by
Damien F. Mackey
“Now Solomon. I think I destroyed Solomon, so to speak. Sorry for that!”
Israel Finkelstein
Historians and archaeologists have managed to make such a mess of things that now it is necessary to visit several supposed eras widely separated in time, and geographies, to locate the vital bits and pieces that go to make up the true King Solomon of Israel.
The same thing can be said for pharaoh Ramses II ‘the Great’, except that, to find him, requires a search even more wide-ranging than in the case of Solomon - as I have observed before - a search spanning over an entire millennium of conventional history:
The Complete Ramses II
(1) The Complete Ramses II
This is all a complete disaster - something urgently needs to be done about it.
So, starting with the earliest (in conventional terms) manifestation of King Solomon, let us work our way down from there to the C10th BC king in Jerusalem, who is the one far more familiar to us.
Solomon’s BC Manifestations
(i) As Gudea of Lagash
This will, of course, immediately seem ridiculous.
How could a priest-king dated to c. 2100 BC, ruling from Lagash supposedly in Sumer,
be the same person as a C10th BC king of Israel (Jerusalem)?
Firstly, it needs to be noted that the dating of the enigmatic Gudea has been almost as liquid as has that of the famous Hammurabi of Babylon, who, commencing at c. 2400 BC, has since been dragged all the way down to c. 1800 BC by conventional historians - but whose correct historical era is, in fact, as a contemporary of our King Solomon, in the C10th BC:
Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as Contemporaries of Solomon
(2) Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as Contemporaries of Solomon
This re-location of Hammurabi is by now, to my way of thinking at least, very well-established revisionism (see below).
Gudea, for his part, is variously dated to c. 2144-2124 BC (middle chronology), or c. 2080–2060 BC (short chronology).
I am going to be locating him closer to c. 950 BC – about 1200 years lower than is the earliest conventional estimate for him.
Regarding geography, something very strange has happened to have led to the building up of a fictitious land of Sumer in southern Mesopotamia, with places set there such as Lagash, Girsu and Eshnunna, that do not rightly exist in that region. Amazingly - though not really surprisingly under the circumstances - Lagash (Lagaš) and Girsu seem to ‘fall permanently off the political map’, according to ancient historian Seth Richardson (and that is because they do not belong on this map):
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
These three locations, and various others, are actually Judean: Girsu being Jerusalem; Lagash (Lakish) being Lachish; and Eshnunna (Ashnunna) being Ashdod (again, Lachish). On this, see e.g. my article:
As Ashduddu (Ashdod) is to Lachish, so, likewise, is Eshnunna to Lagash
(3) As Ashduddu (Ashdod) is to Lachish, so, likewise, is Eshnunna to Lagash
Appropriately (as King Solomon), Gudea ruled Girsu (Jerusalem) as well as ‘the second most important city of Judea’, the strong fortress of Lachish (Ashdod).
A possible explanation for how such a horrible hash of inharmonious history has come about is that later historians - and I am thinking chiefly of the Ptolemies/Seleucids - romantically re-cast (and re-located?) ancient history and some of its most astounding characters - especially those associated with the miraculous or wonderful, such as Imhotep, Amenhotep son of Hapu, and Ahikar (Achior) - deifying these in the process, and turning them into polymathic thaumaturgists.
And this may likewise, perhaps, have been what happened in the case of the wise and miraculous King Solomon, who re-emerges as the semi-divine Gudea of Lagash and Girsu, dutifully serving the god Ninĝĩrsu, “Lord of Girsu” (read “Lord of Jerusalem”).
Following this massive correction of history, chronology and geography, we can now quite confidently extract from the semi-fictitious (?) Gudea the biblical King Solomon.
“Parallels between Gudea’s and Solomon’s account include … taxing the people; costly imports; divine word requiring obedience; detailed description of opulent furnishings; consecration; installation of divine majesty into temple; speech by ruler at consecration imploring divine bounty; specification of ruler’s offering …”.
Diane M. Sharon
Having the ancient city of Lagash (var. Lakish) rudely transferred from deep in supposed Sumer, to be re-located 1300-plus km (as I estimate it) westwards, as the fort of Lachish, as I have proposed to be necessary, then it comes as no surprise - in fact, I would have expected it - to learn that Gudea’s Temple hymn has Jewish resonances.
It just remains to be determined with which prominent Jewish builder, Gudea – {a name that looks like Judea, but supposedly means: “the messenger or the one called by the god, or “the receiver of revelation”, meaning “the prophet”} – may have been.
Diane M. Sharon, who has dated the era of Gudea about a millennium too early, has nevertheless written most interestingly at the beginning of her 1996 article, “A Biblical Parallel to a Sumerian Temple Hymn? Ezekiel 40–48 and Gudea”:
Ezekiel’s remarkably detailed vision of the future temple as described in chapters 40–48 is unique in Biblical literature. …. However, it bears undeniable resemblance to the ancient Near Eastern genre of Sumerian temple hymns, and to one example in particular. …. This example, commonly referred to as the Gudea Cylinders, was written at about 2125 B.C.E. to commemorate the building of a temple to the god Ningirsu by Gudea, king of Lagash. …. It recounts a vision received by Gudea in a dream, in which he is shown the plan and dimensions of the temple he is to build. While in fundamental ways these texts are quite different, this paper will focus on the common features of theme, structure, and detail shared by these two documents.
…. it is worthwhile noting that the structure and details of Gudea’s building program also bear great resemblance to other temple construction accounts in the Bible, specifically Solomon’s activity described in 1 Kgs. 5:1–9:9 and Hezekiah’s reconstruction and repair of the temple outlined in 2 Chronicles 29–31.
While a deeper analysis must wait, a summary of the parallels might be illuminating for the reader of the present paper. Parallels between Gudea’s and Solomon’s account include: … taxing the people; costly imports; divine word requiring obedience; detailed description of opulent furnishings; consecration; installation of divine majesty into temple; speech by ruler at consecration imploring divine bounty; specification of ruler’s offering; feast of seven days; and divine exhortation to moral and ethical behavior by ruler and subjects. ….
[End of quote]
Conclusion One: Gudea was King Solomon of Israel.
Somewhat more tentative and circumstantial will be my next proposed manifestation of King Solomon.
(ii) As Ibal-piel [I/II] of Eshnunna
The well-documented Hammurabic era, the Mari letters, should make some mention, at least, of the contemporaneous (as now determined) King Solomon.
Why I had lauded above the revised placement of King Hammurabi of Babylon is because of this formidable set of pillars now able to be set in place:
- Hammurabi’s older contemporary, Shamsi-Adad I, was King David’s Syrian foe, Hadadezer (Dean Hickman);
- whose father, Rekhob, was Shamsi-Adad’s father Uru-kabkabu (-rukab-) (Dean Hickman);
- Solomon’s persistent foe, Rezin, was Zimri-Lim (Mackey);
- whose father, Iahdulim, was Rezin’s father, Eliada (Mackey).
- this leaves the most powerful king of the era, Iarim-Lim, as the biblical Hiram (Mackey).
That Iarim-Lim (Yarim-Lim) was an ancient master-king is apparent from a letter from Mari which gives the pecking order at the time:
10-15 kings follow Hammurabi, the man of Babylon, Rim-Sin, the man of Larsa, Ibal-Piel, the man of Eshnunna, and Amut-Piel, the man of Katna.
However, 20 kings follow Yarim-Lim, the man of Yamhad.
{It is very tempting to identify Hammurabi himself as Hiram’s and Solomon’s highly-skilled artisan ally, Huram-abi}
Why have I tentatively picked out Ibal-piel for King Solomon (who is known to have had various names), whom we would expect to be named as a notable king of the day?
Well, this Ibal-piel:
- is chronologically appropriate in a revised setting;
- he belongs to Eshnunna, which was shown to have been Lachish, and which was closely associated with Girsu (Jerusalem);
- and he follows, as son and successor, a David-like named king, Dadusha, of Eshnunna, who must surely have been King David himself.
Ibal-piel, about whom we do not know much, comes across as somewhat idolatrous. But, for one, we ought to recall that King Solomon himself had apostatised.
Of Ibal-piel we read briefly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibal-pi-el_II
Ibal pi’el II was a king of the city kingdom of Eshnunna in ancient Mesopotamia [sic]. He reigned c. 1779–1765 BC). … [sic]
He was the son of Dadusha and nephew of Naram-Suen of Eshnunna.
Mackey’s comment: I suspect that Naram-Sin of Eshnunna was, again, King David, Naram-Sin apparently sent Shamsi-Adad I into exile, while David defeated Hadadezer.
David means “Beloved”, and so does Naram mean “Beloved”.
The Wikipedia article continues with Ibal-piel:
…. He was a contemporary of Zimri-Lim of Mari, and formed powerful alliances with Yarim-Lim I … Amud-pi-el of Qatanum, Rim-Sin I of Larsa and most importantly Hammurabi of Babylon, … to appose [sic] the rise of Shamshi-Adad I in Assyria (on his northern border) who himself had alliances with Charchemish, Hassum and Urshu … and Qatna. ….
[End of quote]
This bountiful revision - as opposed to what I had called above ‘such a horrible hash of inharmonious history’ - may thus have yielded us this galaxy of biblical characters:
King David;
King Hiram;
Rekhob;
Hadadezer;
King Solomon;
Huram-abi;
Eliada;
Rezin
Conclusion Two: Ibal-piel was King Solomon.
Archaeologically, for King Solomon, we are in the Late Bronze II (LB II) Age.
And that is why the likes of professor Israel Finkelstein have been unable to find any trace whatsoever of him, expecting his kingdom – if such there was – to be identifiable in the early Iron II Age. Hence Finkelstein’s dismal conclusion:
“Now Solomon. I think I destroyed Solomon, so to speak. Sorry for that!”
We learn from the Scriptures that (I Kings 9:15): “King Solomon conscripted [forced labor] to build … the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer”.
This building work pertains to LB II stratigraphy, as Dr. John Bimson has so well explained (“Can There be a Revised Chronology Without a Revised Stratigraphy?” (S.I.S. Review Journal of the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies, Vol. VI Issues 1-3, 1978):
…. I Kings 9:15 specifically relates that Solomon rebuilt Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. In the revised stratigraphy envisaged here, the cities built by Solomon at these sites would therefore be those of LB II A. More specifically, these three Solomonic cities would be represented by Stratum VIII in Area AA at Megiddo … by Stratum XVI at Gezer, and by Stratum XIV of the Upper City at Hazor (= Str. Ib of the Lower City) ….
The wealth and international trade attested by these levels certainly reflect the age of Solomon far more accurately than the Iron Age cities normally attributed to him, from which we have “no evidence of any particular luxury” …. The above-mentioned strata at Megiddo and Gezer have both yielded remains of very fine buildings and courtyards …. The Late Bronze strata on the tell at Hazor have unfortunately not produced a clear picture, because of levelling operations and extensive looting of these levels during the Iron Age; but the LB II A stratum of the Lower City has produced a temple very similar in concept to the Temple built by Solomon in Jerusalem, as described in the Old Testament ….
[End of quote]
For LB II Megiddo, I would strongly recommend this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkYtYokj3Qg
Discovering the Real Gate of Solomon: The David Rohl Lectures - Part 4
(iii) As Jabin of Hazor
Could King Solomon also have been the contemporary ruler of the strategic Hazor, King Jabin (of the Mari letters), who has been the cause of no small amount of chaos for some of the best (Christian) revisionists.
Drs. Donovan Courville, David Down and John Osgood, amongst others, earnestly striving to establish the elusive King Hammurabi of Babylon in a more reasonable historical setting, all fastened on this particular King Jabin (Ibni) of Hazor, a known contemporary of Hammurabi, identifying him with the Jabin of Hazor whom Joshua defeated, and so fixing Hammurabi to c. C15th BC, about half a millennium too early.
Obviously this blunder must have dire consequences for the balance of their revisions.
This particular Jabin of Hazor, a contemporary of King Solomon, is actually the third ruler bearing this generic name, the previous two being Jabin at the time of Joshua, and Jabin at the time of Deborah. On this, see e.g. my article:
Several Kings of Hazor used the generic name of Jabin
(4) Several kings of Hazor used the generic name of Jabin
To confuse these three kings Jabin must surely have disastrous ramifications.
Now, and this is also tentative, if Mari’s Jabin of Hazor was contemporaneous with King Solomon, and knowing that the latter had rebuilt the strategic city, Hazor, could Solomon himself, then, have been this very Jabin king of Hazor?
Previously I had written on this:
Since the ‘destruction’ of Jabin of Hazor at the time of Deborah and Barak (Judges 4:23-24), the site should have fallen under the jurisdiction of Israel.
And that situation would have continued until, and including, the time of David and Solomon – which is the era I consider (following Dean Hickman) to synchronise with Hammurabi, Zimri-Lim, and the Mari archive.
So I must conclude that the only hope of salvaging Dean Hickman’s thesis is to identify Jabin (3) of Hazor with King Solomon himself. And that would not seem to be immediately promising, considering that the two predecessors of Jabin (3) of Hazor were both hostile to Israel.
What would King Solomon be doing adopting a name like Jabin (Ibni), or Yabni?
To my own surprise, there is a name amongst the seven legendary names of King Solomon:
https://ohr.edu/8266
“Midrashic Tradition tells us that King Solomon appears in the Bible under several different names. His parents, King David and Batsheba, named him Shlomo, while the prophet Natan named him Yedidyah (see II Sam. 12:24-25). Actually, the name Shlomo was already given to him before his birth in a prophecy to King David (see I Chron. 22:9). Two of the twenty-four books in the Bible open by explicitly ascribing their authorship to Shlomo: Shir HaShirim (Song of Songs) and Mishlei (Proverbs). A third book, Kohelet (Ecclesiastes), ascribes itself to somebody named Kohelet, son of David, king of Jerusalem. According to tradition, Kohelet is another name for Solomon. So far, we have three names for King Solomon.
The early Amora, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi adds another four names to this list. …” [,]
that can serve to bring a completely new perspective - and in favour of Dean Hickman’s thesis - to the conventional view that Mari’s Jabin of Hazor belonged to the C18th BC, and also to Dr. Courville’s view that this Jabin was the one at the time of Joshua.
Could King Solomon be the Ibni-Addu [or Jabin] king of Hazor
as referred to in the Akkadian tablet ARM VI, 236?
To suggest that would seem to be a very long stretch indeed, given that the Mari tablets are conventionally dated to c. 1800 BC, and given also that the kings Jabin of Hazor were Canaanite kings inimical to the Hebrews, whether of the Joshuan or the Judges eras.
What, however, makes far more plausible a connection between the Solomonic era and a king referred to in the Mari tablets is Dean Hickman’s thesis - previously considered - that the Mari archives, Zimri-Lim, and king Hammurabi of Babylon, must be re-dated to the actual time of King Solomon.
What makes even more possible a connection between King Solomon and the Ibni (Yabni) of Hazor, at this particular time, is the fact that King Solomon had built up the important city of Hazor (I Kings 9:15).
But, if Solomon were this Ibni (Yabni), or Jabin, why would he not have been said to have been “of Jerusalem” (or Girsu)?
Well, geographically the Mari tablets do not go further SW than Hazor, which is in fact “the only Canaanite site mentioned in the archive discovered in Mari …”:
http://www1.chapman.edu/~bidmead/G-Haz.htm
Similarly, the foremost king of the Syro-Mesopotamian region, the Amorite king, Iarim-Lim, is connected with Aleppo. He, I have argued, was David and Solomon’s loyal friend, referred to in the Bible as “Hiram king of Tyre” (e.g. I Chronicles 14:1).
It seems that these mobile ancient kings of wide-ranging geographical rule were referred to by fellow monarchs in relation to the closest of their cities.
Hazor was, even as early as Joshua’s day, a city of immense importance (Joshua 11:10): “The Head of all those Kingdoms" (Joshua 11:10).
At a later time: “The Mari documents clearly demonstrate the importance, wealth and far-reaching commercial ties of Hazor”:
http://www1.chapman.edu/~bidmead/G-Haz.htm
There is a lot to recommend the impressive Late Bronze Age Hazor as that which Solomon rebuilt:
http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:142088/FULLTEXT01.pdf
“Hazor’s role in an international Late Bronze Age context has long been indicated but never thoroughly investigated. This role, I believe, was more crucial than previously stressed. My assumption is based on the very large size of this flourishing city which, according to documents, possessed ancient traditions of diplomatic connections and trade with Mesopotamia in the Middle Bronze Age.
Its strategic position along the most important N-S and E-W main trade routes, which connected Egypt with Syria, Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean Sea with the city and beyond, promoted contacts. Hazor was a city-state in Canaan, a province under Egyptian domination and exploitation during this period, a position that also influenced the city’s international relations. Methodologically the thesis examines areas of the earlier and the renewed excavations at Hazor, with the aim of discussing the city’s interregional relations and cultural belonging based on external influences in architectural structures (mainly temples), imported pottery and artistic expressions in small finds, supported by written evidence. Cultic influences are also considered.
…
A model of ‘interregional interaction networks’ describes the organization of the trade which provided certain consumers at Hazor with the Aegean and Cypriote pottery and its desirable content.
The cargo of the Ulu Burun and Cape Gelidonya ships and documents show that luxury items were transited from afar through Canaan. Such long-distance trade / exchange require professional traders that established networks along the main trade route …”.
[End of quote]
King Solomon, like Ibni-Addu (Jabin) of Hazor, had great need of tin, which had become scarce in the Mediterranean at that time.
Much has been written on this. For example:
http://helpmewithbiblestudy.org/17Archeology/InscriptionJabin.aspx#sthash.jFPTabMN.dpbs
“One Akkadian tablet (ARM VI, 236, dated to the 18th century B.C.) recorded a shipment of tin to "Ibni-Addad king of Hazor." Translated from Akkadian into its West Semitic form "Ibni-Addad" becomes "Yabni-Haddad," and "Yabni" linguistically evolves into "Yabin /Jabin" in ancient Hebrew”.
https://www.c4israel.org/news/did-british-israeli-tin-trade-supply-solomons-temple/
Did British-Israeli Tin Trade
Supply Solomon’s Temple?
Dr James E. Patrick - 28 November 2019
Scientists recently found evidence suggesting that Solomon’s Temple may have been built with bronze made from British tin. Late Bronze Age tin ingots found in Israel have been analysed and shown to have originated in the tin mines of Cornwall and Devon.
The Bible records Solomon sending trading ships to Tarshish, returning along the African coast (1Kings 10:22). Jonah fled on such a ship away from Nineveh, confirming that Tarshish was far to the west of Israel (Jonah 1:1-3). Ezekiel 27:12 later tells us that the wealth of Tarshish was ‘silver, iron, tin and lead’. The mineral-rich kingdom of Tartessos did exist in south-west Spain, but the tin it traded was not indigenous, coming instead by sea from Cornwall. Britain had supplied tin for bronze-making to all of Europe for centuries, hence its prosperity during the Bronze Age. As such, Britain would have traded tin with Israel using ‘ships of Tarshish’.
But that biblical detective work has now been confirmed with hard evidence. In the second-millennium BC, known as the Bronze Age, the name itself illustrates how widespread and important bronze was to societies all across Europe and the Middle East. Bronze is made from copper and tin, but tin is very rare in Europe and Asia, giving it a value and strategic importance in those times similar to oil today. ….
[End of quote]
Traditionally, one of King Solomon’s various names was Bin, thought to indicate:
“Bin = "he who built the Temple".”
A thirteenth century AD scholar (so I seem to recall) translated this Bin as Yabni, which is our Jabin.
Whatever reason had prompted Solomon to take (or to have been given) this name - and it may have been simply because this had become the traditional name for a ruler of the city of Hazor - the choice of name is a most fortuitous one, for it perfectly describes the wise and discerning Solomon:
The name Jabin comes from the verb בין (bin) meaning to understand or have insight:
https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Jabin.html#.XkncEW5uKUk
Jabin (Hebrew: יָבִין Yāḇîn) is a Biblical name meaning 'discerner', or 'the wise'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabin
Conclusion Three: King Jabin (Ibni) of Hazor may possibly have been the biblical King Solomon.
Concerning my next manifestation of King Solomon, (iv), I am far more confident, as I was in the case of (i) Gudea of Lagash (Lachish).
(iv) As Senenmut in Egypt
“Then, in 1995, this scholarly skepticism over the historicity of the Bible
was suddenly challenged when Egyptologist and historian, David Rohl,
burst onto the scene with a new theory”.
The Lost Testament (flyleaf)
Many revisionists today embrace the so-called New Chronology (NC) as promoted by Dr. David Rohl and Bernard Newgrosh. This, I think, is most unfortunate.
There are two critical things I want to say about NC at this point:
- Its conclusions are inferior to those of Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky’s famed series, Ages in Chaos, which basic revision NC rejects.
- I bristle at the fact that the proponents of NC, a late comer on the revisionist scene, present NC as if it is the beginning and the end of it all. And I wrote an article expressing my strong views on this:
Distancing Oneself from Velikovsky
(3) Distancing oneself from Velikovsky
saying:
.… But the UK (in particular) revisionists, aware that Velikovsky was regarded with contempt by the conventional scholars, whose system they themselves were completely undermining – though perhaps also seeking some academic respectability – and aware that Velikovsky’s latter phase revision, e.g. the 19th dynasty of Egypt, was archaeologically untenable (though loyal Velikovskians have clung to it), sought to distance themselves from Velikovsky completely, they hardly at all, or at least very scarcely, even mentioning him in their later books and publications.
And when they did mention him, they laughed him off as a “wayward polymath”, or “maverick”.
Now, whilst these epithets can be appropriate in the right context, they are mean and miserable when revisionists fail to admit their owing a debt to Velikovsky. The most arrogant example of this, which is not only unjust to Velikovsky but which demeans all those others who have put a lot of effort into a revision of ancient history – as well as the writings of “Creationists” – was this piece in the flyleaf introducing David Rohl’s The Lost Testament (Century, 2002) as if the revision recognizing the over-extension of chronology by modern researchers had begun with him in 1995 (forgetting Velikovsky’s beginnings in the 1940’s):
The earliest part of the bible is recognised as the foundation-stone of three great religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – yet over the last century archaeologists and historians have signally failed to find any evidence to confirm the events described in the ‘book of books’. As a consequence, many scholars took the view that the Old Testament was little more than a work or fiction. The testimony of biblical history had, in effect, been lost.
Then, in 1995, this scholarly skepticism over the historicity of the Bible was suddenly challenged when Egyptologist and historian, David Rohl, burst onto the scene with a new theory. He suggested that modern researchers had constructed an artificially long chronology for the ancient world – a false time-line which had dislocated the Old Testament events from their real historical setting.
The alternative ‘New Chronology’ – first published in A Test of Time: The Bible From Myth to History – created a world-wide sensation and was fiercely resisted by the more conservative elements within academia. Seven years on, however, the chronological reconstruction has developed apace and numerous new discoveries have been made.
Now, in his new book, The Lost Testament, David Rohl reveals the entire story of the Children of Yahweh – set in its true historical context. An astounding number of references in the literature of neighbouring civilizations are shown to synchronise with the Old Testament accounts, confirming events which had previously been dismissed as mythical. In addition, this contemporary literature – combined with the archaeological record – reveals new information and new stories about personalities such as Enoch, Noah, Nimrod, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Saul, David and Solomon.
The Bible has at last been recovered from the ruins of the ancient past as the ‘when’, ‘where’ and ‘who’ are explained – throwing unforeseen and fascinating new light on the world’s most treasured book.
[End of quote]
By rejecting Dr. Velikovsky’s important identification of pharaoh Thutmose III as “Shishak king of Egypt”, a younger contemporary of King Solomon, in favour of his (NC’s) view that Shishak was the later pharaoh, the great Ramses II, Dr. Rohl has disenabled NC of ever finding a suitable candidate for the biblical Queen of Sheba.
Dr. Velikovsky had intuitively recognised her as Hatshepsut, ruler of Egypt (c. 1480 BC conventional dating).
As I wrote in my critique of Dr. John Bimson, who had been commenting on Velikovsky in the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (SIS) well before Dr. Rohl became a key player there:
Solomon and Sheba
(2) Solomon and Sheba
…. Bimson suggested that the biblical queen was from Yemen in Arabia, but van Beek … has described the geographical isolation of Yemen and the hazards of a journey from there to Palestine and none of the numerous inscriptions from this southern part of Arabia refers to the famous queen.
Civilisation in southern Arabia may not really have begun to flourish until some two to three centuries after Solomon's era, as Bimson himself has noted … and no 10th century BC Arabian queen has ever been named or proposed as the Queen of Sheba. If she hailed from Yemen, who was she?
[End of quote]
“If she hailed from Yemen, who was she?”
That is the thing about constructing a radical revision of biblico-history. It is not sufficient to make an identification simply in isolation. One needs also to be able to demonstrate how this affects what precedes, and what follows, it.
The NC revisionists might have their new Shishak (and, admittedly, it is well argued), but they no longer have a Queen of Sheba.
In the process of writing this article for the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies
CHRONOLOGY AND CATASTROPHISM REVIEW (1997:1), I had the good fortune of discovering the polymathic King Solomon in Egypt at the very time, as SENENMUT, considered to have been ‘the real power behind the throne’ of Hatshepsut.
King Solomon, who had participated in, had veritably created, a Golden Age for Israel, was also involved in a Golden Age for Egypt, the Eighteenth Dynasty’s glorious era of co-rule between pharaoh Hatshepsut and the brilliant Thutmose III.
The chronology is perfect.
Solomon, as Senenmut, was prominent in Egypt until the co-pharaohs’ Year 16, approximately. And Thutmose III launched his First Campaign, Years 22-23, the Shishak event, a handful of years later, in the 5th year of Solomon’s son, Rehoboam:
Yehem near Aruna – Thutmose III’s match on Jerusalem
(3) Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III's march on Jerusalem
Conclusion Four: Senenmut was King Solomon of Israel.
(v) As Qoheleth
In those, his latter years, King Solomon had come to realise the futility of much of life, his life, despite all of the earlier glories.
And he accordingly, as Qoheleth, wrote the Book of Ecclesiastes, as Nathan Albright well tells it:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2011/06/20/a-case-for-solomonic-authorship-of-ecclesiastes/
A Case For Solomonic Authorship of Ecclesiastes
Posted on June 20, 2011 by nathanalbright
The traditional view of the authorship of Ecclesiastes is that Solomon wrote it at the end of his life, reflecting on his life and mistakes and coming to a conclusion that obedience to God is the duty and obligation of mankind. However, there are many people who claim that Ecclesiastes was instead a second temple forgery by a scribe who wrote as if he was Solomon. This view is troublesome because the Bible has the harshest opinion of forged letters (see Paul’s comments in 2 Thessalonians 2:2), and nowhere includes a forgery among the canon of scripture.
Nonetheless, in the absence of Solomonic autographs (which we do not possess and are not likely to possess) for Ecclesiastes, the best way to demonstrate the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes is to examine the internal evidence of the material to see how it squares with Solomon’s perspective, and to see if we can create a sound case on internal evidence for Solomon writing Ecclesiastes. That is the point of this particular entry, to at least provide a way to square the distinctive nature of Ecclesiastes with the life of Solomon.
Let us pursue three avenues of demonstrating Solomonic authorship by inference from the internal evidence. First, let us look at the distinctive name by which Solomon calls himself. The word “ecclesiastes” in Latin means “speaker before an assembly.” The title that Solomon uses for himself in the book is Qoheleth, a word that only appears in Ecclesiastes (in 1:1, 2 12; 7:27; 12:8-10) in the entire Hebrew scriptures, and which is often translated “Preacher.” Let us note, though, that the author (Solomon) is pictured as writing a book on the wisdom of kings that is spoken to an assembly. There is only one kingly assembly that we know of in the entire era of the Israelite monarchies, and that occurs in 1 Kings 12. We may therefore take Ecclesiastes as the position of Solomon at the end of his life, which would explain the mild advice given to Rehoboam by Solomon’s counselors (see 1 Kings 12:7) about serving the people rather than exploiting them.
Ecclesiastes may therefore be seen as a part of the tradition of ethical and constitutional monarchy within Israel rather than the heathen and satanic model of authoritarian rule. The similarity between Ecclesiastes’ view and that of Solomon’s advisers right after his death would indicate that Ecclesiastes represents his “last words” on the subject of kingship in a specific historical context where an assembly was taking place to determine the next king. Let us also note that Solomon very well may have called this assembly specifically to ensure the continuity of the Davidic line.
Second, let us note some concerns that Solomon shows about his heir that are recorded that accord very well with what the Bible has to say about the foolish Rehoboam. Ecclesiastes 2:18-21: “Then I hated all my labor in which I had toiled under the sun, because I must leave it to the man who will come after me. And who knows whether he will be wise or a fool? Yet he will rule over all my labor in which I toiled and in which I have shown myself wise under the sun. This also is vanity. Therefore I turned my heart and despaired of all the labor in which I had toiled under the sun. For there is a man whose labor is with wisdom, knowledge, and skill; yet he must leave his heritage to a man who has not labored for it. This also is vanity and a great evil.” Here is the “succession” problem of leaders and organizations (and nations) dealt with openly and squarely. The passage would be of special relevance to a wise father of a son whose wisdom he doubts and is concerned about (with good reason).
Finally, let us note a passage that would seem to indicate Solomon’s own bitterly ironic view of his response to the warning of God, expressed in Ecclesiastes 4:13-16:
“Better is a poor and wise youth than an old and foolish king who will be admonished no more. For he comes out of prison to be king, although he was born poor in hi kingdom. I saw all the living who walk under the sun; they were with the second youth who stands in his place. There was no end over all the people over whom he was made king; yet those who come afterward will not rejoice in him. Surely this also is vanity and grasping for the wind.” This is a fitting prophecy of the reign of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who was “in prison” as a youth in Egypt for his rebellion against Solomon (given by the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite), and whose rule began with great popularity and the support of “all Israel” at Shechem, but whose name became a byword for sin, as all of the kings of Israel in the divided kingdom “followed in the sin of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel sin” through the establishment of an official state religion with heathen golden calves and a counterfeit religious festival around the time of Halloween.
The bitter tone of Ecclesiastes and the knowledge it speaks of the politics of the 10th century BC, during the time when Israel divided into two hostile and warring states, ending their brief “mini-empire” of glory that they had known under the reign of David and Solomon, reflects better the times that they describe, where the ironic references to the division of Israel are particularly powerful, rather than to centuries later when the monarchy was a distant and fading memory, and when Solomon’s greatness was being consigned to the oblivion that he feared. If Ecclesiastes really is Solomon’s last words as a king, and his parting advice to his son, one wishes that his son had not been such a fool as to give it so little respect, for Ecclesiastes is truly a wealth of wisdom, even if it is wisdom gained at the price of much weariness and sorrow.
Conclusion Five: Qoheleth was King Solomon of Israel.
I began this article with these words:
Historians and archaeologists have managed to make such a mess of things that now it is necessary to visit several supposed eras widely separated in time, and geographies, to locate the vital bits and pieces that go to make up the true King Solomon of Israel.
To locate those ‘vital bits and pieces’ for our C10th BC king, we have had to range all the way back to c. 2100 BC, and supposedly to Mesopotamia, then down to c. 1800 BC, Syro-Palestine, then all the way down to c. 1480 BC, Egypt.
A staggering millennium or more, as was the case also with Ramses II ‘the Great’!
All of this trouble to provide a complete portrait of King Solomon of C10th BC Israel, and to refute the naysayers.
