Old Testament Introduction

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

BBS The Temple

BBS The Temple

Introduction

There is no magic or magic bullet in the Temple. The Temple is simply the place where Yahweh’s Glory, the Sh^əkinah chooses to dwell. As soon as the Glory departs, Israel collapses into rubble, and all the “oneness” evaporates before our eyes.

If Yahweh’s Glory did not actually live in the Oracle of the Temple, on the Mercy Seat, then everything about the Jewish people is an elaborate folly. If, on the other hand, Yahweh’s Glory did actually live in the Oracle of the Temple, on the Mercy Seat, then we have some hard thinking before us. The point is that the evidence leaves no middle ground. You chose what you wish to believe, but the evidence does not stutter on this point, and it leaves no middle ground. Take it or leave it.

Since Yahweh’s Glory has not dwelt in the Oracle since 586, the Oracle is no longer important as a sacred space, and it no longer exists as a physical building. We may still glean lessons from the Temple’s typology; yet, even if we rebuilt it in the correct location, there is no reason to believe that the Sh^əkinah would ever return to it. The Sh^əkinah has taken up residence elsewhere. Yahweh has simply made other means of access to Himself. Since Yahweh has moved on, so must we….

The great lesson of Ain Dara rests in its comparative typology, not in its comparative topology. Because Yahweh is so transcendent by nature, so different from His creatures; He must go to great lengths in order to speak with His creatures. The business of Yahweh’s immanence, appears to be quite difficult. Indeed, Yahweh Himself describes it as difficult.[1] The whole point of the typology is to act and speak in a manner that people will understand. So, yes, God lisps to us in baby talk because that is all we are intelligent enough to grasp. The Sh^əkinah lives in the Temple, much like any other temple, so that we will “get it.”

“Oh, that’s a temple; now I know
what’s supposed to go on there!”

The Sh^əkinah rides around on the Ark, much like any Egyptian pharaoh, or other earthly potentate riding around on his sedan chair. The combined picture teaches us Who Yahweh is. There are no footprints in Yahweh’s Temple for obvious reasons.

Moreover, Yahweh’s Temple is not a display of physical intimidation; it is a display of Yahweh’s humbling himself so that He can draw near to hear and serve us, simply because we are His children. Yahweh is intimidating, He just doesn’t need to flaunt it. So stairs have no place in the Oracle or at the Altar. The floor plan is all that is necessary, because the room is a simple rectangle attached to a cube.[2]

If we are looking for sacred space today, we shall have to look elsewhere to find it. The Temple itself is all about nonverbal communication.

Script[3]

The Temple (time 1:16:15)

Shaye J. D. Cohen:[4] The magic of Jerusalem is the magic of the temple. One temple for the One God. The result is that Jerusalem and the temple emerge as powerful symbols, not just of the oneness of God, but also the oneness of the Jewish people.[5]

N: The worship of the ancient Israelites bears little resemblance to Judaism today. Centered around the temple, built by David’s son Solomon, and seen as Yahweh’s earthly dwelling.[6] To understand how the ancient Israelites worshiped their God, scholars must discover what the temple looked like, and how it functioned. But although archaeologists know where its remains should be, it is impossible to dig there.[7] It lies under the third holiest site in Islam, which includes the Dome of the Rock.[8] Not a stone of Solomon’s temple has ever been excavated. But the Bible offers a remarkably detailed description.[9]

R: “The house which King Solomon built for YHWH was 60 cubits long, 20 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high…. In the inner sanctuary he made two cherubim … each 10 cubits high…. He overlaid the cherubim with gold.” — 1 Kings 6:2, 23, and 28

N: The Bible’s description suggests a floor plan for Solomon’s Temple, and it is strikingly similar to temples built by neighboring peoples who worship many gods. The closest in appearance is a temple hundreds of miles to the north of Jerusalem at Ain Dara[10] in modern day Syria. They have similar dimensions and the same basic floor plan. Guarding both temples are sphinxes or cherubim, as the Bible calls them.[11] Unique to the temple at Ain Dara are the enormous footprints of the god who lived here. They mark his progress as he strode to his throne in the innermost sanctuary.[12]

Lawrence Stager (Harvard):[13] If we take the details that we find of Solomon’s Temple in the book of Kings and compare it with the Ain Dara temple, we can piece together a fairly good picture I think, of what this temple might have looked like in the age of Solomon.[14]

N: Now it is possible to reconstruct with some confidence how Solomon’s Temple may have looked, and how the ancient Israelites worshipped their God.[15]

Branham: Outside was an enormous altar. Beyond that was a porch area that led into the inside of the temple. There was a room, the holy place, and then beyond that the most sacred room, the holy of holies [The Oracle] where tradition says the Ark of the Covenant held the tablets of the Law. And this room was considered to be the most sacred site on earth, because it is the room where God’s Presence could be found.

Stairs

The model pictured by the video is marked by massive stairs. Yet there is no mention of such stairs in either the biblical description or visible in the pictures of Ain Dara. In fact we learn nothing about Solomon’s temple architecture from Ain Dara: thus the real lesson that might be gleaned from Ain Dara is glossed over with mirrors and smoke. Let is devote ourselves to the subject of steps and stairs.

In Exodus 20:26 we learn that there is a general theological prohibition to the use of steps in worship, particularly in relationship to the stone altar. Evidently the priests wore kilts in those days, kilts without underwear.
In 1 Kings 10:18-20[16] we learn that Solomon’s ivory throne only had six steps. Since Solomon himself is an icon of God the Son, we have to believe that the steps also have significance and we doubt that God would distance Himself from His people by multiplying steps. The obvious function of Solomon’s six steps is to raise him to eyelevel with the people while he is seated. So rather than making him more remote, to look down on others, the steps express a desire to enhance closeness, communication and contact. The Living God is the One Who makes Himself approachable and touchable in the Son.
In Ezekiel 40:22, 26, 31, 34 we discover seven steps on the east, and seven steps on the south, leading up to a six chambered gate; we discover eight more steps on the south, and eight more steps on the east, leading up to the inner court.[17]
In 1 Kings 6:8 we find a winding stair, either zig-zag or circular leading to the second story and continuing on to the third story of rooms outside of the Temple surrounding it.
In Nehemiah 9:4 we find several people standing on the stairs outside of the Temple praying.

In all of the Bible there is no mention of a stair or step into the Holy of Holies, Most Holy Place, Holiest, or Oracle. Neither is there any reference to approaching, ascending, building, or mounting an altar by stairs or steps.

The horned altar at Tel Be'er Sheva, Israel, is without steps, even though it is made of cut stones, which is also forbidden.[18]

Even if we follow the pattern of Ain Dara, there is no justification for more than three or four steps.

There is no warrant whatsoever for the BBS display of a massive brazen altar reached by numerous steps; or for the oracle being reached by a stone stair, which is at least a story in height (time 1:16:44). Yahweh was approachable at the level of His people. “God became man so that man might become god.”[19]

Sacred Space

Let us be careful with our definition of sacred space, less we lapse into some false superstition. Sacred spaces are all around us: sacred space means a space that is set apart for particular use. We have bathrooms, bedrooms, closets, dining rooms, kitchens, and the like in our houses which are all set apart for specific uses. Studying in a dining room is not a good idea, because one’s study thoughts are incessantly distracted by thoughts of eating.[20] The only thing that makes one space more sacred than any other is the importance or priority of the activity or person for which that space is devoted. The Oracle in the Temple in Jerusalem, was[21] “the most sacred site on earth.” This is no longer true. The physical Oracle of Yahweh on earth, no longer exists in the shape of a physical Temple in Jerusalem, and has not existed in such a shape since 586, when Yahweh abandoned it, and then Nebuchadrezzar came and burned the buildings down, and broke down the walls.[22] We no longer seek God’s Presence in sacred spaces made with human hands, with one exception.

Significance

We have looked in vain in several locations for the extent of Israel’s cultural, and international significance. This was not found in the City of David. Nor was it located in six chambered gates. We did find considerable evidence of Israelite influence; still, the causes of that influence were not found. Some seek these things in David’s or Solomon’s prowess in waging war. The reality of world power is that David was not strong outside of Israel; yet was not molested because neighboring nations were not at the peak of their power and able to deal with minuscule Israel. Even powerful Solomon is an Egyptian vassal. We need to look elsewhere.

The secret of David’s strength lies in his prayer. He defeated Goliath by prayer, not because he was bigger, or stronger, or a better combatant. His constant incessant time spent in prayer to Yahweh built in David the quiet confidence that Yahweh would accomplish what David could not accomplish himself. Moreover, somehow or other, Yahweh would frequently accomplish this with the simple tools He had placed in David’s hands.

The secret of Solomon’s greatness resides in his Yahweh given wisdom. Consequently, the whole world comes to his feet just to get their questions answered. Because Solomon’s wisdom is really Yahweh’s wisdom, no one is able to stump him: a fact that Daniel will later discover and build his life around. This is true of Joseph before both of them, and many who will come afterward.

The only real extent of Israel’s cultural, and international significance is found here, in this Temple, where the Sh^əkinah chooses to make His Presence known, in this Oracle, from which Yahweh choses to speak. We may or may not believe in this Yahweh, but the simple logic of the evidence shows us that if we would come to Yahweh, we will do so exclusively on His terms, not ours. Between 966 or so, and 586, Yahweh’s terms were Jerusalem, Temple, Oracle, Ark of the Covenant. This was the only reason that Israel had cultural greatness and significance. This was the only reason that the Temple was “the most sacred site on earth.”

Conclusion

The great lesson of Ain Dara rests in its comparative typology, not in its comparative topology. Because Yahweh is so transcendent by nature, so different from His creatures; He must go to great lengths in order to speak with His creatures. The business of Yahweh’s immanence, appears to be quite difficult. Indeed, Yahweh Himself describes it as difficult.[24] The whole point of the typology is to act and speak in a manner that people will understand. So, yes, God lisps to us in baby talk because that is all we are intelligent enough to grasp. The Sh^əkinah lives in the Temple, much like any other temple, so that we will “get it.”

“Oh, that’s a temple; now I know
what’s supposed to go on there!”[25]

If we are looking for sacred space today, we shall have to look elsewhere to find it. The Temple itself is all about nonverbal communication.

[27]

[1] Psalm 50:1; Isaiah 65: Jeremiah 7:13 for example

[2] 1 Kings 6

[3] 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.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/bibles-buried-secrets.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qalTJzk4kO0

This blog is found at:

http://swantec-oti.blogspot.com/

[4] Shaye J. D. Cohen (1948 …), professor of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy at Harvard with no other special qualifications in archaeology.

[5] We are not interested in the discussion of magic. It is not that we don’t believe in magic, or that magic is not a form of evidence: magic is a form of evidence. Magic can be one of two things: sleight of hand, or demonism.

What we believe about sleight of hand is that it has a scientific explanation. Since, this presents itself as a scientific discussion, we are not interested in sleight of hand without the attendant scientific explanation, or without logical connections to the topic at hand. Sleight of hand is simply not relevant to the current topic of discussion. If the Temple is an elaborate sleight of hand, it has no real interest for us as a subject of worship: it is merely entertainment. If worship is equated to entertainment, we don’t need it. Better entertainment may be found elsewhere.

What we believe about demonism is that the Temple exists to wage war against it. Pagans, for example, have been known to sacrifice children. Since demonism is the very thing the Temple claims to defeat, presentation of it here, no matter how logical or well-intended, represents an internal self-contradiction. This is also irrelevant, and has no place here.

It is true that the Temple is a powerful symbol. Mr. Cohen seems confused about what the biblical record claims for itself in that symbol. The Temple is the house of the living God, the place where His Sh^əkinah dwells. The symbology shows that just as the king dwells in the midst of his people, even so Yahweh, the Great King is pleased to dwell in the midst of his people. Symbols are worthless without the reality of what those symbols represent.

There is no Oneness of God or oneness of the Jewish people without the reality of Yahweh’s presence in the Sh^əkinah. The Sh^əkinah is either present or not present; yet, if not present, this is sleight of hand: for in that case the Jews have claimed to worship that which does not exist. On the other hand, the record attests that millions upon millions of Israelites have witnessed this Sh^əkinah over the course of more than eight centuries: that is what the evidence says. Now, according to Mr. Cohen, we are compelled to believe that all of these many millions, over such eons of time, were all self-deceived, simply because Mr. Cohen holds the opinion that it’s magic.

[6] “Seen as” not actually being the dwelling of the Sh^əkinah. The Sh^əkinah either dwells there or He does not dwell there. If the former, the phrase, “seen as,” is fatuous. If the latter, then all religious exercise is vacuous. Moreover, this discussion is farcical. One cannot deny half of the evidence and reach rational NPOV conclusions.

[7] The remains, if any, should be in a refuse site, where Nebuchadrezzar would have dumped them. So we should be excavating Gehenna, and other dump sites. There is little hope of finding anything on the Temple mount: at most a pebble or two. The rock has now been swept three times, it is probably clean. Any stones of value should be sought out in other buildings, as reused materials: so the question is, what did Nebuchadrezzar build immediately after the conquest of Israel. It is not unreasonable that we should look in Babylon, particularly in Babylon’s foundations.

[8] Please note that the steps referenced by Josephus must be applied to Herod’s Temple and not to Solomon’s Temple.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_the_Rock

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_Stone

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Mosque

[9] This is not just a “remarkably detailed description.” The Bible offers a complete description with detailed instructions for Temple use: an annual calendar, sacrificial system, orders for priests and Levites, furniture, clothing, washing requirements, incense manufacture, and an extensive hymnology, to cite a few things found in the specifications. The BBS assumption here, is that the instructions are inadequate, and must be filled in from other sources.

[10] The following discussion of Ain Dara is also disappointing; in fact it is defective. The floor plan presented is for Solomon’s Temple, not for Ain Dara. The floor plan also features a six chambered gate, for which there is no evidence whatsoever: the six chambered gate is an exclusive feature of Ezekiel’s Temple, which has not yet been built, which was revealed to Ezekiel via a vision he had in 572 (Ezekiel 40), fourteen years after Solomon’s Temple was destroyed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ain_Dara_(archaeological_site)

This is a better presentation with the actual floor plan and elevation pictures at Ain Dara. Note that there are no six chambered gates, and only three steps lead to the throne platform.

http://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-asia/ain-dara-temple-and-giant-footsteps-gods-001655

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_in_Jerusalem

The following article is also somewhat imaginative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon%27s_Temple

http://www.templemount.org/solomon.html

The following plan is very possibly the most accurate, simply because it has the least embellishment.

http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/king_solomons_temple/page_9.htm

[11] The equation of sphinx with cherubim is troublesome. Sphinx appear as giant winged cats; while cherubim are only represented, being invisible “destroyers”, sometimes visualized as tetra-morphs with human like bodies: feet, legs, etc. Moreover, Solomon’s porch is guarded by pillars, rather than cherubim. Neither is there any real comparison with Assyro-Babylonian shedu.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherub

[12] The differences at Ain Dara are more striking than the similarities. A mere tally of similar points does not begin to tell the whole story; it is, in fact, misleading. Forget the numerical tally and examine the two floorplans for yourself.

http://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-asia/ain-dara-temple-and-giant-footsteps-gods-001655

http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/king_solomons_temple/page_9.htm

[13] Lawrence Stager (1943 …), American archaeology professor at Harvard. Works: Gezer, Tell el-Hesi, Ashkelon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Stager

[14] Comical…. Ain Dara is not necessary for the construction of a complete model. The actual BBS portrayal is an abominable distortion of the biblical evidence.

[15] Stairs are forbidden in Israelite altars and temples. Nor is there any warrant for such stairs from the ruins of the Ain Dara pagan temple. The Bible provides only a floor plan and a height because the Temple floor was most likely flat. There is no real point in excavating beneath the Dome of the Rock, because the preceding temple was Herod’s temple, which was levelled by the Romans. Herod’s temple was in turn preceded by other temples: we are not sure how many. Such temples were preceded by the second temple which dates just after 516. We fail to see the benefit if a second temple excavation. Only after eliminating all such intervening obstacles can we arrive at artifacts of Solomon’s Temple which was thoroughly razed by the Babylonians in 586. There is no reason to believe that the Babylonians did a sloppy job of this. So we expect that such an excavation would yield little or nothing fruitful. We already know that the foundation stones which level the temple platform, the top surface of the hill, are still in place and we know exactly where they are located.

[16] Confirmed in 2 Chronicles 9:17-19

[17] We make no claim to having these in the proper order and direction: the dream sequence is less than perfectly clear and requires further study by experts. The inner court indicates that we are still outside of the Temple.

[18] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Be%27er_Sheva#Horned_altar

[19] Athanasius (296/98-373)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria

[20] This is the science of objectics, which here merely highlights the necessity for sacred space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonverbal_communication

[21] Was! Not, “was considered.” It is either what it claims to be, or it is a fraud and a hoax. All of the provenance associated with this Oracle clearly claims that Yahweh meets with His people there in a special way. Moreover, Solomon, states for this Oracle that any person anywhere in the world, pagan, Israelite, or Jew may pray to this Oracle and the God Whose Glory (Sh^əkinah) lives in it, and their prayers will be answered (1 Kings 8:15-54). We have no reason to believe that Solomon received a negative response from Yahweh.

In 586 this sacred space, the Oracle, ceased to be sacred: for as Ezekiel 10 declares, Yahweh abandoned it. Today, this sacred space is found elsewhere. The physical earthly Oracle always was an icon, a typology of the real immaterial heavenly Oracle. Today, this iconography, this typology is relocated.

[22] 2 Kings, Chapters 24 and 25. The text specifically says that he burned the temple (25:9), and razed the city walls (25:10). We find it difficult to mean that he left the Temple walls standing. See also 2 Chronicles 36:19; Ezra 5:12, 14, 16 (note that the foundation had to be rebuilt); Jeremiah, Chapters 27, 28, and 29.

[23] We count both Daniel and Ezekiel as canonized Scripture: yet, on what basis? Both are written after Yahweh has abandoned Israel, as are several other books. Daniel and Ezekiel are sufficient evidence that the Sh^əkinah now speaks to people without the physical earthly Oracle. The old physical earthly Oracle is gone, and the second Temple did not bring it back.

[24] Psalm 50:1; Isaiah 65: Jeremiah 7:13 for example

[25] The pertinent difference is that what is supposed to be going on in pagan temples, is actually going on in the Temple: Yahweh, acts, listens, and speaks. Sometimes pagan temples falsify these things with trapdoors and speaking tubes.

[26] 1 Kings 6

[27] 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.

Saturday, July 25, 2015

BBS Bubastite Portal

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]

The Bubastite Portal gate at Karnak (time 1:12:30?)

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

[30]

[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.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/bibles-buried-secrets.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qalTJzk4kO0

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshenq_I

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shishak

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubastite_Portal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartouche

[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.

http://swantec-oti.blogspot.com/2015/07/bbs-tel-dan-stele.html “Israelites”

[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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshenq_I#Origins_and_family

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarshish

[8] http://www.britannica.com/biography/Sheshonk-I

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/sheshonq1.htm

http://ancientneareast.org/tag/sheshonq-i/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshenq_I

[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

[11] The full-brother of Osorkon the Elder, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimlot_A

[12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patareshnes

[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karomama_A

[14] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iuput

[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

http://www.livescience.com/22267-severed-hands-ancient-egypt-palace.html

[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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshenq_I

[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.