King Hiram the Historical and Hiram Abiff the Hysterical

by

 Damien F. Mackey

When the ancient world conventionally dated to the C18th BC is shunted downwards and re-set in what I consider to be its proper place, at approximately c. 1000 BC (during the United Monarchy period of Israel), then there emerges from the supposedly earlier period of history a whole galaxy of biblical characters, including King Hiram, who were actual contemporaries of Israel’s great kings, Saul, David and Solomon.

But who is Hiram Abiff?

Introduction

Sufficient compelling biblical characters of the United Monarchy period emerge from the historical records of what convention has estimated as the C18th BC for me to accept that revisionist historian Dean Hickman had got it right when he, finally solving the problem of the ‘liquid’ chronology of king Hammurabi, re-set his era at the time of David and Solomon (“The Dating of Hammurabi”, Proceedings of the 3rd Seminar of Catastrophism and Ancient History, Uni. of Toronto, 1985, pp. 13-28).

A crucial connection in all of this was Hickman’s identification of the powerful king, Shamsi-Adad I, as king David’s Syrian foe, Hadadezer.

Now, according to 2 Samuel 8:3, this Hadadezer was the son of Rekhob (Rehob), and Hickman was able to find that name, Rekhob, embedded in the name of Shamsi-Adad I’s father, Ilu kabkabu, or Uru kabkabu (Rukab = Rekhob).

Given this revised scenario, then Shamsi-Adad I’s younger contemporary, king Hammurabi of Babylon, must now be a close contemporary of the great king Solomon himself.

Other biblical links with history also arise from this revised scenario.

For instance: Zimri-Lim of Mari, a troublesome foe of king Hammurabi’s, can now be recognized as king Solomon’s foe, Rezon [or Rezin]. And once again there is an appropriate match for the father’s name: Iahdulim (or Iahdunlim), the known father of Zimri-Lim, equates with Eliada. 1 Kings 11:23: “And God sent another trouble-maker, Rezon, the son of Eliada, who had gone in flight from his lord, Hadadezer, king of Zobah”.

This series of correspondences has led me to write:

Zimri Lim to be Re-Located to Era of King Solomon

https://www.academia.edu/3689776/Zimri_Lim_to_be_Re-Located_to_Era_of_King_Solomon

One might also expect, now, that this well-documented era of Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim, revised, could yield up evidence for the great King Hiram of Tyre, a loyal friend of both David’s and Solomon’s.

And that is just what we find.

King Hiram of Tyre

I have previously identified King Hiram with the powerful Amorite king, Iarim-Lim (or Yarim-Lim), whose conventional dates are c. 1780 BC – c. 1764 BC, or, according to a Middle Chronology, c. 1735 BC -?

{The element, -Lim, in the king’s name, may serve the same purpose as it did in the case above of Iahdu-lim, equating to biblical El-iada (Lim = El)}.

The power of Hiram, as Iarim-Lim, extended from Phoenicia (Lebanon) all the way through Babylonia, to Elam. In Chapter Two of my post-graduate thesis:

A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah

and its Background

http://hdl.handle.net/2123/5973

I wrote concerning this:

… what may perhaps help us to gain some real perspective on potential range of rule at this approximate time in ancient history are the geographical terms of a recorded message from Iarim-Lim – whom we met as a powerful (older) contemporary of Hammurabi – to the prince of Dêr in Babylonia, whom, incidentally, Iarim-Lim calls ‘brother’ [cf. 1 Kings 9:13].

Kupper tells of it:

In this message, Iarimlim reminds his ‘brother’ that he had saved his life fifteen years before, at the time when he was coming to the help of Babylon, and that he had also given his support to the king of the town of Diniktum, on the Tigris, to whom he supplied five hundred boats. Outraged by the prince of Dêr’s ingratitude he threatens to come at the head of his troops and exterminate him.

…. Whatever the circumstances of the [Babylon] expedition were, it says a great deal for the military power of Iarimlim, who had led the soldiers of Aleppo as far as the borders of Elam [modern Iran].

According to a report of the day (Mari Letters), Iarim-Lim’s (Yarim-Lim’s) status was greater than that of Hammurabi …:

… there are ten or fifteen kings who follow Hammurabi of Babylon and ten or fifteen who follow Rim-sin of Larsa but twenty kings follow Yarim-Lim of Yamkhad. ….

In the same Chapter Two, I had reproduced [Dr. Donovan] Courville’s argument that Iarim-Lim had conquered Alalakh from the Philistines, and he (his dynasty) had ruled there (Alalakh Level VII) for about half a century, before the Philistines resumed their former occupation there. …. The obvious conclusion was that the people of Iarim-Lim (Amorites) had conquered this city and probably also the surrounding territory, ruling it for a period estimated to have been about 50 years. At the end of this time, the original inhabitants were able to re-conquer the site and reoccupy it.

It is perhaps this half century or so of Amorite dominance, extending as far as Elam, as we saw, that pertains also - at least in part - to the time of the First Dynasty of Babylon. This is such an obscure dynasty prior to Hammurabi that we cannot say very much about its origins. But Herb Storck has helped to ease this situation somewhat in his fine article [“The Early Assyrian King List, The Genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty, and the ‘Greater Amorite’ Tradition”, Proc. 3rd Seminar Catastrophism and Ancient History, 1986, Toronto, pp. 43-50] in which Herb is able to show a link between the earliest Assyrian kings and the early Hammurabic dynasty, thus concluding [p. 45]:

Nine of the 17 tent-dwelling [Assyrian King List] kings can reasonably be identified with GHD [Genealogy of the Hammurabi Dynasty] ancestors of Hammurapi.

One of these possibly is Zuabu (Assyrian King List) with Su-abu or Sumu-abum (GHD), the apparent founder of the First Babyonian Dynasty. There is also a Sumu’epuh, very similar to this name, Sumu-abum (Su-abu), preceding Iarim-Lim. …. And, most interestingly, the name Iarim-Lim here is followed by the name, Hammurabi. This may, of course, be a different Hammurabi. {In fact there was at the time of Hiram and Solomon a similarly named Huram-abi, a master-craftsman, 1 Kings 7:13, who has become the key figure in Freemasonry, as Hiram-abiff. See below}.

Whilst Courville’s estimation that the dynasty of Iarim-Lim was chronologically located to “the general era of the Exodus-Conquest” came far closer to reality (about 300 years closer), in my view, than does the conventional estimate, it was still only about halfway right according to this present (Hickman-based) re-setting of it to the time of David and Solomon. My contribution here has been to identify this great Iarim-Lim as the biblical King Hiram. This brings Iarim-Lim about half a millennium later than even Courville’s radical chronological estimation for the king and his archaeological level.

I have discussed the latter in detail in my thesis, how Dr. Courville’s wrong placement of Iarim-Lim, in relation to biblical history, has led him to a degree of misalignment with the Alalakh stratigraphy. Given that Iarim-Lim (Hiram) was an ally of David’s, then we might expect that Iarim-Lim had suppressed (at Alalakh VII) one of David’s major enemies. These were the Syrians (not relevant here) and the Philistines.

This may further support Courville’s conclusion that the majority of Alalakh levels pertain to the Philistine peoples.

Hiram Abiff

The semi-legendary Hiram Abiff (Abif) is loosely based upon a skilful biblical artisan sent by King Hiram to King Solomon, to assist the latter with the building of the Temple of Yahweh. King Hiram tells Solomon about the man (2 Chronicles 2:13-14):

‘I am sending you Huram-Abi, a man of great skill, whose mother was from Dan and whose father was from Tyre. He is trained to work in gold and silver, bronze and iron, stone and wood, and with purple and blue and crimson yarn and fine linen. He is experienced in all kinds of engraving and can execute any design given to him. He will work with your skilled workers and with those of my lord, David your father’.

The Hebrew words for what is here rendered as Huram-Abi, are:

אבי חורם

חורם אבי

In I Kings 7:13-14, however, the man is simply called “Huram” (Hiram), not Huram-Abi:

King Solomon sent to Tyre and brought Huram, whose mother was a widow from the tribe of Naphtali and whose father was from Tyre and a skilled craftsman in bronze. Huram was filled with wisdom, with understanding and with knowledge to do all kinds of bronze work. He came to King Solomon and did all the work assigned to him.

Torrey, long ago, considered that the element, Abi (אבי), was not actually part of the man’s name, but was the Hebrew for a ‘chief counsellor’, hence Huram (Hiram), the king’s “right-hand” man (“Concerning Hiram (“Huram-abi”), the Phœnician Craftsman”, JBL, Vol. 31, No. 4 (1912), pp. 151-155). Torrey would conclude (p. 155):

To be sure, the reading ואבי gives a good deal of trouble, and not a few have preferred to regard this as the original form of the ‘second element’ of the name, and to suppose this founder of the Masonic Order to have been called “Huram abiu” … (or perhaps “Hiram abiu”).

But the accepted translation of the passage is wrong. Here, again, the noun בא has the same meaning as before. He who had been styled (by the Chronicler) “the right-hand man” of the king of Tyre is now, with one of the Chronicler’s own literary touches, termed “the right-hand man of King Solomon”.

[End of quote]

It seems that the so-called Hiram Abiff may be regarded as more allegorical than real anyway According to http://www.ephesians5-11.org/hiram.htm for instance:

Although the most important element of Masonic symbolism deals with the death, burial and resurrection of Hiram Abiff, there is nothing in Scripture to support it. Masonic Grand Lodges have stated that the account is not based upon fact, but rather is an allegory, used to teach.

The ape of Christ?

Certainly, the Evangelical Truth site regards it as such (“Hiram Abiff – the false christ of Freemasonry”: http://www.evangelicaltruth.com/hiramabiff.htm):

Freemasonry substitutes God’s perfect example and man’s only hope of salvation Jesus Christ for a spurious fantasy figure called Hiram Abiff. Instead of using Christ as its model of truth, fidelity and salvation it transfers its loyalty to this phantom figure Hiram. Freemasonry teaches: “If we possess the same painstaking fidelity as our Grand Master did in the hour of tribulation then will our final reward be that which belongs to the just and perfect man.”

Hiram here becomes Masonry’s Saviour and following in his footsteps is said to ensure a glorious “final reward.” Rather than viewing Christ as the way, the truth and the life Freemasonry looks to another – Masonry’s Hiram Abiff. The Lodge practices ultimate deception here eradicating man’s great representative and furnishing a foolish non-existence religious alternative.

Acts 4:12 says: “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

Jesus Christ is the sinner’s only hope! He is man’s only way.

The Lost Word

According to the teaching of the 3rd Masonic degree (the Master Mason degree) there was a mystical word which was only known to three people. These were King Solomon, Hiram, King of Tyre and a fictional Masonic character called Hiram Abiff. These three appointed fifteen craftsmen from among those working on rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem to preside over the rest of the workers. The English working of the lecture explains: “Fifteen Fellow-Crafts of that superior class appointed to preside over the rest, finding that the work was nearly completed, and that they were not in possession of the secrets of the Master’s degree … conspired together to obtain them by any means … At the moment of carrying their conspiracy into execution, twelve of the fifteen recanted” (English ritual p. 68).

The three remaining plotters (not to be confused with the three who know the mystical word) continued undeterred. The degree records how they confronted Hiram Abiff in the Temple and “demanded of our Grand Master the secrets of a Master Mason, declaring to him that his death would be the consequence of a refusal.” The degree continues, “Hiram Abiff, true to his obligation, replied that those secrets were known only to three, and could only be made known by consent of them all.” One of the scheming Craftsmen struck Hiram with “a violent blow full in the middle of the forehead” whereupon he sunk “lifeless at the foot of the murderer” (English ritual p. 69).

In this fable, the Temple in Jerusalem was a temporary resting place for Hiram’s remains after his death, Mount Moriah being his final interment. Hearing of the news, King Solomon is said to have sent out some of his most trusted craftsmen to find the body. In the English working of this Masonic degree there were 15 workmen sent out, in the American version 12 men were sent.

….

Hiram usurps the place of Christ

Romans 6:3-6 says, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.”

This is the only religious blueprint that God recognises and has ordained. Salvation involves our identification with Christ. Paul here uses metaphors to depict the nature and significance of salvation. Baptism relates to our spiritual burial with Christ in conversion – representing our dying to self; resurrection refers to our rising with Him into newness of life. This passage reveals Christ’s role as man’s sole Representative, and in particular outlines the victory He secured for us through His glorious resurrection over sin, death and the grave. In turn, it shows the Christian’s direct interest and spiritual involvement in this great transaction. It is showing how Christ became our Substitute in His atoning work.

Even though the Lord was sinless, He was condemned on our behalf so that we could be eternally free. He took our sin and guilt in full upon Himself. Finally, when He rose again He did it in our stead. He therefore averted our deserved destiny, which was eternal punishment. Sinners must hence appropriate their part in that central resurrection in order to overcome eternal punishment. The cross is the focal-point of the Christian faith; outside of it there is no salvation. Colossians 2:10-14 and 3:1-4 repeat the great truth we see represented in Romans chapter 6.

It is clear that while Hiram (King of Tyre) assisted King Solomon at the building of the first Temple, there is no mention whatsoever in Scripture of any “Hiram Abiff.” This character is in fact a Masonic invention. Accordingly, there is no teaching in Holy Writ relating to Hiram’s murder and discovery, as these secret societies intimate. The teaching embodied in this story is extra-biblical. Plainly the whole thing is one elaborate Masonic fabrication. This whole secret society fixation with Hiram is a problematic area for evangelicals, as they see Christ as man’s sole Redeemer and only perfect exemplar, whereas secret societies seem to be always promoting Hiram as an alternative Christ.

Jesus cautions us in John 10:1, “He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.” He then goes on to explain, “I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture” (John 10:9). If someone wants to experience the favour of God and one day experience eternal bliss, they must come exclusively through Christ. He is the way – the only way. Christ alone is our access to God.

How true and solemn the words of Scripture are: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

Dr. Albert Barnes explains this matter, where he comments that “The word rendered fable means properly ‘speech’ or ‘discourse’, and then fable or fiction, or a mystic discourse. Such things abounded among the Greeks as well as the Jews, but it is probable that the latter here are particularly intended. These were composed of frivolous and unfounded stories, which they regarded as of great importance, and which they seem to have desired to incorporate with the teachings of Christianity … One of the most successful arts of the adversary of souls has been to mingle fable with truth ….

Dynasty of Hammurabi a Non-Indigenous One?

 

 

by

 

 Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

 

“ASSYRIOLOGISTS have for some years past come to the conclusion that the dynasty to which Hammurabi belonged was not indigenous …”.

 

Stanley A. Cook weighs up the arguments for the dynasty of King Hammurabi to have been either Northern Semitic or Arabian (The Laws of Moses and the Code of Hammurabi): https://archive.org/stream/lawsofmosescodeo00cookrich/lawsofmosescodeo00cookrich_djvu.txt :

 

… the question of the origin of the dynasty of Hammurabi becomes one of peculiar importance for the study of the Code. If it could be proved that the dynasty was North Semitic, and therefore of the same stock as the later [sic] Phoenicians, Moabites, and Israelites, might it not be plausible to suppose that the Code was based upon legal institutions which were familiar to those peoples?

But the question in the present state of knowledge cannot be placed beyond dispute, and there are Assyriologists, whose opinion must carry great weight, who have argued in favour of an Arabian; origin. This, in like manner, if it could be conclusively maintained, would be of the utmost interest for our study. If the kings of the first Babylonian dynasty came from Arabia, would it not be reasonable to infer that the legal elements in the Code were specifically Arabian? one immediately recalls the important part played by (North) Arabia in the early history of the Israelites, the traditions of the wanderings in the wilderness, and the influence of the Midianite Jethro on Moses' work, which is described in the most explicit manner by the Elohist in Exod. 18. Apart from these questions, it will be necessary to inquire also whether Israel was as susceptible to outside influence as is frequently assumed, and we must also bear in mind that Jewish law was the result, not of a single promulgation like the Code of Hammurabi [sic], but of a gradual development. The preliminary problems therefore, are intimately connected not only with the Code itself, but with the whole question of the relation of the Code to Israelite law.

 

CHAPTER II

 

BABYLONIA AND ISRAEL

 

….

 

ASSYRIOLOGISTS have for some years past come to the conclusion that the dynasty to which Hammurabi belonged was not indigenous, 1 and have associated it with one of those waves of immigration which have recurred from time to time in the history of the Semites. Although the evidence is linguistic and linguistic arguments, taken by them-

selves, are extremely precarious it is striking enough to deserve attention, and may be briefly recapitulated here. The evidence in question is chiefly derived from a number of proper names which, it is agreed, are not of the pure Babylonian type. Thus, even the Babylonian scribes regarded the name Hammurabi as foreign, and glossed it by Kimta-rapastum, "wide-extended family," obviously regarding the name (which is sometimes written Ammurabi) as a compound, not of ham, "father-in-law," but of amm, with the meaning "family"; an interpretation which may be claimed also for the Hebrew and Arabic am(m). …. In like manner, they find it necessary to explain the name Ammi-saduga, one of Hammurabi's successors, by Kimtum-kettum, "just or righteous family."

 

Further, in names of this dynasty, s is used where the older Babylonian employs s, notably in [text her lacks proper ‘s’ variations]; Samsu-iluna as contrasted with Samsu. The termination -na in the above name, which is interpreted "Samas our god," is quite distinct from the ordinary Babylonian -ni. The imperfect, which usually takes the form imlik, appears as iamlik in lamlik-ilu, larbi-ilu, etc. There are, besides, a number of minor details, for an account of which reference may be made to the recent discussion by Ranke … who is on the side of Hommel, Sayce, and A. Jeremias, in favouring the Arabian origin of the dynasty. But Winckler and Delitzsch, who are equally convinced that it was not indigenous, have arrived at a different conclusion. "Linguistic and historical considerations," says the latter, "combine to make it more than probable that these immigrant Semites belonged to the Northern Semites, more precisely to the linguistically so-called 'Canaanites' (i.e. the Phoenicians, Moabites, Hebrews, etc.)." …. And whilst Hommel points out that Ammi-saduga is identical with the old Arabian Ammi-saduka (Halevy, 535), Delitzsch remarks that zadug (another form of the second element) "may point to a … ‘Canaanite' dialect, both lexically . . . and phonetically." …. The suffix -na to which reference has already been made, is no proof of Arabian origin,

since not only is it also Aramaic (-no), but Delitzsch points out that "it is at least equally probable that iluna represents an adjective."

 

Arguments founded upon hypothetical interpretations of proper names can scarcely pass muster, and it is therefore unsafe to find traces of Arabic either in the second element in Ammi-satana, which is explained from the Arabic sadd, "mountain," … or in the particle pa in Pa-la-samas, which, according to Hommel, … means "Is it not then Samas ?" Even if the interpretation were correct, pa is by no means necessarily the Arabic fa, since it is well known that it appears several times in the old Aramaic inscriptions from Zinjirli in North Syria. The nominal form maful in the names Maknubi-ilu, Makhnuzu,

is certainly common in Arabic, but though rare in Hebrew, it is not unfamiliar in Aramaic. Arabian influence has also been claimed for the name Akbaru (afal form), but it lies close at hand to compare the Hebrew 'akbor, "mouse." Passing over the isolated examples of mimmation which are claimed by Ranke, … we may note that the imperfect form iamlik, though it certainly presupposes a Semitic race distinct from the Babylonian, is not necessarily Arabic, since the earliest form of the preformative in North Semitic was originally ya-, and probably did not pass over into j/e- until a comparatively late period. …. Finally, the element Sumu in Sumu-abi, etc., although explained to mean "his name" (sum-kit), can scarcely be claimed as specifically Arabic, since in the oldest Arabian inscriptions the Minean the form would be Sum-su, and Hommel himself, who recognises this difficulty, is forced to suppose that the Minean form of the suffix, with su as contrasted with hu in the later (Sabean) inscriptions and in Arabic, was in its turn due to Babylonian influence. …. The discussion is further complicated by the fact that the linguistic phenomena which characterise the names of the dynasty are also to be found upon a number of the Assyrian contract-tablets from Cappadocia, which, though of extremely uncertain age and origin, are necessarily assigned by Hommel to the age of Hammurabi. ….

 

The truth is, we know too little of the earlier A history of the languages of Canaan and Arabia in … the time of Hammurabi. At that remote period (about 2250 B.C.) [sic], to quote Bevan, "Semitic languages may have been spoken of which we know nothing. Words and forms which we are accustomed to regard as characteristically Arabic may then have existed in no Semitic language, or may have been common to all Semites. Even with regard to a much later period, our linguistic information is extremely imperfect; whether, for instance, the language of the Midianites, the Edomites, or the Amalekites, in the time of David, was more nearly akin to Hebrew or to Arabic is a matter of pure conjecture.

[End of quote]

 

‘Information will be extremely less imperfect’ when it is recognised that Hammurabi belongs to the approximate time of David, as a contemporary of his son, Solomon. Then, as with a revised El Amarna, linguistic difficulties will far more easily explained.

Biblical History of Hatshepsut Queen and Pharaoh of Egypt

 

 

 Part Three: In Egypt and Ethiopia

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

 

 

As Hatshepsut

 

 

 

 

Hatshepsut: Whose name means “foremost of noble women”.

 

 

 

 

Damien Mackey BPhil (1985), MA (1994), MA (2007) has two Master of Arts Degrees, from the University of Sydney (Australia). His first thesis ‘The Sothic Star Theory of the Egyptian Calendar’ (preceded by the study of Hieroglyphics at Macquarie University), scrutinized the documentary and astronomical basis of the conventional Egyptian dating. Mackey’s second thesis, ‘A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background’ (preceded by a year of ancient Hebrew study), was his attempt to develop a more acceptable alternative to the conventional chronology.

 

  

Introduction

 

Patrick Clarke has recently written for the Journal of Creation two articles claiming that, contrary to Drs. Immanuel Velikovsky, Donovan Courville and David Down, and also Emmet Sweeney, the 18th dynasty pharaohs, Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, could not have been, respectively, the biblical ‘Queen of Sheba’, and ‘King Shishak of Egypt’.

 

Clarke has devoted a fair space in his ‘Hatshepsut’ article to pointing out Velikovsky’s apparent deficiencies, his lack of belief in the Scriptures (“who would not call himself a Bible-believer”), and his shortcomings in regard to ancient languages. But more suitably qualified scholars since (e.g. J. Bimson, P. James, D. Rohl) have also, basing themselves on Velikovsky’s

 

 

(i) rejection of Sothic theory, and

 

(ii) his lowering of the secular dates by several centuries,

 

 

arrived at revised systems more akin to Velikovsky’s original than to the conventional structure. Along the way, though, some of them, seemingly embarrassed by any suggestion of having been influenced by Velikovsky, will drop terms like ‘maverick’ and ‘wayward polymath’ with regard to him. Some will even claim their revision as a ‘New Chronology’.

 

Two points here. Firstly, ‘give credit where credit is due’; and, secondly, no need today to waste precious article space pointing out Velikovsky’s well-known deficiencies.

 

 

However, to dispose satisfactorily of Velikovsky’s 18th Egyptian dynasty reconstruction, complemented by that of Courville and others - all looming as a vast elabo-structure by now - it does not suffice for one simply to take pot-shots at three supposed ‘pillars’ (Clarke’s ‘all these pillars’ ) supporting this combination (namely, Hatshesput/Sheba and the sub-set of Punt, and Thutmose III/Shishak). There is to be considered a significant whole (some 200 years revised), with an underlying methodology. Thus:

 

 

(a) the significant Sothic theory, with resultant ‘Dark Ages’, that all leading revisionists reject - these, coupled with the ‘collection of rags and tatters’ admission of honest conventional Egyptology. And

 

(b) the correlations between the early 18th Egyptian dynasty and early Monarchy of Israel. Then, after

 

(c) the detailed theses of Hatshepsut, and

 

(d) Thutmose III, we arrive at

 

(e) the El-Amarna [EA] period with all of its many correlations with the Divided Monarchy (e.g. ‘Bit Šulman’, ‘House of Solomon’; ‘son of Zuchru’ and ‘son of Zichri’; captain Ianhamu as Syrian captain Naaman, the succession of Syrian kings, etc., etc).

 

 

Before some of the sharpest minds of the ‘Glasgow’ School to which Clarke refers went their own ways, some teaming up but then separating, they had, by modifying Velikovsky, brought the revision of the 18th dynasty to an impressive peak. Peter James showed that an excellent fit could be achieved by newly identifying EA’s idolatrous king of Jerusalem, Abdi-hiba, with King Jehoram of Judah, rather than with his pious father, Jehoshaphat, as according to Velikovsky. And Bimson, who had written impressively on the need for a revised stratigraphy, would later add a third Syrian king to Velikovsky’s EA succession of

 

 

(i) Abdi-ashirta = biblical Ben-Hadad I, and

 

(ii) Aziru = biblical Hazael; namely,

 

(iii) Du-Teshub, the post-EA son of Aziru, as Ben-Hadad II, thus further consolidating Velikovsky's Syrian sequence for both EA and the mid-C9th BC.

 

 

And I still fully concur with James’s 1977/78 view re Abdi-ashirta and Aziru, that:

 

 

“With [these] two identifications [Velikovsky] seems to be on the firmest ground, in that we have a succession of two rulers, both of whom are characterised in the letters and the Scriptures as powerful rulers who made frequent armed excursions - and conquests - in the territories to the south of their own kingdom. In the letters their domain is described as "Amurru" - a term used, as Velikovsky has pointed out ... by Shalmaneser III for Syria in general, the whole area being dominated by the two successive kings in "both" the el-Amarna period and the mid-9th century …”.

 

 

- so much so that these two kings became the very foundation of my thesis on the ‘Background’ section of the era of King Hezekiah of Judah.

 

Dr. Eva Danelius would also correct Velikovsky’s unconvincing geographical reconstruction of Thutmose III’s first campaign, which Velikovsky - though identifying it as the biblical foray, Shishak’s, nonetheless had it ending up at Megiddo in the north - by her showing that it was actually directed right at Jerusalem itself.

 

 

This (a-e above) is by now already a formidable package (and I have only just touched upon it). Some very solid ‘pillars’ indeed to be found here with a modified Velikovsky.

 

By contrast, the conventional chronology with its underlying stratigraphy has led to archaeologists systematically deleting ancient Israel (Moses; Exodus; Conquest; David, Solomon, the Queen of Sheba, etc.) from the history books … the leading Israeli archaeologist, Israel Finkelstein, was quoted as saying: “Now Solomon. I think I destroyed Solomon, so to speak. Sorry for that!” Not only Solomon, but all the others as well. That is because the likes of professor Finkelstein and his colleagues are always constrained by the erroneous Sothic chronology to look at the wrong strata for the Conquest, David and Solomon (Iron Age instead of Late Bronze Age in the latter case). Thanks to the conventional scheme, it is biblical history that is currently losing just about every battle.

 

And to set the 18th Egyptian dynasty back to somewhere near where the text books have it, in the c. C16th-C15th’s BC, then one is forced also to return to the standard view that it was Egyptian thought that had influenced the c. C10th BC biblical writings, instead of the other way around.

 

 

Clarke refers to “Liberal Christianity” in connection with Egyptologist Budge. Is it not this liberalism that always gives precedence to the pagan nations (e.g. the Mesopotamians and the Egyptians), by claiming that their myths and literature supposedly influenced the biblical texts? Thus we are told, for instance, that King David drew his inspiration for Psalm 104 from the ‘Sun Hymn’ of the heretic pharaoh, Akhnaton. All agree that these two texts are very similar in places. That is the wrong conclusion, however, if David preceded Akhnaton by more than a century as according to a Velikovskian context. Or they say that the Bible-like and sapiential writings of Hatshepsut, and the love poems of the 18th Egyptian dynasty, had influenced King Solomon’s writings. Some of Hatshepsut's own inscriptions are clearly like those of Israel’s - especially Genesis, the Psalms and, most interestingly, the writings generally attributed to Solomon (Proverbs, Wisdom, Song of Songs). But that is just a further argument, I would suggest, in favour of the view that this great woman had visited him and had drunk in Solomon’s wisdom - Israel influencing Egypt, and not the other way around.

Here are just a few examples of:

 

 

 

Scriptural Influences on Hatshepsut

 

 

 

(i) An Image from Genesis

 

 

 

After Hatshepsut had completed her Punt expedition, she gathered her nobles and proclaimed the great things she had done. Hatshepsut reminded them of Amon's oracle commanding her to ‘... establish for him a Punt in his house, to plant the trees of God's Land beside his temple in his garden, according as he commanded’. At the conclusion of her speech there is further scriptural image ‘I have made for [Amon-Ra] a Punt in his garden at Thebes ... it is big enough for him to walk about in’. J. Baikie noted that this is ‘a phrase which seems to take one back to the Book of Genesis and its picture of God walking in the Garden of Eden in the cool of the evening’. This inscription speaks of Amon-Ra's love for Hatshepsut in terms almost identical to those used by the Queen of Sheba about the God of Israel's love for Solomon and his nation.

 

Compare the italicised parts of Hatshepsut's

 

 

 

‘... according to the command of ... Amon ... in order to bring for him the marvels of every country, because he so much loves the King of ... Egypt, Maatkara [i.e. Hatshepsut], for his father Amen-Ra, Lord of Heaven, Lord of Earth, more than the other kings who have been in this land for ever ...’.

 

 

 

with the italicised words in a song of praise spoken to Solomon by the Queen of Sheba ‘Blessed be the Lord your God, who has delighted in you and set you on the throne as king for the Lord your God! Because your God loved Israel and would establish them for ever ...’ (II Chronicles 98).

 

 

 

(ii) An Image from the Psalms

 

 

 

When Hatshepsut's commemorative obelisks were com¬pleted, she had the usual formal words inscribed on them. However, Baikie states that, in language that ‘might have come straight out of the Book Psalms’, the queen continues:

 

 

 

‘I did it under [Amon-Ra's] command; it was he who led me. I conceived no works without his doing .... I slept not because of his temple; I erred not from that which he commanded. ... I entered into the affairs of his heart. I turned not my back on the City of the All-Lord; but turned to it the face. I know that Karnak is God's dwelling upon earth; ... the Place of his Heart; Which wears his beauty ...’.

 

 

 

Baikie goes on, unaware that it really was the Psalms and the sapiential words of David and Solomon, that had influenced Hatshepsut's prayer:

 

 

 

‘The sleepless eagerness of the queen for the glory of the temple of her god, and her assurance of the unspeakable sanctity of Karnak as the divine dwelling-place, find expression in almost the very words which the Psalmist used to express his ... duty towards the habitation of the God of Israel, and his certainty of Zion's sanctity as the abiding-place of Jehovah.

 

 

 

‘Surely I will not come into the tabernacle of my house, nor go up into my bed; I will not give sleep to mine eyes, or slumber to mine eyelids. Until I find out a place for the Lord, an habitation for the mighty God of Jacob.

 

 

 

- For the Lord hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation. This is my rest for ever; here will I dwell; for I have desired it’.’

 

 

 

(iii) An Image from Proverbs

 

 

 

In another related verse of the Punt reliefs about Amon-Ra leading the expedition to ‘the Myrrh-terraces ... a glorious region of God's Land’, the god speaks of creating the fabled Land of Punt in playful terms reminiscent of Solomon's words about Wisdom's playful rôle in the work of Creation (Proverbs 8:12, 30-31). In the Egyptian version there is also reference to Hathor, the personification of wisdom: ‘... it is indeed a place of delight. I have made it for myself, in order to divert my heart, together with ... Hathor ... mistress of Punt …’.

 

 

 

(iv) Images from the Song of Songs

 

 

 

In the weighing scene of the goods acquired from Punt (i.e. Lebanon, see below), Hatshepsut boasts:

 

 

 

‘[Her] Majesty [herself] is acting with her two hands, the best of myrrh is upon all her limbs, her fragrance is divine dew, her odour is mingled with that of Punt, her skin is gilded with electrum, shining as do the stars in the midst of the festival-hall, before the whole land’.

 

 

 

Compare this with verses from King Solomon's love poem, Song of Songs (also called the Song of Solomon), e.g. ‘My hands dripped with myrrh, my fingers with liquid myrrh; Sweeter your love than wine, the scent of your perfume than any spice; Your lips drip honey, and the scent of your robes is like the scent of Lebanon’ (4:10-11; 55). (cf. 4:6, 14; 5:1, 5).

 

 

 

This Hatshepsut’s saturation with Davidic and Solomonic scriptural imagery is further strong support for the Egyptian queen’s visit to Jerusalem.

 

 

About the Woman Herself

 

 

…. from Josephus Flavius we learn that she was the ruler of Egypt and Ethiopia, as Queen Hatshepsut was, who is the only woman to have remained on the throne of Egypt for an extended period of time. ….

And Metzler adds that (as Velikovsky had already noted): ‘In Ethiopian tradition, her name is Makeda, which is derived from Hatshepsut’s prenomen Maatkare [Makera]’.

 

 

Bimson had argued, though - and Clarke would affirm this - that the biblical description had an Arabian, not Egyptian, flavour, with camels, gold, spices and precious stones. But, again, all the monarchs who came to hear Solomon's wisdom brought ‘silver and gold ... myrrh, spices ...’ (cf. I Kings 10:25 & 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).

….

Still, Bimson had suggested that the biblical queen was from Yemen in Arabia. Likewise, Clarke has her from “somewhere around modern-day Yemen”. G. van Beek, however, has described the geographical isolation of Yemen and the severe hazards of a journey from there to Palestine. And 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 hailed from Yemen, who was she?

 

 

Creating a Vacuum

 

Clarke is certainly right that: ‘The chronology debate is a serious issue’. But he is also mindful that: ‘There is always the risk that believers may base their thinking more on secular history rather than the Bible’. He is ‘very sympathetic’ towards revisionists. And in his Shishak article, Clarke tells: ‘I support the need for chronological revision …’. It will be very interesting, though, to see for whom Clarke opts in the future as Shishak, now that he has rejected Thutmose III as a candidate. And with what secular history will he align the Monarchy of Israel? And, with what biblical era, EA?

 

Critics who only take pot-shots at Velikovsky’s ‘pillars’, but who do not offer any sort of substitute system, are creating the sort of vacuum which allows free rein to the conventionalists and which must bewilder readers. Neither Bimson, nor Rohl with Ramesses II as his Shishak - and I suspect that Clarke will run into the very same problem - can propose any appropriately situated woman to take Hatshepsut’s place as the Queen of Sheba, who, surely, must have been a woman of some significance. Alasdair Beal, editor of SIS in 1997, wrote of the effect that Bimson’s 1986 critique had had on readers:

 

“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 mysterious and exotic 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. …”.

 

Such efforts that offer no replacements cause ‘disappointment’ amongst readers who at least know enough to mistrust the conventional system. It is not even sufficient to do as some have done after having tossed aside certain ‘pillars’, and pick in isolation a few historical characters as biblical candidates (e.g. for Shishak). One needs at least to replace any set of discarded ‘pillars’ with a revised system, complete with a basic stratigraphy, that can accommodate major biblical events and persons - most notably, the Conquest (and Jericho), but also David and Solomon, the Queen of Sheba and King Shishak, and later ‘So King of Egypt’ (2 Kings 17:4). And definitely one must be able to find a suitable place for the very long-reigning (66-67 years) Ramesses II of Egypt’s 19th dynasty.

 

In 1997, about a decade after Bimson’s critique, I wrote an article for SIS, in which I acknowledged the excellent points that Bimson had made, but I also endeavoured to answer them. I fully concurred with Bimson that the Punt expedition could not have been the same as the biblical visit. Whereas the latter was made by a ‘queen’, Hatshepsut was then no longer a queen. She was now in her 9th year as Pharaoh. The title of Clarke’s article is thus suggestive by its juxtaposing of Pharaoh Hatshepsut and the biblical Queen.

 

 

The Punt Expedition

 

Bimson, from an in situ study of Pharaoh Hatshepsut’s Punt inscriptions at Deir el-Bahri, concluded for various reasons - and rightly so - that these texts could not be referring to the celebrated visit by the Queen of Sheba to King Solomon in Jerusalem. Clarke has again raised some of these objections. Bimson's analysis of the Punt expedition constituted his most formidable argument against Velikovsky's thesis. However, on the basis of P. Dorman's chronology of Hatshepsut's era, I suggested that the Punt expedition was a venture entirely separate from the Queen of Sheba's visit to Jerusalem, undertaken years later, after Hatshepsut had made herself Pharaoh. Its chief purpose was to obtain myrrh trees for the garden (or park) surrounding the temple of Amon-Ra at Deir el-Bahri, to provide a continuous supply of this rare plant in Thebes. Hatshepsut, recalling the magnificent parks and gardens she had seen in Jerusalem, wanted to create the same for her capital city. Hatshepsut would also have noticed Solomon's magnificent fleet (I Kings 10:11), and the parks and gardens in Jerusalem with their exotic myrrh trees (Song of Songs 5:1; 6:2). Presumably these were what later inspired her Punt expedition. Furthermore, Bimson had noted most significantly that Hatshepsut herself did not accompany this trip, as the Queen of Sheba obviously had hers. The purpose of the Punt venture was not to partake of the wisdom of the King of Jerusalem - we have found above that she had already done that years before.

 

And the miserable ‘gifts’ given by the Egyptian party to the reception committee at Punt, ‘an axe, a poignard in its sheath, two leg bangles, eleven necklaces and five large rings’, obviously bore no comparison with the lavish gifts brought by the Queen of Sheba: ‘The poverty and meanness of the Egyptian gifts’, wrote Mariette, ‘are in striking contrast to the value of those which they receive’.

 

The Egyptian inscriptions show Punt as a land of trees - e.g. the c-s tree that A. Nibbi equates with the pine. This is consistent with the view that Punt was Phoenicia/Lebanon; Lebanon being the most noteworthy place for trees in the ancient Near East. Solomon had a free hand building in Lebanon (I Kings (9:19, 20), where he used forced labour. The Song of Songs refers to a ‘mountain of myrrh’, apparently in Lebanon (cf. 4:6 & 4:8). Solomon's palace was actually called ‘The House of the Forest of Lebanon’, because it was ‘built upon three rows of cedar pillars, with cedar beams upon the pillars’ (1 Kings 7:2). All this priceless timber could have been obtained from the Phoenicians.

 

Accordingly, Velikovsky had referred to Mariette's view that Hatshepsut's fine building betrayed ‘a foreign influence’, possibly from ‘the land of [Punt]’. If the Puntites were the Phoenicians - and (according to the Bible) Phoenician craftsmen had assisted Solomon in his building of Yahweh's Temple - then it is most interesting that Mariette had observed that Hatshepsut's temple ‘probably represents ... a Phoenician influence’. From this, Velikovsky had concluded that the design of the latter was based on the Jerusalem model.

 

According to the Bible, the Queen of Sheba made at least the latter part of her journey to Jerusalem by camel train …. The gifts she brought were of enormous value but Solomon allowed her to take them all back with her (II Chronicles 9:12).

 

Bimson - whilst favouring Velikovsky's chronological view that Hatshepsut's Punt expedition dated to about the time of King Solomon - had argued that the expedition had travelled southwards on the Red Sea, to NE Africa (modern Eritrea). Clarke gives ‘Ethiopia [as] the probable location of Punt…’. Bimson claimed that myrrh trees were to be found there, and he explained how the fauna and flora of the Punt reliefs reflected a NE African location. Interestingly, in Solomon's own naval expeditions to Ophir (which certainly were southward bound voyages on the Red Sea) his servants brought back mainly gold (1 Kings 10: 11), and there is no mention at all of myrrh trees.

 

I would consider the logistics of the Punt expedition in the light of points raised by Nibbi, especially her insistence that the Egyptians did not travel on the open seas. This helps solve a problem with which both Velikovsky and Bimson had grappled: namely, that the Punt reliefs provide no evidence that the Egyptian fleet had at any stage been transported overland, from the Nile to the Red Sea. And this affects Clarke also, of course, with his Punt as Ethiopia. This led Bimson to assume that something must have been left out of the reliefs. In my scenario this would no longer be a problem, as the Red Sea was not involved at all. If Hatshepsut's fleet had never left the Nile, there would have been no need for overland transportation of boats. I suggest that Hatshepsut's expedition was northward bound, for Lebanon, but it was an expedition ‘on water and on land’. The fleet simply sailed northwards to the Nile Delta. There, Nehesi and his small army disembarked and marched northward through friendly territory to Lebanon. ‘Sailing in the sea, beginning the goodly way towards God's Land, journeying in peace to the land of Punt ...’; the naval leg being only the ‘beginning’ of the trip to Punt.

 

Early Egyptian expeditions to Punt were generally connected with a place they called kpn; commonly thought to be Byblos on the Phoenician coast. Nibbi has disputed this and has identified this kpn with a port in northern Egypt. She first mentions Canopus but prefers El Gibali in Sinai. Canopus, though, would have been an ideal place for the Egyptian fleet to have dropped anchor, close to the Mediterranean.

 

Hatshepsut stressed that the travelling was peaceful.

 

Any maritime venture would have needed the co-operation of the Phoenicians, making King Hiram of Tyre a third important power. And Velikovsky had claimed that King Hiram’s men had figured in Hatshepsut’s Punt inscriptions as ‘the chiefs of Irem [Hiram]’. The Phoenician ports were international marts where all sorts of exotic merchandise could be acquired - all that Hatshepsut did in fact acquire from Punt. I suggest that Hatshepsut's fleet would have laid anchor at the mouth of the Nile, awaiting the outcome of Nehesi’s negotiations with the Puntite/ Phoenicians, who then transported the goods via barges or rafts to Egypt, to be loaded on to Hatshepsut's ships. It is clear from Hiram's own words to Solomon (I Kings 5:8-9) that the Phoenicians did transport cedar and cypress timber in this fashion to southern ports.

 

It seems that, today, everyone wants to create his own ‘New Chronology’. This article urges those who at least take the Bible seriously to pause and consider all that has gone before, to modify by all means wherever the evidence demands, but to be extremely wary about barging off in a completely new direction that means abandoning some by now very well established biblical and historical connections.

 

 

This thesis can be accessed at: http://hdl.handle.net/2123/1632

 

This thesis can be accessed at: http://hdl.handle.net/2123/5973

 

‘Why Pharaoh Hatshepsut is not to be equated to the Queen of Sheba’, Journal of Creation, 24/2, August 2010, pp. 62-68.

‘Was Thutmose III the biblical Shishak? – Claims of the ‘Jerusalem’ bas-relief at Karnak investigated’, Journal of Creation, 25/1, April 2011, pp. 48-56.