BBS Bubastite Portal
Introduction
We have examined Israel’s prominence
from several perspectives. Now we
examine it from the perspective of being a worthy adversary. If Israel has no prominence, no credibility
for combat, why is it necessary to give political support to the north, Israel
proper, sometimes called the Joseph tribes, and attack the south, Judea
proper? BBS gives halfhearted support to
these ideas; yet, remains unwilling to even consider biblical dates prior to
930. BBS argues for the generic
existence of David and Solomon; while failing to address the contradictory
statements of some of their authorities.
BBS continues to cling to the six chambered gate hypothesis: even though
they must have known that it was defeated years ago.[1]
Yes, there is “stunning convergence
between the Bible and Egyptian history,” recorded on the Bubastite Portal gate
at Karnak, and we are equally “stunned” by this convergence. However, we are unwilling to leave behind the
sweeping implications of this convergence, and leave these implications
unexamined. That being said, we are not
qualified Egyptologists; our expertise is biblical, mathematical, and
scientific. We have some skill at finding
statistical errors and logical contradictions; still, we lack the breadth of an
Egyptologist in knowing where to look for new evidence.
We do not seek either a maximalist
or a minimalist solution, believing both to be flawed with dangerous biases;
thus we continue to seek the optimal solution.
We may have failed to locate Solomon’s bride or father-in-law, but at
least we raised the question, while offering one possible solution, the only
one we were able to find.
More pieces of the puzzle need to be
found: still, we can do better with the pieces we already have. In statistical problems of any kind, more
information may not be enough. More
information always results in a better picture, the NPOV picture.
Script[2]
Redford: The head fighting theme which you
see on this wall commemorates a military campaign conducted by Pharaoh Shishak
or Sheshonq, the founder of dynasty 22 in Egypt.[3]
N: The Egyptian[4] pharaoh, Shishak invades
Israel, an event the Bible reports and specifically dates to five years after
Solomon’s death, during the reign of his son, Rehoboam.
R: “In the fifth year of King Rehoboam, King Shishak of
Egypt marched against Jerusalem and carried off the treasures of the House of YHWH
and the treasures of the royal palace.
He carried off everything.” — 1 Kings 14:25 and 26
Redford: The importance of this in fixing one
of the earliest dates, specific dates in which Egyptian history coincides with
biblical history is really startling and has to be taken note of.[5]
N: This stunning convergence between the
Bible and Egyptian history gives a firm date for the death of Solomon. Shishak’s campaign, according to the
well-established Egyptian chronology dates to 925 BC. And the Bible says, Solomon dies five years
earlier, which means 930 BC. This is
further evidence that David and Solomon lived in the tenth century. But there’s even more hidden in these
walls. These ovals with their depictions
of bound captives and city walls represent places Pharaoh Shishak conquered in
Israel. One of those places is Gezer,
where archaeologists find the hallmark of Solomon’s building program, a six
chambered gate.[6] Bill Dever directed the excavations in the
late 1960’s.
Dever: We can actually see vivid evidence
here of a destruction. Down below we
have the original stone, pretty much in situ; but if you look in here you can
see the stones are badly cracked; you can even see where they’re burned from
the heat of a huge fire that had been built here. And up in here you can see that the fire had
been so intense that the soft limestone has melted into lime, and it flows down
like lava. This is vivid evidence of a
destruction, and we would connect that with this well-known raid of Pharaoh Shishak.
N: And if the gate was destroyed by Shishak
in 925 BC; then it must have been built during the lifetime of Solomon, who
died just five years earlier.
Dever: Surely this kind of monumental
architecture is evidence of state formation.
And if it’s in the tenth century, then Solomon.
N: Although a minority of archaeologists
continue to disagree, this convergence of the Bible, Egyptian chronology, and
Solomon’s gates is powerful evidence that a great kingdom existed at the time
of David and Solomon, spanning all of Israel, north and south, with its capital
in Jerusalem.[7] But Jerusalem is more than a political
center; it is a center of worship.
NPOV
One of the problems associated with
Shishak is the variety of ways to spell his name: Shishak, Sheshonk, Sheshonq,
and Shoshenq are some of the spellings of which we are aware. Subject matter experts do not seem to be
agreed on the correct spelling and vocalization; so, different opinions abound,
and differing reports are common: frankly, some of these opinions are so far
off the beaten path, are so bizarre as to be meshuga.[8]
We have dealt with most of this
before. “Minimalist”[9] positions usually end up
denying the existence of whatever archaeological data doesn’t suit their pet
theory; frequently, their use of mathematics “does not compute”; their
understanding and use of 14C statistics and technology is
abominable. We all make mistakes, but
when so-called subject matter experts persist in failing at addition, we begin
to question their sanity.
Maximalist[10] positions can also be
misleading. We believe that maximalists
tend to overstate the actual biblical or archaeological message, so that
opinion is made into fact. We make this
error also, so we beg your indulgence as we seek to sift through the sea of
opinions.
That which we seek is the neutral
point of view (NPOV), which is not as easy to find as you might think. We seek to find and consider all of the
evidence, neglecting no evidence, and attempt to understand and explain that
evidence without adding to it or subtracting from it. This is like solving a picture puzzle, where
several pieces appear to have exactly the same cut: such pieces really differ,
but only slightly. In our puzzle, the
pieces are old and beat up, and several are still missing. Nevertheless, as we come closer to correct
solutions, parts of the puzzle snap into focus and we know that we are on the
right path. Shishak I appears to be such
a part of the puzzle. Having now sifted
through what seems like worthless trivia, we now find this amazing record of
Shishak at Bubastis.
Marriage
We have suggested that one possible
solution is that Shishak I is Solomon’s father-in-law. There may be someone else, but the period
from Osorkon the Elder to Shishak is too murky to know: we didn’t think that
Siamun was a very good suggestion, but the jury must remain out on that. One military figure stands out with the
capability of destroying Gezer at the beginning of Solomon’s reign and after
it.
Pharaoh’s daughter is also hard to
place. Neither the Bible nor known Egyptian
documents specify the name of such an important queen: for surely all the
biblical attention lavished on her indicates that she was the Great Royal Wife of Solomon, Queen of Israel and
of the Ma. Two problems arise. One.
It is politically inconvenient to say such things out loud, to either
Israelites or to Egyptians. The Meshwesh
do not appear to be troubled by such scruples: yet, now that Egypt is in their
control they must cater somewhat to the scruples of the Mizraim. Two.
It is difficult to find unwed Meshwesh or Mizraim princesses who would
be suitable candidates for such a royal wedding, who would receive all the
honor due their rank, and yet remain unidentified as queen without disgrace.
Siamun does not appear to have a daughter.
Indeed, we don’t know that he had any children, and his parents are not
known with certainty. The parents of
Psusennes II are reported to be Pinedjem II and Istemkheb D. His wife is unknown; he has one daughter, Maatkare
B, the Great Royal Wife of Osorkon I, who is therefore an unlikely candidate,
unless remarriage is involved. Maatkare
could, of course have an unidentified sister or step-sister. Shishak is the son of Nimlot A[11] and Tentshepeh A. Shishak has three wives: Patareshnes,[12] the mother of Nimlot B; Karomama
A,[13] the mother of Osorkon I;
and an unidentified wife, the mother of Iuput A and an otherwise unknown
daughter, Lady Tashepenbast.[14] Our mere suggestion is that Lady Tashepenbast
could be the Great Royal Wife of Solomon: the title Lady may simply indicate
that we are too polite to discuss the details of such an unconventional
marriage. We dearly hope the scholarly
community will give some greater attention to the women of this period, and
attempt to solve this riddle.
Candidates
At our current stage of perplexity
we are left with only one candidate for Solomon’s wife, Pharaoh’s daughter:
namely, Lady Tashepenbast. This suggestion hangs by a mere thread,
without much other evidence than that she seems to be available. Similarly, we have only one candidate with
the military prowess to sack Gezer shortly after 970 and again in 925: namely,
Shishak I. If Lady Tashepenbast is the
Queen of Israel, Shishak has all the motive necessary to sack Gezer twice,
especially with the way Solomon treated women.
Against a united Israel an attack against Solomon may have been too
risky; yet with Jeroboam I firmly in Shishak’s pocket, Rehoboam’s power is greatly attenuated, and
Judah needs to be put in its place as part of the greater agenda of reaching
the Nuhašše, Anatolia, and Shankhar.
Judah needs to be reminded that they are a Meshwesh vassal, a fact that
Israel already embraces.
War
We review a list of Shishak’s
conquests:
Shoshenq I (943-922): engages: Ham,[15] Negeb, Raphia (Gaza), Beth-Tappuah,[16] Adummim,[17] Field of Abram,[18] Aijalon,[19] Aruna,[20] Beth-Horon,[21] Socho, Yehem, Gibeon, Hapharaim,
Megiddo, Taanach, Shunem, Beth-Shan, Emeq, Rehob, Beth-Anath, Jordan, Mahanaim
(Pella?), Rabbah, Kadesh, Tunip (Nuhašše or Syria), Hatti, Arzawa (Hittite in western Anatolia), Naharin
(Mitanni or Assyria), Assyria, Shankhar, Beth-Olam (unknown),[22] Hand of the King
(unknown),[23] Migdol
(unknown),[24]
and Shasu.[25]
In Wilson’s “List of Asiatic
Countries,”[26]
other pharaohs reference most of Judah and Israel only generically. Until we arrive at the Valley of Jezreel and
points northward, no specific information is provided. All of the specific activity takes place in
Jezreel, in Nuhašše, Anatolia, and Shankhar.
Shishak I is remarkably different: one Judean city after another is
listed, and the archaeological destruction of cities in the south supports the
list.
We have been greatly concerned with
the discussion of Israelite prominence, especially that of Judea. As a simple fact, war is very expensive. One does not go to war with a trivial
adversary; one isolates trivial adversaries and moves on. Shishak takes the time and money to crush
Judea precisely because Judea is a powerful and prominent adversary. Shishak dare not extend himself far to the
north, leaving himself vulnerable to an attack from the rear, or to an invasion
into Egypt destroying his power base. In
addition he seems to have personal motives for vengeance: so, he severely
cripples Judea, precisely because they are a prominent adversary with plenty of
strength remaining from Solomon’s reign.
Rehoboam may be an incompetent nincompoop, but that does not mean that
crushing Judea is a piece of cake.
Everyone’s concern in this war is
that Jerusalem is specifically mentioned in the Bible; yet, not at all in the
Bubastite record. Many rush to the
conclusion that this is a contradiction, when what is necessary is more
evidence.
“And it came to pass, that in the fifth year
of king Rehoboam, Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem, because they
had transgressed against the Lord,
with twelve hundred chariots, and thirty-thousand horsemen, and countless
infantry that came from Egypt: Lubims, Sukkiims, and Ethiopians. He took the fenced cities which belonged to
Judah, and came to Jerusalem.
“Then Shemaiah the prophet came to Rehoboam,
and to the princes of Judah, who retreated to Jerusalem because of Shishak, and
said unto them, ‘Thus the Lord says,
You have forsaken me; therefore I have also forsaken you in the hand of
Shishak.’
“Then the princes of Israel and the king
humbled themselves saying, ‘The Lord
is righteous.’
“When the Lord
saw that they humbled themselves, the word of the Lord came to Shemaiah, saying, ‘They have humbled themselves;
therefore I will not destroy them, but I will grant them some deliverance; and
my wrath shall not be poured out on Jerusalem by the hand of Shishak. Nevertheless they shall be his servants; that
they may know My service, and the service of the kingdoms of the countries.’
“So Shishak king of Egypt came up against
Jerusalem, and took away the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king’s
house; he took all: he carried away also the shields of gold which Solomon had
made. In place of which king Rehoboam
made shields of brass, and committed them to the hands of the chief of the
guard, that kept the entrance of the king’s house. When the king entered the house of the Lord, the guard came, carried them, and returned
them to the guard chamber.
“When he humbled himself, the wrath of the Lord turned away from him; so that He
would not destroy him completely: and things in Judah also went better [after
that].”
What we see in this report is:
- Shishak came with massive force: one does not employ massive force against an insignificant adversary.
- Shishak crushed the fenced cities first, thus removing Rehoboam’s ability to defend himself.
- Shishak was stopped in part by Divine intervention. Jerusalem is always about prayer, not about human power.
- Judea is being forcefully reminded of their status as a vassal state. Now they are a vassal state on a short leash.
- Shishak took “all” that was in the king’s house; he did not take everything everywhere. His main purpose appears to be the humiliation of Rehoboam: not the people or the worship of Judea.
- Shishak took treasures from the Lord’s house; he did not molest the Ark, or the priests, or the Scripture.
- Shishak was appeased with bribes. It is also possible that he cut off Rehoboam’s right arm: although this could also have been appeased with money, or the expression could mean the disarming of Rehoboam’s troops.
- The appeasement methods worked; Jerusalem, and especially the temple were spared.
Shishak may have had personal
reasons for not entering Jerusalem:
- Shishak may have feared Yahweh, at least in part.
- Shishak’s daughter may still be alive in Jerusalem.
- Shishak may have had grandchildren and other relatives in Jerusalem.
- The Meshwesh were politically astute and may not have wished to incite bitterness among the already defeated Jews: there is a time and place to let one’s adversary up and sue for peace.
In any case, Shishak came with every
intent, but withheld the defeat of Jerusalem, and wisely allowed himself the
privilege of being appeased. There is
nothing in this account concerning Jerusalem to brag about on the walls of
Bubastis, so the archaeological evidence is in perfect accord with the biblical
evidence.
There is nothing in Wilson’s “List
of Asiatic Countries,”[27] that suggests subsequent
campaigns against Jeroboam I. Why should
there be? Jeroboam and Shishak have
every reason to maintain a strong alliance between them. This keeps Judea from again getting out of
hand. Instead, Shishak moves immediately
against the cities in the Valley of Jezreel.
These attacks seem more appropriate to strengthening Israel’s northern
borders, than having anything to do with attacks against Israel. The control of the Kinaḫḫu requires a strong northern border.
Interestingly, Shishak never moves against Hazor, which may
indicate that the Danites are still in control there. In any case, Shishak is now free to move
against Nuhašše, Anatolia, and Shankhar: demand treaties, make war, or whatever
else may be on his royal agenda.
Dates
Since the Bubastite record
establishes 925 as a relatively firm date, as such archaeological matter go, it
also brings other things into focus.
- It provides the absolute and objective means of dating that 14C and pottery dating can never give.
- It firmly establishes the superiority of provenance over all other dating methods.
- The beauty of the Karnak Portal gate and all monuments is that their provenance is written on them.
- If 925 is a relatively firm date, then dates calculated backward and forward from 925 are equally firm: we need only know if ascension or non-ascension dating is being used. The dates after Shishak will quickly merge with the dates of other nations: Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome.[28] Dates before Shishak are as trustworthy as the “after” dates; they are just not as well supported. Even so, the biblical record has proved itself trustworthy at many points. So if 925 for Shishak…. Why not 970-930 for Solomon? Why not 1010-970 for David? Why not 1050-1010 for Saul? Why not 1406 for the Exodus? Many have attacked this chronology with circumstantial subjective arguments; yet, none have disproved it. Most of these circumstantial subjective arguments have been debunked years ago.
Conclusion
We have examined Israel’s prominence
from several perspectives. Now we
examine it from the perspective of being a worthy adversary. If Israel has no prominence, no credibility
for combat, why is it necessary to give political support to the north, Israel
proper, sometimes called the Joseph tribes, and attack the south, Judea
proper? BBS gives halfhearted support to
these ideas; yet, remains unwilling to even consider biblical dates prior to
930. BBS argues for the generic
existence of David and Solomon; while failing to address the contradictory
statements of some of their authorities.
BBS continues to cling to the six chambered gate hypothesis: even though
they must have known that it was defeated years ago.[29]
Yes, there is “stunning convergence
between the Bible and Egyptian history,” recorded on the Bubastite Portal gate
at Karnak, and we are equally “stunned” by this convergence. However, we are unwilling to leave behind the
sweeping implications of this convergence, and leave these implications
unexamined. That being said, we are not
qualified Egyptologists; our expertise is biblical, mathematical, and
scientific. We have some skill at
finding statistical errors and logical contradictions; still, we lack the
breadth of an Egyptologist in knowing where to look for new evidence.
We do not seek either a maximalist
or a minimalist solution, believing both to be flawed with dangerous biases;
thus we continue to seek the optimal solution.
We may have failed to locate Solomon’s bride or father-in-law, but at
least we raised the question, while offering one possible solution, the only
one we were able to find.
More pieces of the puzzle need to be
found: still, we can do better with the pieces we already have. In statistical problems of any kind, more
information may not be enough. More
information always results in a better picture, the NPOV picture.
[1]
1980, Ussishkin, David, “Was the
‘Solomonic’ City Gate at Megiddo Built by King Solomon?” Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 239 (Summer, 1980), pp. 1-18
(JSTOR), http://www.jstor.org/stable/1356752
[2]
What is for the most part an exact copy of the script follows. There are a few places where individual
speakers could neither be heard nor understood: for this we apologize. Every effort was made to be precise: there
were just spots that defeated us. Since
this is a quote in its entirety it seemed unnecessary to mark it with quotation
marks. The notation for each speaker is
tedious enough: Narrator, Reader, etc.
If you discover bothersome errors please reply to this Blog and point
them out. You may verify the script more
easily by starting to replay it where the “time” stamps indicate discussion
begins. The second of these links is
free from advertising and thus easier to use.
This blog is found at:
http://swantec-oti.blogspot.com/
[3] We
might have a spirited debate over whether Osorkon the Elder is the real founder
of the twenty-second dynasty or not.
[4]
Meshwesh or Ma
[5]
This one artifact and its attendant dating is so significant that it is worth
more than all pottery and radiocarbon dating put together. It shows that nothing else compares with
dated written records, what antique lovers call provenance. This find linked with 1 Kings 14:25-26, fixes
the provenance of David and Solomon, and even events that long precede them are
firmly fixed in place. Not even Mazar’s
palace, nor Ben-Tor’s six chambered gates bear such importance either for
verification or for precision of dating.
This one artifact alone provides the external scientific control
required by Finkelstein and others for biblical dating; the very external
scientific control which 14C dating fails to provide with any real
accuracy. From this point we can date
forward through the Israelite and Judean kings to 722 (the fall of Samaria) and
586 (the fall of Jerusalem). Since Edwin
R. Thiele cracked, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings,
there has been little difficulty in handling these dates (from 925 to
586). The dates from 586 on are also
firm, being confirmed from Assyrian, Greek, and Roman records. Few dare to dispute these dates. That being said, we can also date from this
point backwards with considerable confidence, until the period of the Judges,
which was largely ignored by The
Bible’s Buried Secrets.
The period of the Judges is of such great turmoil that it is impossible
to date with great certainty, even though it is possible to date with great
precision. This, however, is not an
overwhelming obstacle: for the Bible provides a control date for Moses in 1
Kings 6:1 that may link to either Exodus 12:2 (most likely) or Deuteronomy 34:7-8
(less likely). The 1 Kings 6:1 text has
two variant readings: 440 years (LXX), and 480 years (MT). This places the leadership of Moses, the
Exodus, and the writing of Torah either between 1446 and 1406 (MT) or between
1406 and 1366 (LXX). That being said the
Septuagint dates compress the Judges dates even farther. There is no good reason to reject the
historicity of Moses, the Exile, or the writing of Torah, or date any of them
later than 1366. The argument from
ignorance or silence is no argument as all.
This note was written a while ago. Since that time we have proposed an outline
of Israelite chronology based on the Septuagint. We are now convinced that the Septuagint data
represents a better, older Hebrew text than MT.
[6]
Solomon may have built the six chambered gate at Gezer, but it is hardly a
hallmark, since it was used in at least four other cities. The Megiddo six chambered gate is almost
certainly not Solomon’s, since it was built after his reign, possibly by
Jeroboam I. At least two other six
chambered gates cannot be attributed to Solomon.
[7]
This conclusion was never in doubt.
Still, “gates” is incorrect.
There is only one certain gate: for the destruction of Gezer by Shoshenq
I (943-922) both before and after Solomon’s construction in Gezer, establishes
the date. The fact that the gate itself
is burned shows that it is included in this time period. Shoshenq’s ascension date (943) in
relationship to Solomon’s ascension date (970) is not a real problem: for “Prior to his reign, Shoshenq I had been
the Commander-in-Chief of the Egyptian Army, and chief advisor to his
predecessor Psusennes II (967-943).”
Considering the Meshwesh view of leadership, and the realities of
Meshwesh power structure, it may be more correct to conclude that Psusennes II
and Shoshenq I were really co-regnant and Shoshenq’s complete regnal term in
office was 967-922 or even earlier: during which time Psusennes II was largely
a puppet.
So the gates are not “evidence that a great kingdom existed”
at all. The real evidence that “a great
kingdom” exists is found in the Israelite-Meshwesh alliance, which brings all
of Kinaḫḫu territories under Meshwesh
control. In terms of earthly politics,
Solomon is now a Meshwesh vassal. In
terms of Glory and wisdom Shoshenq
is the servant of Solomon. Solomon has
become the shepherd-king, priest, and prophet to the world.
Solomon has already
made Jeroboam I, vice-gerent over the Joseph or northern tribes (1 Kings
11:28). However, Jeroboam’s real
political mentor is Shoshenq (1 Kings 11:40).
A real physical
indication of Israel’s greatness is found in international hacksilber trade,
which market was evidently dominated by Israel and Phoenicia.
[9]
Minimalist, whatever that means; minimalist is not a carefully defined term, so
it is mostly thrown around like an archaeological buzzword.
[10]
Another undefined archaeological buzzword
[15]
Ham may be elsewhere; still, it is also a term for Egypt: or possibly Ammonite
territory.
[16]
Joshua 15:53
[17]
Joshua 15:7; 18:17
[18]
Very likely this is the Cave of Machpelah.
For those looking for historicity for Genesis, this may be the oldest
reference to Abram outside of the Bible.
[19] A
valley town, Joshua 21:24; Judges 1:35; 12:12; 1 Samuel 14:31; 1 Chronicles
6:69; 8:13; 2 Chronicles 11:10
[20]
Most likely Araunah, 2 Samuel 24:16,
18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
[21]
Joshua 10:10, 11; 16:3, 5; 18:13, 14; 21:22; 1 Samuel 13:18; 1 Kings 9:17; 1
Chronicles 6:68; 7:24; 2 Chronicles 8:5; 25:13
[22]
Since this is such a commonly used name for Jewish cemeteries, we wonder if it
could attest to an Israelite burial ground or early synagogue. It means house of eternity or eternal house
or home.
[23]
This may not be a place at all. It may
speak to the Egyptian practice of amputating the right hands of vanquished
enemies. Rehoboam’s sin may have cost
him his right hand: this may have been too shameful to mention in the
Bible. In this context and medical era,
the loss of a hand probably meant loss of life. It indicates more than loss of power. It indicates total humiliation, and even in
death, removal of standing or status before the pantheon of which the king
(pharaoh) was usually considered a member.
Far worse than emasculation, the removal of the hand symbolizes the
total annihilation of personhood: consignment to Hell. Psalms 76:5; 78:42, 61; 80:17 ANET, “Amen-em-heb”: pages 240 f, 242
[24]
Migdol means tower. There are many of
them. Perhaps the most prominent of them
is located in the eastern Nile Delta.
[25]
ANET: pages 242, 246, 263, 294
[26]
ANET: pages 242-243
[27]
ANET: pages 242-243
[28] We
are not implying that this chronology is easily resolved. It is a difficult problem. That being said, most of the difficult
problems have been solved by experts working diligently in this field. We applaud their efforts.
[29] 1980,
Ussishkin, David, “Was the ‘Solomonic’
City Gate at Megiddo Built by King Solomon?” Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research, No. 239 (Summer, 1980), pp. 1-18 (JSTOR),
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1356752
[30] If you have been blessed or helped by any of these meditations,
please repost, share, or use any of them as you wish. No rights are reserved. They are designed and intended for your free
participation. They were freely
received, and are freely given. No other
permission is required for their use.
No comments:
Post a Comment