Professional Documents
Culture Documents
by
Damien F. Mackey
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. Mackeys 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
Velikovskys 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 Velikovskys
Two points here. Firstly, give credit where credit is due; and, secondly, no need
today to waste precious article space pointing out Velikovskys well-known
deficiencies.
(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
(e) the El-Amarna [EA] period with all of its many correlations with the Divided
Monarchy (e.g. Bit ulman, 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 EAs
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 Velikovskys EA succession of
(iii) Du-Teshub, the post-EA son of Aziru, as Ben-Hadad II, thus further
consolidating Velikovskys Syrian sequence for both EA and the mid-C9th BC.
And I still fully concur with Jamess 1977/78 view re Abdi-ashirta and Aziru, that:
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.
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-C15ths 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 Solomons writings. Some of Hatshepsuts own inscriptions are
clearly like those of Israels 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 Solomons wisdom
Israel influencing Egypt, and not the other way around.
Here are just a few examples of:
After Hatshepsut had completed her Punt expedition, she gathered her nobles and
proclaimed the great things she had done. Hatshepsut reminded them of Amons oracle
commanding her to establish for him a Punt in his house, to plant the trees of
Gods 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-Ras love for Hatshepsut in terms almost
identical to those used by the Queen of Sheba about the God of Israels love for
Solomon and his nation.
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).
I did it under [Amon-Ras] 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 Gods
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 Hatshepsuts 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 Zions
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.
In another related verse of the Punt reliefs about Amon-Ra leading the expedition
to the Myrrh-terraces a glorious region of Gods Land, the god speaks of
creating the fabled Land of Punt in playful terms reminiscent of Solomons words
about Wisdoms playful rle 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 .
[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 Solomons 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).
. 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 Hatshepsuts 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 Solomons 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 Solomons 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 Velikovskys 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 Hatshepsuts
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
Bimsons 1986 critique had had on readers:
Probably few articles caused more disappointment in SIS circles than John Bimsons
1986 Hatshepsut and the Queen of Sheba, which presented strong evidence and
argument against Velikovskys 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 Velikovskys 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 Solomons 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 Egypts 19th dynasty.
In 1997, about a decade after Bimsons 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 Clarkes article is thus suggestive by its juxtaposing of
Pharaoh Hatshepsut and the biblical Queen.
Bimson, from an in situ study of Pharaoh Hatshepsuts 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. Bimsons analysis of
the Punt expedition constituted his most formidable argument against Velikovskys
thesis. However, on the basis of P. Dormans chronology of Hatshepsuts era, I
suggested that the Punt expedition was a venture entirely separate from the Queen
of Shebas 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 Solomons 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). Solomons 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.
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).
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
Hatshepsuts fleet had never left the Nile, there would have been no need for
overland transportation of boats. I suggest that Hatshepsuts 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 Gods 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.
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
Hirams men had figured in Hatshepsuts 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 Hatshepsuts fleet would have laid anchor at the mouth of the Nile,
awaiting the outcome of Nehesis negotiations with the Puntite/ Phoenicians, who
then transported the goods via barges or rafts to Egypt, to be loaded on to
Hatshepsuts ships. It is clear from Hirams 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.
I read with interest what Patrick Clarke has written in his attempt to discredit
the identification of Hatshepsut with the Queen of Sheba.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
Dear Damien, I thought this might be of interest to you. God bless! ( it comes from
Creation Ministries)
....
Resolving alleged conflicts between the Bible and other accounts of Egyptian
history
Is the subject of synchronizing the history timelines of the Bible and ancient
Egypt important? Does a revised chronology even matter in the creationevolution
debate?
J.M. wrote in with a very pertinent question after reading a CMI web article on
chronology revision: Egyptian history and the biblical record: a perfect match?
Having just read this article, it ends by saying research is being done and
building up on the subject but this was 6 years ago. Is there no update on all this
aligning/dating?
Creationist Egyptology expert Patrick Clarke responds:
Dear J.M.,
Thank you for raising the question regarding work taking place on the subject of
research into the disparity between ancient Egyptian and Bible chronologies. I can
sympathize with your frustrations that no updates appear to be forthcoming. This is
in part due to the complete absence of any progress on revising the defective
Egyptian chronology by most of the six people (seven if Anderson, the articles
author, is included) mentioned in the opening sectionAdvocates of chronological
revisionof the article you have recently read. In fact the article in general is
largely a recapitulation of Ashton and Downs book, Unwrapping the Pharaohs, and
offers no new information to add to the then already established ideas of the
psychiatrist Immanuel Velikovsky.
This subject matters a great deal, as the contradictions between secular Egyptian
chronology and the very straightforward chronology derivable from the Bible are
often used to discredit Scripture.
The article you refer to was published in 2007. At that time, I had already spent
almost two decades investigating the concept of a revision of ancient Egypts
chronology. The subject matters a great deal, as the contradictions between this
and the very straightforward chronology derivable from the Bible are often used to
discredit Scripture. However, though sympathetic to the need for revision, I was
not convinced by Velikovskys arguments and felt that any reconstruction of the
chronological synchronism between Bible and ancient Egypt should be conducted in a
scholarly manner. There were several other scholars who, like myself, agreed that
the Egyptian chronology is a shambles and needs revision downwards (and some of
them are, like Velikovsky, not Bible-believers) but who had come to similar
conclusions about Velikovskys attempts in this regard.
Around this time some well-meaning creationists, enamoured by Velikovskys claims,
began to publish articles, papers and books. What finally convinced me that a
measured response was needed came with the publication of the abovementioned book
by Ashton and Down. I discovered many problems with their attempt at synchronizing
the Bibles historical time-line with that of ancient Egypt. I regularly point out
in my writings that, in order to produce a credible revised chronology, expertise
from an Egyptological perspective, particularly in regard to the language, is an
absolute must.1
Andersons article, published a few months later, was little more than an
endorsement of Ashton and Downs book and none of these three writers, as far as I
am aware, have or even claim to have the requisite expertise in Egyptology.
Unfortunately, because of the penetration of a lot of erroneous Velikovskian
concepts into some creationist thinking, the process of establishing a biblically
and historically credible chronology revision necessarily involves first
painstakingly dismantling some of these notions.
I am confident that what will in due course emerge is a chronology that confirms
the Bibles credibility without contradicting the historical data revealed by sound
Egyptological scholarship.
In the course of this, it is understandable that some who have pinned hopes onto
this have felt as if exposing the errors in the Velikovsky-inspired chronology
(VIC) is undermining support for the Bible. I assure you that is not the case, and
that it will emerge that following the VIC to its logical conclusion ends up
undermining the Bibles credibility. My starting point is the absolute reliability
of Gods Word in all matters, including chronological, and thus that the
conventional Egyptian chronology needs serious downwards revision. It should
therefore not be a surprise to hear that I am confident that what will in due
course emerge is a chronology that confirms the Bibles credibility without
contradicting the historical data revealed by sound Egyptological scholarship.
Since August 2010 I have had a series of papers and letters published in CMIs
Journal of Creation. I dont know if you are a subscriber to this journal, but this
is where you can find much on this issue. I cannot promise any instant answers as
it will take the publication of several more papers, thus likely a number of years,
to fully develop the chronology. At the end of this reply is the current list of
Journal of Creation issues containing up-to-date papers on this subject. It would
not be appropriate to write a laymans article on this yet (e.g. in Creation
magazine) until the technical papers have proceeded to the appropriate point. Such
progressive publication also permits people to see how the points made can
withstand post-publication criticism, which also adds to the overall timeframe till
completion.
Several of my earlier papers are now available as pdfs:
Why Pharaoh Hatshepsut is not to be equated to the Queen of Sheba.
Is Hatshepsut the biblical Queen of Sheba? Letter to the Editor by
David Down. Reply: Patrick Clarke.
Why Pharaoh Hatshepsut is not to be equated to the Queen of Sheba.
Letter to the Editor by Anne Habermehl. Reply: Patrick Clarke.
Was Thutmose III the biblical Shishak?Claims for the Jerusalem bas-
relief at Karnak investigated.
Was Jerusalem the Kadesh of Thutmose IIIs 1st Asiatic campaign?
topographic and petrographic evidence.
Thutmose III was not the Shishak of 1 Kings 14:2526. Letter to the
Editor from Drew Worthen. Reply: Patrick Clarke.
Wisdom literature and the question of prioritySolomons Proverbs or
Amenemopes Instruction.
The following more recent papers and letters can be obtained as back issues from
CMI as they are not yet available as PDF:
Volume 26, Issue 3, December 2012Egyptian coins in the time of Joseph,
pp. 8591.
Volume 27, Issue 1, April 2013The Stele of Merneptahassessment of the
final Israel strophe and its implications for chronology, pp. 5764.
There are also other papers that will hopefully appear in future issues of Journal
of Creation that will further build towards a credible revised chronology. If you
dont already subscribe to the journal, may I encourage you to perhaps consider
taking out a subscription and keep abreast not only with developments in
chronology, but also in other cutting-edge research across the creation science
spectrum. In short, stay tuned.
Kind regards,
Patrick.
Related Articles
Why Pharaoh Hatshepsut is not to be equated to the Queen of Sheba
Letters to the Editor: Is Hatshepsut the biblical Queen of Sheba?
Letters to the Editor: Why Pharaoh Hatshepsut is not to be equated to
the Queen of Sheba
Was Thutmose III the biblical Shishak? Claims for the Jerusalem bas-
relief at Karnak investigated
....
....
Much appreciated.
Actually I am well aware of Patrick Clarke and have answered his theses twofold in:
and
The thing is that if you make bold as to dismantle a revised system, as Clarke does
(and is of course quite entitled to try), then you need to be able to provide a
better substitute, e.g. a more fitting historical Queen of Sheba; a more fitting
historical pharaoh Shishak.
Nor have any of the others e.g. David Rohl, who have abandoned Velikovsky's ID's
here (even though Velikovsky's reconstructions of these biblical characters need
some major modifications) and have failed woefully (at least in the case of Sheba)
to come up with an alternative.
Hatshepsut as biblical Sheba and Thutmose III as biblical Shishak are now, in my
opinion, two most solid and permanent pillars of a new revised, biblically-
compatible history.
God bless
Damien.
No comments:
Post a Comment