Gudea, King of Peace, builds a great Temple

by Damien F. Mackey “One night, as Gudea slept, he had a vivid dream. In this dream, a giant figure appeared to him, with the head of a god and the body of a man. The figure showed Gudea a tablet with the plans for the temple, and instructed him on how it should be built. When Gudea awoke, he immediately called for his scribes and had them record every detail of the dream”. Here is a wonderful story about wise Gudea, the Temple builder, that I picked up at: The Peaceful King of Lagash: Gudea’s Legacy of Culture and Prosperity | by Leslie | Time Chronicles | Medium It was written by Leslie (October 18, 2024). While I have kept the story, I have had to make some serious amendments to it, based upon my view that the enigmatic Gudea was Israel’s famed King Solomon, the wisest of the wise, who also, as Senenmut, played a major part in Eighteenth Dynasty Egypt: Yahweh, Solomon, Jerusalem - Ningirsu, Gudea and Girsu (13) Yahweh, Solomon, Jerusalem - Ningirsu, Gudea and Girsu Leslie commences: Gather ‘round, my friends, and let me tell you a tale from the distant past, a story of a king unlike any other. In the land between two great rivers, where civilization first took root, there lived a ruler whose name still echoes through the ages: Gudea, the peaceful king of Lagash. Damien Mackey’s comment: Gudea may better be described as the ruler of Girsu, which I believe was Jerusalem. This Girsu is sometimes referred to as “the mother city” of Lagash, for: “… Girsu became the capital of the Lagash kingdom and continued to be its religious center …”. (Girsu - Wikipedia) Leslie continues: Picture, if you will, a time long before our own, when the world was young and the gods walked among men. It was a time of great upheaval, when kings waged war for glory and conquest. But in the city-state of Lagash, nestled in the heart of ancient Sumer, a different kind of ruler came to power. The year was 2144 BCE, or thereabouts — time has a way of blurring the edges of history. Damien Mackey’s comment: Hold it right there! Somehow, was it late, during the Seleucid era?, some famous Judean history appears to have become re-written, ‘Sumerianised’, re-located to central/southern Iraq. The date here for Gudea of “2144 BCE” is hopelessly wrong, it being more than a millennium too early. And, as for Sumer, read e.g. my article: “The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia (8) “The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia Leslie continues: The people of Lagash had grown weary of war and strife. They yearned for a leader who would bring peace and prosperity to their land. And so, as if answering their prayers, Gudea ascended to the throne. Now, you might be wondering, what made Gudea so special? Well, let me tell you, it wasn’t his prowess in battle or his thirst for conquest. No, Gudea was a different breed of king altogether. He was a man of peace, a builder, a patron of the arts, and a devout servant of the gods. Damien Mackey’s comment: This reads exactly like King Solomon. Initially, a loyal Yahwist, he later apostatised (I Kings 11:1-8). Leslie continues: When Gudea first took the throne, the people of Lagash held their breath. Would he be like the kings before him, leading them into battle and leaving their fields untended? But Gudea had other plans. On the day of his coronation, he stood before his people and made a bold declaration. “My people,” he said, his voice ringing out across the crowded square, “I stand before you not as a conqueror, but as a builder. Not as a warrior, but as a peacemaker. Under my rule, Lagash will not seek to dominate others, but to cultivate our own greatness. We will build, not destroy. We will create, not conquer. And in doing so, we will make Lagash a beacon of culture and prosperity for all of Sumer!” Damien Mackey’s comment: Lagash (var. Lakish) was actually the second great fort after Jerusalem, Lachish, also known as Ashdod (cf. Isaiah 20:1), Assyrian Ashduddu, which later became associated with Lagash as Eshnunna (Ashnunnu), supposedly in central Mesopotamia. How did this come about??? The Kingdom of Girsu (Jerusalem) appears to have been frequently referred to, instead, as the kingdom of Lagash. Leslie continues: The crowd was stunned into silence. Then, slowly, a cheer began to build. It started as a whisper, then grew to a roar. The people of Lagash had found their king, and they embraced his vision with open arms. True to his word, Gudea set about transforming Lagash. But his first act as king was not to build a palace or erect monuments to his own glory. No, Gudea’s first order of business was to restore the great temple of Eninnu, dedicated to the god Ningirsu, the patron deity of Lagash. Damien Mackey’s comment: Ningirsu simply means Lord of Girsu, that is, Lord of Jerusalem - hence Yahweh. See article above, “Yahweh, Solomon, Jerusalem - Ningirsu, Gudea and Girsu”. Leslie continues: Now, you might think that building a temple is a straightforward affair. But let me tell you, when it came to Gudea, nothing was ever simple. You see, Gudea was a deeply pious man, and he wanted to ensure that every aspect of the temple’s construction was in accordance with divine will. One night, as Gudea slept, he had a vivid dream. In this dream, a giant figure appeared to him, with the head of a god and the body of a man. The figure showed Gudea a tablet with the plans for the temple, and instructed him on how it should be built. When Gudea awoke, he immediately called for his scribes and had them record every detail of the dream. Damien Mackey’s comment: King Solomon had a famous Dream (Cf. I Kings 3:56-15 and 2 Chronicles 1:7-12). The Lord, in fact, “had appeared to him twice” (I Kings 11:9). See also: Solomon, Gudea and Ezekiel (8) Solomon, Gudea and Ezekiel Leslie continues: But Gudea wasn’t satisfied with just one divine vision. Oh no, he sought confirmation from the gods at every turn. He consulted oracles, made sacrifices, and even embarked on a pilgrimage to seek the blessing of other deities. It’s said that he was so devoted to getting every detail right that he delayed the start of construction for months, much to the frustration of his advisors. “My king,” they would plead, “surely we have enough guidance from the gods. Let us begin the work!” But Gudea would simply smile and say, “Patience, my friends. The gods work on their own time, not ours. We must ensure that every brick, every beam, every carving is exactly as they wish it to be.” And so, the people of Lagash waited, watching their king’s tireless devotion with a mixture of awe and exasperation. But when the construction finally began, it was a sight to behold. Gudea spared no expense in building the Eninnu temple. He imported cedar wood from distant Lebanon, gold and lapis lazuli from far-off lands. The finest artisans in all of Sumer were brought to Lagash to work on the project. Day and night, the sound of hammers and chisels filled the air as the temple slowly took shape. But Gudea didn’t just oversee the construction from afar. No, he rolled up his sleeves and worked alongside his people. There are stories of him carrying bricks, mixing mortar, and even carving intricate designs himself. Can you imagine it? A king, with his own royal hands calloused and stained from labor, all in service to his god and his people. As the temple rose, so too did the spirits of the people of Lagash. They saw in their king a model of piety and dedication, and they strove to emulate him. The city began to flourish as never before. Craftsmen honed their skills, creating works of art that would be marveled at for generations to come. Farmers tended their fields with renewed vigor, knowing that their harvests would feed their families and not fuel endless wars. But Gudea’s vision extended beyond just the Eninnu temple. He embarked on a vast building program, constructing and restoring temples throughout Lagash and its territories. Each temple was a marvel in its own right, a testament to the skill of Sumerian architects and the wealth of the city-state. Now, you might be thinking, “All this building and devotion is well and good, but surely a king needs to defend his realm?” And you’d be right to wonder. The ancient world was a dangerous place, and many a peaceful kingdom had fallen to more aggressive neighbors. But Gudea had a different approach to security. Instead of building up a mighty army or constructing imposing walls, he focused on diplomacy and trade. He sent envoys to neighboring city-states, bearing gifts and proposals for mutual cooperation. He welcomed foreign merchants, encouraging them to trade in Lagash’s markets. There’s a story that illustrates Gudea’s approach perfectly. One day, a group of warriors from a rival city-state arrived at the gates of Lagash. The guards were alarmed and sent word to Gudea, expecting him to call the army to arms. But Gudea simply smiled and said, “Invite them in. Prepare a feast in their honor.” The warriors were brought before Gudea, their hands on their weapons, unsure of what to expect. But Gudea greeted them warmly, as if they were old friends. He had his servants bring out the finest foods and wines, and he engaged the warriors in conversation, asking about their homes, their families, their dreams. By the end of the night, the warriors were laughing and singing with the people of Lagash. When they left the next day, they did so not as potential conquerors, but as friends and allies. And from that day forward, their city-state became one of Lagash’s staunchest supporters. This approach earned Gudea a reputation throughout Sumer. He became known as a wise and just ruler, one who could be trusted to keep his word and to seek peaceful solutions to conflicts. Other kings sought his counsel, and merchants went out of their way to trade in Lagash, knowing they would be treated fairly. But perhaps Gudea’s greatest legacy was not in the temples he built or the alliances he forged, but in the culture he fostered. Under his rule, Lagash became a center of learning and artistic expression. He established schools where young scribes could learn the art of writing, preserving knowledge for future generations. He patronized artists and sculptors, encouraging them to push the boundaries of their crafts. One of the most remarkable artifacts from Gudea’s reign are the statues of the king himself. These aren’t your typical royal portraits, mind you. The statues of Gudea are unlike anything seen before in Sumer. They’re carved from hard diorite stone, polished to a smooth sheen. But what’s truly striking about them is the way they portray the king. In these statues, Gudea isn’t shown as a mighty warrior or a domineering ruler. Instead, he’s depicted as a humble servant of the gods. In many of the statues, he’s seated with his hands clasped in prayer, his head bowed in reverence. The inscriptions on the statues speak not of military victories or conquests, but of Gudea’s piety and his commitment to serving his people. One statue, in particular, tells a fascinating story. It shows Gudea holding a tablet and a stylus. On the tablet is a plan for a temple, complete with measurements and architectural details. But here’s the interesting part: the plan on the tablet matches exactly with the remains of the actual Eninnu temple that archaeologists have uncovered. It’s as if Gudea wanted to show future generations that he had followed the divine plan to the letter. These statues weren’t just works of art; they were also powerful propaganda tools. They sent a clear message to the people of Lagash and to visitors from other city-states: here was a king who ruled not through force, but through wisdom and devotion. A king who saw himself not as a god, but as a servant of the gods and the people. Now, you might be wondering, “How do we know all this about Gudea? Surely, after all these thousands of years, much of his story must be lost to time?” And you’d be right to ask. But here’s where the story gets even more fascinating. You see, Gudea left us a remarkable gift: his words, preserved in clay. During his reign, he commissioned numerous inscriptions detailing his building projects, his prayers to the gods, and his vision for Lagash. These inscriptions were carved into clay cylinders and cones, which were then buried in the foundations of the temples he built. For thousands of years, these clay documents lay hidden, protected from the ravages of time. Then, in the 19th and 20th centuries, archaeologists began to uncover the ruins of ancient Sumer [sic]. And there, amidst the crumbling bricks and fallen columns, they found Gudea’s words, as clear and powerful as the day they were written. One of the most remarkable of these documents is known as the Cylinders of Gudea. These two clay cylinders, each about a foot long, contain over 1,300 lines of text in the Sumerian language. They tell the story of the construction of the Eninnu temple, from Gudea’s divine dream to the final dedication ceremony. Reading these cylinders is like stepping into a time machine. We can hear Gudea’s voice across the millennia, speaking of his hopes, his fears, his deep devotion to the gods. We can feel his pride as he describes the magnificent temple he’s building, and his humility as he acknowledges that all his accomplishments are due to divine favor. But the cylinders do more than just tell us about one building project. They give us a window into the world of ancient Sumer. We learn about religious beliefs, about social structures, about trade networks that stretched across the ancient world. We see a society that, despite being separated from us by thousands of years, grappled with many of the same issues we face today: how to govern justly, how to ensure prosperity for all, how to live in harmony with one’s neighbors. Gudea’s reign lasted for about twenty years, from around 2144 to 2124 BCE [sic]. In that time, he transformed Lagash from a minor city-state into one of the cultural and economic powerhouses of Sumer. His peaceful approach to rule, his emphasis on cultural development, and his dedication to serving his people and his gods left a lasting impact not just on Lagash, but on the entire region. But all good things must come to an end, and eventually, Gudea’s reign drew to a close. The records don’t tell us much about his final days or how he died. Perhaps he passed peacefully in his sleep, satisfied with a life well-lived. ….

Must watch Exposition by Don Esposito of true Temple location

Uncovering Jerusalem's Lost Temple (The temple of the Jews in the City of David) Uncovering Jerusalem's Lost Temple (The temple of the Jews in the City of David) …. It's difficult to admit the Temple is really in the City of David. For the Jews, and Christians for that matter, to admit they have been bobbing their heads at a Roman fort for centuries would be hard to admit to oneself. But, if they want their temple built, just admit it and start construction. Let Muhammad keep his Dome of the Rock built on the Court of the Gentiles (Rev. 11:1-2). Besides, as far as Fort Antonia goes, can you imagine the Romans, the conquerors, allowing a Jewish Temple, the conquered, to be tower above and be much larger than their presence?. That is ridiculous. The Romans are going to make sure they are the biggest and most imposing presence in the city. Also, Micah 3 tells us the site of the temple would be plowed like a field...and it was. Look at the old photos. …. I am not a biblical scholar, and not an archeologist, but I know when I read where Yeshua told his disciples that not one stone would be left upon another of the grand temple they were talking about, I would wonder seeing the Jews at the wailing wall. I knew Yeshua was never wrong. I just could not figure out why they chose that wall to pray at. Now that I have the back history it makes sense. Maybe it would be hard for them to accept that they have been praying up against a Roman fortress wall. Ok, I know what they thought (and many still think) about Yeshua, so they would not know what He said to His disciples. But they were praying in their heart to the One Almighty Yahweh. Isn't that what matters seeing as they do not have a temple? Will they come around? Only time will tell. Thank you, I have now watched several stories about the Lost Temple site. I am so happy and convinced that this is where it is at, in the old city of David. Makes 100% sense. It seems like Yahweh is revealing so much in this time. I hope everyone gets on board and learns of His will for our lives, and His love for ALL of us. Thank you again, you are reaching people, may you continue to be blessed with the ability to get this truth out there. …. I absolutely love it when people can extricate themselves from the accepted narrative and simply think according to what the facts are saying. Congrats! …. When I was first introduced to this possibility, I was very resistant. As a Christian, I also had accepted that the Dome of the Rock was built upon the place of the Temple of our God in Jerusalem. But after just considering all the information, I reluctantly accepted the truth. It was hard, but all the evidence literally proves it. Thank you for your discussion. …. The fact that they say the Roman’s built the aqueduct is SUCH A GOOD point …. Bob Cornuke wrote a book about the Soloman [sic] temple in the City of David as the site of the temple, Bobs [sic] a former police detective, he used those investigating skills to layout all the evidence to prove that Soloman temple was in the City of David. Where Is The Third Temple? | Bob Cornuke

Looking for King David in extra-biblical history

Part One: Can be found only with a revised history-archaeology by Damien F. Mackey With King Solomon established by Dean Hickman as a contemporary of the celebrated Hammurabi of Babylon, we would thus expect Solomon and his father, David, also to emerge historically in this new setting. Buoyed by my apparent success in finding King Solomon in the historical records, as the grand Steward, the quasi-royal Senenmut (Senmut), ‘the power behind the throne’ of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty pharaohs, Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, I have tended to go in search of further historical manifestations of that King of Israel in preference to his most illustrious father, David. Though I have not entirely neglected the latter. Whether or not Senenmut really was King Solomon, my reconstruction has aroused enough interest, at least, for my thesis on this subject to have been published twice. Firstly, as “Solomon and Sheba”, in SIS’s Chronology and Catastrophism Review, in 1997, and, most recently (2025), in the French journal, Kadath, as “Salomon et la reine de Saba”. Salomon et la reine de Saba  Prenant le relais des travaux jadis présentés par Immanuel Velikovsky dans son livre Ages in Chaos (Le Désordre des siècles pour la version française), Damien F. Mackey propose ici de nouveaux éléments en faveur de l’hypothèse selon laquelle Hatchepsout, la pharaonne de la XVIIIe dynastie égyptienne, était en fait la reine de Saba biblique. L’argument principal avancé est la présence de Salomon lui-même, dans les inscriptions égyptiennes, sous l’identité de Sénènmout, l’éminence grise d’Hatchepsout. Taking up the work formerly presented by Immanuel Velikovsky in his book Ages in Chaos, Damien F. Mackey proposes here new elements in favor of the hypothesis according to which Hatshepsut, the pharaoh of the 18th Egyptian dynasty, was actually the biblical queen of Saba. The main argument put forward is the presence of Solomon himself, in Egyptian inscriptions, under the identity of Senenmut, the grey eminence of Hatshepsut. Damien F. Mackey, Salomon et la reine de Saba, traduit de l’anglais par Stéphane Normand. 37 pages, 6 illustrations. Outside of Egypt, and its Velikovksian synchronisations of the Eighteenth Dynasty with the United Monarchy of Israel (Ages in Chaos, I, 1952) – thereby enabling for my identification of King Solomon, in that revised context, as Senenmut – a further vital synchronisation has been provided by Dean Hickman, in “The Dating of Hammurabi”, according to which King Solomon would have been a contemporary of the famous Hammurabi of Babylon. {Hickman, George Albert. 1986. “The Dating of Hammurabi.” In Proceedings of The Third Seminar of Catastrophism and Ancient History} Surely, I thought, King Solomon was of sufficient greatness for him to be identifiable as well in this new context, well to the north of Egypt/Ethiopia. I Kings 10:23-25: “King Solomon was greater in riches and wisdom than all the other kings of the earth. The whole world sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God had put in his heart. Year after year, everyone who came brought a gift—articles of silver and gold, robes, weapons and spices, and horses and mules”. Dean Hickman had already laid a solid platform towards this end. Had he not identified Hammurabi’s mighty older contemporary, Shamsi-Adad I of Assyria and Syro-Mitanni, as the biblical Hadadezer, Syrian arch foe of King David? And Shamsi-Adad I’s father, Ilu-kabkabu, or Uru-Kabkabu, as Hadadezer’s father, Rekhob (= Uru-Kab)? 2 Samuel 8:3: “Moreover, David defeated Hadadezer son of Rehob [Rekhob], king of Zobah, when he went to restore his monument at the Euphrates River”. An accurate revision of history is a ‘tree’ bearing ample fruit (4) An accurate revision of history is a 'tree' bearing ample fruit so I have recently written. And this now becomes apparent as Dean Hickman’s healthy ‘tree’ of revisionism begins to yield its fine produce. Thus I have further determined that: • Hammurabi’s contemporary, Zimri-lim of Mari, was Solomon’s persistent foe, Rezon (Rezin), whose father, • Iahdulim (Iahdulin) was Eliada (=Li(m)iahdu), the father of Rezon. A very good name fit! I Kings 11:23-25: “Here is how God made Rezon son of Eliada an enemy of Solomon: Rezon had run away from his master, King Hadadezer of Zobah. He formed his own small army and became its leader after David had defeated Hadadezer's troops. Then Rezon and his army went to Damascus, where he became the ruler of Syria and an enemy of Israel”. In these few scriptural verses, we now find several known historical characters of the Hammurabic era: Zimri-Lim (Rezon); Iahdulim (Eliada); Shamsi-Adad I (Hadadezer). And we have just read that Uru-kabkabu (Rekhob) was the father of Shamsi-Adad I. But where is the historical King David amongst all of these famous names? Building on Dean Hickman’s rock-solid foundation - expecting to pick more fruit from his abundant ‘tree’ - I ventured some further biblico-historical identifications, namely: • Iarim-Lim of Yamhad (location not determined) was David’s ally, King Hiram; • Hammurabi himself may be Huram-abi, the specialist artificer whom Hiram appointed to assist King Solomon with the design of the Temple and Palace. 2 Chronicles 2:13-14: ‘I am sending you Huram-Abi, a man of great skill, whose mother was from Dan and whose father was from Tyre. He is trained to work in gold and silver, bronze and iron, stone and wood, and with purple and blue and crimson yarn and fine linen. He is experienced in all kinds of engraving and can execute any design given to him. He will work with your skilled workers and with those of my lord, David your father’. Iarim-Lim fits very well, indeed, as Hiram, the most influential king of the time, as we learn in a Mari letter (my emphasis): There is no king who is mighty by himself. Ten or fifteen kings follow Hammurabi the ruler of Babylon, a like number Rim-Sin of Larsa, a like number Ibal-pi-el of Eshnunna, a like number Amud-pi-el of Qatanum, but twenty follow Yarim-Lim of Yamhad. What’s more, Iarim-Lim does exactly what King Hiram does - he supplies his patrons with fleets of ships. On this, see e.g. my article: King Solomon’s other great ally King Hiram (10) King Solomon’s other great ally King Hiram I Kings 10:11-12: “Hiram’s ships brought gold from Ophir; and from there they brought great cargoes of almugwood and precious stones. The king used the almugwood to make supports for the Temple of the Lord and for the royal palace, and to make harps and lyres for the musicians. So much almugwood has never been imported or seen since that day”. Can we eke out - especially with regard to kings David and Solomon - any further biblico-historical value from the above Mari letter, naming five great kings of the day? There is no king who is mighty by himself. Ten or fifteen kings follow Hammurabi the ruler of Babylon, a like number Rim-Sin of Larsa, a like number Ibal-pi-el of Eshnunna, a like number Amud-pi-el of Qatanum, but twenty follow Yarim-Lim of Yamhad. So far I have proposed biblical identifications for two of these five kings: Hammurabi (= Huram-abi?); Rim-Sin of Larsa; Ibal-pi-el of Eshnunna; Amud-pi-el of Qatanum; Yarim-Lim (= Hiram). The great Shamsi-Adad I (Hadadezer) had by now, presumably, passed from the scene. Part Two: The geographical revolution that is also required Apart from, perhaps, Qatna (Qatanum), the four other cities/lands referred to in that famous Mari letter: Babylon; Larsa; Eshnunna; and Yamkhad (Yamhad), may (or will) need to be re-located. In Part One, we encountered a handful of royal and geographical names that would be regarded as being generally unfamiliar, except to the specialists. Names such as Yarim-Lim; Yamkhad (Yamhad); Rim-Sin; Larsa; Ibal-pi-el; Eshnunna; Amud-pi-el; Qatanum. Some of these names have been completely lost on me. I would not have been able to pinpoint on a map either Yamkhad or Larsa independently of the usual guesses for these. Yarim-Lim I have confidently identified as the biblical King Hiram - though his problematical kingdom of Yamkhad will need to be properly explained in this context. And Eshnunna (Ashnunna) I have confidently identified with Ashduddu (Ashdod), which is the same as Lagash (var. Lakish), that is, Lachish, in SW Judah, a long, long way from where Eshnunna/Lagash is conventionally placed in southern Mesopotamia. On this, see my article: As Ashduddu (Ashdod) is to Lachish, so, likewise, is Eshnunna to Lagash https://www.academia.edu/89313146/As_Ashduddu_Ashdod_is_to_Lachish_so_likewise_is_Eshnunna_to_Lagash?uc-sb-sw=31251124 This is part of that ‘geographical revolution’ as referred to above. For more on all of this, and regarding just how far-reaching it is, see another article of mine: More geographical ‘tsunamis’: lands of Elam and Chaldea https://www.academia.edu/104403646/More_geographical_tsunamis_lands_of_Elam_and_Chaldea?f_ri=32226 I am content at this stage, at least, to accept the common opinion that Qatanum was Qatna, and was in western central Syria. While I am confident that the kings of this Hammurabic period, and their geography, will become identifiable (some already having been identified) in a c. 1000 BC context, I hold out no hope whatsoever for the conventional historians - still stuck in an artificial c. 1800 BC for Hammurabi - being fully able to identify any of these kings. And that huge chronological discrepancy (some 800 years) will not serve well, either, one would think, for the conventionalists to sort out whatever geographical anomalies. Apart from, perhaps, Qatna (Qatanum), the four other cities/lands referred to in that famous Mari letter: Babylon; Larsa; Eshnunna; and Yamkhad (Yamhad), may (or will) need to be re-located. Babylon Following Royce (Richard) Erickson’s radical shift of the lands of Chaldea and Elam (see ‘tsunamis’ article above), which I wholeheartedly accept, a corresponding shift of the related Babylon has become absolutely necessary. Here is Royce Erickson’s visually explanatory map (his Figure 6). After a fair amount of trial and error, I have settled upon the important city of Carchemish for Babylon (var. Karduniash): Correction for Babylon (Babel). Carchemish preferable to Byblos (2) Correction for Babylon (Babel). Carchemish preferable to Byblos This re-location of the famous Babylon is in accord with the westwards (N and S) shifting also of Elam; of Chaldea; and of other places that ‘fall permanently off the map of lower Mesopotamia’ (see Eshnunna section, next). Eshnunna If Eshnunna/Lagash really was - (not in southern/central Mesopotamia) - Ashdod/ Lachish in SW Judah, a strong fort second only to Jerusalem, then it now becomes most likely that Ibal-pi-el of Eshnunna, of the Mari letter, was Solomon himself, perhaps as Crown Prince, governing Jerusalem’s major fort. Or, perhaps, as King Solomon himself, with his kingdom known to the Syrians and Assyrians as Ashdod (to be distinguished from the Philistine Ashdod, known to the Assyrians as “Ashdod-by-the sea”). Jerusalem is otherwise referred to in the historical records as Girsu (the “mother city” to Lagash), it being one of those places along with Lagash - supposedly situated in southern Mesopotamia - that, according to Seth Richardson, “seemingly fell permanently off the political map of lower Mesopotamia …” (“Ningirsu returns to his plow: Lagaš and Girsu take leave of Ur” (2008): (5) Ningirsu returns to his plow: Lagaš and Girsu take leave of Ur (2008) | Seth Richardson – Academia.edu). Why? Because “Lagaš and Girsu” (read Lachish and Jerusalem) should never have been on the map of lower Mesopotamia in the first place. See also on this my article: Goodbye, not hello, to Girsu at Tello (3) Goodbye, not hello, to Girsu at Tello Yamkhad When I wrote above of “the usual guesses” for Yamkhad and Larsa, I had in mind, in the case of Yamkhad, what I had already read about this kingdom regarding the various uncertainties associated with it. Comments like this one: https://petesfavouritethings.blog/2017/11/10/the-amorite-kingdoms/ Little is known about the kingdom of Yamkhad, which probably occupied what today is Syria and Lebanon. There have been no internal written records found and what we do know comes from the records of surrounding countries. This was the Amorite homeland. It is very possible that Yamkhad was never a kingdom as such, but more an area controlled by a loose confederation of tribes who banded together only in the face of external danger. This Yamkhad is said to have been centred on Aleppo (Halab): https://kurdistantribune.com/free-state-aleppo/ “In the ancient times of Yamkhad, Aleppo had a direct access to the Mediterranean via its port Alalakh, the now inland-lying site Tell Atchana”. Obviously, Yamkhad was (despite what we read above) a very significant kingdom at the time of Iarim-Lim, who appears to have become the dominant king in the region (presumably after the departure of Shamsi-Adad I). This would indicate to me that the kingdom also went by another, better-known name. I have never yet read a decent explanation for the name Yamkhad. My tentative suggestion would be that Yamkhad was Chaldea - the revised version of it according to Royce Erickson’s maps above. Perhaps the Yam element in the name equates with the Hebrew word Yam for Sea: the Sealand, another most obscure entity: Horrible Histories: Kingdom of the Sealand is ‘all at Sea’ https://www.academia.edu/104962176/Horrible_Histories_Kingdom_of_the_Sealand_is_all_at_Sea If Iarim-Lim was King Hiram, as I maintain, then we would expect the kingdom of Yamkhad to take in, also, Tyre, of which Hiram is said to have been king (I Kings 5:1). Tyre, a coastal port like Alalakh, is a long way to the south of it (see map above). A colleague of mine has informed me that Josephus (I have not personally seen the quote) has Hiram returning home from Tyre, which would suggest, as we both agreed, that he was not based at Tyre. Tyre could have been, in the minds of the Jews, the geographical reference point most meaningful to them over which the mighty King Hiram had exerted power. No wonder he had accumulated twenty kings in train (Mari letter) if he had dominated the entire coastal region! Larsa That leaves just Larsa. And Rim-Sin. Larsa is not included by Seth Richardson (above) as being one of those places that “seemingly fell permanently off the political map of lower Mesopotamia …”. Apart from Lagaš and Girsu, he had also included Puzriš-Dagān and Umma. But Larsa, along with Uruk, Isin, and Nippur, he had left untouched. Had Seth Richardson mentioned Larsa in the same fashion as Lagaš and Girsu (my Lachish and Jerusalem), then I would have been able to eye off Larsa as being another name requiring to be shifted to the land of Israel. Larsa is supposed to have been situated not very far away from Lagash: AI Overview “The ancient cities of Larsa and Lagash were relatively close, located in what is now southern Iraq, with Larsa approximately 25 kilometers southeast of Uruk and Lagash situated about 22 kilometers east of the modern town of Al-Shatrah. While the specific distance between them isn't given, they were both significant Sumerian city-states in the same region, with Larsa being annexed into the empire of the king of Lagash in the past”. That the conventionally located Larsa has proven to be somewhat problematical for archaeologists is apparent from what Marc Van de Mieroop wrote in 1993, in his article: 1993 “The Reign of Rim-Sin,” Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 87 (1993): 47-69. (4) 1993 “The Reign of Rim-Sin,” Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 87 (1993): 47-69. | Marc Van De Mieroop - Academia.edu “Many texts are published as deriving from Larsa, a site that was indeed heavily looted before scientific excavations took place; yet it is often unclear as to whether they are from the site itself or from a neighboring tell”. And we learn at: https://www.ancient-origins.net/premium-preview/larsa-0019154 Scant sources for Larsa There is scant evidence of Larsa being mentioned in archaeological finds, before its rise as a strong city state. King Eanatum of Lagash’s Stele of Vultures (circa 2450 BC) [sic] mentions that he made the King of Umma swear an oath to Larsa’s sun god Utu, and it refers to sacrifices that were performed at Utu’s temple in Larsa. It is called the Stele of Vultures for it depicts vultures flying away from the battlefield with the heads of the slain enemy in their beaks. …. Part Three: As an older contemporary of Hammurabi King Solomon In Part Two, we reached the important conclusions that two names generally associated with central and lower Mesopotamia, namely Eshnunna and Lagash, both, in fact, refer to the strong Jewish fort of Lachish, clearly recognised in Lakish, a variant of Lagash - with Eshnunna (Ashnunna) being Ashdod (Ashduddu), another name for Lachish. This now means that any ruler historically referenced in connection with Lagash, or Eshnunna, is going to be an Israelite (Jewish) king, or, at the least, governor. Apart from Senenmut as Solomon in Egypt, as previously discussed, I find what I believe to be two other manifestations of him in connection with Lagash, and with Eshnunna. One of these is as the semi-historical, semi-mythological Gudea of Lagash, of very uncertain chronology (c. 2080–2060 BC, SHORT CHRONOLOGY, c. 2144–2124 BC, MIDDLE CHRONOLOGY.) (Perhaps Gudea was Solomon much later divinised by the Seleucids/Ptolemies in a fashion similar to their venerating of Imhotep and Amenhotep son of Hapu in Egypt). Another manifestation of King Solomon is as the Ibal-pi-el of Eshnunna whom we met in the Mari letter. A contemporary of Hammurabi, as we would now confidently expect King Solomon to have been, my reasons for opting for Ibal-pi-el, for Solomon, apart from his rule of Eshnunna, will become clear as we move on to consider King David. The only other historical identification for King Solomon with which I have toyed is as Jabin (Ibni) of Hazor, a fort ruled by Solomon. Jabin also emerges in the Mari letters. Jabin, a generic name for rulers of Hazor, apparently, must not be confused with earlier kings Jabin of Hazor, one at the time of Joshua, and one at the time of Deborah: Cosmopolitan King Solomon (4) Cosmopolitan King Solomon This identification (Solomon as Jabin) is still, admittedly, quite tentative. Archaeologically, the House (Kingdom) of King Solomon is attested in El Amarna letters, revised by Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky (Ages in Chaos, I, 1952) from c. C14th BC down to about a century after King Solomon. Before Dr. Velikovsky wrote his book, any hope of connecting the El Amarna (EA) references to King Solomon would have been impossible. I wrote in my article: Abdi hiba and the House of Solomon (4) Abdi hiba and the House of Solomon …. two … pieces of evidence in EA letters 285-290 … determine the historical terminus a quo for king Abdi-Hiba: namely, the mention of Jerusalem; and the mention of Beth Shulman (“House of Solomon”). King David The House of David is also attested archaeologically, and most famously, in the Tell Dan inscription. Surely, the great King David must emerge at the approximate time of the Mari correspondence, as either a ruler of Eshnunna, or of Lagash, or of ‘the mother city’ of Lagash, Girsu (Jerusalem)! And emerge he does. The father of Ibal-pi-el (my Solomon) had the most David of names, Dadusha, and he, too, of course, ruled Eshnunna. His supposed brother, Naram-Sin, ruler of Eshnunna, also had a David-like name, “Beloved of [the god]”. Since this Naram-Sin had a David name, and ruled Eshnunna, and since he fought against Shamsi-Adad I (Hadadezer) as did King David (name from the noun דוד (dod), “beloved”), I would confidently identify these supposed brothers, Naram-Sin and Dadusha, as just the one David the Beloved. Dadusha - Wikipedia Dadusha (Dāduša) (reigned c. 1800–1779 BC) [sic] was one of the kings of the central Mesopotamian [sic] city ESHNUNNA, located in the DIYALA VALLEY. He was the son of the Eshnunna king Ipiq-Adad II (reigned c. 1862–1818 BC) [sic]. Although previously kings of Eshnunna had referred to themselves as ENSI (governor) of the city god TISHPAK, in the early 19th century rulers of Eshnunna began referring to themselves as King (Sumerian LUGAL). Dadusha's father Ipiq-Adad II and his brother NARAM-SUEN (reigned c. 1818–? BC), who ruled Eshnunna before him, both used the title king and Dadusha followed suit. .... Dadusha followed the expansionist policies of his father and his brother Naram-Suen, mixing war and diplomacy to increase his control over areas. His continued expansionism caused Eshnunna to become one of the most powerful states in the Mesopotamian region in the early 18th century. .... Dadusha was succeeded by his son IBAL PI’EL II (reigned c. 1779–65 BC). …. …. In 1781 BC, Dadusha joined forces with the king of Upper Mesopotamia, SHAMSHI-ADAD I, in order to subdue the area between the two ZAB RIVERS. [sic] The attack on Qabrā occurred in the last regnal year of Dadusha and the 28th regnal year of Shamshi-Adad I. .... They were successful in this endeavor, and Dadusha had a victory stele commissioned commemorating the event. .... The fragmentary Mardin Stele of Shamshi-Adad I tells the story from a different perspective. .... [End of quote] Whether or not King David and Hadadezer were once allies, we learn that Naram-Sin, like David, successfully fought against the Syrian potentate: Naram-Sin of Eshnunna - Wikipedia “[Naram-Sin] was contemporary of SHAMSHI-ADAD I, the future king of the Kingdom of Upper Mesopotamia. .... Shamshi-Adad was apparently ousted from his city by Naram-Sin which led to a brief exile in Babylon”. Dadusha’s (Naram-Sin’s) victory stele may possibly be referred to in an Old Testament verse, usually taken to mean that it was Hadadezer who was setting up his stele (I Chronicles 18:3): “Moreover, David defeated Hadadezer king of Zobah, in the vicinity of Hamath, when he went to set up his monument at the Euphrates River”. David as Rim Sin Though he fell short by a few years of the mammoth 66-67 year reign of pharaoh Ramses II ‘the Great’ of a later era, Rim Sin’s approximately 60-year reign (c. 1822 BC to 1763 BC, conventional dating) is quite remarkable – though, probably, significantly over-exaggerated. But what is especially remarkable is that a king who could boast of so lengthy a reign, and who popularly equated with greats such as Hammurabi and Solomon in following: “.... Ten or fifteen kings follow Hammurabi the ruler of Babylon, a like number Rim-Sin of Larsa, a like number Ibal-pi-el of Eshnunna ...”, is almost totally lacking in depictions. Thus I must exclaim: Where are all the depictions of the long-reigning Rim Sin so-called I? Although I have been slow to realise it - considering the incredible apparent borrowing by Rim Sin from the wisdom writings and thoughts of King David, and the fact that, like David, Rim Sin was an older contemporary of Hammurabi - I would now identify this Rim Sin as David himself, a shepherd king, a man after God’s own heart. The identification can be facilitated, I think, through David’s alter ego, Naram-Sin of Eshnunna, the name Rim Sin being merely a shortening of the name Naram-Sin. Compare: “Prince Rim-Sîn, you are the shepherd, the desire of his heart”, with the shepherd David’s being “a man after my own heart” (Acts 13:22). Rim Sin is so like David that he can be David. Larsa could be simply an anagram for Israel. But that now raises some queries. Was the kingdom of David divided between he, with his 10-15 kings, and his son Solomon, with his 10-15? Perhaps the fact was that Rim Sin, and that Ibal-pi-el, both led the same 10-15 kings; or that Solomon as Crown Prince ruled the strong SW fort of Lachish, while his father looked after the region of Girsu (Jerusalem). Or, that David had actually died, recently, but was still included in the Mari letter – this one seems most unlikely. Whatever be the case, the stunning truth is that, despite what the Mari letter has to say, Marc Van de Mieroop, writing of Rim Sin, claimed that he was “… more important than his challenger [sic] Hammurabi …”. Rim Sin’s kingdom supposedly extended to the Girsu that I have re-located so as to be Jerusalem itself. “Ninkimar in Ašdubba near Larsa” is most interesting. The name Ašdubba is almost identical to the neo-Assyrian name, Ashduddu (Ashdod), that I have identified with the Judean fort of Lachish (Lagash). Rim-Sin seems to be frequently moving here in Syro-Palestinian, and not Babylonian, territory, with Eshnunna/Lachish, with Karkar, and with Al-Damiq-ilišu looking rather suspiciously like the Syrian capital city of Damascus (Dimašqu). Apparently there was temple in Larsa (Israel?). Eanatum (Eannatum) of Lagash, here, I have identified as the potent king of Judah, Hezekiah (C8th BC): Scant Sources for Larsa There is scant evidence of Larsa being mentioned in archaeological finds, before its rise as a strong city state. KING EANATUM of Lagash’s Stele of Vultures (circa 2450 BC) [sic] mentions that he made the King of Umma swear an oath to Larsa’s sun god [sic] Utu, and it refers to sacrifices that were performed at Utu’s temple in Larsa. It is called the Stele of Vultures for it depicts vultures flying away from the battlefield with the heads of the slain enemy in their beaks. Hezekiah withstands Assyria - Lumma withstands Umma (5) Hezekiah withstands Assyria - Lumma withstands Umma

King David’s Hymnody impacted ancient world

by Damien F. Mackey “Psalm 104 is almost a duplicate of the Egyptian Hymn to Aten”. Facts About Religion There is an abundance of articles, and some YouTube videos, too, drawing parallels between the incredibly alike Psalm 104 of King David of Israel and pharaoh Akhnaton’s (Akhenaten’s) Hymn to the Aton (Aten). The following example neatly tabulates comparisons between these ancient texts: https://factsaboutreligion.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/psalm-104-is-almost-a-duplicate-of-the-egyptian-hymn-to-aten/ Psalm 104 is almost a duplicate of the Egyptian Hymn to Aten. On the wall of a 14th century BCE tomb in Egypt archaeologists found a beautiful hymn to the god Aten. What is really strange is that the Pharaoh Akhenaten (1352-1336) who lived in an era when everyone believed in many gods, chose to believe in only one, Aten. In fact, many scholars have argued that Pharaoh Akhenaten is the earliest documented example of a monotheist in history, though others argue that he was a henotheist (thought many gods existed, but chose to worship only one.) What’s really curious about the Great Hymn to the Aten is that it closely mirrors Psalm 104 in the Hebrew Bible as a song of praise to the creator, though written hundreds of years before. Biblical scholars and historians disagree as to whether these two hymns are actually related by way of influencing one another, or whether both were independently written. In any case, the similarities are fascinating. A logical conclusion could be that King David (c. 1000 BC) was indebted to Akhnaton, more than three centuries before David, for the inspiration to compose his Psalm 104. Some would put it more bluntly. It was a case of plagiarism on the part of the Bible! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDI3cMDzqEY Biblical Plagariasm? | Akhenaten’s Hymn to Aten Vs. Psalm 104 | Audiobook And so we must suppose it must have been - that is, until Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky turned things upside down and inside out in his Ages in Chaos (1952) and Oedipus and Akhnaton (1960) reconstructions of ancient history, demonstrating that pharaoh Akhnaton actually belonged to the C9th BC, rather than to the C14th - necessitating now that King David could not possibly have known about Akhnaton and his Hymn, whose advents were still some centuries in the future. From this superior chronological base, Dr. Velikovsky was able most convincingly to identify a succession of Syrian (Amurru) kings approximately contemporaneous with Akhnaton and the El Amarna (EA) age, Abdi-ashirta and Aziru, with, respectively, Ben-Hadad and his successor Hazael – two mighty Syrian kings well known from the Old Testament. This was an aspect of Dr. Velikovsky’s challenging revision that was very well received. Already, his new revision (written far earlier than today’s so-called New Chronology), was proving itself to be fruitful. See my recent article: An accurate revision of history is a ‘tree’ bearing ample fruit (5) An accurate revision of history is a 'tree' bearing ample fruit And it doesn’t stop there. I, building on this far preferable chronology for Akhnaton and the El Amarna (EA) period, have been able to show that Dr. Velikovsky’s Aziru/Hazael composite was the same ruler as the Syrian ‘condottiere’, Arsa (Irsu)/Aziru, of the Great Harris Papyrus, who invaded Egypt and who overthrew the gods there. AI Overview “The "Arsa (Irsu)" or Aziru mentioned in the Great Harris Papyrus is a Syrian who took control of Egypt and its gods …”. Dr. Velikovsky had really missed a trick here. From there, it not such a great step to identify the foreign invader, Aziru/Hazael/Arsa, as pharaoh Akhnaton himself who so greatly undermined the national Egyptian gods. And, as one will find upon reading my article: Akhnaton’s Theophany (5) Akhnaton's Theophany the new chronology cuts even deeper yet, into the Bible, fully accounting for Akhnaton’s celebrated monotheism – for monotheism (not henotheism, or something else) indeed it was. With EA re-located now to the C9th BC, then the United Kingdom of Israel (Saul, David and Solomon, c. 1000 BC) could be estimated by Dr. Velikovsky to have corresponded in time with the rise of the magnificent Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt (c. C16th BC, conventional dating) – in whose later stages we encounter Akhnaton. Relevant for this article is Dr. Velikovsky’s establishing of twin pillars of revision: Hatshepsut as the biblical “Queen Sheba” and pharaoh Thutmose III as the biblical “Shishak king of Egypt”, who despoiled the Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem shortly after King Solomon had passed away. These twin identifications have had to undergo a rocky ground-breaking of trial and error, however, before they could be securely established as pillars of revision. For Dr. Velikovsky, an intuitive genius who could arrive at right identifications, often took quite wrong paths, adopting spurious methodologies and archaeologies, to get there. Quite the opposite of some of his critics, who, fussing over and analysing minute details, and belabouring the reader with endless charts and numbers, hardly ever seem to arrive at any satisfactory conclusions. For my same conclusions as Dr. Velikovsky in these two instances, but with significantly different arguments, see e.g., for “Sheba”: The vicissitudinous life of Solomon’s pulchritudinous wife (8) The vicissitudinous life of Solomon's pulchritudinous wife and: The Queen of Beer(sheba) (8) The Queen of Beer(sheba) While, for “Shishak”, see: Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III’s march on Jerusalem (8) Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III's march on Jerusalem That background sets us up, now, to consider Davidic (Solomonic) and biblical influence in the inscriptions of Hatshepsut, who had grown up as a princess in Israel. In my article: Solomon and Sheba (8) Solomon and Sheba I gave the following examples in which biblical wisdom can be glimpsed amidst the stiff and formulaïc Egyptian inscriptions: …. Scriptural Influence (i) An Image from Genesis After Hatshepsut had completed her Punt expedition, she gathered her nobles and proclaimed the great things she had done. Senenmut and Nehesi had places of honour. Hatshepsut reminded them of Amon's oracle commanding her to ‘... establish for him a Punt in his house, to plant the trees of God's Land beside his temple in his garden, according as he commanded’ …. At the conclusion of her speech there is further scriptural image ‘I have made for [Amon-Ra] a Punt in his garden at Thebes ... it is big enough for him to walk about in’; Baikie … noted that this is ‘a phrase which seems to take one back to the Book of Genesis and its picture of God walking in the Garden of Eden in the cool of the evening’. This inscription speaks of Amon-Ra's love for Hatshepsut in terms almost identical to those used by the Queen of Sheba about the God of Israel's love for Solomon and his nation. Compare the italicised parts of Hatshepsut's ‘... according to the command of ... Amon ... in order to bring for him the marvels of every country, because he so much loves the King of ... Egypt, Maatkara [i.e. Hatshepsut], for his father Amen-Ra, Lord of Heaven, Lord of Earth, more than the other kings who have been in this land for ever ...’ …. with the italicised words in a song of praise spoken to Solomon by the Queen of Sheba ‘Blessed be the Lord your God, who has delighted in you and set you on the throne as king for the Lord your God! Because your God loved Israel and would establish them for ever ...’ (II Chronicles 98) …. (ii) An Image from the Psalms When Hatshepsut's commemorative obelisks were com¬pleted, she had the usual formal words inscribed on them. However, Baikie states that …: ‘The base inscriptions ... are of more importance, chiefly because they again strike that personal note which is so seldom heard from these ancient records, and give us an actual glimpse into the mind and the heart of a great woman. I do not think that it is fanciful to see in these utterances the expression of something very like a genuine piety struggling to find expression underneath all the customary verbiage of the Egyptian monumental formulae’. In language that ‘might have come straight out of the Book Psalms’, the queen continues, ‘I did it under [Amon-Ra's] command; it was he who led me. I conceived no works without his doing .... I slept not because of his temple; I erred not from that which he commanded. ... I entered into the affairs of his heart. I turned not my back on the City of the All-Lord; but turned to it the face. I know that Karnak is God's dwelling upon earth; ... the Place of his Heart; Which wears his beauty ...’. Baikie continues, unaware that it really was the Psalms and the sapiential words of David and Solomon, that had influenced Hatshepsut's prayer: ‘The sleepless eagerness of the queen for the glory of the temple of her god, and her assurance of the unspeakable sanctity of Karnak as the divine dwelling-place, find expression in almost the very words which the Psalmist used to express his ... duty towards the habitation of the God of Israel, and his certainty of Zion's sanctity as the abiding-place of Jehovah. ‘Surely I will not come into the tabernacle of my house, nor go up into my bed; I will not give sleep to mine eyes, or slumber to mine eyelids. Until I find out a place for the Lord, an habitation for the mighty God of Jacob. - For the Lord hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation. This is my rest for ever; here will I dwell; for I have desired it’.’ (iii) An Image from Proverbs In another related verse of the Punt reliefs about Amon-Ra leading the expedition to ‘the Myrrh-terraces ... a glorious region of God's Land’, the god speaks of creating the fabled Land of Punt in playful terms reminiscent of Solomon's words about Wisdom's playful rôle in the work of Creation (Proverbs 8:12, 30-31). In the Egyptian version there is also reference to Hathor, the personification of wisdom …: ‘... it is indeed a place of delight. I have made it for myself, in order to divert my heart, together with ... Hathor ... mistress of Punt …’. Interestingly, the original rôles of Hathor and Isis in the Heliopolitan ‘theology’ were similar to those of Moses's sister and mother (the god Horus reminding of Moses). Grimal … says ‘Isis hid Horus in the marshes of the Delta ... with the help of the goddess Hathor, the wet-nurse in the form of a cow. The child grew up ...’. In The Queen of Sheba - Hatshepsut, I had compared this Egyptian account with the action of Moses's mother and sister in Exodus 2:3-4, 7, 10. (iv) Images from the Song of Songs In the weighing scene of the goods acquired from Punt (i.e. Lebanon), Hatshepsut boasts ….: ‘[Her] Majesty [herself] is acting with her two hands, the best of myrrh is upon all her limbs, her fragrance is divine dew, her odour is mingled with that of Punt, her skin is gilded with electrum, shining as do the stars in the midst of the festival-hall, before the whole land’. Compare this with verses from King Solomon's love poem, Song of Songs (also called the Song of Solomon), e.g. ‘My hands dripped with myrrh, my fingers with liquid myrrh; Sweeter your love than wine, the scent of your perfume than any spice; Your lips drip honey, and the scent of your robes is like the scent of Lebanon’ (4:10-11; 55). (cf. 4:6, 14; 5:1, 5). [Hyam] Maccoby … went so far as to suggest that the Song of Songs was written by Solomon for the Queen of Sheba/Hatshepsut. Clearly, the poem is written in the context of marriage (e.g. 3:11). We read, partly following Maccoby …: l. ‘To a mare among Pharaoh's cavalry would 1 compare you, my darling’ (1:9). This reference to Egypt is strange for an Israelite girl, but natural if the beloved was an Egyptian. 2. ‘Black am I but beautiful, O daughters of Jerusalem, like the tents of Qedar, like the curtains of Solomon. Do not gaze at me because I am swarthy, because the sun has blackened me’ (16). A darker complexion would not be surprising in an Egyptian woman. 3. Perhaps the sentence ‘Who is she that cometh out of the wilderness ... perfumed with myrrh and frankincense, with all the fragrant powders of the merchant?’ (3:6), refers to the visit by the Queen of Sheba, who brought a great store of perfumes. She gave Solomon ‘a very great store of spices ... there came no more such abundance of spices as these which the Queen of Sheba gave to King Solomon’ (I Kings 10:10). 4. ‘My mother's sons were angry with me. They made me the keeper of the vineyards, but mine own vineyard I have not kept’ (1:6). It is a puzzle that the female here is represented as a humble vineyard-watcher but elsewhere she appears as a great lady. Maybe here she is speaking metaphorically about her country (and her native reli¬gion?) as a ‘vineyard’? The anger of her ‘brothers’ would be understandable, perhaps, if she were a princess of Egypt. Her involvement with Solomon would have unwelcome politi-cal and religious implications. 5. ‘O that you were as my brother ... I would lead you and bring you to my mother's house’ (8:1-2). She perhaps regrets that Solomon is not an Egyptian, who could live permanently with her. What has been presented here probably represents only a very small portion of Israel’s wisdom influence upon the ancient nations. The only other theme that I shall touch on here, most relevant to King David of Israel, is the notion of the king as shepherd. I have already written something about this in my article: Shepherd King contemporaries of King David (10) Shepherd King contemporaries of King David And compare this one: “Prince Rim-Sîn, you are the shepherd, the desire of his heart”, with the shepherd David’s being “a man after my own heart” (Acts 13:22). CONTEMPORARY SHEPHERD KINGS One could describe David’s life during his service to King Saul, as, ‘never a dull moment’. King Saul was indeed a mercurial character, totally unpredictable. Naturally, Samuel had been nervous about visiting Jesse of Bethlehem for the purpose of anointing one of his sons to the kingship (I Samuel 16:1-2): The LORD said to Samuel, ‘How long will you mourn for Saul, since I have rejected him as king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and be on your way; I am sending you to Jesse of Bethlehem. I have chosen one of his sons to be king’. But Samuel said, ‘How can I go? If Saul hears about it, he will kill me’. Even the wise Samuel had been inclined to judge by appearances (“height”) the worth of Jesse’s sons (v. 6): “When they arrived, Samuel saw Eliab and thought, ‘Surely the LORD’s anointed stands here before the LORD’.” But, in an interesting glimpse into the Lord’s thinking, we then read (v. 7): “But the LORD said to Samuel, ‘Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart’.” Had not Saul himself, who would so miserably fail as king, been a man of the most striking height and appearance (I Samuel 9:2): “Kish had a son named Saul, as handsome a young man as could be found anywhere in Israel, and he was a head taller than anyone else”? David, the youngest of Jesse’s eight sons, was not even present (v. 11): “‘There is still the youngest’, Jesse answered. ‘He is tending the sheep’.” It is this characteristic that would mark David’s kingship, ‘tending his sheep’. He was, like Jesus Christ, a true “Shepherd King”, modelling himself upon “the Lord [who was his] Shepherd” (Psalm 22, Douay). Kings at this time (revised) came to describe themselves from this time onwards as Shepherds. For example (Hammurabi Stele): I, Hammurabi, the shepherd, have gathered abundance and plenty, have stormed the four quarters of the world, have magnified the fame of Babylon, and have elated the mind of Marduk my lord. And compare this one: “Prince Rim-Sîn, you are the shepherd, the desire of his heart”, with the shepherd David’s being “a man after my own heart” (Acts 13:22). Rim-Sin, king of Larsa, was an older contemporary of Hammurabi of Babylon. Rim-sin’s prayerful sentiments can be very David-like – even quasi-monotheistic: “-7......, who is fitted for holy lustration rites, Rim-Sîn, purification priest of An, who is fitted for pure prayers rites, whom you summoned from the holy womb ......, has been elevated to lordship over the Land; he has been installed as shepherd over the black-headed. The staff which strengthens the Land has been placed in his hand. The shepherd's crook which guides the living people has been attached at his side. As he steps forward before you, he is lavishly supplied with everything that he offers with his pure hands. 8-20Your attentive youth, your beloved king, the good shepherd Rìm-Sîn, who determines what should be brought as offerings for his life, joyfully pours out offerings for you in the holy royal cultic locations which are perfect for the cultic vessels: sweet-smelling milk and grain, rich produce of the Land, riches of the meadows, unending abundance, alcoholic drink, glistening wine, very sweet emmer beer fermented with pure substances, pure ...... powerful beer made doubly strong with wine, a drink for your lordship; double-strength beer, superior beer, befitting your holy hands, pale honey exported from the mountains, which you have specifically requested, butter from holy cows, ghee as is proper for you as prince; pressed oil, best oil of the first pressing, and yellow cream, the pride of the cow-pen, for the holy abode of your godhead. 21-26Accept from him with your joyful heart pure food to eat as food, and pure water to drink as water: offerings made for you. Grant his prayer: you are indeed respected. When he humbly speaks fair words to you, speak so that he may live. Guide him correctly at the holy lordly cultic locations, at the august lordly cultic locations. Greet him as he comes to perform his cultic functions. 27-37May his kingship exist forever in your presence. May he be the first of the Land, called (?) lord and prince. Following your commands he shall be as unshakeable as heaven and earth; may he be ...... over the numerous people. May the mother goddesses among the gods attend to his utterances; may they sit in silence before that which he says, and bring restorative life. May he create heart's joy for the population, and be the good provider for their days. May the terrifying splendour that he wears cover like a heavy raincloud the king who is hated by him. May all the best what he has be brought here as their offerings. 38-52The good shepherd Rim-Sîn looks to you as to his personal god. Grant him ...... a life that he loves, and bestow joy on him. May you renew it like the daylight. As he prays to you, attend to his ....... When he speaks most fair words to you, sustain his life power for him. May he be respected ......, and have no rivals. As he makes supplication to you, make his days long. In the ...... of life, ...... the power of kingship. May his correct words be ever ....... May he create heart's joy in his ....... ...... make the restorative ...... rest upon him, the lion of lordship. When he beseeches you, let his exterior (?) ...... shine. Give him ...... life ....... May you bring ...... for his life with your holy words. Hear him favourably as he lifts his hands in prayer, and decide a good destiny for him. 53-69As his life ......, so may it delight his land. Cast the four quarters at his feet, and let him be their ruler. Reclining in meadows in his own land, may he pass his days joyously with you ....... In the palace, lengthen the days and reign of Rim-Sîn, your compliant king who is there for you; whose name you, Acimbabbar, have named, ...... life. ...... the august good headdress. ...... due praise for his life. ...... the throne, and may the land be safe. May satisfaction and joy fill his heart. May ...... be good for his ....... Place in his hand the sceptre of justice; may the numerous people be bound (?) to it. Shining brightly, the constant ...... in his ....... Confer on him the benefit of months of delight and joy, and bestow on him numerous years as infinite in number as the stars in the lapis-lazuli coloured heavens. In his kingship may he enjoy a happy reign forever. 70-85May you preserve the king, the good provider. May you preserve Rim-Sîn, the good provider. May his reign be a source of delight to you. Lengthen the days of his life, and give him kingship over the restored land. For him gladden the heart of the land, for him make the roads of the land passable. For him make the Land speak with a single voice. May you preserve alive Rim-Sîn, your shepherd with the compliant heart. May his canals bring water for him, and may barley grow for him in the fields. May the orchards and gardens bring forth syrup and wine for him, and may the marshes deliver fish and fowl for him in abundance. May the cattle-pens and sheepfolds teem with animals, and may rain from the heavens, whose waters are sporadic, be regular for him. May the palace be filled with long life. O Rim-Sîn, you are my king!” Compare, for example, King David’s Psalm 60 (Douay), otherwise Psalm 61:6-7: ‘Increase the days of the king’s life, his years for many generations. May he be enthroned in God’s presence forever; appoint your love and faithfulness to protect him’. According to Timothy S. Laniak (Shepherds After My Own Heart: Pastoral Traditions and Leadership in the Bible, p. 63): “By the beginning of the second millennium BC [sic] Akkadian and Amorite kings were using conventional shepherd language to describe themselves”. When David - young, but mature beyond his years - indignant at the mockery being publicly and loudly uttered by the Gath-ite champion, Goliath - ‘defying the armies of the living God’ - was told by King Saul that he was not experienced enough to fight against the Philistine, he will apprise the king of the extreme dangers that he had already faced as a shepherd: ‘When a lion or a bear came and carried off a sheep from the flock, I went after it …’. Here follows David’s exchange on this occasion with King Saul (I Samuel 17:32-37): David said to Saul, ‘Let no one lose heart on account of this Philistine; your servant will go and fight him’. Saul replied, ‘You are not able to go out against this Philistine and fight him; you are only a young man, and he has been a warrior from his youth’. But David said to Saul, ‘Your servant has been keeping his father’s sheep. When a lion or a bear came and carried off a sheep from the flock, I went after it, struck it and rescued the sheep from its mouth. When it turned on me, I seized it by its hair, struck it and killed it. Your servant has killed both the lion and the bear; this uncircumcised Philistine will be like one of them, because he has defied the armies of the living God. The LORD who rescued me from the paw of the lion and the paw of the bear will rescue me from the hand of this Philistine’. Saul said to David, ‘Go, and the LORD be with you’. Young David had been taking supplies from his father Jesse back to his three oldest brothers, and then returning “to tend his father’s sheep at Bethlehem” (vv. 14-19). Now these were the very three sons, the “firstborn was Eliab; the second, Abinadab; and the third, Shammah”, whom Samuel had first considered for the anointing (I Samuel 16:6-9). Yet here they were frozen almost to a standstill in the face of the angry Goliath (“all the Israelites were dismayed and terrified”), while David, the youngest of them, was aflame with indignation. It is a famous story (17:1-11): Now the Philistines gathered their forces for war and assembled at Sokoh in Judah. They pitched camp at Ephes Dammim, between Sokoh and Azekah. Saul and the Israelites assembled and camped in the Valley of Elah and drew up their battle line to meet the Philistines. The Philistines occupied one hill and the Israelites another, with the valley between them. A champion named Goliath, who was from Gath, came out of the Philistine camp. His height was six cubits and a span. He had a bronze helmet on his head and wore a coat of scale armor of bronze weighing five thousand shekels; on his legs he wore bronze greaves, and a bronze javelin was slung on his back. His spear shaft was like a weaver’s rod, and its iron point weighed six hundred shekels. His shield bearer went ahead of him. Goliath stood and shouted to the ranks of Israel, ‘Why do you come out and line up for battle? Am I not a Philistine, and are you not the servants of Saul? Choose a man and have him come down to me. If he is able to fight and kill me, we will become your subjects; but if I overcome him and kill him, you will become our subjects and serve us’. Then the Philistine said, ‘This day I defy the armies of Israel! Give me a man and let us fight each other’. On hearing the Philistine’s words, Saul and all the Israelites were dismayed and terrified. Eliab, the oldest of Jesse’s boys, the one upon whom Samuel had first fastened, would severely reprimand his youngest brother for intruding into the army’s affairs, also implying that David may have been neglecting their father’s sheep. But we had already been told that David, who was only obeying his father’s instructions, anyway, had “left the flock in the care of a shepherd”. Here follows the feisty David’s exchanges with the Israelite soldiers and with Eliab (vv. 20-31): Early in the morning David left the flock in the care of a shepherd, loaded up and set out, as Jesse had directed. He reached the camp as the army was going out to its battle positions, shouting the war cry. Israel and the Philistines were drawing up their lines facing each other. David left his things with the keeper of supplies, ran to the battle lines and asked his brothers how they were. As he was talking with them, Goliath, the Philistine champion from Gath, stepped out from his lines and shouted his usual defiance, and David heard it. Whenever the Israelites saw the man, they all fled from him in great fear. Now the Israelites had been saying, ‘Do you see how this man keeps coming out? He comes out to defy Israel. The king will give great wealth to the man who kills him. He will also give him his daughter in marriage and will exempt his family from taxes in Israel’. David asked the men standing near him, ‘What will be done for the man who kills this Philistine and removes this disgrace from Israel? Who is this uncircumcised Philistine that he should defy the armies of the living God?’ They repeated to him what they had been saying and told him, ‘This is what will be done for the man who kills him’. When Eliab, David’s oldest brother, heard him speaking with the men, he burned with anger at him and asked, ‘Why have you come down here? And with whom did you leave those few sheep in the wilderness? I know how conceited you are and how wicked your heart is; you came down only to watch the battle’. ‘Now what have I done?’ said David. ‘Can’t I even speak?’ He then turned away to someone else and brought up the same matter, and the men answered him as before. What David said was overheard and reported to Saul, and Saul sent for him. It has been said: “One man’s meat is another man’s poison”. King Saul’s armour, which the huge Benjaminite wore easily, was nothing but cumbersome to the smaller man, David. To use another saying, it fell ‘all over him like a cheap suit’. Vv. 38-39: Then Saul dressed David in his own tunic. He put a coat of armor on him and a bronze helmet on his head. David fastened on his sword over the tunic and tried walking around, because he was not used to them. ‘I cannot go in these’, he said to Saul, ‘because I am not used to them’ So he took them off”. Then, it is back to his shepherding experience (v. 40): “Then he took his staff in his hand, chose five smooth stones from the stream, put them in the pouch of his shepherd’s bag and, with his sling in his hand, approached the Philistine”. Christians can regard David’s “five smooth stones”, symbolically, as the five wounds of Christ, and again, with the “sling”, as the five-decade Rosary. Thus Frits Albers introduced his book, “… five smooth stones …” (1998).

Qadesh doubly problematical for Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky

Part One: Qadesh of the Annals of Thutmose III by Damien F. Mackey “The north side of my town faced east / And the east was facing south”. The Who In somewhat similar fashion, with geography all askew, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky once had Qadesh (Kadesh) facing southwards, when it should have been facing northwards, and once had Qadesh facing northwards, when it should have been facing southwards. The first instance concerned Kadesh in the records of Thutmose III, the warrior-pharaoh whom Dr. Velikovsky would re-locate from his conventional placement in the mid-C15th BC to the C10th BC era of King Solomon and his son, Rehoboam. (Ages in Chaos, I, 1952). Despite this radical downwards time-shift, I fully accept the correctness of it, as well as accepting Dr. Velikovsky’s identification of Thutmose III, ‘the Napoleon of Egypt’ (professor Henry Breasted), as the biblical “Shishak king of Egypt” (I Kings 14:25-26): “In the fifth year of King Rehoboam, Shishak king of Egypt attacked Jerusalem. He carried off the treasures of the Temple of the Lord and the treasures of the royal palace. He took everything, including all the gold shields Solomon had made”. Thirdly, I am likewise convinced with Dr. Velikovsky (though by no means in harmony with his details) that this, the First Campaign of Thutmose III, his Year 22-23 (c. 1460 BC, conventional dating; c. 922 BC, revised), was the same as the biblical episode as narrated above in the First Book of Kings. It is commonly agreed that Kd-šw/Qd-šw in the Egyptian Annals refers to Kadesh/ Qadesh, though not all agree as to which geographical location was intended. Ironically, in this singular instance, Dr. Velikovsky’s reconstruction would rigidly follow the conventional path, northwards from Gaza (Egyptian G3-d3-tw], to Yemma? (Egyptian Y-hm), via a narrow defile, Aruna (Egyptian '3-rw-n3), to Megiddo (Egyptian My-k-ty). Megiddo’s close association with Taanach (Egyptian T3-'3-n3-k3) in the Egyptian Annals, appears positively to secure the identification of My-k-ty with Megiddo - as both professor James Henry Breasted and Dr. Velikovsky had accepted. Whilst I, also, shall be embracing their identifications of Gaza, Megiddo and Taanach, I shall be vehemently rejecting those of the in-between locations of Yehem (Y-hm) and Aruna. A conventional path was never going to hold Dr. Velikovsky too long in its embrace. For, while the conventionalists had the Egyptian army continuing its push northwards, to Syrian Qadesh - which progression I think is correct - Dr. Velikovsky, in order to make this campaign fit his brilliant “Shishak” identification, will have the Egyptian army suddenly lurch back southwards from Megiddo, to attack Jerusalem, the “Holy” - Dr. Velikovsky here attempting to draw a connection between the Kd-šw/Qd-šw of the Egyptian Annals and the Hebrew word for “Holy”, qodesh (קֹ֔דֶשׁ). Consequently, Egypt’s “wretched foe”, the king of Qadesh, Dr. Velikovsky will now identify as King Rehoboam of Jerusalem, in full southward flight from the Egyptians, only managing to have himself hauled into Jerusalem before the Egyptians can seize him. A similar narrow type of escape is narrated in the Egyptian Annals in the case of the real King of Kd-šw. Those ever hoping to find evidence for the Bible in historical records can be thrilled by such excitingly reconstructed scenarios as this. Now, though Dr. Velikovsky’s reconstruction (and also its conventional counterpart) of the right biblical campaign, is wrong, those thrilled by the prospect of having a biblical event confirmed in the historical records need not cease being thrilled. The First Campaign of Thutmose III, in his Year 22-23 (c. 922 BC, revised), was, indeed the same as the biblical episode as narrated above in I Kings 14:25-26. But it needs to be properly re-presented. This was typical Dr. Velikovsky, intuiting the correct conclusion - namely, here, that Thutmose III was the biblical “Shishak”, whose assault on Jerusalem occurred during the pharaoh’s First Campaign - but erecting his thesis in a most unconvincing fashion. Glaringly wrong is the conventional identification (accepted by Dr. Velikovsky) of the Aruna ('3-rw-n3) road with some obscure Wadi 'Ara near Megiddo. Thankfully, Dr. Eva Danelius came to the rescue here with her most important article, “Did Thutmose III Despoil the Temple in Jerusalem?” (1977/78): https://saturniancosmology.org/files/egypt/thutmos.htm Breasted identified this defile, the road called "Aruna" in Egyptian records, with the Wadi 'Ara which connects the Palestine maritime plain with the Valley of Esdraelon (4). It was this identification which aroused my curiosity, and my doubt. …. As an afterthought, Nelson warns not to be deceived by the Arabic name (wadi) 'Ara: "Etymologically, it seems hardly possible to equate (Egyptian) 'Aruna with (Arab) 'Ar'arah." (51). …. Not only etymologically, but, far more importantly, topographically - the major contribution made by Dr. Danelius - does the Wadi 'Ara not at all fit the Egyptian description of the dread Aruna road, whose Egyptian rendering, '3-rw-n3, however, transliterates perfectly into the Hebrew Araunah. This road was connected, via the name of Araunah the Jebusite (2 Samuel 24:15-16), directly to Jerusalem and its Temple. To conclude, without repeating all the details of what I have already written by way of correction of Dr. Velikovsky, and modification of Dr. Danelius, in: The Shishak Redemption (1) The Shishak Redemption and: Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III’s march on Jerusalem (2) Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III's march on Jerusalem - with Yehem (Y-hm) newly identified as Jerusalem itself - here is the brief summing up of my “Yehem near Aruna …” article: The Aruna road, the most difficult, but most direct, was the one that the brilliant pharaoh chose, for a surprise assault upon Megiddo. Jimmy Dunn writes regarding pharaoh’s tactic …: … the Aruna road was through a narrow and difficult pass over a ridge that was presumed (particularly for the enemy coalition) to be too difficult for any army to use. Taking that route meant that ‘horse must follow horse, and man after man’…. Also, many modern commentators, and perhaps the Canaanite coalition as well, seem to forget the major virtues of the Egyptian Chariots. They were light vehicles, and it was certainly conceivable that many could be carried through the pass, while the horses were led separately …. The pass was named from its beginning at Araunah, near king Rehoboam’s capital, Jerusalem, “Yehem near Aruna”. Dr. Danelius had got the name right, but she had the Egyptian military negotiating it the wrong way around, with Araunah as its destination point, rather than its being … [the] starting point. This road is variously known to us today as the Way of the Patriarchs, the Hill Road, or the Ridge Route, since it included, as we read, “a narrow and difficult pass over a ridge”. It was not a proper road, even as late as the time of Jesus, not one of the international highways then to be found in Palestine. This would have been a most tricky road, indeed, to negotiate, especially for an army that greatly relied upon its chariots. From Gaza (as all agree), pharaoh marched to Jerusalem (Dr. Danelius got the sequence right, but mis-identified Jerusalem), and then by the narrow Aruna road (Dr. Danelius got the name right only, not the direction) on to Megiddo (as per the conventional view and Velikovsky), and then on to Syrian Kadesh (as per the conventional view ….). For Dr. Velikovsky, this one was a case of: Qadesh facing southwards, when it should have been facing northwards. Part Two: Battle of Pharaoh Ramses II near Qadesh “The north side of my town faced east / And the east was facing south”. The Who In somewhat similar fashion, with geography all askew, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky once had Qadesh (Kadesh) facing southwards, when it should have been facing northwards, and once had Qadesh facing northwards, when it should have been facing southwards. The second instance concerned Kadesh in the inscriptions of Ramses II ‘the Great’ and in those of his mighty foe, the Hittites. Dr. Velikovsky would re-locate Ramses II from his conventional placement in c. 1300 BC to c. 600 BC, identifying him as pharaoh Necho II of Egypt’s Twenty-Sixth Dynasty. And the Hittite king, Hattusilis, known to have made a treaty with Ramses II, Dr. Velikovsky would shockingly (by conventional estimates) identify with the Chaldean king, Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’. (Ramses II and His Time, 1978). Despite this radical downwards time-shift, I believe that Dr. Velikovsky was very much on the right track here. However, rather than Ramses II being Necho II, and Egypt’s Nineteenth Dynasty being the same as the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty, my preference would be for Ramses II being, instead, Tirhakah (Taharqa) of the (Ethiopian) Twenty-Fifth Dynasty. For my comprehensive treatment of this subject, see my article: The Complete Ramses II (3) The Complete Ramses II which is no less shocking than Dr. Velikovsky’s thesis. In fact, it is more so, considering that I claim here that textbook ancient history has scattered the bits and pieces of Ramses II ‘the Great’ over almost a whole millennium, from c. 1300 BC to c. 350 BC (Tachos = Taharqa). Importantly, Ramses II was the same as Ramses Psibkhanno (Twenty-First Dynasty), leading me to conclude that: Sargon II’s Šilkanni of Egypt was Psibkhenno, not Osorkon (3) Sargon II’s Šilkanni of Egypt was Psibkhenno, not Osorkon This conclusion of mine, that Ramses II was a contemporary of Sargon II, would probably strain (even with my radically truncated chronology) Dr. Velikovsky’s identification of Nebuchednezzar with Hattusilis. It was considered in Part One that Dr. Velikovsky had been compelled - to keep alive his “Shishak” thesis - to re-identify Thutmose III’s Qadesh as Jerusalem. Now, similarly, to keep alive his thesis that Ramses II was the same as Necho II, who is known to have marched towards Carchemish (Jeremiah 46:2; 2 Chronicles 35:20), Dr. Velikovsky will geographically force Qadesh in this case - no longer as the “Holy” city of Jerusalem - into becoming what he called “the Sacred City” of Carchemish. (Ramses II and His Time, Chapter. 1: THE BATTLE OF KADESH-CARCHEMISH …. Carchemish, the Sacred City). Given that Necho II had fought “on the plain of Megiddo”, where King Josiah of Judah was slain (2 Chronicles 35:22-24), and given that pharaoh Shoshenq so-called I campaigned against Megiddo, I would rather suggest that (along with Ramses II as Tirhakah) Necho II was the same pharaoh as Shoshenq. https://cojs.org/shoshenq_megiddo_fragment/ A fragment of Pharaoh Shoshenq’s commemorative stele found at Megiddo. The fragment is not well-preserved and only the name of the king and some phrases glorifying him can be read. Although the fragment does not prove that Shoshenq conquered Megiddo, it does imply that he had some control over the city. Taking an Occam’s Razor approach, the whole thing can be simplified by identifying Qadesh (Kadesh) in the records both of Thutmose III and of Ramses II as Syrian Qadesh on the Orontes. This is the usual interpretation in each case. AI Overview The ancient city of Kadesh is believed to have been located near the Orontes River in modern-day Syria, while Carchemish was situated on the west bank of the Euphrates River, also in modern-day Syria. The distance between the two locations is approximately 150-200 kilometers (93-124 miles). For Dr. Velikovsky, this one was a case of: Qadesh facing northwards, when it should have been facing southwards.

Dsemschid (Jamshid), a Babel era hero or Iranian imitation of King Solomon?

by Damien F. Mackey “In this profile Solomon resembles another mythic king whose rise and fall is told in another book in Meḥmed's library at Topkapı: Jamshīd, the culture hero of Abū’l-Qāsim Firdawsī's Iranian epic Shāhnāma”. Carlos Grenier The first time that I ever heard of this character with the impossible name of Dsemschid was in reading stigmatist Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich’s supposed visions of the Old Testament. I had never heard of Dsemschid, who does not appear in either the Bible, or in any history of which I am aware. Who was he? Below one will find Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich’s detailed account of Dsemschid, “one of the grandsons of Thubal”, an antediluvian patriarch. Just yesterday (22nd April, 2025), I came across Dsemschid’s name in the variant form of Jamshid, a figure from Iranian mythology, who, some think, was King Solomon. Thus Carlos Grenier writes in his article: Solomon, his temple, and Ottoman imperial anxieties Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2022 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bulletin-of-the-school-of-oriental-and-african-studies/article/solomon-his-temple-and-ottoman-imperial-anxieties/6647CBD2FB994F8E80D29594F088548B Abstract Several works focusing on the complex figure of Solomon appeared between 1450 and 1580, each offering variations on the themes of empire-building, sedentarization, sacral kingship, and technological change.The Dürr-i Meknun, written around the time of the conquest of Constantinople, uses Solomon to illustrate the risks of urbanization, imperial hubris and potential tyranny. The second, the Süleyman-name by the technically inclined author Uzun Firdevsi, portrays Solomon in the image of Sultan Bayezid II. The prophet, using his bureaucratic capacities, enacts Ottoman dreams of control over the eastern Mediterranean. Finally, the accounts given of the deeds of Sultan Süleyman, notably the reconstruction of the Temple Mount and the construction of the Süleymaniye complex in Istanbul, show the Solomonic myth consciously enacted by the state itself. These sources trace a trajectory whereby anxieties surrounding the transformations of early modernity are expressed and worked through by means of the vocabulary of a prophetological sacred history. …. In his library in Topkapı Palace in Istanbul, the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II (r. 1451–81) kept a copy of the Testament of Solomon, an anonymous Greek text of disputed date.Footnote1 It tells of the Biblical Solomon's encounters with demons and spirits and closes with a cautionary tale in which the prophet-king falls in love with a princess from a pagan land. This pagan princess says she will not marry him unless he worships her gods, which Solomon, as prophet of the one God, refuses to do. She insists and lays before the king “five grasshoppers, saying ‘Take these grasshoppers, and crush them together in the name of the gods Raphan and Moloch; then I will sleep with you’”. Solomon confesses, “And this I actually did. And at once the Spirit of God departed from me … Wretch that I am, I followed her advice … and my spirit was darkened, and I became the sport of idols and demons”.Footnote2 Elsewhere in Topkapı's library were preserved closely related stories. Several versions of the ubiquitous medieval collections of prophet tales known as Qiṣaṣ al-Anbiyā (“Tales of the Prophets”) present Solomonic narratives derived in part from the sources of the Testament. Emerging out of a body of lore on pre-Islamic prophetology collectively termed isrā’īliyyāt (“Israelite lore”),Footnote3 the Qiṣaṣ al-Anbiyā of al-Thaʿlabi and al-Kisā’i tell of a pagan princess whom Solomon had married, and who was secretly devoted to the cult of her own father whom she had re-imaged as an idol of gold in her private palace.Footnote4 The wise vizier Asaf discovers this and informs Solomon, who, distraught, loses his divine guidance as the demon Sakhr steals the king's signet ring and sits on his throne. Exiled from kingship and prophecy, the disgraced Solomon is forced to repent fully for his wife's paganism before he can regain his throne. The Solomon of the Qiṣaṣ of Ibn ʿAsākīr hews even more closely to that of the Testament: the king sacrifices a locust to his wife's idols.Footnote5 As for the Quran itself, the standard by which Muslim readers would measure the authenticity of the others, Solomon is rehabilitated,Footnote6 but not before he is for a time made absent from his throne, replaced by a “mere body”.Footnote7 This exiled Solomon, whose love for his wives leads him to dabble in pagan worship and to rush towards a hubristic fall, is based on the canonical Solomon of the Hebrew Bible. “As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods …”, reads 1 Kings, and God resolves to take his kingdom away from him.Footnote8 This complex Biblical Solomon presents to the Jewish and Christian exegete a certain problem: the ultimate builder, possessed of wisdom and kingly virtues, nonetheless succumbs to a temptation that squanders his gifts.Footnote9 In this profile Solomon resembles another mythic king whose rise and fall is told in another book in Meḥmed's library at Topkapı: Jamshīd, the culture hero of Abū’l-Qāsim Firdawsī's Iranian epic Shāhnāma. “[Jamshīd cried] ‘Who would dare say that any man but I was king?’ All the elders inclined their heads … By saying this he lost God's farr, and through the world men's murmurings of sedition grew … Jamshīd's days were darkened, and his world-illuminating splendor dimmed”, writes Firdawsī.Footnote10 For this reason, Jamshīd and Solomon were commonly interpreted by Muslims from India to the Ottoman lands as two names for the same person.Footnote11 Indeed, the conflation of Solomon and Jamshīd seems to have created in the minds of Muslim commentators the same problem that vexes Biblical exegetes. How could Solomon and Jamshīd have been the same, when the latter clearly sinned? How can a glorious king and prophet fail so spectacularly? Although the fifteenth-century Persian historian Mīrkhwānd absolves Solomon of Jamshīd's sins by noting the many centuries that separate the two,Footnote12 Solomon, in the imagination of many, had absorbed Jamshīd's darker aspects. Seen together, the several Solomon stories that shared the shelves of Sultan Meḥmed's library speak with deep multivalence. While remaining the ultimate archetype of sacral kingship and the overseer of monumental urbanism, Solomon presents at the same time a counter-narrative critical of monarchy. In showing Solomon succumbing to the allure of power as his domain expands to pagan territories and as his household grows to include polytheist women, the story seems to give voice to an awareness of dangers of imperial expansion and the centralization that complements it. The story alludes to the precarity of the imperial model, always at the verge of a fall, a fall precisely connected to the cosmopolitanism of empire. The strength of empires in accommodating difference here leads to their disintegration. …. [End of quote] Now, According to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmrich’s completely different account of Dsemschid (in Life of Jesus Christ): …. I saw them, Thubal's fol¬lowers, on a high mountain where they dwelt one above another in long, low huts like arbors. I saw them digging the ground, planting, and setting out trees in rows. The opposite side of the mountain was cold. Later on the whole region became much colder. In consequence of this change in the climate, one of the grandsons of Thubal, the ancestor Dsemschid, led them further toward the southwest. With a few excep¬tions, all who had seen Noe and had taken leave of him died in this place, that is, on the mountain to which Thubal had led them. They who followed Dsem¬schid were all born on the same mountain. They took with them the few surviving old men who had known Noe, carrying them very carefully in litters. When Thubal with his family separated from Noe, I saw among them that child of Mosoch, Hom, who had gone with Thubal into the ark. Hom was already grown, and later on I saw him very different from those around him. He was of large stature like a giant, and of a very serious, peculiar turn of mind. He wore a long robe, he was like a priest. He used to go alone to the summit of the mountain and there spend night after night. He observed the stars and practiced magic. He was taught by the devil to arrange what he saw in vision into a science, a religion, and thereby he vitiated and counteracted the teaching of Henoch. The evil inclinations inherited from his mother mingled in him with the pure hereditary teach-ings of Henoch and Noe, to which the children of Thubal clung. Hom, by his false visions and revela¬tions, misinterpreted and changed the ancient truth. He studied and pondered, watched the stars and had visions which, by Satan's agency, showed him deformed images of truth. Through their resemblance to truth, his doctrine and idolatry became the mothers of heresy. Thubal was a good man. Hom's manner of acting and his teaching were very displeasing to Thubal, who was greatly grieved to see one of his sons, the father of Dsemschid, attach himself to Hom. I heard Thubal complaining: "My children are not united. Would that I had not separated from Noe!" Hom conducted the waters of two springs from the higher part of the mountain down to the dwellings. They soon united into one stream which, after a short course, swelled into a broad torrent. I saw Dsemschid and his followers crossing it at their departure. Hom received almost divine homage from his followers. He taught them that God exists in fire. He had also much to do with water, and with that viscous root from which he derived his name. He planted it, and solemnly distributed it as a sacred medicine and nour¬ishment. This distribution at last, became a ceremony of religion. He carried its juice or pap around with him in a brown vessel like a mortar. The axes were of the same material. They got them from people of another tribe that lived far away in a mountainous country and forged such implements by means of fire. I saw them on a mountain from which fire burst forth, sometimes in one place, sometimes in another. I think the vessel which Hom carried around with him was made out of the melted metal or rock that flowed from the mountain, and which was caught in a mold. Hom never married nor did he live to be very old. He published many of his visions referring to his own death. He himself put faith in them as did also Derketo and his other followers at a later period. But I saw him dying a frightful death, and the evil one carried him off body and soul; nothing remained of him. For that reason his followers thought, that, like Henoch, he had been taken up to a holy dwelling place. The father of Dsemschid had been a pupil of Hom, and Hom left him his spirit in order that he might then be the one who would succeed him. On account of his knowledge, Dsemschid became the leader of his people. They soon became a nation, and were led by Dsemschid still further south. Dsems¬chid was very distinguished; he was well-educated, and had embraced Hom's teachings. He was unspeak-ably lively and vigorous, much more active and better also than Hom, who was of a dark, rigid disposition. He practiced the religion formulated by Hom, added many things of his own thereto, and gave much atten¬tion to the stars. His followers regarded fire as sacred. They were all distinguished by a certain sign which denoted their race. People at that time kept together in tribes; they did not intermingle then as now. Dsem¬schid's special aim was to improve the races and maintain them in their original purity; he separated and transplanted them as seemed best to him. He left them perfectly free, and yet they were very sub¬missive to him. The descendants of those races, whom I now see wild and barbarous in distant lands and islands, are not to be compared with their progeni¬tors in point of personal beauty or manly character; for those early nations were noble and simple, yet withal most valiant. The races of the present day are also far less skillful and clever, and possess less bodily strength. On his marches, Dsemschid laid the foundations of tent cities, marked off fields, made long roads of stone, and formed settlements here and there of cer¬tain numbers of men and women, to whom he gave animals, trees, and plants. He rode around large tracks of land, striking into the earth with an instrument which he always carried in his hand, and his people then set to work in those places, grubbing and hack¬ing, making hedges and digging ditches. Dsemschid was remarkably strict and just. I saw him as a tall old man, very thin and of a yellowish-red complex¬ion. He rode a surprisingly nimble little animal with slender legs and black and yellow stripes, very much like an ass. Dsemschid rode around a tract of land just as our poor people go around a field on the heath by night, and thus appropriated it for cultivation. He paused here and there, plunged his grubbing axe into the ground or drove in a stake to mark the sites of future settlements. The instrument, which was after¬ward called Dsemschid's golden plough share, was in form like a Latin cross. It was about the length of one's arm and, when drawn out, formed with the shaft a right angle. With this instrument, Dsemschid made fissures in the earth. A representation of the same appeared on the side of his robe where pockets gen¬erally are. It reminded me of the symbol of office that Joseph and Aseneth always carried in Egypt, and with which they also surveyed the land, though that of Dsemschid was more like a cross. On the upper part was a ring into which it could be run. Dsemschid wore a mantle that fell backward from the front. From his girdle to the knee hung four leath¬ern flaps, two behind and two before, strapped at the side and fastened under the knee. His feet were bound with leather and straps. He wore a golden shield on his breast. He had several similar breastplates to suit various solemnities. His crown was a pointed cir¬clet of gold. The point in front was higher and bent like a little horn, and on the end of it waved some¬thing like a little flag. Dsemschid constantly spoke of Henoch. He knew that he had been taken away from the earth with¬out undergoing death. He taught that Henoch had delivered over to Noe all goodness and all truth, had appointed him the father and guardian of all bless¬ings, and that from Noe all these blessings had passed over to himself. He wore about him a golden egg shaped vessel in which, as he said, was contained something precious that had been preserved by Noe in the ark, and which had been handed down to him¬self. Wherever he pitched his tent, there the golden vessel was placed on a column, and over it, on ele¬gant posts carved with all kinds of figures, a cover¬ing was stretched. It looked like a little temple. The cover of the vessel was a crown of filigree work. When Dsemschid lighted fire, he threw into it something that he took out of the vessel. The vessel had indeed been used in the ark, for Noe had preserved the fire in it; but it was now the treasured idol of Dsemschid and his people. When it was set up, fire burned before it to which prayers were offered and animals sacri¬ficed, for Dsemschid taught that the great God dwells in light and fire, and that He has many inferior gods and spirits serving Him. All submitted to Dsemschid. He established colonies of men and women here and there, gave them herds and permitted them to plant and build. They were now allowed to follow their own pleasure in the mat¬ter of marriage, for Dsemschid treated them like cat¬tle, assigning wives to his followers in accordance with his own views. He himself had several. One was very beautiful and of a better family than the oth¬ers. Dsemschid destined his son by her to be his suc¬cessor. By his orders, great round towers were built, which were ascended by steps for the purpose of ob¬serving the stars. The women lived apart and in subjec¬tion. They wore short garments, the bodice and breast of material like leather, and some kind of stuff hung behind. Around the neck and over the shoulders they wore a full, circular cloak, which fell below the knee. On the shoulders and breast, it was ornamented with signs or letters. From every country that he settled, Dsemschid caused straight roads to be made in the direction of Babel. Dsemschid always led his people to uninhabited regions, where there were no nations to expel. He marched everywhere with perfect freedom, for he was only a founder, a settler. His race was of a bright red¬dish yellow complexion like ochre, very handsome people. All were marked in order to distinguish the pure from these of mixed descent. Dsemschid marched over a high mountain covered with ice. I do not remem¬ber how he succeeded in crossing, but many of his followers perished. They had horses or asses; Dsem¬schid rode on a little striped animal. A change of cli¬mate had driven them from their country. It became too cold for them, but it is warmer there now. Occa¬sionally he met on his march a helpless tribe either escaping from the tyranny of their chief, or awaiting in distress the advent of some leader. They willingly submitted to Dsemschid, for he was gentle, and he brought them grain and blessings. They were desti¬tute exiles who, like Job, had been plundered and banished. I saw some poor people who had no fire and who were obliged to bake their bread on hot stones in the sun. When Dsemschid gave them fire, they looked upon him as a god. He fell in with another tribe that sacrificed children who were deformed or who did not reach their standard of beauty. The lit¬tle ones were buried up to the waist, and a fire kin-dled around them. Dsemschid abolished this custom. He delivered many poor children, whom he placed in a tent and confided to the care of some women. He afterward made use of them, here and there, as ser¬vants. He was very careful to keep the genealogical line pure. Dsemschid first marched in a southwesterly direc¬tion, keeping the Prophet Mountain to the south on his left; then he turned to the south, the mountain still on his left, but to the east. I think he afterward crossed the Caucasus. At that period, when those regions were swarming with human beings, when all was life and activity, our countries were but forests, wildernesses, and marshes; only off toward the east might be met a small, wandering tribe. The Shining Star (Zoroaster), who lived long after, was descended from Dsemschid's son, whose teachings he revived. Dsemschid wrote all kinds of laws on bark and tables of stone. One long letter often stood for a whole sen¬tence. Their language was as yet the primitive one, to which ours still bears some resemblance. Dsem¬schid lived just prior to Derketo and her daughter, the mother of Semiramis. He did not go to Babel him¬self, though his career ran in that direction. I saw the history of Hom and Dsemschid as Jesus spoke of it before the pagan philosophers, at Lanifa in the isle of Cyprus. These philosophers had in Jesus' presence spoken of Dsemschid as the most ancient of the wise kings who had come from far beyond India. With a golden dagger received from God, he had divided off and peopled many lands, and had scattered bless¬ings everywhere. They questioned Jesus about him and the various wonders related to him. Jesus responded to their questions by saying that Dsem¬schid was by nature a prudent man, a man wise ac¬cording to flesh and blood; that he had been a leader of the nations; that upon the dispersion of men at the building of the Tower of Babel, he had led one race and settled countries according to a certain order; that there had been other leaders of that kind who had, indeed, led a worse life than he, because his race had not fallen into so great ignorance as many others. But Jesus showed them also what fables had been writ¬ten about him and that he was a false side picture, a counterfeit type of the priest and king Melchisedech. He told them to notice the difference between Dsem¬schid's race and that of Abraham. As the stream of nations moved along, God had sent Melchisedech to the best families, to lead and unite them, to prepare for them lands and abiding places, in order that they might preserve themselves unsullied and, in propor¬tion to their degree of worthiness, be found more or less fit to receive the grace of the Promise. Who Melchisedech was, Jesus left to themselves to deter¬mine; but of one thing they might be certain, he was an ancient type of the future, but then fast approach¬ing fulfillment of the Promise. The sacrifice of bread and wine which he had offered would be fulfilled and perfected, and would continue till the end of time.