Absalom and Achitophel

by

Damien F. Mackey

Such ‘puzzled’ commentators, and indeed Hill himself - who will lament “the almost annoying paucity of material for careful analysis [of Jonadab]” - would greatly benefit here, I believe, from a recognition of Jonadab’s alter ego. Jonadab, it is here suggested, was none other than the legendary counsellor, “Achitophel” (Ahitophel) ….

Into the halçyon pastoral scene (Song of Solomon) 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. 

Here is how the terrible and long-ranging conspiracy began to unfold (2 Samuel 13:1-2):

“In the course of time, Amnon son of David fell in love with Tamar, the beautiful sister of Absalom son of David. Amnon became so obsessed with his sister Tamar that he made himself ill. She was a virgin, and it seemed impossible for him to do anything to her”.

Enter Jonadab (vv. 3-4): “Now Amnon had an adviser named Jonadab son of Shimeah, David’s brother. Jonadab was a very shrewd man. He asked Amnon, ‘Why do you, the king’s son, look so haggard morning after morning? Won’t you tell me?’

Amnon said to him, ‘I’m in love with Tamar, my brother Absalom’s sister’.”

There is so much to know about this Jonadab.

Some translations present him as Amnon’s “friend”, but “adviser” (as above) will turn out to be by far the more suitable rendering of the Hebrew rēa‘ (רֵעַ).

For, no “friend” of Amnon’s was Jonadab!

Commenting on this Hebrew word, Andrew E. Hill (assistant prof. of OT at Wheaton College, Illinois) writes (http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/30/30-4/30-4-pp387-390-JETS.pdf):

“Jonadab is an acknowledged “friend” (réa’) of Amnon …. While it is possible that he was a close personal friend of Amnon since he was a cousin, it seems more likely that the word here connotes a special office or association with the royal family (especially in light of his role as a counselor in David’s cabinet; cf. 13:32-35). During Solomon’s reign, Zabud … has the title of priest and “king’s friend” (ré‘eh hammelek, 1 Kgs 4:5). It may well be that with Jonadab (and others?) this cabinet post has its rudimentary beginnings in the Davidic monarchy”.

Another key Hebrew word used to describe Jonadab is ḥākām (חָכָם), variously understood as meaning “wise”, or just “crafty” or “shrewd”.

Before we consider further this important word, we need to know what was the criminal advice that Jonadab had given to the king’s lovesick oldest son, Amnon. It was this (2 Samuel 13:5): “‘Go to bed and pretend to be ill’, Jonadab said. ‘When your father comes to see you, say to him, ‘I would like my sister Tamar to come and give me something to eat. Let her prepare the food in my sight so I may watch her and then eat it from her hand’.’”

Clear and unequivocal advice from a man described as ḥākām, but also coldly calculated advice with deep undertones and ramifications of which the manipulative Jonadab was fully aware.

Andrew E. Hill, again, offers this explanation of the adjective ḥākām:

“Even more significant, Jonadab is called a “wise” man (hãkãm, 2 Sam 13:3). The majority of translators take this to mean “crafty” or “shrewd” due to the criminal nature of his advice to Amnon.” Yet S. R. Driver noted that “subtil” “is scarcely a fair paraphrase: the text says that Jonadab was wise.” He concludes that had the writer intended to convey a meaning of “shrewd” or “crafty” he would have used ´ãrôm or another such word (cf. Gen 3:1)”.

H. P. Smith remarked that “Jonadab [Amnon’s] cousin and intimate friend [sic] was a very wise man, though in this case his wisdom was put to base uses”.

“Most recently K. P. McCarter interprets Jonadab to be “very wise,” while acknowledging that our English connotation of “wise” may be a misleading translation. …. I concur with Driver and the others cited on the understanding of Jonadab as a very wise man. In addition, I posit that the ploy suggested by Jonadab to Amnon for the seduction of Tamar was known to him by virtue of his standing in the royal court as a sage”.

Hill will also cite the view of H. P. Müller, that the Hebrew word may pertain to learning:

“… after the beginning of the monarchy, it is commonly understood that the root ḥkm refers above all to the academic wisdom of the court and the ideals of the class entrusted with it”. Furthermore, recent study has shown considerable Egyptian influence on a wide range of OT literary types, most notably Hebrew wisdom.’ In recognition of this fact, R. N. Whybray states that

we cannot dismiss the considered opinion of S. Morenz, who claims that the presence at Solomon’s court of bilingual officials with a competent knowledge of Egyptian writing must be regarded, in view of what we now know of that court and its diplomatic relations with Egypt, as absolutely beyond question; and what is true of Solomon’s court may reasonably be supposed to be true of David’s also. ….

…. Given this Egyptian influence in the Israelite united monarchy and the knowledge of and access to Egyptian literature, my contention is that Jonadab was not only skilled in the academic wisdom of the royal court but also had some familiarity with Egyptian literature”.

This “Egyptian” element needed to be included here because soon the suggestion will be made that Jonadab may have had - like Tamar - an Egyptian-name alter ego.

The Plot Thickens

Andrew E. Hill begins his discussion of adviser Jonadab, in his close association with Amnon, by referring to the puzzlement that Jonadab’s actual rôle in this has caused commentators. Hill gives these “two reasons” why he thinks that commentators may be puzzled about Jonadab:

1.      because of the ill-fated advice he gave to the crown prince Amnon (2 Sam 13:3-5), and

2.      on account of his uncanny foreknowledge of the events surrounding Absalom’s vengeful murder of Amnon (13:32-35).

Such ‘puzzled’ commentators, and indeed Hill himself - who will lament “the almost annoying paucity of material for careful analysis [of Jonadab]” - would greatly benefit here, I believe, from a recognition of Jonadab’s alter ego. Jonadab, it is here suggested, was none other than the legendary counsellor, “Achitophel” (Ahitophel), which may possibly be an Egyptian name: something like Rahotep, or Aahotepra, with the pagan theophoric (Ra) once again dropped. Thus, e.g., [R]ahotep (or Ahhotep) = Ahitoph- plus the Hebrew theophoric -el (“God”).

King David was no fool. He would see right through the trickery of e.g. Joab (and others), who would then be forced to concede (2 Samuel 14:20): ‘Your servant Joab did this to change the present situation. My lord has wisdom like that of an angel of God - he knows everything that happens in the land’. Yet even the ‘angelic’ David is said to have greatly valued the advice of Achitophel (16:23): “Now in those days the advice Achitophel gave was like that of one who inquires of God. That was how both David and Absalom regarded all of Achitophel’s advice”.

He may even have advised the ageing King David to take into his service “a young virgin”.

Achitophel was, I propose, none other than the “wise” (ḥākām) royal counsellor, Jonadab.

Credit, then, to Andrew E. Hill for being able to get behind Jonadab’s conspiracy without his having, to assist him, this crucial Achitophel connection. I can now disclose Hill’s giveaway title, “A Jonadab Connection in the Absalom Conspiracy?” (JETS 30/4, Dec., 1987, 387-390).

Hill is undoubtedly quite correct in his estimation that Jonadab fully knew what he was doing, even if he may be wrong in suggesting that the latter was using Egyptian love poetry for his precedent (more likely, we think, the Egyptians picked it up later from the Tamar incident). According to Hill:

“Unlike those who view this counsel of Jonadab to Amnon as bad advice because it concerned itself only with methods and failed to calculate the consequences, I am convinced that Jonadab knew full well the ultimate outcome of his counsel…. The illness ploy, borrowed from Egyptian love poetry [sic], was maliciously designed to exploit Amnon’s domination by sensuality (a trait he shared with his father David)”.

What was the psychologically astute Jonadab (Achitophel) really up to? And why?

Jonadab, according to Hill, was not actually serving Amnon’s interests at all. He was cunningly providing Absalom with the opportunity to bring down his brother, Amnon, the crown prince:

“… I am inclined to see Jonadab as a co-conspirator with Absalom in the whole affair, since both men have much to gain. Absalom’s desires for revenge against Amnon and ultimately his designs for usurping his father’s throne are clearly seen in the narrative (cf. 13:21-23, 32; 15:21-6). Amnon, as crown prince, stands in the way as a rival to the ambitions of Absalom. Absalom and Jonadab collaborate to remove this obstacle to kingship by taking advantage of a basic weakness in Amnon’s character. The calculated plotting of Absalom and Jonadab is evidenced by the pointed questioning of Tamar by Absalom after her rape and his almost callous treatment of a sister brutishly violated and now bereft of a meaningful future (almost as if he expected it, at least according to the tone of the statements in the narrative; cf. 13:20-22). While a most reprehensible allegation, it seems Tamar may have been an unwitting pawn of a devious schemer, an expendable token in the power play for the throne”.

That Hill has masterfully managed to measure the manic Machiavellian manipulating by the famous pair, Absalom and Achitophel, may be borne out in the subsequent progress of events:

“Further testimony to the Absalom-Jonadab conspiracy is found in the time-table exposed in the narrative. Absalom coolly bides his time for two years before ostensibly avenging Tamar’s rape (13:23), and only after a three-year self-imposed exile in Geshur (the homeland of his mother Maacah, 3:3) does he return to Jerusalem to make preparations for his own kingship by undermining popular allegiance to David (13:39; 15:1-6). Certainly this belies a carefully constructed strategy for seizing control of the monarchy and bespeaks a man of considerable foresight, determination and ability”.

Hill’s excellent grasp of the situation becomes even more plausible if Jonadab were Achitophel, Absalom’s adviser during the prince’s revolt against King David.

The “two years” and “three-year self-imposed exile”, then “two years” more upon Absalom’s return - during which King David refused to see him - are chronological markers indicating that Abishag (or Tamar) must have come into David’s service closer to his 60^th, than 70^th, year.

But why this bloody-minded obsession on the part of Jonadab-Achitophel?

From 2 Samuel 13:3, we might estimate that he was not so very old, “Amnon had an adviser named Jonadab son of Shimeah, David’s brother”. That he was at least younger than David. Achitophel, however, would be estimated as having been old and grey - more appropriate to a wise counsellor - he apparently being the grandfather of Bathsheba (cf. 2 Samuel 11:3; 23:34). “Jonadab son of Shimeah, David’s brother” would now, therefore, need to be re-translated as (based on the meanings of Hebrew ben as previously noted), “Jonadab official of Shimeah …”.

Might not the formerly wise counsellor of King David have become embittered over the latter’s deplorable treatment of Bathsheba and her husband, Uriah the Hittite? Adultery, then murder? King David had, at this point - as Pope Francis rightly observes - fallen into corruption. (https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/cotidie/2016/documents/papa-francesco-cotidie_20160129_from-sin-into-corruption.html):

Francis confided: “in reading this passage, I ask myself: where is David, that brave youth who confronted the Philistine with his sling and five stones and told him: ‘The Lord is my strength’?”. This, the Pope remarked, “is another David”. Indeed, “where is that David who, knowing that Saul wanted to kill him and, twice having the opportunity to kill King Saul, said: ‘No, I cannot touch the Lord’s anointed one’?”.

The reality is, Francis explained, that “this man changed, this man softened”. And, he added, “it brings to mind a passage of the prophet Ezekiel (16:15) when God speaks to his people as a groom to his bride, saying: after I gave all of this to you, you besot with your beauty, took advantage with your renown, and played the harlot. You felt secure and you forgot me’”.

This is precisely “what happened with David at that moment”, Francis said. “The great, noble David felt sure of himself, because the kingdom was strong, and thus he sinned: he sinned in lust, he committed adultery, and he also unjustly killed a noble man, in order to cover up his sin”.

“This is a moment in the life of David”, the Pontiff noted, “that we can apply to our own: it is the passing from sin into corruption”. Here “David begins, he takes the first step toward corruption: he obtains power, strength”. For this reason “corruption is an easier sin for all of us who have certain power, be it ecclesiastical, religious, economic or political power”. And, Pope Francis said, “the devil makes us feel secure: ‘I can do it’”.

But “the Lord really loved David, so much” that the Lord “sent the prophet Nathan to reflect his soul”, and David “repented and cried: ‘I have sinned’”.

“I would like to stress only this”, Francis stated: “there is a moment when the tendency to sin or a moment when our situation is really secure and we seem to be blessed; we have a lot of power, money, I don’t know, a lot of ‘things’”. It can happen even “to us priests: sin stops being sin and becomes corruption. The Lord always forgives. But one of the worst things about corruption is that a corrupt person doesn’t need to ask forgiveness, he doesn’t feel the need”.

The Pope then asked for prayer “for the Church, beginning with us, the Pope, bishops, priests, consecrated people, lay faithful: ‘Lord, save us, save us from corruption. Sinners yes, Lord, we all are, but never corrupt! Let us ask the Lord for this grace’”, Francis concluded.

Jonadab-Achitophel, as the grandfather of Bathsheba - and thus likely having shared a close family bond with her husband, Uriah - might well have become embittered against King David for what the latter had done to his family. The counsellor’s once ‘god-like’ advice would now set the Davidic world spinning out of control - as we read above, “wise man, though in this case his wisdom was put to base uses”. Had not David been fore-warned in a dread prophecy (2 Samuel 12:10): ‘… the sword shall never leave your house’?

To begin with, Absalom - urged on by Jonadab-Achitophel - will slay his brother, Amnon. Andrew E. Hill writes on this:

“One last proof adduced for a Jonadab connection in the Absalom conspiracy is Jonadab’s own response to the rumor supposing the assassination of all the king’s sons (13:30). In countering the false report Jonadab betrayed his complete knowledge of the ambush in Baal Hazor (including the participants in the crime, since he confirmed that “they [the servants of Absalom] killed” only Amnon; cf. 13:29, 30-32) before any official or eyewitness news reached Jerusalem. In addition he informed the royal court that Absalom had been plotting his revenge for two years (13:32-33). The only possible explanation for Jonadab’s detailed foreknowledge of the bloodletting at Baal Hazor is his involvement in the scheme from its inception”.

No doubt the “wise” Jonadab-Achitophel had discerned that Absalom would make a far more willing candidate, than would Amnon (then heir to the throne), for overthrowing King David.

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).

According to 2 Samuel 15:32, there was already a significant place of worship on the Mount of Olives – some thousand years before Jesus was crucified: “But David continued up the Mount of Olives, weeping as he went; his head was covered and he was barefoot. All the people with him covered their heads too and were weeping as they went up. Now David had been told, “Achitophel is among the conspirators with Absalom.” So David prayed, “O Lord, turn Achitophel’s counsel into foolishness.” When David arrived at the summit [place of the head], where people used to worship God, Hushai the Arkite was there to meet him, his robe torn and dust on his head” (2 Samuel 15:30-32).

Absalom’s prized hair would bring him undone: “He was riding his mule, and as the mule went under the thick branches of a large oak, Absalom's hair got caught in the tree. He was left hanging in midair, while the mule he was riding kept on going” (2 Samuel 18:9). This made him easy pickings for David’s “too hard” man, Joab, who “took three javelins in his hand and plunged them into Absalom’s heart while Absalom was still alive in the oak tree” (v. 14) – against the wish of King David: ‘Be gentle with the young man Absalom for my sake’ (v. 5).

Prior to this Absalom had, for once, put aside the advice of Achitophel in favour of another counsellor, Hushai (17:14). And this snub would lead to Achitophel’s suicide – something of a rarity in the Bible (v. 23): “When Achitophel saw that his advice had not been followed, he saddled his donkey and set out for his house in his hometown. He put his house in order and then hanged himself. So he died and was buried in his father’s tomb”.

In this, his final act, Achitophel draws comparisons with Judas Iscariot.

Whilst, ultimately, we are all responsible for our own actions, it is terrible to think that the tragedy that was Achitophel may have been set in train by King David’s callous murder of Uriah, the husband of Achitophel’s grand-daughter with whom David had committed adultery.

Senenmut’s originality in use of cryptograms

 

 

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

  

 

 

Before long [Hat]she[psut] will put aside all pretence and declare herself as the

first ruler of the land, duly (though bizarrely) adding a manly beard to her statues.

King Solomon will enter the land at her request and will greatly assist her as Senenmut (Senmut), her multi-tasking Steward, her quasi-royal consort, and her (you name it) – Senenmut being, according to some “the real power behind the throne”.

 

 

 

 

Essential here is my identification of Hatshepsut with King Solomon’s “Queen of Sheba”:

 

Hatshepsut's progression from Israel, Beersheba, to woman-ruler of Egypt

 

https://www.academia.edu/40872080/Hatshepsuts_progression_from_Israel_Beersheba_to_woman-ruler_of_Egypt

 

The following sequence (i-v) is basically how I see the extraordinary progression of the career of Hatshepsut Maatkare, from

 

1. a princess in King David’s realm, beginning in the king’s old age, through vicissitudes and desolation, and rebellion in the kingdom of Israel, to become
2. the Queen of Beersheba, appointed there by her maternal ‘grandfather’, Tolmai of (southern) Geshur (“Gezer”), who would succeed Amenhotep I as ruler of Egypt and Ethiopia, as Thutmose I, to her
3. visit and marriage to King Solomon in Jerusalem at the height of his wisdom and power, to her
4. subsequent marriage in Egypt to Thutmose II, whom she would succeed as
5. woman-ruler of Egypt and Ethiopia alongside her ‘nephew’ Thutmose III.   

 

and my identification (in the same article) of Hatshepsut’s quasi-royal Steward, Senenmut, with King Solomon himself.

 

The following article provides us with an excellent account of the wise King Solomon and his “encyclopedic knowledge”: https://www.cardus.ca/comment/article/solomon-the-scholar/

 

….

Solomon's own intellectual investments certainly paid off. His knowledge and wisdom far surpassed the leading sages and scholars of his day. Whether it was the sons of the East who were celebrated for the sciences and sagacity, or the Egyptians who were legendary for their knowledge of medicine, geometry, mathematics, astronomy and gnomic wisdom, Solomon was smarter and wiser still. He even topped a formidable list of "Who's Who" among the great intellectuals in the ancient world. In verse 31 we read that Solomon was wiser than all men—better than the best and brighter than the brightest. This included such notables as the learned Levitical priests Ethan and Heman, and the more enigmatic Calcol and Darda, both sons of Mahol (a family with smart genes, evidently) who were prominent for their erudite contributions. If these men were renowned, Solomon was more so. Solomon's fame was widespread, not just at home in Jerusalem, Judah or Israel, but in the surrounding nations, or as we might say today, globally. Note that this acclaim is not attributed to a pagan thinker, or to a secularist, if you will, but rather to an Israelite, to a person of faith, to a man of God.

 

If we were to update the point to the present, perhaps we might say that Solomon's intellectual reputation would exceed Ox-Bridge, the Ivies, and Canada's most celebrated institutions (not to mention other worldwide notables). He would be considered smarter than the best in the West and wiser than the academics in Asia. Shouldn't there be a few persons or institutions of Christian persuasion with a comparable reputation today?

 

The boast about Solomon's scholarship was not an empty one. Solomon was not only a prolific writer and composer, but he also possessed encyclopedic knowledge of the natural world. Of the 3,000 proverbs he composed, 375 of them are preserved for us in the Old Testament book of Proverbs that makes the fear of God the prerequisite for wisdom and knowledge. Also, Solomon's grand total of 1005 songs include Psalm 72, which tackles kingly politics, and Psalm 127, which addresses the subjects of providence and parenting. Solomon's number one hit, of course, was the Song of Songs, a lovely lyrical meditation on the holy meaning of marriage and sexuality that simultaneously symbolizes the ardent nature of God's love for His people.

 

Solomon was shrewd to express his ideas in the influential genres of maxims and music. After all, our lives and the world are very much governed by proverbs, since apt and timely thoughts frequently fix our notions and determine our conduct (says Matthew Henry). As we read in Proverbs 15:1, for example, "A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger." These are good words to believe in and to live by. And as Plato noted, rhythm and melody insinuate themselves in a life-shaping way into the innermost parts of the soul. Music has this mysterious ability to inscribe itself deep in our hearts. …. How smart it is, then, to devote considerable energy to the transformative republics of letters and lyrics in which Solomon's own contributions are nothing short of astounding.

 

If this was not enough, Solomon was also an accomplished natural philosopher or scientist whose knowledge of trees, plants and animals is highlighted in verse 33. If we combine Solomon's compositional achievements with his extensive knowledge of dendrology and botany, as well as zoology, ornithology, entomology and ichthyology, then we can see why it would be appropriate to acknowledge him, anachronistically so, as a true "Renaissance man." Indeed, Solomon was the ancient world's polymath par excellence.

 

Solomon's prodigious efforts had a goal—shalom, or peace. His labour was devoted to securing the common good of the surrounding nations, and he worked especially hard to procure the well-being of his own people. As 1 Kings 4:25 memorably recalls, "Judah and Israel lived in safety, from Dan even to Beersheba, every man under his vine and under his fig tree, all the days of Solomon." As if he were a new Adam, Solomon embodied the original cultural mandate of Genesis 1, which is constitutive of human identity as God's image and likeness. On this foundation, Solomon's fruitful labours illustrate for us the deep meaning and permanent nobility of the tasks of education, learning and culturemaking. If we could ask God for anything at all, shouldn't we beseech him to restore a profound understanding of this abiding purpose in us?

 

Solomon's efforts were not without recognition. As we have already seen, Solomon was internationally famous for his knowledge and wisdom. He was a veritable "tourist attraction" (as Walter Brueggemann says), for commoners and kings alike came from all over the world to obtain his insights. As the world's centerpiece of culture and scholarship, many strangers came to Solomon where they were exposed, not only to Solomon's knowledge and wisdom, but also to Yahweh—Solomon's God.

 

His most famous guest, of course, was the Queen of Sheba. In the account of her visit in 1 Kings 10, we read that the Queen spoke with Solomon about all that was in her heart, and Solomon himself answered all her questions. As the texts states, he explained everything to her. I wish I could have overheard that conversation.

 

Upon hearing his wisdom and observing his prosperity, the Queen was overwhelmed. There was no more spirit left in her. Though skeptical of the things she had heard about Solomon at first, she came to believe that not even half of his magnificence had been reported to her. She proceeded to bless Solomon's servants and subjects who attended to him and heard his teachings daily. Most importantly, she blessed God who had blessed Solomon and enabled him to become Israel's wise, just, and righteous king. The Queen's visit shows that the quest for truth and wisdom can ultimately lead to its divine source, demonstrating the evangelistic or missional potential of education and scholarship pursued avidly in God.

[End of quote]

 

 

So, if Solomon were Senenmut, as I am firmly maintaining, then we would hardly expect the latter to have been any sort of ‘dumbbell’. Nor was he. The word “genius” is frequently applied to Senenmut, as regards his administration, his architecture, literature, and so on.

We read about his grand status in Egypt. “Senenmut did not underestimate his own abilities”: https://www.gardenvisit.com/biography/senenmut

 

Senenmut (or Senmut or Sen-En-Mut) held the titles of 'Overseer of the Gardens of Amun', 'Steward of Amun', 'Overseer of all Royal Works' and 'Tutor to the Royal Heiress Neferure'. His dates are uncertain but he advised Queen Hatshepsut on many topics and is generally credited with the design of her mortuary temple at Deir el Bahri (Djeser-Djeseru). …. his tomb has the earliest astronomical ceiling. …. Over 25 other statues of the man described as 'greatest of the great' survive. They show him holding Neferure, or kneeling for an act of worship with outstretched arms. Without evidence, it has long been suggested that he was Hatshepsut's lover. The influence of Hatshepsut's temple garden is undocumented but as Gothein wrote 'Here stands out for the very first time in the history of art a most magnificent idea - that of building three terraces, one above the other, each of their bordering walls set against the mountain-side, and made beautiful with pillared corridors, the actual shrine in a cavity in the highest terrace which was blasted out of the rock'. [See Marie-Luise Gothein on Egyptian gardens] Senenmut's dates are unknown but Hatshepsut reigned from 1479–1458 BC [sic] and Senemut is reported to have been about 50 in the 16th year of her reign … and no event in his life is recorded after this date ….

 

Senemut did not underestimate his own abilities:

 

He says: "I was the greatest of the great in the whole land;
one who heard the hearing alone in the privy council, steward of [Amon],
Senemut , triumphant."
"I was the real favorite of the king, acting as one praised of his lord
every day, the overseer of the cattle of Amon, Senemut."
"I was '… of truth, not showing partiality; with whose injunctions
the Lord of the Two Lands was satisfied; attached to Nekhen, prophet
of Mat, Senemut ."
"I was one who entered in [love], sand came forth in favor, making
glad the heart of the king every day, the companion, and master of .the
palace, Senemut ."
"I commanded … in the storehouse of divine offerings of Amon
every tenth day; the overseer of the storehouse of Amon, Senemut ."
"I conducted … of the gods every day, for the sake of the life,
prosperity, and health of the king; overseer of the … of Amon, Senemut."
"I was a foreman of foremen, superior of the great, … [overseer] of
all [works] of the house of silver, conductor of every handicraft, chief of
the prophets of Montu in Hermonthis, Senemut ."
"I was one I… to whom the affairs of the Two Lands were [reported;
that which South and North contributed was on my seal, the labor of
all countries … was [under] my charge."
"I was one, whose steps were known in the palace; a real confidant
of the king, his beloved: overseer of the gardens of Amon, Senemut."

 

[End of quotes]

 

Senenmut could also boast: “… now, I have penetrated into every writing of the priests and I am not ignorant of (everything) that happened from the first occasion in order to make flourish my offerings” (Urk. IV 415.14–16; Morenz 2002, p. 134).46”

 

“An aspect of Senenmut's originality was his invention of a number of composite devices, or cryptograms”. We read about this in Hatshepsut, from Queen to Pharaoh (ed. By Catharine H. Roehrig, Renée Dreyfus, Cathleen A. Keller), pp. 117-118:

 

An aspect of Senenmut's originality was his invention of a number of composite devices, or cryptograms. Two of these appear on two block statues from Karnak that depict Senenmut and the King's Daughter, Neferure … incised near the head of the princess …. The first cryptogram shows a flying vulture, with a protective wedjat eye superimposed on its body, grasping a set of ka arms in its talons. It faces a striding male figure with a composition was and ankh device instead of a head and holding a tall was sceptre and an ankh sign in the usual manner of Egyptian divinities. (The was symbolised power, the ankh eternal life). These cryptograms have been interpreted as standing for Hatshepsut's prenomen (Maatkare) and nomen (Khenemet Amun Hatshepsut), respectively … and thus as constituting “new” ways of writing the king’s cartouches on the statue. Senenmut stresses their originality in an additional text inscribed on both statues on the left of the princess’s head: "Images which I have made from the devising of my own heart and from my own labor; they have not been found in the writing of the ancestors”.

 

The most common device associated with Senenmut, however, is the uraeus cryptogram, which takes the form of a cobra crowned with bovine horns and a solar disc rearing up form a pair of ka arms …. This emblem was initially interpreted as a rebus rendering of the kingly Horus name of Hatshepsut, Wosretkaw, … and subsequently as a rebus of her prenomen: Maat (the cobra) + ka + Re (the sun disk) = Maatkare.' …. Alternatively, it has been understood … as referring to the harvest god- dess Renenutet, Mistress of Food, who takes the form of the cobra, guardian of the granary from rodent predators (ka here meaning "provisions" or "food")." As recent scholars have noted, it quite likely referred to both the king and the goddess. ….

 

 

 

 

Archaeology for King Solomon ‘all in pieces, all coherence gone’

 

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

 

“Tis all in pieces, all coherence gone,
All just supply, and all relation;
Prince, subject, father, son, are things forgot …”.

John Donne

 

 

 

 

 

 

Three entirely different textbook ‘historical eras, with their accompanying archaeologies, spanning from the Middle Bronze to the Iron Age, are presently required to accommodate the length and breadth of the greatness that was King Solomon, the wise king of C10th BC Israel.

 

 

The current system of archaeology that underlies a badly warped conventional chronology of antiquity has so ‘knocked into a three-cornered cocked hat’ the era of King Solomon as to render that era today as virtually unidentifiable.

 

The ‘three corners’, that each point in quite different directions are as follows:

 

1. The Era of Hammurabi (c. 1800 BC). Middle Bronze I (2000-1750 BC);

 

1. Hatshepsut, 18th Dynasty Egypt (C15th BC). Late Bronze I (1550-1400 BC);

 

3.      Solomon (biblically c. 950 BC), conventionally Iron Age IIA (1000-900 BC).

 

 

Let us consider 1-3 in turn:

 

1. The Era of Hammurabi

 

That the true era of the splendid King Hammurabi of Babylon has mystified historians is apparent from the fact that he, famously described by Dr. D. Courville as “floating about in a liquid chronology of Chaldea”, was originally dated as far back as the mid-third millennium BC, then to c. 2100 BC. Whilst, even today, various high and low chronologies can be proposed for the king, the general opinion is that he is to be dated to c. 1800 BC.

 

Conventionally, this is the Middle Bronze Age I period.

 

As we shall see, the need for the significant lowering of Hammurabi from 2100 BC to 1800 BC is based on the flimsiest of evidence.

 

Dr. Courville’s revision of, especially Egyptian, ancient history (in The Exodus Problem and Its Ramifications, 2 vols., CA 1971) next ‘conveyed’ this misunderstood king to what ought now be regarded as, for him, a far more realistic historical location, in the C15th BC, but still based on very flimsy evidence.

 

The Hammurabi conundrum was finally solved by Dean Hickman (“The Dating of Hammurabi”, Proc. 3rd Seminar of Catastrophism and Ancient History, Uni. of Toronto, 1985, 13-28), who finally laid Hammurabi safely to rest in the C10th BC era of kings David and Solomon.

 

That I have no doubt that this is the correct era for King Hammurabi is apparent e.g. from my article:

Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as Contemporaries of Solomon

 

https://www.academia.edu/35404463/Hammurabi_and_Zimri-Lim_as_Contemporaries_of_Solomon

 

This well-documented era (e.g. the Mari archives) has begun to produce biblico-historical synchronisms similar to the abundant el-Amarna period, revised (C14th BC down to C9th BC).

 

And once its potential becomes fully appreciated by revisionists, it will no doubt produce even more abundantly, along the lines of the far more intensely investigated el-Amarna.   

  

Hammurabic Anomalies

 

Stratigraphical and Astronomical

 

The universal influence of kings David and Solomon of Israel permeated the entire ancient world of the c. C10th BC, with 18^th dynasty (Hatshepsut) Egypt, mentored by the great Senenmut (Solomon) (see 2.), being a most eager recipient.

 

Nor was Hammurabi’s Babylon to be deprived of this cultural overflow. See e.g. my series:

 

Davidic Influence on King Hammurabi

 

beginning with:

 

https://www.academia.edu/30639370/Davidic_Influence_on_King_Hammurabi

 

Given Hammurabi’s proper location now at the time of kings David and Solomon, then Hammurabi could not possibly have been (that is, according to my revision) contemporaneous with the Middle Bronze I period, to where he is conventionally located, as the Middle Bronze I nomads were indubitably the Exodus Israelites. See e.g. my article:

 

The Bible Illuminates History and Philosophy. Part Seven: Middle Bronze I Israelites

 

https://www.academia.edu/33877212/The_Bible_Illuminates_History_and_Philosophy._Part_Seven_Middle_Bronze_I_Israelites

 

 

Dr. I. Velikovsky had told, in his article “Hammurabi and the Revised Chronology”, of how King Hammurabi first came to be dated to c. 2100 BC, and of his chronological importance: “The period of Hammurabi also served as a landmark for the histories of the Middle East from Elam to Syria, and was used as a guide for the chronological tables of other nations”, and of Velikovsky’s own radical revision of the Hammurabic era (http://www.varchive.org/ce/hammurabi.html):

…. Until a few decades ago, the reign of Hammurabi was dated to around the year 2100 before the present era. This dating was originally prompted by information contained in an inscription of Nabonidus … who reigned in the sixth century ….   In the foundations of a temple at Larsa, Nabonidus found a plaque of King Burnaburiash. This king is known to us from the el-Amarna correspondence in which he participated. On that plaque Burnaburiash wrote that he had rebuilt the temple erected seven hundred years before by King Hammurabi. The el-Amarna letters, according to conventional chronology, were written about -1400. Thus, if Burnaburiash lived then, Hammurabi must have lived about -2100.   When Egyptologists found it necessary to reduce the el-Amarna Age by a quarter of a century, the time of Hammurabi was adjusted accordingly, and placed in the twenty-first century before the present era. It was also observed: “The period of the First Dynasty of Babylon has always been a landmark in early history, because by it the chronology of Babylonia can be fixed, with a reasonable margin of error.”4 The period of Hammurabi also served as a landmark for the histories of the Middle East from Elam to Syria, and was used as a guide for the chronological tables of other nations. Since the dates for Hammurabi were established originally on the evidence of the plaque of King Burnaburiash found by Nabonidus—which indicated that King Hammurabi had reigned seven hundred years earlier—the revision of ancient history outlined in Ages in Chaos would set a much later date for Hammurabi, for it places the el-Amarna correspondence and King Burnaburiash in the ninth, not the fourteenth, century. Burnaburiash wrote long letters to Amenhotep III and Akhnaton, bore himself in a haughty manner and demanded presents in gold, jewels, and ivory. In the same collection of letters, however, there are many which we have identified as originating from Ahab of Samaria and Jehoshaphat of Jerusalem, and from their governors.5   Therefore, seven hundred years before this correspondence would bring us to the sixteenth century, not the twenty-first. Also, the end of the First Babylonian Dynasty—in circumstances recalling the end of the Middle Kingdom in Egypt—would point to some date close to -1500, or even several decades later.   A connecting link was actually found between the First Babylonian Dynasty and the Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt, the great dynasty of the Middle Kingdom. At Platanos on Crete, a seal of the Hammurabi type was discovered in a tomb together with Middle Minoan pottery of a kind associated at other sites with objects of the Twelfth Egyptian Dynasty,6 more exactly, of its earlier part.7 This is regarded as proof that these two dynasties were contemporaneous.   In the last several decades, however, a series of new discoveries have made a drastic reduction of the time of Hammurabi imperative. Chief among the factors that demand a radical change in the chronology of early Babylonia and that of the entire Middle Eastern complex—a chronology that for a long time was regarded as unassailable—are the finds of Mari, Nuzi, and Khorsabad. At Mari on the central Euphrates, among other rich material, a cuneiform tablet was found which established that Hammurabi of Babylonia and King Shamshi-Adad I of Assyria were contemporaries. An oath was sworn by the life of these two kings in the tenth year of Hammurabi, The finds at Mari “proved conclusively that Hammurabi came to the throne in Babylonia after the accession of Shamshi-Adad I in Assyria”.8   Shamshi-Adad I could not have reigned in the twenty-first century since there exist lists of Assyrian kings which enable us to compute regnal dates. Being compilations of later times, it is admitted by modern research that “the figures in king lists are not infrequently erroneous”.9 But in 1932 a fuller and better-preserved list of Assyrian king names was found at Khorsabad, capital of Sargon II. Published ten years later, in 1942, it contains the names of one hundred and seven Assyrian kings with the number of years of their reigns. Shamshi-Adad I, who is the thirty-first on the list, but the first of the kings whose regnal years are given in figures, reigned much later than the time originally allotted to Hammurabi whose contemporary he was.   The Khorsabad list ends in the tenth year of Assur-Nerari V, which is computed to have been -745; at that time the list was composed or copied. By adding to the last year the sum of the regnal years, as given in the list of the kings from Shamshi-Adad to Assur-Nerari, the first year of Shamshi-Adad is calculated to have been -1726 and his last year -1694. These could be the earliest dates; with a less liberal approach, the time of Shamshi-Adad needs to be relegated to an even later date.   The result expressed in the above figures required a revolutionary alteration in Babylonian chronology, for it reduced the time of Hammurabi from the twenty-first century to the beginning of the seventeenth century. The realization that the dating of Hammurabi must be brought forward by three and a half centuries created “a puzzling chronological discrepancy”,10 which could only be resolved by making Hammurabi later than Amenemhet I of the Twelfth Dynasty.   The process of scaling down the time of Hammurabi is an exciting spectacle. Sidney Smith and W. F. Albright competed in this scaling down; as soon as one of them offered a more recent date, the other offered a still more recent one, and so it went until Albright arrived at -1728 to -1686 for Hammurabi, and S. Smith—by placing Shamshi-Adad from -1726 to -1694—appeared to start Hammurabi at -1716.11   If Hammurabi reigned at the time allotted to him by the finds at Mari and Khorsabad—but according to the finds at Platanos was a contemporary of the Egyptian kings of the early Twelfth Dynasty—then that dynasty must have started at a time when, according to the accepted chronology, it had already come to its end. In conventionally-written history, by -1680 not only the Twelfth Dynasty, but also the Thirteenth, or the last of the Middle Kingdom, had expired. [End of quotes]

 

As noted above, Hammurabi underwent a significant chronological shift at the hands of the conventional historians “based on the flimsiest of evidence”. Owing to the discovery of that one seal at Platanos, that was thought to look Hammurabic-ish, and due to a vague piece of neo-Babylonian chronological information, and even vaguer astronomy (see below), Hammurabi has become conventionally set as a contemporary of the 12^th dynasty of Egypt. Hammurabi, therefore, stratigraphically and wrongly placed at the time of the wandering Israelites (Middle Bronze Age I), has been located in relation to dynastic Egypt - again quite wrongly according to my revision - to the time of Moses.

 

Hammurabi needs to be lowered from here by about half a millennium!

 

However, supposedly in support of the 12^th dynasty synchronism for Hammurabi, is the astronomical information as supplied by the famous Venus tablets of Hammurabi’s descendant Ammisaduqa. Charles Ginenthal, who has managed to find a place for both Hammurabi and the 12^th dynasty of Egypt during the Persian era - following professor G. Heinsohn’s most radical view that Hammurabi was the same as Darius I - writes as follows about Ammisaduqa (http://immanuelvelikovsky.com/Pillars-Vol-II-(large).pdf):

 

The scientific method by which the Old Babylonians were dated to the early part of the second millennium B.C., and not to Persian times, was based on astronomy and in particular on the Venus tablets of an Old Babylonian king named Ammisaduqa. This was taken to be the absolute anchor of Mesopotamia in the second millennium B.C. to which it was fastened. Since this placement aligned itself with that of the 12th Egyptian Dynasty, also in the early part of the second millennium B.C., it was seen as a double anchor point.

….

He then adds this most significant information about how the highly-respected Otto Neugebauer came to view the Ammisaduqa data:

…. Otto Neugebauer originally maintained that because the Venus tablets “are given in the contemporary lunar calendar, these documents have become an important element for the determination of the chronology of the Hammurapi [Old Babylonian] period. …”14 This was in 1957. Then in 1983 he claimed:

“From the Old Babylonian period only one isolated text is preserved which contains omina … from the later astrology. Predictions derived from observations of Venus made during the reign of Ammisaduqa (ca. 1600 B.C.) are preserved only in copies written almost a thousand years later and clearly [were] subjected to several changes during this long time. We are thus again left in the dark as to the actual date of the composition of these documents.”15 [emphasis added]

[End of quotes]

 

 

2. Hatshepsut and Senenmut: 18^th Dynasty Egypt

 

 

The Late Bronze Era of the early 18^th Egyptian Dynasty - and not the Middle Bronze I (conventional Hammurabic), nor the Iron II (conventional Solomonic) - is the stratigraphical phase that truly reflects the cosmopolitan reign of King Solomon of Israel.

 

 

Introduction

 

In 1., we considered King Solomon as a contemporary of the Hammurabic era, which latter era, however, then needed to be dislodged from its date of c. 1800 BC; and from its supposed contemporaneity with the 12^th dynasty of Egypt; and from its archaeological situation in the Middle Bronze Age I.

King Hammurabi’s era, when properly revised, dates to the c. C10th BC; is contemporaneous with the 18^th dynasty of Hatshepsut’s Egypt; and belongs archaeologically to the Late Bronze Age.

 

We can be more specific about King Solomon. He was, according to my article:   

 

Solomon and Sheba

 

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

 

Hatshepsut’s right-hand man and mentor, Senenmut (Senmut).

 

Dr. John Bimson had, in a ground-breaking article:

 

Can There be a Revised Chronology Without a Revised Stratigraphy?

http://saturniancosmology.org/files/.cdrom/journals/review/v0601to3/16chron.htm

 

achieved what the conventional archaeologists have so miserably failed to do. He identified archaeologically this glorious era of Solomon (my Senenmut), Hatshepsut and Thutmose III.

Here is the relevant portion of Bimson’s article:

 

1. The Late Bronze Age and the Reign of Solomon

 

…. Though chiefly concerned with dating the start of LB I A relative to the Hyksos period, I also suggested briefly that the transition to LB I B belonged in the reign of Solomon [13]. Research carried out since that article was written has led me to modify that view. Although an exhaustive study of the LBA contexts of all scarabs commemorating Hatshepsut and Thutmose III would be required to establish this point, a preliminary survey suggests that objects from the joint reign of these two rulers do not occur until the transition from LB I to LB II, and that scarabs of Thutmose III occur regularly from the start of LB II onwards, and perhaps no earlier [14]. Velikovsky's chronology makes Hatshepsut (with Thutmose III as co-ruler) a contemporary of Solomon, and Thutmose III's sole reign contemporary with that of Rehoboam in Judah [15]. Therefore, if the revised chronology is correct, these scarabs would suggest that Solomon's reign saw the transition from LB I to LB II, rather than that from LB I A to LB I B.

 

Placing the beginning of LB II during the reign of Solomon produces a very good correlation between archaeological evidence and the biblical record of that period. It is with this correlation that we will begin. In taking the LB I - II transition as its starting-point, the present article not only takes up the challenge offered by Stiebing, but also continues the revision begun in my previous articles, and will bring it to a conclusion (in broad outline) with the end of the Iron Age.

 

Though KENYON has stated that the LB I - II transition saw a decline in the material culture of Palestine [16], ongoing excavations are now revealing a different picture. LB II A "was definitely superior to the preceding LB I", in terms of stability and material prosperity; it saw "a rising population that reoccupied long abandoned towns" [17]. Foreign pottery imports are a chief characteristic of the period [18]. According to the biblical accounts in the books of Kings and Chronicles, Solomon's reign brought a period of peace which saw an increase in foreign contacts, unprecedented prosperity, and an energetic building programme which extended throughout the kingdom [19].

I Kings 9:15 specifically relates that Solomon rebuilt Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. In the revised stratigraphy envisaged here, the cities built by Solomon at these sites would therefore be those of LB II A. More specifically, these three Solomonic cities would be represented by Stratum VIII in Area AA at Megiddo [20], by Stratum XVI at Gezer, and by Stratum XIV of the Upper City at Hazor (= Str. Ib of the Lower City) [21].

 

The wealth and international trade attested by these levels certainly reflect the age of Solomon far more accurately than the Iron Age cities normally attributed to him, from which we have "no evidence of any particular luxury" [21a].

 

The above-mentioned strata at Megiddo and Gezer have both yielded remains of very fine buildings and courtyards [22]. The Late Bronze strata on the tell at Hazor have unfortunately not produced a clear picture, because of levelling operations and extensive looting of these levels during the Iron Age; but the LB II A stratum of the Lower City has produced a temple very similar in concept to the Temple built by Solomon in Jerusalem, as described in the Old Testament [23].

 

Art treasures from these cities not only indicate the wealth of the period, but reflect contacts with Egypt and northern Mesopotamia [24]. These contacts are precisely those we would expect to find attested during Solomon's reign, the Bible records Solomon's trade with Egypt and his marriage to the Pharaoh's daughter [25], and says (I Kings 4:24) that his kingdom extended as far to the north-east as Tiphsah, which is probably to be identified with Thapsacus, "an important crossing in the west bank of the Middle Euphrates ... placed strategically on a great east-west trade route" [26].

 

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 [27]. 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 [28]. The "latest possible date" for this destruction is said to be the reign of Thutmose III, with some archaeologists preferring an earlier date [29]. We may readily identify this destruction as the work of Solomon's father-in-law.

 

From the period between this destruction and the LB II A city comes a group of several dozen burials in a cave. DEVER remarks that most of these "show signs of advanced arthritis, probably from stoop labour, which may be an indication of the hardships of life during this period" [30]. Yet contemporary finds, including "Egyptian glass, alabaster and ivory vessels, and a unique terra-cotta sarcophagus of Mycenaean inspiration" [31], indicate considerable prosperity and international trade at this time. In a revised framework, it is tempting to speculate that the burials were of people who suffered under Solomon's system of forced labour, by which Gezer was built according to I Kings 9:15. It emerges in I Kings 12 that this forced labour caused sufficient hardship to contribute to the bitterness which split the kingdom after Solomon's death.

 

We must turn briefly to Jerusalem, where Solomon's building activities were concentrated for the first twenty years of his reign, according to I Kings 9:10. Here we find that traces of occupation datable to Solomon's time in the conventional scheme are rather poor [32]

In the revised scheme, we may attribute to Solomon the impressive stone terrace system of LBA date excavated by Kenyon on the eastern ridge [33]. In fact, this is probably the "Millo" which Solomon is said to have built (I Kings 9:15, 24; II:27). Kenyon describes the nucleus of this terrace system as "a fill almost entirely of rubble, built in a series of compartments defined by facings of a single course of stones..." [34]. "Fill", or "filling", is the probable meaning of "Millo" [35]. Also to Solomon's time would belong at least some of the LBA tombs discovered on the western slope of the Mount of Olives; many of these contain LB I - IIA material which includes "a surprisingly large number" of imported items from Cyprus, Aegean and Egypt [36]. The number would not be surprising in the context of Solomon's reign. ….

 

….

Comparison of (A) LB II (Stratum Ib) temple at Hazor with (B) the basic ground plan of Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem, as deduced from biblical information. Both have a tripartite division on a single axis, side-rooms and a pair of free-standing pillars (though the latter are not identically situated in both cases)

 

[End of Bimson’s section]

 

Whilst much more work needs to be done, it seems obvious that Bimson’s Late Bronze Age placement of Solomon and Hatshepsut is far more appropriate than either Middle Bronze I or Iron Age II.

 

 

3. Iron Age II

 

Iron Age II, the archaeological phase favoured by archaeologists for kings David and Solomon, turns out to be hopelessly inadequate as a representation of that glorious period.

 

 

As we read in 2., Dr. John Bimson, contrasting his view of the Late Bronze Age for King Solomon with the conventional view of Iron Age II for the great king, wrote:

 

I Kings 9:15 specifically relates that Solomon rebuilt Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. In the revised stratigraphy envisaged here, the cities built by Solomon at these sites would therefore be those of LB II A. More specifically, these three Solomonic cities would be represented by Stratum VIII in Area AA at Megiddo [20], by Stratum XVI at Gezer, and by Stratum XIV of the Upper City at Hazor (= Str. Ib of the Lower City) [21].

 

The wealth and international trade attested by these levels certainly reflect the age of Solomon far more accurately than the Iron Age cities normally attributed to him, from which we have "no evidence of any particular luxury" [21a].

[End of quote]

 

That the bankrupt conventional arrangement of chronology and attendant stratigraphy falls to pieces completely when subjected to biblical scrutiny is well apparent from the attempted merging of the Solomonic era with a mis-dated archaeological phase: Iron II.

 

David and Solomon simply disappear.

 

Thus professor Israel Finkelstein famously remarked – and quite logically according to the strictures of his conventional scheme:

 

“Now Solomon. I think I destroyed Solomon, so to speak. Sorry for that!”

 

(National Geographic article, “Kings of Controversy” by Robert Draper (David and Solomon, December 2010, p. 85).

What Finkelstein ought to have been “sorry” for, however, was not the wise King Solomon – who continues to exist as a real historical and archaeological entity, despite the confused utterances of the current crop of Israeli archaeologists – but for Finkelstein’s own folly in clinging to a hopelessly out-dated and bankrupt archaeological system that causes him to point every time to the wrong stratigraphical level for Israel’s Old Testament history (e.g. Exodus/Conquest; David and Solomon).

 

We may read of the current wretched minimalistic (re the Bible) situation at

(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/history-iron-ii.htm):

 

1000–800 BC – Iron Age II

 

The memories of the events and persons from the heroic past are the memories that are reactivated. The Davidic monarchy was Judah’s Golden Age. The founders of Israel were not Abraham and Moses; but Saul and David. It was Saul who consolidated the hill farmers under his rule and created fighting units capable of confronting the Philistines. It was David who defeated the Philistines and united the hill farmers with the people of the Canaanite plains, thus establishing the Kingdom of Israel and its capital city. It is generally accepted among scholars today that there is some genuine historical material in the Books of Samuel, which describe the careers of Saul and David; but even these books must be critically examined to distinguish between legend and fact, in as much as it can ever be known.

 

As recently as the 1980s most scholars viewed the United Monarchy as a fairly secure period of historical reconstruction. Critics debated whether one could speak of the exodus as an actual historical event. Archaeology gives no record of Exodus, of forty years of wandering in the desert, of Joshua's conquest of the land. But virtually all modern histories of ancient Israel included, if not commenced with, the monarchy of David and Solomon. Archaeological surveys showed that there were about 250 settlements in the central hill country of Canaan in Iron Age I (1200-1000 BC), as compared to about 50 settlements in Late Bronze Age II (14th-13th century BC). Such a large increase in settlements would have required the creation of a state apparatus, such as the United Kingdom.

 

This is no longer the case: even the Davidic Kingdom becomes reduced. "The United Monarchy no longer unites modern scholars". During recent decades the scholarly consensus about the United Kingdom was undone. Many modern scholars question the historicity of the Bible’s stories about Saul, David, and Solomon. Doubts have been raised about the historicity of the biblical account, and consequently about the ascription of archaeological strata to this period.

 

In the opinion of most modern scholars, the Bible is not an entirely reliable historical document.

Corroborating evidence is required, and some indeed exists; but it is not conclusive. There is an endeavor to pierce through the displacements and exaggerations of national pride which influenced the historical form of the statements and to discover actuality as it was and developed. This reveals the nature and value of the texts, but grasps also their connection with the original fact, their original relations, their mutual dependence or independence. In religious literature it is necessary to have regard to the conceptions embodied to see whether these are the original gift of the religion or whether they have entered during the course of the development.

 

There is a fundamental debate between maximalists, such as W.F. Albright and G.E. Wright, who gave considerable credence to biblical descriptions of the United Monarchy and minimalists, such as G. Garbini, N.P. Lemche, D.B. Hedford, and H.M. Niemann, who were rather hesitant to do so. Both these traditions remain very much alive, and many scholars adhere to one or the other of these broad categories. But a third school has emerged - nihilists who contend that the traditional theories of the United Monarchy are unfounded. Scholars such as P. Davies, M. Gelinas, and T. Thompson came to see Saul, David, and Solomon as the stuff of legend — the King Arthurs of ancient Israel. They view the whole narrative of the United Monarchy as a literary construct of scribes writing during the Persian or Hellenistic period. The whole idea of an historical Israel drawn from northern and southern constituencies and governed by a single monarch is seen as a literary fiction.

 

Iron Age Chronology and the United Monarchy of David and Solomon is the subject of an ongoing and long-standing controversy in both biblical studies and archaeology. The ‘conventional’ chronology, which places the Iron Age I | II transition (in Dor terminology: the Ir1|2 transition) around 1000 BC, is based on the biblical dating. The 'low chronology', inspired by the ‘minimalist’ or ‘nihilist’ stance, which regards the biblical narrative of this period as myth, dates the Iron Age I | II transition later, c. 900 BC.

 

The "Copenhagen School" of biblical researchers advocate a more radical revisionism than anything produced by Israel Finkelstein or his peers in the archaeology department at Tel-Aviv University. The Copenhagen School is the modern descendant of the approach taken in the nineteenth century by Julius Wellhausen, who argued that the Bible offered little in the way of actual history — that it was, as he put it, just a “glorified mirage”. Thompson wrote in his 1999 book The Mythic Past, “Today we no longer have a history of Israel…. There never was a ‘United Monarchy’ in history and it is meaningless to speak of pre-exilic prophets and their writings…. We can now say with considerable confidence that the Bible is not a history of anyone’s past.”

 

To quote Soggin [J. A. Soggin, "The Davidic-Solomonic Kingdom," in Israelite and Judaean History, ed. J. H. Hayes and I. M. Miller, OTL (London: SCM, 1977), and ]. A. Soggin, "Prolegomena on the Approach to Historical Texts in the Hebrew Bible andthe Ancient Near East,” in Aumlmm Malmnat Volume (ed. S. Ahituv and B. A. Levine; Erlsr 24;jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993) 215 ] "There are no traces even of the Davidic and Solomon empire outside the Bible and reasonable doubts have been expressed as to the reliability of the pertinent biblical sources."

[End of quotes]

 

 

Meanwhile David and Solomon rest entirely secure in their real historico-archaeological locus.