivaled in the ancient world. The best known, most characteristic pottery of Tell Halaf, called Halaf ware, produced by specialist potters, has been found in other parts of northern Mesopotamia, such as at Nineveh and Tepe Gawra, Chagar Bazar and at many sites in Anatolia (Turkey) suggesting that it was widely used in the region. Arpachiyah and Tepe Gawra have produced typical Eastern Halaf ware while a rather different Western Halaf version is known from such Syrian sites as Carchemish and Halaf itself. Hassuna or Tell Hassuna is an ancient Mesopotamian site situated in what was to become ancient Assyria, and is now in the Ninawa Governorate of Iraq west of the Tigris river, south of Mosul and about 35 km southwest of the ancient Assyrian city of Nineveh. [End of quote] Whilst the Akkadian kings were remembered and admired down through the centuries: https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780190903015.001.0001/oso-9780190903015 The Akkadian kings (ca. 2334–2154 BCE) [sic] created the first territorial state in the ancient Near East and were remembered as model kings for more than two millennia thereafter. Exemplars of Kingship: Art, Tradition, and the Legacy of the Akkadians evaluates how later rulers engaged with Akkadian visual models and memories of Akkadian kingship in their own images …. the situation appears to have been entirely different with the Ur III kings: “Remarkable is the lack of interest in this period by later Mesopotamians when compared to how long they remembered Akkad's kings were remembered. In the first centuries of the second millennium, Ur III rulers were known primarily through the school curriculum”. Marc Van de Mieroop And this, despite the fact of Ur III’s incredible abundance of documentation. Previously, I wrote on this: Ur III presents historians with the conundrum of a super-abundance of documentary materials, on the one hand, coupled with a seeming total disinterest in the dynasty by later Mesopotamians, on the other. Marc Van de Mieroop writes of both the massive amount of documentation from the period and the strange disinterest in Ur III by the later generations (A History of the Ancient Near East, p. 72): Virtually no period of ancient Near Eastern history presents the historian with such an abundance and variety of documentation. Indeed, even in all of the ancient histories of Greece and Rome, there are few periods where a similar profusion of textual material is found. …. Owing to the parlous state of the conventional archaeology and chronology, one has to dig very deeply to ‘lay spade’ on the true era of King Solomon of Israel. Quite useless have proven to be the shallow efforts of contemporary archaeologists like Israel Finkelstein and his colleagues. These, scratching around in an impoverished phase of the Iron Age in hopeful pursuit of - or is that hopeful good riddance to? - evidence for kings David and Solomon, and finding absolutely nothing of relevance, then boldly proclaim themselves to have destroyed the likes of Solomon. We have already learned about Berlin chronologist Eduard Meyer’s most unfortunate off-setting of Egyptian history in relation to the biblical record - his artificial Sothic theory - and how it has served to push King Solomon’s Egyptian contemporaries, the Eighteenth Dynasty’s Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, into the C15th BC, about 500 years before Solomon. And yet another chronologist - what is it about them? - Dominican Fr. Louis-Hugues Vincent, of the École Biblique in Jerusalem, has been instrumental in throwing right out of kilter the Palestinian archaeology, so that, for instance, the destruction of Jericho is now dated about a millennium before the time of Joshua (when the destruction actually occurred). Quite a disaster! In 1922 Fr. Vincent, a pottery-chronologist to be specific, worked out this new arrangement in partnership with his very good friend W. F. Albright – sadly, because Albright was one who was at least capable of, from time to time, arriving at brilliant conclusions that burst out of the suffocating straightjacket of conventional thinking. Another era needing to be tied to David and Solomon is, as we have found, c. 1800 BC (conventional dating) Syro-Mesopotamia. This is the era of King Hammurabi of Babylon and Zimri-Lim of Mari, amongst many others (some biblical identifiable to the Davidic/Solomonic era). Most confusingly, the Solomonic era recurs again in the conventional system in c. C15th BC Syro-Mitanni. At least this synchronises with the C15th BC (mis-)placement of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty. Now I, just to ‘complicate’ matters even further, am going to suggest that yet another era, Sumerian c. 2100 BC, must also be merged with Hammurabi and the golden age of Solomon. Since what follows on this score is brand new material, it will be presented only as a non-detailed working hypothesis at this early stage. UR NAMMU MAY BE HAMMURABI Ur Nammu (c. 2100 BC, conventional dating), according to the usual explanation, reigned about three centuries before the Hammurabi with whom he shares some strong similarities: https://www.facebook.com/crazymesopotamians/posts/2467692739943585/ “300 years before Hammurabi, King Ur-Nammu founded the 3rd Dynasty of Ur, and laid the foundation of the Ziggurat dedicating it to the revered Moon God; Nanna. Ur-Nammu is credited to have established the first legal code in history. In it, he put laws, rules, and guidelines that defined the rights of the individual, the consequences of disobedience, and forms of punishments in violation of the laws; with two main currencies for exchange, the life of the individual and/or their money. It is worth noting that the similarities between Ur-Nammu's Code and Hammurabi Code are many, including the depiction of the king and the sitting god on the throne with a scepter in one hand and a ring and a rod in the other. …”. [End of quote] Regarding the depiction, now of Ur Nammu, now of Hammurabi, I actually find these to be so alike that I have begun to wonder if Ur Nammu was in fact Hammurabi. With Hammurabi now moved down to the time of King Solomon, then one might expect a similar necessary downward shifting of Ur Nammu. Given that the - albeit most significant - Ur III dynasty was hardly recognised by the later Mesopotamians (see below) had led me to the conclusion that the dynasty was in need of an alter ego dynasty. Ur III presents historians with the conundrum of a super-abundance of documentary materials, on the one hand, coupled with a seeming total disinterest in the dynasty by later Mesopotamians, on the other. Marc Van de Mieroop writes of both the massive amount of documentation from the period and the strange disinterest in Ur III by the later generations (A History of the Ancient Near East, p. 72), as quoted above. Obviously this cannot be right. We are talking here about a dynasty that presumably was responsible for the construction of the magnificent ziggurat at Ur (though this may need to be seriously checked). Kings of this sort of grandeur are not going to be virtually forgotten by later generations. The situation demands that Ur III be merged with another dynasty. I have been trying to find that partnership match in the Akkadian dynasty. However, I now think that I should have been looking much further down the historical track, to the First Dynasty of Babylon, Hammurabi’s dynasty. Ur Nammu to be merged with Hammurabi. Since I tentatively concluded this, I have come to light with King Solomon as Gudea: Prince of Lagash (13) Prince of Lagash | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu With Ur Nammu dated to c. 2100 BC, then his famous laws could rightly be considered to have preceded those of Moses by about half a millennium. However, if Ur Nammu is lowered on the time scale to fold into Hammurabi, then it would be more likely that the Torah of Moses, filtered through, say, a King David, had influenced Ur Nammu. Whilst Ur Nammu’s laws are considered to be less harsh than Hammurabi’s, this could be simply due to alterations over time, or different uses in different locales, e.g. Ur and Babylon: https://www.kibin.com/essay-examples/a-comparison-of-hammurabis-law-code-and-laws-of- “Many people may not know it, but they have heard part of Hammurabi’s Law Code before. It is where the fabled “eye-for-an-eye” statement came from. However, this brutal way of enforcing laws was not always the case in ancient Mesopotamia, where Hammurabi ruled. The Laws of Ur-Nammu are much milder and project a greater sense of tolerance in an earlier time. The changing Mesopotamian society dictated this change to a harsher, more defined law that Hammurabi ruled from. It was the urge to solidify his power in Mesopotamia that led Hammurabi to create his Law Code. It must first be noted that the Laws of Ur-Nammu were written some time around 2100 B.C., around three hundred years before Hammurabi’s Code. Because of this, The Laws of Ur-Nammu are much less defined in translation as well as more incomplete in their discovery. However, it is apparent from the text that these laws were concerned with establishing Mesopotamia as a fair society where equality is inherent. In the prologue before the laws, it is stated that “the orphan was not delivered up to the rich man; the widow was not delivered up to the mighty man; the man of one shekel was not delivered up to the man of one mina.” This set forth that no citizen answered to another, or even that each citizen answered to each other, no matter their wealth, strength, or perceived power. …”. Marc Madrigal has discerned a clear distinction between the Torah of Moses and the Mesopotamian codes (“The Mosaic Law in light of ancient Near Eastern law codes”): http://evangelicalfocus.com/blogs/3114/The_Mosaic_Law_in_Light_of_Ancient_Near_Eastern_Law_Codes There are many skeptics today that argue that the laws contained in the Old Testament are written on the basis of earlier Sumerian and Babylonian law codes. The purpose of such theses is to question the Divine inspiration of Scripture and to demonstrate that the underlying principles in these texts are merely human, and dare I say, imitative in nature. For someone who does not have a grasp on the subject, these theses can be quite persuasive at first sight. To give a popular example; it is possible to find the maxim "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand" (Exodus 21:23, ESV) in the Code of Hammurabi which dates to a period at least 400 years prior [sic]: “If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out” (Article 196) or "If a man knock out the teeth of his equal, his teeth shall be knocked out." (Article 200). What’s more, these similarities are not limited to the laws of Hammurabi only. For example, the Code of Ur-Nammu, which is at least 300 years older and thought to be by some the oldest Law code, states: “The man who committed the murder will be killed.” (Article 1) Compare this to the Mosaic Law which tells us that "Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death.” (Ex. 21:12, ESV). Such similarities often lead to a very simplistic preliminary judgment that the Old Testament has perhaps copied these laws. Similarities may indeed exist, but similarity is not synonymous with causality. Moreover, similarities in wording and expression should be fairly normal for these laws, considering they all proceed from a common age and geography. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that similar laws point to humanity’s shared concern for justice more than to a mere causality. To me, what is truly fascinating is the astonishing picture one is left with upon cross-examining the underlying principles of these law codes. I would go so far as to say that the laws of Moses show great differences with the spirit of Mesopotamian laws codes. In fact so much so, that I honestly believe that many do not realize the revolutionary character of the Mosaic laws for its day and age. In the following paragraphs I will be contrasting the differences between the Mesopotamian Codes and the Mosaic Law under four main headings, with special attention given to the Code of Ur-Nammu: 1) DIVINE SOURCE VS HUMAN SOURCE The Introduction to the Code of Ur-Nammu reads as follows: “After An and Enlil had turned over the Kingship of Ur to Nanna, at that time did Ur-Nammu, son born of Ninsun, for his beloved mother who bore him, in accordance with his principles of equity and truth... Then did Ur-Nammu the mighty warrior, king of Ur, king of Sumer and Akkad, by the might of Nanna, lord of the city, and in accordance with the true word of Utu, establish equity in the land; he banished malediction, violence and strife, and set the monthly Temple expenses at 90 gur of barley, 30 sheep, and 30 sila of butter.” From this statement, it is understood that this law code emerged at the initiative of King Ur-Nammu. The reason for the writing of this law is not necessarily a particular god but the king's own will. Although the king emphasizes that some deities may have provided spiritual support and direction to him, this is quite different from the claim of divine origin made in the Mosaic Law. Contrast this with the introduction and direct voice of God found in Exodus 20:1-2, “And God spoke all these words, saying “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” (ESV) It is evident that Ur-Nammu and other similar ancient laws were recorded at the initiative of the kings themselves. Whereas the Old Testament text clearly states that the laws came directly from God. In this context, the Old Testament is making a revolutionary claim, a claim of divine legal authority that had not been heard of until that day. 2) THE CONCEPT OF EQUALITY AND THE REASONS FOR PUNISHMENT In the Mesopotamian understanding of justice, the aim of the law is to bring order to society. But it is quite difficult to say that this method is equitable to today's understanding of equality under the law. For example, in the case of Hammurabi’s Code, those who have a higher social class undergo lighter forms of punishment compared to those who commit the same crime but belong to a lower class. Compare the three levels of class-based-punishment found in articles 202, 203, and 204 of the Code of Hammurabi: - Article 202: If any one strike the body of a man higher in rank than he, he shall receive sixty blows with an ox-whip in public. - Article 203: If a free-born man strike the body of another free-born man or equal rank, he shall pay one gold mina. - Article 204: If a freed man strike the body of another freed man, he shall pay ten shekels in money. The Mosaic law is quite different in this regard, because punishment depends on the nature of the crime rather than the social class. One of the most important reasons for this is that the law of Moses is not based on class sensibilities. Rather, it is based on the sanctity of each individual life created in “the image of God.” Its concept of law is anchored in the idea of “God’s holiness" rather than the protection of the socially elite: "You shall be holy to me, for I the LORD am holy and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine.” (Leviticus 20:26, ESV) 3) A DIFFERENCE IN FOCUS WHEN IT COMES TO CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND MONETARY COMPENSATION Perhaps one of the most striking differences between the Old Mesopotamian codes and the Mosaic Law is the nature of punishments for crimes committed against human dignity. In the most general sense (though there are some exceptions), in the laws of Ancient Mesopotamia crimes committed against human dignity are punished with fines, while crimes against property are punished with death. In the Mosaic Law we observe an opposite approach. For while sins against human dignity are punishable by death, property crimes are converted into fines. The following examples make this difference quite obvious: - Ur-Nammu, Article 2: “If a man commits a robbery, he will be killed.” - Mosaic Code, Exodus 22:1: “If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall repay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.” (ESV) - Ur-Nammu, Article 3: “If a man commits a kidnapping, he is to be imprisoned and pay 15 shekels of silver.” - Mosaic Code, Exodus 21:16: “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” (ESV) - Ur-Nammu, Article 28: “If a man appeared as a witness, and was shown to be a perjurer, he must pay fifteen shekels of silver.” - Mosaic Code: Deuteronomy 19:18-19: “The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.” (ESV) 4) GREAT DIFFERENCES IN PUNISHMENTS GIVEN TO WOMEN The position of women in ancient law codes is of course far from our 21st century sensibilities. However, when we compare these laws with the Mosaic code, we do find that the Mosaic code draws a more just and equitable line. For example, in the Ur-Nammu code, a woman committing adultery is subjected to capital punishment while the man is set free. In contrast, in the Mosaic Law both men and women convicted of adultery are subject to capital punishment. In the Ur-Nammu code the penalty given to a man who abuses a virgin is 5 shekels of silver. In the Mosaic Code the punishment is 10 times harsher, 50 shekels. Additionally, it was expected that the abusing man marry the virgin and lose all his rights for divorce. This is, in case the virgin’s father were to accept the arrangement. If the virgin’s father refused, she could continue to live under her father’s protection. The culprit was expected to pay the dowry price regardless. This last measure may seem rather strange and cruel to our modern ears, but what it meant to achieve was to shame the perpetrator and insure the material support of the woman for the rest of her lifetime. Here we can take a glance at such laws: - Ur-Nammu, Article 7: “If the wife of a man followed after another man and he slept with her, they shall slay that woman, but that male shall be set free. - Mosaic Code, Leviticus 20:10: “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” (ESV) - Ur-Nammu, Article 8: “If a man proceeded by force, and deflowered the virgin female slave of another man, that man must pay five shekels of silver.” - Mosaic Code, Deuteronomy 22:28-29: “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.” (ESV) - Mosaic Code, Exodus 22:16-17: “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.” (ESV) In conclusion, we observe many differences between the Mosaic law and Mesopotamian codes. While the Mosaic code emphasizes that laws come directly from the Deity, the texts of other civilizations emphasize that the laws are based on the initiative of a ruler. While the Mosaic code is based on the holiness of God and the sanctity and of human life, the laws of Mesopotamia are based on preserving or protecting a particular social class or elite. While the Mosaic code applies the death penalty to crimes against human dignity, Mesopotamian laws implement this punishment to crimes mostly against property. While the laws of Mesopotamia draw a highly prejudiced line against women, the Mosaic code proves to be more equidistant. In short, the Mosaic code is quite revolutionary for the times! So, where did this understanding of law come from? I’m fully aware that this study in of itself doesn’t prove beyond a doubt the Revelation of Scripture. However, it is plain to see that claims that the Mosaic code is somehow an imitation or inspired from Mesopotamian texts are rather simplistic and naive. ….

Thursday, February 1, 2024

‘Song of Songs’ has an historical background

by Damien F. Mackey Now, similarly as the girl was ‘sister’ to prince Absalom, so, too, was she ‘sister’ to Solomon (Song of Solomon 4:9): ‘You have stolen my heart, my sister, my bride’ (cf. Song of Solomon 4:12). The common denominator in biblical descriptions of the girl, now as Abishag, now as Tamar, now as “the Shunammite”, is her incomparable beauty. Nor should we underestimate the philosophical strength of mind of “the Queen of Sheba”, testing Solomon, the wisest of the wise (I Kings 4:30), “with hard questions”. She was, I believe, the same as Abishag, of “uncertain” name (perhaps = Hatshepsut?), the same as Tamar (her given Hebrew name), hailing from Shunem, hence “the Shunammite” of the Song of Solomon. Ethnically, she may have been Egypto-Canaanite, which thought will lead to the consideration that she was also Velikovsky’s Hatshepsut = “Queen of Sheba”. She, in such a revised context, shows some striking comparisons with Joseph of Egypt: A parent’s favourite, given a special cloak, sold out by brothers, mocked, sexually harrassed, emerging from the desert on a spices-laden camel train, imprisoned, though much admired, capable of good management, ruling in Egypt as second only to Pharaoh. These are just some of the similarities that Tamar at the time of King David shared with Joseph: Joseph and Tamar comparisons (4) Joseph and Tamar comparisons | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu TAMAR IN SOLOMON’S SONG She is the beautiful “Shunammite” of the Song of Songs (6:13): Come back, come back, O Shunammite; Come back, come back, that we may gaze at you! Why should you gaze at the Shunammite, as upon the dance of Mahanaim? Her town of Shunem was in northern Israel in the Jezreel Valley. It is the town where the prophet Elisha will be hospitably accommodated by one described as a ‘Great Woman’, whose son Elisha would revive after the son had died (2 Kings 4:8-37). A tradition has it that this rich woman of Shunem was a sister of Abishag - but at least a century separates them. 2 Samuel 13:1 apprises us of the further detail that young Tamar was prince Absalom’s sister: “… Tamar, the beautiful sister of Absalom son of David”. Now prince Absalom was, for his part, descended from kings both paternally and maternally. For, while King David of Israel was his father, he was born of David’s wife, Maakah (Maacah), who was the daughter of a (Canaanite?) king (I Chronicles 3:3): “[David’s] third [son], Absalom the son of Maakah daughter of Talmai [var. Tolmai] king of Geshur …”. However, when Hebrew uses relational words like “son”, ben (בֶּן), and “daughter”, bat (בַּת) – which we generally take in a literal sense – it may be that, in some cases at least, there is intended a less obvious meaning (e.g., in the first case, it could mean “grandson”, “official”). {Sir Alan Gardiner will lament, in Egypt of the Pharaohs (1960), the difficulty Egyptologists experience in trying to determine whether “son” literally means that, or something broader}. So, while we would immediately think to connect Tamar to Absalom as his blood sister, according to what we read in 2 Samuel 13:1, it may turn out to be not quite as simple as that. Some Jewish legends, in fact, will outright claim that Tamar was not Absalom’s sister – e.g., she may have been a foreign captive girl adopted into the family. Moses Maimonides, for his part (in Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Melakhim), will write: “… Tamar was Absalom’s sister only from his mother [but she was not related to David or his son Amnon] …”. Or perhaps her mother, Maakah, was a concubine (Song of Songs 6:7-9): Your cheeks are like halves of a pomegranate behind your veil. There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and maidens without number. My dove, my perfect one, is only one, the darling of her mother, flawless to her that bore her. (Song 6:7-9 RSV) Now, similarly as the girl was ‘sister’ to prince Absalom, so, too, was she ‘sister’ to Solomon (Song of Solomon 4:9): ‘You have stolen my heart, my sister, my bride’ (cf. Song of Solomon 4:12). The common denominator in biblical descriptions of the girl, now as Abishag, now as Tamar, now as “the Shunammite”, is her incomparable beauty. When King David’s attendants “searched throughout Israel for a beautiful young woman and found Abishag”, it should not be expected that they had bothered to check out every single girl in the land of Israel, but probably only the noble ones. Likely the chosen girl was then living with her mother, Maakah, and with Absalom, in their family house (or palace) at Shunem. Her epithet would become from now on (Song of Songs 1:8): ‘O fairest among women’. Now, this is similar in meaning to the Egyptian, Hatshepsut (“Foremost of Noble Women”), whose throne name in Egypt would be, in turn, very like the name, Maakah (Maa[t]-ka-[re]), without the inclusion of the pagan theophoric, re (the sun god, Ra): thus Maakah = Maa[t]ka-. Were these two women, Abishag and her ‘mother’, Maakah, ethnically (in part) Egyptians? And was the name of “uncertain” meaning, “Abishag”, a Hebraïsed attempt at “Ha[tshe]psut? (Gardiner calls her “Ḥashepsowe”)? Or, perhaps it was a combination of the Hebrew words, yapheh-ishshah (“beautiful” – “woman”)? Abishag = Yaph-isha? “A desolate woman” King David had determined, following Divine prompting (I Chronicles 28:6), for his son, Solomon, to succeed him afterwards on the throne of Jerusalem. This despite the fact that Solomon was by no means David’s oldest son. Before Solomon there were born at Hebron, for instance, those first six sons of David (each one by a different wife) (3:1-3): Amnon; Daniel; Absalom; Adonijah; Shephatiah and Ithream. Three of these first four, as well as Solomon himself, will be involved with the Shunammite, one way or the other. And two of these will die because of her. On this, see e.g. my article: King David’s troublesome sons (4) King David's troublesome sons | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu She will even emerge, as consort of King David, as the key to the kingdom (I Kings 2:22). The young Solomon was, for his part, madly in love with the Shunammite. No doubt, King David had promised her to Solomon along with the throne. The idyllic love between Solomon and the Shunammite is reflected in the Song of Songs (Solomon). But there is also much tension there, the pair having to endure a wait, opposition from hot-headed “brothers” (Song of Solomon 1:6): “My mother’s sons [brothers] were angry with me …”. Then, into this halçyon pastoral scene of sun, vineyards, flocks, goats, shepherds, lillies, valleys and fruit trees – a veritable Garden of Eden – there will emerge a bitter and cunning “adviser”. Like the serpent of old. This dark character will bring down Amnon. And he will leave the Shunammite “desolate”. He will foment Absalom’s rebellion, forcing King David to leave his city of Jerusalem in tears. And he will finally, like Judas, commit suicide. We first meet him in the person of Jonadab-Achitophel, who, I believe, was the prototype of that fiendish and most machiavellian of characters, Machiavelli: Sad decline of the sage Achitophel (4) Sad decline of the sage Achitophel | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Achitophel and Machiavelli (4) Achitophel and Machiavelli | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu In part, the most unsympathetic reactions towards the female victim might be accounted for according to the ethics of the day, due to her lowly status (e.g., as a foreigner or a commoner). One has only to consider the off-handed response by Jesus Christ himself, initially – and of his disciples – to the pleas of the Canaanite woman (Matthew 15:23, 24, 26, 28): Jesus did not answer her a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, ‘Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us’.” Then: ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel’. Then: ‘It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs’. But finally: “‘Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted’. And her daughter was healed at that moment”. Tamar fully anticipated what would be the result of Amnon’s assault, both for her and for him: ‘What about me? Where could I get rid of my disgrace? And what about you? You would be like one of the wicked fools in Israel’. And so, when he ordered her to: ‘Get up and get out!’, she answered emphatically: ‘No!’ (2 Samuel 13:16-19): ‘No!’ she said to him. ‘Sending me away would be a greater wrong than what you have already done to me’. But he refused to listen to her. He called his personal servant and said, ‘Get this woman out of my sight and bolt the door after her’. So his servant put her out and bolted the door after her. She was wearing an ornate robe, for this was the kind of garment the virgin daughters of the king wore. Tamar put ashes on her head and tore the ornate robe she was wearing. She put her hands on her head and went away, weeping aloud as she went. Cf. Song of Solomon 5:7: ‘The watchmen found me as they made their rounds in the city. They beat me, they bruised me; they took away my cloak, those watchmen of the walls!’ There apparently was no question of Tamar, now a damaged woman, returning to the palace of King David. He would be “furious” when he heard about the incident, but “furious” at whom? Heir Amnon would continue on for another “two years”. And so would his brother, Absalom. Their éminence grise adviser would insinuate himself into being the power behind the throne. Tamar’s only place to go would be back to Shunem, to her adoring mother, but also to Absalom (2 Samuel 13:20): “And Tamar lived in her brother Absalom’s house, a desolate woman”. Young Solomon, who loved her so ardently, would be constrained to peeping in at her from the outside (Song of Solomon 2:9): “… behold, he is behind our wall, looking through the windows, peeping through the lattices”. Tamar, multi-identified in my revision as the Shunammite, Abishag, and, possibly, as Hatshepsut, can also be “the Queen of Sheba” (“Queen of the South”). Presuming that she also becomes “the Queen of Sheba” (of I Kings 10), who is the same as the one to whom Jesus Christ will refer as “the Queen of the South” (Matthew 12:42; Luke 11:31), then the ‘trick’ now must be to get her all the way from Shunem, in northern Israel, to the location of “Sheba” – as “Queen” there. King Talmai of Geshur will be the facilitator for this. “THE QUEEN OF SHEBA” So, where exactly was this “Sheba”? Does it refer to Arabia, or to Nubia, or perhaps to Ethiopia? Emmet Sweeney, who has accepted that the biblical “Queen” was Hatshepsut who ruled Egypt, will use some linguistic sleight-of-hand: “A normal linguistic (mutation) lisping …”, to turn the “th” of Thebes (from where Hatshepsut ruled in Egypt) into “sh”, to make Thebes, “Sheba” (Empire of Thebes, Or, Ages in Chaos Revisited, p. 32). Dr. I. Velikovsky, for his part, believed that “Sheba” was a name rather than a location. ‘Sheba’, he had suggested, ‘was probably a nickname for Hatshepsut in the close relationships that existed between the Eighteenth Egyptian Dynasty and the House of David’ (Ages in Chaos, I, 1952). Apart from the superficial similarity between the elements Sheba and Hat-shepsu-t, Velikovsky, a Russian Jew, may have been influenced in this suggestion of his by those Jewish traditions that understood “Sheba” as the proper name of the queen, and not her land of origin. Creationist Patrick Clarke, who appears to have a good grasp of Egyptian hieroglyphics, has explained (in “Why Pharaoh Hatshepsut is not to be equated to the Queen of Sheba”, p. 65), that: https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j24_2/j24_2_62-68.pdf “The last part of Hatshepsut’s name is represented by the Egyptian šps … (which may be pronounced shepsu or shepsi …). …. It is impossible to squeeze either shwa or shba [sheba] from the Egyptian šps”. Far more promising for Velikovsky’s (and Sweeney’s) identification of “the Queen of Sheba” with Hatshepsut of Egypt is this testimony of Flavius Josephus (Antiquities, Bk. VIII, Ch. 6): “… There was then a woman queen of Egypt and Ethiopia; she was inquisitive into philosophy, and one that on other accounts also was to be admired. When this queen heard of the virtue and prudence of Solomon, she had a great mind to see him …”. That, coupled with the Ethiopian tradition (in Kebra Nagast) that King Solomon’s visitor was named Makeda, a name almost identical to Makera, (or Maat-ka-re), which we found to have been the throne name of Hatshepsut. Did Solomon have the Shunammite’s Egyptian-ness well in mind when he chose this simile (Song of Solomon 1:9): ‘I liken you, my darling, to a mare among Pharaoh’s chariot horses’? Dr. John Bimson had, in a devastating critique of Velikovsky’s popular identification of the biblical “Queen of Sheba” with Hatshepsut (in “Hatshepsut and the Queen of Sheba”, Chronology and Catastrophism REVIEW, Vol. VIII, 1986), demonstrated that Hatshepsut’s famous expedition to the land of Punt, which Dr. Velikovsky had hoped to connect with the Queen’s visit to King Solomon’s Jerusalem, could not possibly have been the biblical incident. For one, Hatshepsut did not personally accompany the Punt expedition. Bimson further argued that the biblical description had an Arabian, not Egyptian, flavor to it, with camels, gold, spices and precious stones. But, as I wrote in “Solomon and Sheba” (Chronology and Catastrophism REVIEW, 1997:1): “… all the monarchs who came to hear Solomon’s wisdom brought ‘silver and gold … myrrh, spices …’ (cf. I Kings 10:25 and II Chronicles 10:24). Ever since the time of Joseph, an Arabian camel train had operated between Egypt and northern Palestine, carrying similar types of gifts (Genesis 37:25)”. And, militating against Dr. Bimson’s suggestion that the biblical queen was from Yemen in Arabia (Patrick Clarke, too, has her from “somewhere around modern-day Yemen”) is the testimony of G. van Beek, who has described the geographical isolation of Yemen and the severe hazards of a journey from there to Palestine (Solomon and Sheba, ch. 1, “The Land of Sheba”, p. 41). Moreover, none of the numerous inscriptions from this southern part of Arabia refers to the famous queen. Civilisation in southern Arabia may not really have begun to flourish until some two to three centuries after Solomon’s era, as Bimson himself had noted – and no 10th century BC Arabian queen has ever been named or proposed as the Queen of Sheba. If she had hailed from Yemen, who was she? Whilst scholarly critiques, such as Bimson and Clarke’s, are to be encouraged, these two have succeeded in creating a vacuum – no appropriate “Queen”. SIS editor in 1997, Alasdair Beal, commenting on the effect that Bimson’s 1986 critique had had on readers, wrote: Probably few articles caused more disappointment in SIS circles than John Bimson’s 1986 ‘Hatshepsut and the Queen of Sheba’, which presented strong evidence and argument against Velikovsky’s proposal that the … queen who visited King Solomon was none other than the famous Egyptian female pharaoh. This removed one of the key identifications in Velikovsky’s Ages in Chaos historical reconstruction and was a key factor in the rejection of his proposed chronology by Bimson and others in favour of the more moderate ‘New Chronology’. It also took away what had seemed a romantic and satisfactory solution to the mystery of the identity and origins of Solomon’s visitor, leaving her once more as an historical enigma. …. So, can “Sheba” yet be identified with any part of Egypt and/or Ethiopia, where Josephus said that the biblical woman had ruled as queen? No, as I think. Egypt/Ethiopia will be figuring only at a later stage in our story. I believe that we can actually give a definitive answer to the question of the location of “Sheba”, based on the highest authority: JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF. In what might initially seem like a very vague statement (Luke 11:31): ‘The Queen of the South … came from the ends of the earth …’, Jesus is here providing the most precise co-ordinates. This text offers us an excellent example of why the Bible needs to be read in its proper context, and not superficially, in a literal Western manner. Creationists are wont to read phrases like “the earth” (Greek tes ges, της γης) in a global sense. Though Patrick Clarke, himself a Creationist, will limit his horizons geographically, in this case, by suggesting that the biblical queen may have been from Yemen. (Logically, should he have located “Sheba” somewhere in the Southern Hemisphere?). However, for the Israelite audience which Jesus was then addressing, “the earth” was “the land”, the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel). Now, the “ends” (or borders) of the land of Israel were Dan (North) and Beersheba (South). For example I Samuel 3:20: “And all Israel from Dan to Beersheba recognized that Samuel was attested as a prophet of the LORD”. The “end” to which Jesus is referring, “the South”, is obviously, then, Beersheba. “The south” is a common biblical term for the Negev (desert). So, we are here being directed unerringly by Jesus Christ to the chief town, Beersheba, that stands at the southern border of Israel, in the Negev – and known as “the Capital of the Negev”. The Old Testament fully supports this geography, giving the name of the Queen’s realm as “Sheba”, which is just another name for Beersheba (Joshua 19:2): “… Beersheba (or Sheba) …”. And, given the ancient city’s strategic location of intersecting trade routes, we ought not be surprised to read that the Queen of (Beer)sheba travelled to Jerusalem with so richly-laden a camel train as she did (I Kings 10:2, 10), and that: “Never again were so many spices brought in as those the Queen of Sheba gave to King Solomon”. This famous journey to Jerusalem, though, is also yet some time in the future. For now, we must return to the scene at Shunem in northern Israel. “Two years later”, during which time Tamar was presumably still languishing at home, Absalom will organise for his men to kill Amnon, at a sheep-shearing occasion in Baal Hazor, with all of King David’s sons present (2 Samuel 13:23-33). During that period of time, the girl had been consigned to working outside in the fields. Some think that her description of herself as “dark”, or ‘black”, would suggest that she was, say, a Negroid (Nubian or Ethiopian) woman, although she herself will specifically attribute her dark skin to her being “darkened by the sun” (Song of Solomon 1:5-6): ‘Dark am I, yet lovely, daughters of Jerusalem, dark like the tents of Kedar, like the tent curtains of Solomon. Do not stare at me because I am dark, because I am darkened by the sun’. As Professor Claude F. Mariottini has well explained: https://claudemariottini.com/2010/02/16/%E2%80%9Cblack-and-beautiful%E2%80%9D-or- The text does not say that her dark complexion was due to her racial background, that is, that she was an African woman. Her dark skin pigmentation was not a reference to a racial feature. What the Shulammite [sic] was trying to say to the women of Jerusalem was that the exposure to the sun on her body made her to be darker than the women who lived in Jerusalem. She was dark because she did not protect her body from the intense heat of the sun. The Shulammite’s words reflect the fact that peasant women who worked in the fields had dark skin because of the constant exposure to the sun, while the women who lived in luxurious houses of Jerusalem and those who lived in the palace were less dark and more white. The woman explained her blackness by comparing it with the tents of Kedar and the curtains of Solomon. The tents of Kedar were bedouin tents made of black goat hair. Although the text does not clarify what was intended by “the curtains of Solomon,” they were probably curtains or wall hangings found in Solomon’s palace known by its beauty and artistic designs. The skin contrast (dark and white) is perfectly exemplified in an Egyptian Old Kingdom statue of the official Rahotep and his wife, Nofret (meaning “beautiful”). “Rahotep’s skin”, we read there, “is darker than his wife’s to show all of the time men spend outside – and women inside”. This all has mystical connotations as well, as wonderfully explored by St. John of the Cross (Dark Night of the Soul and The Living Flame of Love), the black darkness of the Active and Passive nights. Dr. D. W. Ekstrand makes the following comment on the Divine flame’s effect: http://www.thetransformedsoul.com/additional-studies/spiritual-life-studies/saint-john-of-the- “… ‘The Living Flame of Love.’ The stanzas sing of an elevated union within the intimate depths of the spirit. The image of “flame,” working on the wood, dispelling the moisture, turning it black, then giving it the qualities of “fire,” appeared first in the Dark Night. It also turned up again in the Spiritual Canticle in the serene night toward the end of the poem, a flame that is painless, comforting, and conformed to God. John tells us there that this flame is the love of the Holy Spirit. Now, having grown hotter and sometimes flaring up, it impels John to write more verses about the sublime communion taking place in his deepest center. At this depth he lives in both stable serenity and exalted activity. St. John composed these stanzas burning in love’s flame, with the intimate and delicate sweetness of love”. ‘… his banner over me is love’. (Song of Solomon 2:4) Why were her ‘brothers … angry with’ her? (Song of Solomon 1:6) Because, as she continues: ‘my own vineyard I had to neglect’. Professor Mariottini concurs with others that this is a reference to her virginity, though he wrongly adds “that she gave herself sexually” to her lover (op. cit.): “The reason for the punishment her brothers inflicted on her was because she did not keep her own vineyard … probably a reference to her virginity, that is, that she gave herself sexually to her shepherd lover and as a result her brothers punished her for her indiscretion”. We know, though, that she was entirely guiltless in this – she having firstly obeyed the order of King David to attend the ailing Amnon, and then having been taken against her will by Amnon. But, as we find in some cultures even today, the female victim in such cases can sometimes be burdened with all of the blame. Solomon had, as we are told, a vineyard at nearby Baal Hamon (Song of Solomon 8:11): Solomon had a vineyard in Baal Hamon; he let out his vineyard to tenants. Each was to bring for its fruit a thousand shekels of silver. “Oettli, following Rosenmüller, thinks this [Baal Hamon] … is identical with Belamon, or Balamon, in Judith viii. 3, which, he says, was not far from Shunem …” (The Song of Solomon with Introductions and Notes, p. 61. Emphasis added). Solomon and the Shunammite would have had occasion to meet “outside” in the fields (8:1-2): ‘If only you were to me like a brother, who was nursed at my mother’s breasts! Then, if I found you outside, I would kiss you, and no one would despise me. I would lead you and bring you to my mother’s house— she who has taught me’. And what had her mother taught her? Perhaps her beauty was not the only quality for which King David’s officials had chosen the Shunammite above all the others. She may also have acquired medicinal knowledge from her mother. One explanation is that she was like an Akkadian baritu priestess, with healing powers: http://www.icanbreathe.com/Habbirya.html What are the nature and purpose of Tamar’s activity? What follows is a necessarily brief summary of my research so far. The first possibility is raised by the term biryâ. In 2 Sam 13, the root brh … is used to designate preparation of the food (tabrenî) and the ceremony involved in making the food (habbiryâ) which Amnon expects to eat (‘ebreh). Words arising from brh in the Bible have to do with eating, but are specific for breaking a fast in a time of grieving or illness. Forms of brh appear only in 2 Sam 3:35; 12:17; 13:5, 6, 10; and in Lam 4:10. Another form, barût is found in Ps 69:22 as food for a mourner. …. David for example refuses to break his fast, lehabrôt, during mourning for Abner (3:35) and he will not eat, brh, bread during his seven day fast and prayer vigil for the ailing infant of Bathsheba (12:17). In Lam 4:10, children become the food (perhaps divination-offering), lebarôt, prepared by their desperate mothers during the siege of Jerusalem. These uses suggest that the word chosen to express eating in 2 Sam 13 includes a connotation beyond an ordinary meal. The root has sacred connotations in Hebrew. Beriyt means covenant, perhaps arising from “binding” in Assyrian barû. In the Bible beriyt commonly refers to being bound by the covenant with YHWH, but also by a covenant between humans (Gen 14:13; I Sam 18:3) and with death (Isa 28: IS, 18; 57:8). …. In later Jewish parlance there is a meal of comfort, called seûdat habra’â … given to a mourner after the funeral. Biryâ may be related to beriyt, covenant. Conceivably this later custom was a restoration of some familial/tribal bond with the dead, a covenant meal prepared ritually by a woman. …. Though the divinatory meaning of brh is not common in Hebrew, it is among ancient Israel’s neighbors. In Akkadian, barû priests are diviners who inspect livers, and the related term biru, “divination” … is conducted also by women who interpret dreams. …. We may not assume that other people’s customs are identical to Israel’s; however, by exploring ancient approaches to healing we may apply to 2 Sam 13 a range of activities reflecting a frame of reference common to peoples of the ancient Near East. …. In Mesopotamia, besides priestly diviners, there are references to two types of women diviners who in particular are “approached in cases of sickness,” …. as is the case with Amnon. One passage reads, “We shall ask here the šã’litu-priestesses, the baritu-priestesses and the spirits of the dead …. It reads a bit like Joseph of Egypt (Imhotep), who “commanded the physicians” – {he becoming an Egyptian god of medicine}. Joseph could divine (Genesis 44:15) and could interpret dreams. Solomon, too, in fact, “lovesick” as Amnon had been, will plead for the Shunammite’s attention (Song of Solomon 2:5): ‘Sustain me with raisin cakes, refresh me with apples, because I am lovesick’. When the Shunammite was at home, a veritable prisoner of Absalom and her other brothers, young Solomon was constrained to creep around the place surreptitiously, “behind the wall”, “gazing”, “peering through the lattice” (Song of Solomon 2:8-9): ‘Listen! My beloved! Look! Here he comes, leaping across the mountains, bounding over the hills. My beloved is like a gazelle or a young stag. Look! There he stands behind our wall, gazing through the windows, peering through the lattice’. Then everything changes. Amnon is killed, this sending a shudder through the royal palace. David is told (2 Samuel 13:30): ‘Absalom has struck down all the king’s sons; not one of them is left’. But, while David is in the process of doing one of the things that he does best, grieving (v. 31): “The king stood up, tore his clothes and lay down on the ground; and all his attendants … with their clothes torn”, Jonadab-Achitophel will (with his insider’s knowledge) reassure the king (v. 32): ‘My lord should not think that they killed all the princes; only Amnon is dead. This has been Absalom’s express intention ever since the day Amnon raped his sister Tamar’. “Meanwhile, Absalom had fled” (v. 34). Now, did Absalom on this occasion take with him his ‘sister’ Tamar, as well as “his men” who had slain the unsuspecting Amnon (vv. 28-29)? “Absalom fled and went to Talmai son of Ammihud, the king of Geshur. But King David mourned many days for his son. After Absalom fled and went to Geshur, he stayed there three years” (vv. 37-38). All we know for sure is that, more than five years later – after the collapse of Absalom’s revolt – the girl was back in the service of King David. For, during the play for the throne by yet another son of King David’s, Adonijah, we read (I Kings 1:15): “Now the king was very old, and Abishag the Shunammite was serving the king”. Absalom may, or may not, have ‘dragged’ his ‘sister’ along with him to his place of refuge with King Talmai in Geshur. If he had, then her departure from Israel may have prompted Solomon’s anguished cry: ‘Come back, come back, O Shunammite; come back, come back, that we may gaze on you!’ (Song of Solomon 6:13) Whatever be the case, the kingdom of Geshur, and its King Talmai, are the elements (so I think) that will enable me to make the necessary connections, firstly, with “Sheba”, and then, with Egypt. I have already suggested elsewhere, following Diana Edelman, that this “Geshur” was a southern kingdom (“Tel Masos, Geshur, and David”, JNES, Vol. 47, No. 4, Oct., 1988, p. 256): http://www.jstor.org/stable/544878 David, while in residence in his new capital of Judah at Hebron fathered Absalom with Maacah, daughter of Talmai, King of Geshur. His first two sons were mothered by his wives Ahinoam and Abigail, whom he had married while living in the wilderness, prior to his service to Achish of Gath. His marriage to Maacah must therefore have taken place in the opening years of his kingship at Hebron. The political nature of his marriage to Maacah has been recognized in the past …. It has always been assumed, however, that Talmai was king of the northern kingdom of Geshur in the Golan. It seems more reasonable to conclude, however, that Talmai was king of the southern Geshur. Whether or not he remained a Philistine vassal after setting up his own state at Hebron, it would have been a politically expedient move for David to ally himself with one or more of the groups he had formerly been raiding as a Philistine mercenary. Peaceful relations with groups living just to the south of his new state would have allowed the king to concentrate his limited resources on other endeavors. His ability to enter a treaty with southern Geshur, had he remained a Philistine vassal himself, would have been conditioned on the lack of formal declaration of war between the Philistines and Geshur. No vassal was allowed to enter a treaty with a declared enemy of its overlord. The postulated alliance with Talmai, king of Geshur, would have provided David with military aid when he needed it. At the same time, it could have provided him with a market for his goods and … additional economic opportunities. “David … a Philistine vassal himself”, we have just read! Utterly amazing to think that David, the Lord’s “anointed” one, the hero of Israel – thanks to his defeating the Philistine giant, Goliath, and earning himself a reputation amongst the Israelites greater than King Saul’s (I Samuel 18:6-7): “… the women came out from all the towns of Israel to meet King Saul with singing and dancing, with joyful songs and with timbrels and lyres. As they danced, they sang: ‘Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands’” – would be forced to flee to the enemy Philistines, the only place where he knew Saul would not go in pursuit of him. The trigger-happy King Saul was wont to attempt to impale on his spear, David, and even Saul’s own son and heir, Jonathan. Perhaps no one better fits Paul’s description of the much-tried people of faith than does David (Hebrews 11:32-33, 34, 37-38): And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, about David and Samuel and the prophets, who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions … escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. …. They went about … destitute, persecuted and mistreated— the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, living in caves and in holes in the ground. Meanwhile, back in Jerusalem (2 Samuel 13:39): “… King David longed to go to Absalom, for he was consoled concerning Amnon’s death”. Did the king also pine for the absent ‘sister’ of Absalom? ‘Come back … O Shunammite …’. Or was she already back in the service of the king? Another matter to be considered with regard to the Shunammite is whether she had conceived a baby from the rape incident. For, who was the mysterious “little sister” (Song of Songs 8:8)?: “We have a little sister, and she has no breasts. What shall we do for our sister on the day when she is spoken for?” Tradition has Joseph of Egypt’s wife, Asenath, as the daughter of Joseph’s sister Dinah, conceived in her rape by Shechem the Hivite (Genesis 34:2). We cannot say for sure where the Shunammite was situated during Absalom’s subsequent revolt against his father, King David – though, a few years later, she was back serving David, as previously noted. Meanwhile, Jonadab-Achitophel was steering Absalom in a similarly lustful direction as he had in the case of Amnon (2 Samuel 16:20-22): Absalom said to Achitophel, ‘Give us your advice. What should we do?’ Achitophel answered, ‘Sleep with your father’s concubines whom he left to take care of the palace. Then all Israel will hear that you have made yourself obnoxious to your father, and the hands of everyone with you will be more resolute’. So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof, and he slept with his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel. Was the Shunammite amongst these “concubines … [David] … left to take care of the palace”? FROM SHEBA TO EGYPTIAN THEBES The Shunammite had by now unwittingly been the cause of the deaths of two of David’s sons, Amnon and Adonijah. How did “the Shunammite” (who was Tamar = Abishag) manage to find her way to becoming “Queen” of Beersheba, in the Negev desert? Whether or not she had gone (or been taken) with Absalom when he fled the presence of David after having organised the death of the king’s oldest son, Amnon, staying away from Israel for “three years” – during which time she could have become well acquainted with the southern kingdom of Geshur – she would at least have been free to go there after the death of King David whom she had been nursing. King Talmai of Geshur may (as Diana Edelman has suggested), or may not, have been an ally of King David’s. (Would Talmai have received the rebellious Absalom had he been an ally?) How, then, after all of this did the Shunammite find her way to Egypt? The following scenario has to be speculative at this stage: Just prior to the death of King David (according to this revised model), Thutmose I succeeded Amenhotep I as the pharaoh of Egypt. Thutmose I – considered to have been a mature and experienced military leader when he came to the throne – is thought not to have been of royal Egyptian blood. “… he may have strengthened his claim to the throne by marrying Ahmose, perhaps a relative of his predecessor, probably some time before his accession”. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thutmose-I Chronologically, Thutmose I would have assumed the throne of Egypt right on the eve of Solomon’s own kingship, thereby being our candidate for the biblical “Pharaoh king of Egypt” with whom King Solomon made an alliance (I Kings 3:1). I think that Thutmose I (or Thotmes I) may be the biblical Talmai, or Tolmai (= Thotmes), formerly King of Geshur – which, we learned, was “the land extending to Shur and Egypt”. Though not of royal Egyptian blood, Thutmose I had married pharaoh Amenhotep I’s sister, according to some views. Thutmose I is generally considered to have become the father of Hatshepsut. “Yet”, according to Gay Robins” (“The Enigma of Hatshepsut”), “none of Thutmose I’s monuments even mentions his daughter”: https://www.baslibrary.org/archaeology-odyssey/2/1/11 Hatshepsut was, however, extremely devoted to Thutmose I. Talmai (Tolmai), the former king of Geshur, fronting Egypt, having married into the pharaonic family, became “Pharaoh king of Egypt” (I Kings 1:3) just prior to the death of King David, and he then, shortly afterwards, made an alliance with King Solomon. The Pharaoh’s ‘daughter’, Hatshepsut (formerly of Shunem), was promised to King Solomon as his bride (I Kings 9:16): “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”. Were one to use an ‘Occam’s Razor’ method, to limit complexity, it would be very tempting in my revised context to identify this “Gezer” with Beersheba (whether or not it might be the archaeological site of Tel Masos). Gezer could have been the capital of the “Gezrites” next to the “Geshurites”. Dr. John Bimson, though, may have detected archaeological evidence for the relevance of Gezer at this time (“Can There be a Revised Chronology Without a Revised Stratigraphy?”): The Bible adds extra detail concerning Gezer: namely, that Solomon rebuilt it after it had been captured and burnt by the Pharaoh, who had given the site to his daughter, Solomon’s wife, as a dowry (I Kings 9:16-17). In Velikovsky’s chronology, this pharaoh is identified as Thutmose I …. In the revised stratigraphy considered here, we would expect to find evidence for this destruction of Gezer at some point during LB I, and sure enough we do, including dramatic evidence of burning …. The “latest possible date” for this destruction is said to be the reign of Thutmose III, with some archaeologists preferring an earlier date …. We may readily identify this destruction as the work of Solomon’s father-in-law. …. The Pharaoh conquers this city and gives it to his daughter, the “Queen of Sheba [Beersheba]” as a wedding present, she biding her time there in the Negev until King Solomon, in Jerusalem, has completed much of the heavy building work there. Only then does the “Queen” make the camel trip to Jerusalem to see it all (I Kings 10:1-7): When the Queen of Sheba heard about the fame of Solomon and his relationship to the Lord, she came to test Solomon with hard questions. Arriving at Jerusalem with a very great caravan—with camels carrying spices, large quantities of gold, and precious stones—she came to Solomon and talked with him about all that she had on her mind. Solomon answered all her questions; nothing was too hard for the king to explain to her. When the queen of Sheba saw all the wisdom of Solomon and the palace he had built, the food on his table, the seating of his officials, the attending servants in their robes, his cupbearers, and the burnt offerings he made at the Temple of the Lord, she was overwhelmed. She said to the king, ‘The report I heard in my own country about your achievements and your wisdom is true. But I did not believe these things until I came and saw with my own eyes. Indeed, not even half was told me; in wisdom and wealth you have far exceeded the report I heard’. It is apparent from I Kings 3:1, though, that Pharaoh’s daughter actually arrived there even while work on the Temple was going on: “[Solomon] brought her to the City of David until he finished building his palace and the Temple of the Lord, and the wall around Jerusalem”. They would have dwelt together in the city of Jerusalem for several years, until pharaoh Thutmose I died. The Queen, who had been solemnly crowned by Thutmose I in a tri-partite ceremony that was patterned on that of King Solomon’s coronation, as we read, then (10:13): “… left and returned with her retinue to her own country”. Some (e.g. Dr Ewald Metzler) consider this ‘return’ to have been a ‘divorce’, politically motivated. She, as Hatshepsut, thereupon went to Egypt to marry the new pharaoh, Thutmose II. Then, after he died, about mid-way through the reign of King Solomon, she invited the latter to Egypt where he became whom some consider to have been ‘the true power behind the throne’, the famous Senenmut (or Senmut). Hatshepsut, first a Queen of Egypt, later became Pharaoh of what is called Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty (New Kingdom). There is enormous archaeologico-historical evidence for King Solomon and for the exotic Queen of Sheba, despite leading Israeli archaeologist Israel Finkelstein’s mock-apologetic: “Now Solomon. I think I destroyed Solomon, so to speak. Sorry for that!” For more on all this, see e.g. my article: Archaeology for King Solomon ‘all in pieces, all coherence gone’ (5) Archaeology for King Solomon 'all in pieces, all coherence gone' | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

Monday, April 6, 2020

Pharaohs known to Old Testament Israel


Great Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt 


by 
Damien F. Mackey


The use of the term “pharaoh” (פַרְעֹ֔ה) as a title as early as Genesis 12:15
is likely anachronistic – a later editing – as it appears that this term was applied
to the rulers of Egypt only late, during so-called New Kingdom Egyptian history. 

Part One: Naming the ruler by title only

Joshua J. Mark explains that “Pharaoh” was a Greek version of the Egyptian pero or per-a-a, meaning “Great House”: https://www.ancient.eu/pharaoh/ 

The Pharaoh in ancient Egypt was the political and religious leader of the people and held the titles ‘Lord of the Two Lands’ and ‘High Priest of Every Temple’. The word ‘pharaoh’ is the Greek form of the Egyptian pero or per-a-a, which was the designation for the royal residence and means `Great House’. The name of the residence became associated with the ruler and, in time, was used exclusively for the leader of the people.



The early monarchs of Egypt were not known as pharaohs but as kings. The honorific title of `pharaoh’ for a ruler did not appear until the period known as the New Kingdom (c.1570-c.1069 BCE) [sic]. Monarchs of the dynasties before the New Kingdom were addressed as `your majesty’ by foreign dignitaries and members of the court and as `brother’ by foreign rulers; both practices would continue after the king of Egypt came to be known as a pharaoh.

[End of quote]


Here, however, I shall be following the biblical usage by referring even to the early rulers of Egypt as “Pharaoh”.





Pharaoh One: Genesis 12:10-20


The ruler of Egypt who abducted Abram’s wife, Sarai, at the time of the famine, is simply called “Pharaoh”:

Now there was a famine in the land, and Abram went down to Egypt to live there for a while because the famine was severe. As he was about to enter Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai, “I know what a beautiful woman you are.

When the Egyptians see you, they will say, ‘This is his wife.’ Then they will kill me but will let you live. Say you are my sister, so that I will be treated well for your sake and my life will be spared because of you.”

When Abram came to Egypt, the Egyptians saw that Sarai was a very beautiful woman. And when Pharaoh’s officials saw her, they praised her to Pharaoh, and she was taken into his palace. He treated Abram well for her sake, and Abram acquired sheep and cattle, male and female donkeys, male and female servants, and camels.

But the Lord inflicted serious diseases on Pharaoh and his household because of Abram’s wife Sarai. So Pharaoh summoned Abram. “What have you done to me?” he said. “Why didn’t you tell me she was your wife? Why did you say, ‘She is my sister,’ so that I took her to be my wife? Now then, here is your wife. Take her and go!” Then Pharaoh gave orders about Abram to his men, and they sent him on his way, with his wife and everything he had.


He seems to be, from this text, a not entirely unreasonable character.

The same may be said about the “Pharaoh” of Joseph also at the time of a famine.

The life of Moses, though, right down to the Exodus (80 years), experienced only persecuting, hard-hearted pharaohs.

Now, it was standard practice amongst the early Egyptian scribes not to name their Pharaoh (see e.g. professor A. S. Yahuda’s The Language of the Pentateuch in its Relation to Egyptian, Oxford, 1933), despite the fact that the rulers of Egypt had a multiplicity of names.

Ishmael, whose toledôt history records the abduction of Sarai, was born of an Egyptian mother, Hagar (some traditions say that she was the daughter of Pharaoh), and he later married an Egyptian, and accordingly, perhaps, followed Egyptian practice.

Moses, having been educated in Egypt (Acts 7:22) would have been expected to – and does in fact – do the same.

And before Moses, Joseph must have become thoroughly Egyptianised as to court protocol and Egyptian etiquette.


However, when we come to Isaac’s toledôt history, telling the same story of the abduction of Sarai – but whom Isaac names, Sarah (his actual mother):


Toledôt Explains Abram’s Pharaoh

https://www.academia.edu/26239534/Toled%C3%B4t_Explains_Abrams_Pharaoh


–  the Pharaoh is finally named. He is “Abimelech”.

In my article (above) we even find that the elements, “Pharaoh” and “Abimelech”, connecting in a chiastic structure – although this does not inevitably mean personal identity.

Isaac (or whoever wrote his toledôt) was under no such constraint to follow Egyptian practice.

This may bring us to another point that will be raised in this series. The name given to a biblical pharaoh may not necessarily be an Egyptian name, but simply the name by which that ruler is known to the Hebrews (Israelites, Jews). Still, “Abimelech” may be compatible in meaning with an Egyptian-style name. See my article:

Comparing the Meaning of Names “Abimelech” and Egyptian “Raneb”


https://www.academia.edu/31154538/Comparing_the_Meaning_of_Names_Abimelech_and_Egyptian_Raneb_


“… the majority of scholars believe that Abimelech was not really a personal name but rather a Philistine royal title, not unlike Pharaoh in Egypt, Candace in Cush or Caesar in Rome”.

http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Abimelech.html#.XJmhtJgzaU


Egypt at this time, we have found, to have taken possession of southern Canaan (or Philistia), hence we get a “Pharaoh” who is also a “king of the Philistines” (Genesis 26:1).

And this, Abram’s “Pharaoh”, I have determined, having ruled from Abram to the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah, must have been an early Pharaoh who reigned for a half century and more.
I thus favour for this biblical “Pharaoh” the very first dynastic ruler, Hor-Aha (Min = Menes).

For more on this, see e.g. my article:

Dr. W.F. Albright’s Game-Changing Chronological Shift

https://www.academia.edu/15313044/Dr._W.F._Albright_s_Game-Changing_Chronological_Shift

If Dr. Albright was correct in his view that the Egyptian Manium (or Mannu), against whom the Akkadian potentate Naram-Sin (c. 2200 BC conventional dating) successfully waged war, was none other than the legendary first pharaoh Menes, himself, then that must lead to the shocking conclusion that the beginning of the Egyptian dynastic history (c. 3100 BC conventional dating) is a millennium out of whack with Akkadian history.

I have even been tempted to try to equate the name “Abimelech” with “Lehabim”, the son of Mizraim (or Egypt). Someone has picked up an old post of mine regarding this:

Genesis 10:6-14
The sons of Ham were Cush and Mizraim and Put and Canaan.  The sons of Cush were Seba and Havilah and Sabtah and Raamah and Sabteca; and the sons of Raamah were Sheba and Dedan.  Now Cush became the father of Nimrod; he became a mighty one on the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; therefore it is said, “Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD.”  The beginning of his kingdom was Babel and Erech and Accad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. From that land he went forth into Assyria, and built Nineveh and Rehoboth-Ir and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city.  Mizraim became the father of Ludim and Anamim and Lehabim and Naphtuhim and Pathrusim and Casluhim (from which came the Philistines) and Caphtorim.
….
Would not the King Abimelech, contemporary of Abram, be Lehabim (= Abim-lech), son of Mizraim?



Part Two: Who were the nameless Pharaohs of Joseph and Moses?


“Then a new king, to whom Joseph meant nothing, came to power in Egypt”.

Exodus 1:8


Right at the beginning of my article:


Moses – may be staring revisionists right in the face. Part One: Historical Moses has presented quite a challenge

https://www.academia.edu/36803416/Moses_may_be_staring_revisionists_right_in_the_face._Part_One_Historical_Moses_has_presented_quite_a_challenge


I declared this with regard to revisionists who are trying to set the biblical Joseph, historically, in the Twelfth Egyptian Dynasty, and who then have to try to find a suitable place for Moses:

If any revisionist historian had placed himself in a good position, chronologically, to identify in the Egyptian records the patriarch Joseph, then it was Dr. Donovan Courville, who had, in The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, I and II (1971), proposed that Egypt’s Old and Middle Kingdoms were contemporaneous. That radical move on his part might have enabled Courville to bring the likeliest candidate for Joseph, the Vizier Imhotep of the Third Dynasty, into close proximity with the Twelfth Dynasty – the dynasty that revisionists most favour for the era of Moses.

Courville, however, chose to set Joseph in the (so-called Middle Kingdom) Twelfth Dynasty, the dynasty of Moses, thereby losing the opportunity historically to identify both Joseph and Moses. And certain revisionists have tended to follow him in that direction.

Some revisionists recently, though, have woken up to the fact that by far the best historical candidate (or so I have long thought) for the “new king” (מֶלֶךְ-חָדָשׁ) of Exodus 1:8 is pharaoh Amenemes (Amenemhat) I, the founder of the Twelfth Dynasty.

See my article on this:


Twelfth Dynasty oppressed Israel



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



Joseph’s “Pharaoh” of the Famine era thus pre-dated the Twelfth Dynasty, and is best found as pharaoh Zoser of the so-called Old Kingdom’s Third Dynasty, with Joseph himself being the genius Vizier, Imhotep.

What Dr. Courville’s revision has enabled us to do, however, is to revise Egypt’s Old Kingdom in relation to the Middle Kingdom, thereby bringing the Third Dynasty (Joseph’s) into far closer proximity to the Twelfth Dynasty (Moses’s).

The “new king” of Exodus 1:8, Amenemes I, can then be linked to his pharaonic mirror-image Sixth Dynasty counterpart, pharaoh Teti:

Moses may help link 6th and 12th dynasties of Egypt

https://www.academia.edu/35653614/Moses_may_help_link_6th_and_12th_dynasties_of_Egypt


which move, in turn, facilitates the identification of Moses historically as the Sixth Dynasty’s Chief Judge and Vizier (another genius), Weni, who served pharaohs Teti, Pepi and Merenre.

Moses can then also be the Chief Judge and Vizier, Mentuhotep, of Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty – this Mentuhotep being Dr. Courville’s actual choice for Joseph.


So far in this series we have concluded that:

The “Pharaoh” of Abram (Abraham) and Isaac was also known as “Abimelech” (may possibly be the biblical Lehabim), and may, historically, have been Hor-Aha (Min = Menes) of the First Dynasty;

The “Pharaoh” of the Famine era of Joseph was Zoser of the Third Dynasty;

The “new king” of Moses’s infancy was Teti of the Sixth Dynasty = Amenemes I of the Twelfth Dynasty.



Part Three: During United Kingdom Era

Going by memory, here, I can think of a potential three Pharaohs (biblically mentioned as such) who ruled Egypt during Israel’s era of the United Kingdom of kings Saul, David and Solomon.

The first of these was reigning at the time of King David, according to I Kings 11:15-20:


Earlier when David was fighting with Edom, Joab the commander of the army, who had gone up to bury the dead, had struck down all the men in Edom. Joab and all the Israelites stayed there for six months, until they had destroyed all the men in Edom. But Hadad, still only a boy, fled to Egypt with some Edomite officials who had served his father. They set out from Midian and went to Paran. Then taking people from Paran with them, they went to Egypt, to Pharaoh king of Egypt, who gave Hadad a house and land and provided him with food. Pharaoh was so pleased with Hadad that he gave him a sister of his own wife, Queen Tahpenes, in marriage. The sister of Tahpenes bore him a son named Genubath, whom Tahpenes brought up in the royal palace. There Genubath lived with Pharaoh’s own children.

The second one was ruler around about the beginning of the reign of Solomon (I Kings 9:16): “Pharaoh king of Egypt had attacked and captured Gezer. He then burned it, killed the Canaanites who lived in the city, and gave it as a dowry to his daughter, Solomon’s wife”.

The third one, now towards the end of the reign of king Solomon, is actually named.

He is “Shishak” (I Kings 11:40): “Solomon tried to kill Jeroboam, but Jeroboam fled to Egypt, to Shishak the king, and stayed there until Solomon’s death”.

Soon, I shall be adding to these a fourth, though biblically unspecified (that is, as “Pharaoh”).

If it were not for the research of Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky, in his series Ages in Chaos, we would still be floundering around within the conventional system, trying desperately to find archaeological and documentary evidence for Israel’s United Kingdom amidst the murky – and archaeologically entirely inappropriate – Third Intermediate Period (so-called) of Egyptian history (c. 1069-525 BC, conventional dating).

Velikovsky happily aligned the rise of the United Kingdom of Israel with the beginning of the famous Eighteenth Egyptian Dynasty (c. 1540-1295 BC, conventional dating), now to be lowered on the timescale by some 500 years by Velikovsky. With this new scheme set in place, kings Saul and David became contemporaneous with the first Eighteenth Dynasty pharaohs Ahmose, Amenhotep I and Thutmose I.

Velikovsky, in Ages in Chaos 1 (p. 99), even claimed to have historically identified the above-mentioned “Queen Tahpenes”, as belonging to first pharaoh, Ahmose:


This was in the days of David. The pharaoh must have been one by the name of
Ahmose. Among his queens must have been one by the name Tahpenes. We open the register of the Egyptian queens to see whether Pharaoh Ahmose had a queen by this name. Her name is actually preserved and read Tanethap, Tenthape, or, possibly, Tahpenes ….

Thutmose I fits nicely into place for Velikovsky as our second Pharaoh, who attacked Gezer. Dr. John Bimson once argued that this identification appears to be supported archaeologically. I had previously written on this:

Velikovsky had identified David’s era as the same as that of the 18th dynasty pharaoh, Thutmose I, as Dr. J. Bimson tells when providing an appropriate stratigraphy (“Can there be a Revised Chronology without a Revised Stratigraphy?”, SIS: Proceedings. Glasgow Conference, April, 1978):

In Velikovsky’s chronology, this pharaoh is identified as Thutmose I [ref. Ages in Chaos, iii, “Two Suzerains”] … In the revised stratigraphy considered here, we would expect to find evidence for this destruction of Gezer at some point during LB [Late Bronze] I, and sure enough we do, including dramatic evidence of burning [ref. Dever et al., Gezer I (1970, pp.54-55 …)].

[End of quote]


Now Thutmose I’s famous (so-called) “daughter”, Hatshepsut, who does figure in the Bible, apparently, but not as a “Pharaoh” (which she would become later, nonetheless), and who was brilliantly identified by Velikovsky as the biblical Queen of Sheba (or Queen of the South), will be that fourth “Pharaoh” to whom I referred above as being “biblically unspecified”.

Though not of royal Egyptian blood, Thutmose I had married pharaoh Amenhotep I’s sister, according to some views. ….

Thutmose I is generally considered to have become the father of Hatshepsut. “Yet”, according to Gay Robins” (“The Enigma of Hatshepsut”), “none of Thutmose I’s monuments even mentions his daughter”: https://www.baslibrary.org/archaeology-odyssey/2/1/11

But what I have suggested is that pharaoh Thutmose I, when crowning Hatshepsut, used a tri-partite coronation ceremony that uncannily followed the tri-partite pattern of David’s coronation of his son, Solomon. See my article:

Thutmose I Crowns Hatshepsut


https://www.academia.edu/26201708/Thutmose_I_Crowns_Hatshepsut



For kings first and second above no actual name is given as we have learned.

Both are called “Pharaoh king of Egypt”.

We have noted in this series that that was an Egyptian trait – “Pharaoh” being un-named by Egyptianised biblical writers, Ishmael (at least in his toledôt history), and Joseph and Moses.

Now there is the possibility that the accounts of our first (I Kings 11) and second (I Kings 9) pharaohs in this article were recorded by the Egyptianised king Solomon (Senenmut), in his “book of the annals of Solomon” according to a verse (I Kings 11:41) following these texts.

The only “Pharaoh” who is actually named in the Bible for this particular period is our third one, “Shishak”. Chronologically speaking – especially in Velikovsky’s context of Hatshepsut as Solomon’s contemporaneous Queen of Sheba – this “Shishak” can only be, as Velikovsky had indeed identified him, pharaoh Thutmose III (the “Napoleon of Egypt”: Breasted), who reigned contemporaneously with Hatshepsut.

See also my article on this:


Solomon and Sheba

https://www.academia.edu/3660164/Solomon_and_Sheba


for my identification of Solomon-in-Egypt as the famous, quasi-royal official, Senenmut (var. Senmut), thought by some to have been ‘the real power behind Hatshepsut’s throne’.


Moreover, the “Genubath” whom Queen Tahpenes bore to Hadad, as we read above, Velikovsky claimed to have identified, now as a people, at the time of “Shishak”/Thutmose III.

I wrote of this in my as follows:

As for “Genubath”, the son of Hadad, Velikovsky had rather strikingly identified his name amongst those giving tribute to Thutmose III, very soon after the latter’s First Campaign. Velikovsky wrote about it (in ch. iv) in “Genubath, King of Edom” (pp. 179-180):

Hadad had returned to Edom in the days of Solomon, after the death of Joab [I Kings 11:21-22]. Since then about forty years had elapsed. Genubath, his son, was now the vassal king of Edom …. Tribute from this land, too, must have been sent to the Egyptian crown; there was no need to send an expedition to subdue Edom. When Thutmose III returned from one of his inspection visits to Palestine he found in Egypt tribute brought by couriers from the land, “Genubatye”, which did not have to be conquered by an expeditionary force.

When his majesty arrived in Egypt the messengers of the Genubatye came bearing their tribute.3 [3. Breasted: Records, Vol. II, Sec. 474].

It consisted of myrrh, “negroes for attendants”, bulls, calves, besides vessels laden with ivory, ebony, and skins of panther.

Who were the people of Genubatye? Hardly a guess has been made with regard to this peculiar name. The people of Genubatye were the people of Genubath, their king, contemporary of Rehoboam.

Velikovsky had, in the course of his historical revision – and despite his obvious mistakes – managed to come up with many such brilliant and helpful identifications as this one pertaining to Genubath – an identification obviously impossible in the conventional system, with Egypt’s 18th dynasty and the biblical Genubath separated in time by some 500 years.

[End of quotes]


While there is still plenty of work to be done by revisionists, especially to modify appropriately certain controversial aspects of the “Shishak” identification, I would now consider Velikovsky’s Hatshepsut-Sheba and Thutmose III-Shishak twin identifications to be firm pillars of the revision. Revisionists who have rejected these twin links have inevitably failed to come up with any plausible alternatives.

Recently a researcher has tried to shift the identification of “Shishak” to Thutmose III’s successor, pharaoh Amenhotep II. For more detail on all of this, see my series beginning with:

Slightly Shifting “Shishak”


https://www.academia.edu/36014694/Slightly_Shifting_Shishak_


This writer, a Creationist believer in a biblical literalism, may perhaps be inconsistent in looking for the name “Shishak” in Amenhotep II’s nebty name, considering that the Bible appears to use only the Egyptian prenomen or nomen whenever it actually names a pharaoh.

We shall find this to be the case in Part Four.

Here is a small, but relevant section of my interchange with this researcher in Part Two: https://www.academia.edu/36157096/Slightly_Shifting_Shishak_._Part_Two_Response_to_my_critique 

The article under review follows a conga-line of revisionists who have tried to find an Egyptian explanation for the biblical name, “Shishak”, in this case taking the Egyptian nebty name of pharaoh Amenhotep II, weser fau, sekha em waset, whilst admitting that:

“At first glance, this name might not look like “Shishak”.”

And with very good reason, I say. It looks nothing like it!

It certainly does look like it. I recognized it at once when I saw it. The “f” seemed to be in the way, until I researched it and discovered that they didn’t have the “f” sound back then.

I found perhaps more plausible K. Birch’s suggestion (“Shishak Mystery?”, C and C Workshop, SIS, No. 2, 1987, p. 35) that “Shishak” may derive from pharaoh Thutmose III’s Golden Horus name, Djeser-khau [“chase a cow”] (dsr h‘w): “… the (Golden) Horus names of Thutmose III comprise variations on: Tcheser-khau, Djeser-khau …”.

[End of quotes]

More than likely, though, I think that the name “Shishak” was the name by which young Thutmose III was known to king Solomon and his court in his close relationship with his relative, Hatshepsut-Sheba.

Solomon had officials, secretaries, whose father was named “Shisha” (I Kings 4:1-3):

So King Solomon ruled over all Israel.

And these were his chief officials:

Azariah son of Zadok—the priest;

Elihoreph and Ahijah, sons of Shisha—secretaries ….



Part Four: During Divided Kingdom Era

Going by memory, here, I can think of a potential four Pharaohs who ruled Egypt during Israel’s era of the Divided Kingdom (c.930–c.586 BC, conventional dating).


The first of these was this enigmatic ruler at the time of Assyria’s Shalmaneser and Israel’s Hoshea (2 Kings 17:4):

But the king of Assyria discovered that Hoshea was a traitor, for he had sent envoys to So king of Egypt, and he no longer paid tribute to the king of Assyria, as he had done year by year. Therefore Shalmaneser seized him and put him in prison.

“So king of Egypt”.

Intriguingly, the Lucianic tradition of the LXX refers instead to “Adrammelech the Ethiopian, living in Egypt” (Duane L. Christensen, “The Identity of “King So” in Egypt”, Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 39, Fasc. 2 April., 1989, p. 141).

The second one was Tirhakah, and happily by now we have far more solid Egypto-Assyrian historical links. Tirhakah is especially famous for this incident (Isaiah 37:9-10):

Now Sennacherib received a report that Tirhakah, the king of Cush, was marching out to fight against him. When he heard it, he sent messengers to Hezekiah with this word: ‘Say to Hezekiah king of Judah: Do not let the god you depend on deceive you when he says, ‘Jerusalem will not be given into the hands of the king of Assyria’.’

The third one, late in the reign of King Josiah of Judah, is Necho, who actually killed Josiah (2 Chronicles 35:20-24):

After all this, when Josiah had set the Temple in order, Necho king of Egypt went up to fight at Carchemish on the Euphrates, and Josiah marched out to meet him in battle. But Necho sent messengers to him, saying, ‘What quarrel is there, king of Judah, between you and me?

It is not you I am attacking at this time, but the house with which I am at war. God has told me to hurry; so stop opposing God, who is with me, or he will destroy you’.

Josiah, however, would not turn away from him, but disguised himself to engage him in battle. He would not listen to what Necho had said at God’s command but went to fight him on the plain of Megiddo.

Archers shot King Josiah, and he told his officers, ‘Take me away; I am badly wounded.”  So they took him out of his chariot, put him in his other chariot and brought him to Jerusalem, where he died’.


From the Assyrian records we know that Tirhakah and Necho were contemporaneous rulers of Egypt and/or Ethiopia.

And what tightens things even further, at least according to my revised version of chronology, is that King Hezekiah of Judah, a contemporary of King Hoshea of Israel (and hence of So king of Egypt), is to be identified with Josiah of Judah (and hence was also a contemporary of Necho king of Egypt). For this chronological tightening, see e.g. my article:

‘Taking aim on’ king Amon – such a wicked king of Judah

https://www.academia.edu/37575781/Taking_aim_on_king_Amon_-_such_a_wicked_king_of_Judah


The fourth is this one at the time of King Nebuchednezzar II (Jeremiah 44:30):

This is what the LORD says: ‘I am going to deliver Pharaoh Hophra king of Egypt into the hands of his enemies who want to kill him, just as I gave Zedekiah king of Judah into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, the enemy who wanted to kill him’.

It needs to be said of these four named pharaohs that some may turn out to be duplicates.
That is unlikely to be the case, though, with Tirhakah and Necho, who appear from the Assyrian records to have been two distinct rulers at the time of Ashurbanipal (or Assur-bani-pal): https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Assur-Bani-Pal

ASSUR-BANI-PAL (“Assur creates a son”), the grand monarque of Assyria, was the prototype of the Greek Sardanapalus, and appears probably in the corrupted form of Asnapper in Ezra iv. 10. He had been publicly nominated king of Assyria (on the 12th of Iyyar) by his father Esar-haddon, some time before the latter’s death, Babylonia being assigned to his twin-brother Samas-sum-yukin, in the hope of gratifying the national feeling of the Babylonians.

After Esar-haddon’s death in 668 B.C. the first task of Assur-bani-pal was to finish the Egyptian campaign. Tirhakah, who had reoccupied Egypt, fled to Ethiopia, and the Assyrian army spent forty days in ascending the Nile from Memphis to Thebes. Shortly afterwards Necho, the satrap of Sais, and two others were detected intriguing with Tirhakah; Necho and one of his companions were sent in chains to Nineveh, but were there pardoned and restored to their principalities. Tirhakah died 667 B.C. ….

In my reconstructed history the neo-Assyrian succession from Esarhaddon to Ashurbanipal becomes altered. Esarhaddon, following Sennacherib, is now identified as Ashurbanipal. Whilst Esarhaddon-Ashurbanipal is now further identified as Nebuchednezzar II.

See my series on this most radical revision:


Aligning Neo Babylonia with Book of Daniel. Part One: Shortening the Chaldean Dynasty

https://www.academia.edu/38330231/Aligning_Neo_Babylonia_with_Book_of_Daniel._Part_One_Shortening_the_Chaldean_Dynasty

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

I have also suggested, in light of this revision, that Necho I and Necho II of conventional history might be condensed into just the one pharaoh Necho.

What we find with our potentially four pharaohs in this article is that all of them are named:
“So”; “Tirhakah”; “Necho” and “Hophra”.
Of these, “So” – just like “Shishak” – may not be an actual Egyptian name, but the name by which the pharaoh was known to the scribes of Israel. Conventional scholars have searched long and hard for him, always destined to arrive at a dead end.
The situation is briefly summed up at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharaohs_in_the_Bible

2 Kings 17:4 says that king Hoshea sent letters to “So, King of Egypt”. No pharaoh of this name is known for the time of Hoshea (about 730 BC), during which Egypt had three dynasties ruling contemporaneously: 22nd at Tanis23rd at Leontopolis, and 24th at Sais. Nevertheless, this ruler is commonly identified with Osorkon IV (730–715 BC) who ruled from Tanis,[5][6] though it is possible that the biblical writer has mistaken the king with his city and equated So with Sais, at this time ruled by Tefnakht.

Dr. Courville was far closer to the mark (The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, 1971) when he proposed for “So” the great Ramses II himself of the Nineteenth Egyptian Dynasty. Though his suggestion that “So” was derived from the Suten Bat name of Ramses II is far-fetched. Moreover, Courville had the long reign of a now-aged Ramses II concluding with the ‘So’ incident, whereas I think that the ‘So’ era would be far closer to the beginning of the reign of Ramses II. Previously I have written on this:

Courville’s hopeful derivation of the name, ‘So’, from a Suten Bat name of Ramses II is far from convincing. I wrote of this in my university thesis:

A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background

AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf

(Volume One, p. 266):

Now according to Courville’s system … Ramses II, whose reign would have terminated in 726/725 BC, must have been the biblical “King So of Egypt” with whom Hoshea of Israel conspired against the king of Assyria (2 Kings 17:4).

Courville had plausibly (in his context) suggested that the reason why ‘So’ was unable to help Hoshea of Israel was because the Egyptian king was, as Ramses II, now right at the end of his very long reign, and hence aged and feeble.

Courville had looked to find the name ‘So’ amongst the many names of Ramses II, and had opted for the rather obscure ‘So’ element in that pharaoh’s Suten Bat name, Ra-user-Maat-Sotep-en-Ra.727 (See also pp. 286-287). ….

[End of quotes]