Jesus Christ, the Geatest of David's Royal Dynasty

What does it mean that Jesus is the son of David?

---

Question: "What does it mean that Jesus is the son of David?"

Answer: Seventeen verses in the New Testament describe Jesus as the "son of David." But the question arises, how could Jesus be the son of David if David lived approximately 1000 years before Jesus? The answer is that Christ (the Messiah) was the fulfillment of the prophecy of the seed of David (2 Samuel 7:14-16). Jesus was the promised Messiah, which meant He was of the seed of David. Matthew 1 gives the genealogical proof that Jesus, in His humanity, was a direct descendant of Abraham and David through Joseph, Jesus' legal father. The genealogy in Luke chapter 3 gives Jesus' lineage through His mother, Mary. Jesus is a descendant of David, by adoption through Joseph, and by blood through Mary. Primarily though, when Christ was referred to as the Son of David, it was meant to refer to His Messianic title as the Old Testament prophesied concerning Him.

Jesus was addressed as “Lord, thou son of David” several times by people who, by faith, were seeking mercy or healing. The woman whose daughter was being tormented by a demon (Matthew 15:22), the two blind men by the wayside (Matthew 20:30), and blind Bartimaeus (Mark 10:47), all cried out to the son of David for help. The titles of honor they gave Him declared their faith in Him. Calling Him Lord expressed their sense of His deity, dominion, and power, and by calling Him “son of David,” they were professing Him to be the Messiah.

The Pharisees, too, understood what was meant when they heard the people calling Jesus “son of David.” But unlike those who cried out in faith, they were so blinded by their own pride and lack of understanding of the Scriptures that they couldn’t see what the blind beggars could see – that here was the Messiah they had supposedly been waiting for all their lives. They hated Jesus because He wouldn’t give them the honor they thought they deserved, so when they heard the people hailing Jesus as the Savior, they became enraged (Matthew 21:15) and plotted to destroy Him (Luke 19:47).

Jesus further confounded the scribes and Pharisees by asking them to explain the meaning of this very title. How could it be that the Messiah is the son of David when David himself refers to Him as “my Lord” (Mark 12:35-37)? Of course the teachers of the law couldn’t answer the question. Jesus thereby exposed the Jewish spiritual leaders’ ineptitude as teachers and their ignorance of what the Old Testament taught as to the true nature of the Messiah, further alienating them from Him.

Jesus Christ, the only son of God and the only means of salvation for the world (Acts 4:12), is also the son of David, both in a physical sense and a spiritual sense.
....

Taken from: http://www.gotquestions.org/jesus-son-of-david.html

Zechariah 12: House of David

Chapter 12

1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.
2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.
3 And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.
4 In that day, saith the LORD, I will smite every horse with astonishment, and his rider with madness: and I will open mine eyes upon the house of Judah, and will smite every horse of the people with blindness.
5 And the governors of Judah shall say in their heart, The inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be my strength in the LORD of hosts their God.
6 In that day will I make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem.
7 The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah.
8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.
9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
11 In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.
12 And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart;
13 The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart;
14 All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.


And from: http://www.sungenisandthejews.com/uploads/ROOT-LINK.doc.

The “Root” of Romans 11





Question: Who or what is the “root” that St. Paul writes about in Romans 11?





Answer: In Romans 11, St. Paul writes at length about God’s relationship with the Israelite people. In particular he focuses on understanding the fact that so many of his Jewish brethren have not accepted the promised Messiah. Did this mean that the children of Israel were rejected by God? And what implications did this have for the Gentiles?



St. Paul then writes:



For if their (the Jews’) rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? If the firstfruits are holy, so is the whole batch of dough; and if the root is holy, so are the branches.

But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place and have come to share in the rich root of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. If you do boast, consider that you do not support the root; the root supports you. Indeed you will say, ‘Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.’ That is so. They were broken off because of unbelief, but you are there because of faith. So do not become haughty, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you either. (Rom. 11: 15-22)





So, who or what exactly is the “root” to which St. Paul refers? It would seem that a very common answer is the Patriarchs of Israel. Although, there is certainly solid evidence that “root” may also refer to Jesus Christ, the Israelite par excellence. And there is some evidence that it may be considered to refer to Israel itself, including a statement by our current pontiff.



Perhaps these varying interpretations reveal a deeper truth, not a contradiction. To be grafted onto the Patriarchs of Israel, Israel itself or Jesus Christ (the Israelite par excellence) may amount to the same thing in the imagery St. Paul chose. It is God’s life-giving grace that flows through the roots and trunk of the tree, grace which is mediated to the branches. In human terms, the life-giving grace of God has been mediated to men through Abraham and the Patriarchs of Israel, Israel itself and of course Jesus Christ, the Israelite par excellence, the representative head of Israel (Galatians 3).



In Scripture, Isaiah prophesied that Christ would sprout forth from the “stump of Jesse”, the father of King David (Isaiah 11:1). Jacob/Israel and Judah are spoken of as “taking root” in Isaiah 27:6 and 37:31, respectively. The Old Testament expressly describes Israel as the olive tree in Jer. 11:16 and Hos 14:7. And Christ is clearly spoken of as the “root” in Revelation 5:5 and 22:16. God’s grace was showered upon man because of and through the faith of Abraham, and continued in this way through certain of his progeny, eventually passing through Jacob (Israel) and culminating in the Israelite par excellence, Jesus Christ.



Below are several interpretations from the Fathers of the Church and various Catholic scripture scholars, including Benedict XVI:



1) A Comprehensive Catholic Commentary, Fr. George Leo Haydock, page 1,494.



“By the root, says St. Chysostom, he understands Abraham and the Patriarchs, from whom all the Jewish nation proceeded, as branches from that root…”



2) Moffat New Testament Commentary: The Epistle to the Romans, page 178.



“The ‘root’ is the patriarchs”



3) Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture 1951, Dom Bernard Orchard, page 1072 and 558, respectively:



“(St. Paul) is no renegade, and Israel…has not lost the holiness which she inherited from the Patriarchs, who are…her roots.”



“’In the days to come, Israel shall take root…’ The world’s salvation is from Israel.”



4) Fr. Richard Stack, Lectures on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, 1806, page 330:



“By the root is meant Abraham…”



5) Fr. Charles Callan, The Epistles of St. Paul, page 184:



“The firstfruit and the root mean the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. who were holy men and faithful servants of God.”



6) Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI), Many Religions- One Covenant, page 32:



“we must .. first ask what this view of the historical figure of Jesus means for the existence of those who know themselves to be grafted through him onto the 'olive tree Israel', the children of Abraham.” (Note: Here Benedict XVI clearly sees the Gentiles as being grafted on to Israel).



7) St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, XX, 3) Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Philip Schaff, pg 147:



“Then, when ye were stripped, ye were anointed with exorcised oil, from the very hairs of your head to your feet, and were made partakers of the good olive-tree, Jesus Christ. For ye were cut off from the wild olive-tree, and grafted into the good one,

and were made to share the fatness [abundance] of the true olive tree.

The exorcised oil therefore was a symbol of the participation of

the fatness of Christ, being a charm to drive away every trace of

hostile influence.”



8) St. Augustine:



Sermons, XXVII, 12:



"Therefore did the Lord at once graft the wild olive into the good olive tree. He did it then when He said, 'Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.”



"So then for this reason that people did not come to Him, that is by reason of pride; and the natural branches are said to be broken off from the olive tree, that is from that people founded by the Patriarchs."



Augustine to Faustus the Manichean, Bk 9 2:



"You say that the apostle, in leaving Judaism, passed from the bitter to the sweet. But the apostle himself says that the Jews, who would not believe in Christ, were branches broken off, and that the Gentiles, a wild olive tree, were grafted into the good olive, that is, the holy stock of the Hebrews, that they might partake of the fatness of the olive."





9) The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#755):



The Church is a cultivated field, the tillage of God. On that land the ancient olive tree grows whose holy roots were the prophets.



10) Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Romans), Bray (Editor), p 293:



a) Diodore: “First fruits and root both refer her to the patriarchs, the lawgiver and the prophets.”



b) Pseudo-Constantius: “The root refers to Abraham…”



c) Theodore of Mopsuestia: “by root he means, Abraham…”



d) Theodoret of Cyr; “the root is Abraham…”



e) Pelagius: “Do not rejoice in the fall of the Jews…you do not supply them with life, but they supply you.” (Here Pelagius seems to see Israel, or the Jews, as the root that mediates God’s grace.)



f) Ambrosiaster: “the Jews were not rejected for the sake of the Gentiles. Rather it was because they were rejected that they gave an opportunity for the gospel to be preached to the Gentiles. If you boast against those onto whose root you have been grafted, you insult the people who have accepted you so that you might be converted…You will not continue like that if you destroy the thing on which you stand.” (Here Ambrosiaster seems to be saying that the Gentiles “stand” on the Jews, that they have been grafted onto them.)



g) Chysostom: “if the Gentile, who was cut off from his natural fathers and come, contrary to nature, to Abraham, how much more will God be able to recover his own!”

h) Chrysostom: Ver. 16. "For if the first-fruits be holy, the lump also is holy; and if the root be holy, so are the branches;"

So calling in this passage by the names of the first-fruit and root Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, the prophets, the patriarchs, all who were of note in the Old Testament; and the branches, those from them who believed. (Homilies on Romans, Homily XIX)

i) Pseudo-Constantius: “Paul says that the Gentiles have been grafted against nature onto the root, that is, onto the faith of the Patriarchs.”





Michael Forrest

David and Solomon as Models for Plato's Philosopher King

Taken from:
http://apaul-solomonsmind.blogspot.com/2008/01/platos-republic.html

 

Wednesday, January 2, 2008

Plato's Republic

After church one day, I spoke to a friend and I brought up a thought I had during the service about David and Solomon being the first Philosopher Kings. Everything I heard about Plato’s Philosopher kings was that he led by great wisdom. I started to think if Plato used Solomon as the cornerstone of his work “The Republic”? Solomon, being the wisest man the world has known, brought great wealth and power to Israel and the people were at peace. He would have been the perfect person to base a great leader on. Plus Plato lived in the 4th Century BC. Plus he traveled greatly during the time including a trip to Judea before writing this Classic. This peaked my interest, that perhaps the great Philosopher King that the earthly world is clamoring for is based on Solomon? I had to do more research. I had read many accounts of “The Republic” but I had never read the Dialogue, so I read the work and here is what I found.

The Dialogues of Plato are written almost as plays, that places his old mentor Socrates as the central character. Plato seems to explain his thoughts through the interaction of Socrates with the other characters in the story. The Republic starts as Socrates and a few friends going to a festival and they start talking about philosophy of a just man, then move into a story of the best government for the people and who should lead it. All through this Dialogue he uses Socrates’ questioning style to maneuver the other characters into his line of thought. He speaks about leaders and being a just ruler by stating that a just ruler does thing for the weak the same way that a Doctor does things for the sick and not the healthy, and the same way a captain does things for the good of the crew not what is good for him.

Then he goes on and describes justice and praises the just man. Socrates’ friend gives a description of the purely unjust man and shows how a perfectly unjust man will seam like the most just man of all. They state that the truly unjust man will go about it in the truly right way and gets away with it. The one that is not perfectly unjust will gets caught and is considered incompetent and is not the perfectly unjust, since perfect injustice consists of appearing just when you are not. The perfectly unjust man will have reputation of being the most just man. Then we need to contrast him with the “truly” just man. He is a simple and honorable man that does not appear to be just. We must deprive him of the appearance of justice because the appearance of justice will bring him recognition and rewards and then it will not be clear if his motive for justice was a desire for justice or a desire for the rewards and the recognition. This I disagree with completely, that a perfectly just man will not care of the view of others. He will do what is just and leave it at that, not boasting or using this deed. Plato contends that we must strip him of everything but justice. He must have the worst possible reputation for injustice but truly being just, and have this reputation until his death. This description almost makes me think that Plato has a premonition of the only truly just man. Does not Christ meet every aspect of the truly just man listed above? Was he not given a criminal’s death when he was completely just? They then talk of the life that awaits them both here on earth. The unjust man would ask to rule cities because he has the reputation of justice. He can marry who he likes and make contract and partnership with who he wants. He finds it easy to make himself a rich man because he has no compunction about acting unjustly. And the just man is nothing of the sort. He just receives a cross to bear (These are my words).

Socrates defends the just man. And he gives the just man three elements to being just; Courage, Wisdom, Temperance or Self-discipline. First Socrates changes the subject to a just city but intends to describe the just man with the description of the just city. They start with the origin of a city. He starts stating that the origin of a city is because not one of us is self sufficient and need others. He starts talking about how a city is formed and what makes a just city and come to conclusion that a just city is just because of its rulers are just. At this point, he explains that citizens should be classified into four types, the Gold, the Silver, the Bronze and Iron. Gold should be the ruling class and would be the best of the people. They should be trained to be the most just and wise. They should also be removed from the need for money and therefore not be restrained by greed. They should learn the needs of the people and learn what is best for the people. The Silver would be the warrior class and the other lesser important leader roles like doctors and such. And next would be the Bronze and lower classes. These are the common people that need leaders.

The guardian class or Gold class would live communally and would need for nothing except the needs of their people. They would learn from an early life the philosophy and manager skills to run a city. Socrates finally states that these leaders should be Philosophy Kings, for only the Philosopher can have the wisdom to run such a city. He states that these rulers should do whatever is needed to better the lives of the people. Then a question on the women and the children come up, and he comes to say that the families for the ruling class should be in common, that women should be treated the same as the guardian men, each man with knowledge of each women and not knowing his children. With children he states, that the best class should reproduce and have many children and with the lower classes it would only be best that the embryos never see the light of day. This is also the view of any deformed children; only the best people should be born, not the lesser people.

After defining the just city he returns to the just man and states that the just man would be one that does what he is best suited to do; a hunter being a hunter, a farmer being a farmer, a bronze man being a bronze man and a ruler being a ruler. A hunter should not be a ruler because he does not have the skills to be a ruler. Only one trained to rule should rule.
All in all I came from this book with a greater understanding of the liberal view of today’s society. The leaders of the liberal view feel that they are Philosopher Kings in charge of a great just city, and they are the great defender of this city. These are the same liberals that called for free love and communal living in the 60‘s. They force abortion on the lower classes and try to destroy the common people’s society by degrading the value of marriage. All of this thought came not just from Plato, but also from Rousseau and Voltaire. Rousseau and Voltaire shouted “let us make a heaven here on earth and forget about God. Let us rely on reason and human understanding.” These are the same people that attempted at trying to have Enlighten Despots in many European nations, that would rule a nation like these Philosopher Kings of Plato and Socrates, but they all failed with huge amounts of bloodshed; with the French Revolution the bloodiest of all.

In all of these descriptions of the just man I saw one thing. The just man that they described is the perfectly unjust man of the first part of the story. "...The truly unjust man goes about it in the truly right way and gets away with it. The one that gets caught is considered incompetent since perfect injustice consists of appearing just when you are not. They will have the reputation of being the most just man..." They gave this statement when describing the unjust man. Does the Just man in the second part of the story not sound like he will have the gone about it in the right way? This just man lies to his people because “The end justifies the means” and ends up doing what is not just for all the people; only the ruling class. He does all of this in the guise of making the best choices for the society.

Plato tried to introduce his great leader as a man that uses his great human reasoning ability. He believed that man’s wisdom could create a society that was perfectly just, but he did not want to admit that man could never be perfectly just. That ingrained into him was something that would always move to the evil inside of his spirit. Since he lived only a couple hundred years after the greatest part of Israel‘s history, Plato must of known of the story of how David and Solomon ruled with great wisdom and created a great and just nation. He must have known that with this great wisdom that each man ended up doing unjust things after failing to follow God’s guidance. So in the end even Solomon, whom was considered the wisest man ever to live, that had great courage, and was very self-disciplined, ended up becoming unjust to his people and led them astray.

I will say that at the same time of the Enlightenment and the attempts of Philosopher Kings in Europe, a group of castaways in the new world created a different republic that was not formed in the image of Plato’s Republic, but in the theory that each individual is as great as another and getting representatives from all the people would create a truly just nation. They based there nation on something different then man’s wisdom; God’s wisdom. Thomas Jefferson, who admired the French enlightened leaders as a Deist, still spent many a line on the importance of God in society. As is written in a Memorial dedicated to this man are these words.
God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just. That his justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between Master and Slave is Despotism. Nothing is more written in the book of fate then that these people are to be free.

This Book of Plato’s does give good information, but not of the proper enlightened government, but of the folly of man’s justice. As Solomon has shown us, man can rule justly, as long as he follows the guidance of the truly just man, Jesus Christ.

Biblical ‘Queen of Sheba’ A Mystery to Modern Historians

Now when the Queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon concerning the Name of the Lord, she came to test him with hard questions. She came to Jerusalem with a very great retinue, with camels bearing spices, and very much gold, and precious stones; and when she came to Solomon, she told him all that was on her mind. And Solomon answered all her questions; there was nothing hidden from the king which he could not explain to her. And when the Queen of Sheba had seen all the wisdom of Solomon, the Palace that he had built, the food of his table, the seating of his officials, and the attendance of his servants, their clothing, his cup-bearers, and his burnt offerings which he offered at the Temple of the Lord, there was no more spirit in her.
And she said to the king, "The report was true which I heard in my own land of your affairs and of your wisdom, but I did not believe the reports until I came and my own eyes had seen it; and behold, the half was not told me; your wisdom and prosperity surpass the report which I heard. Happy are your wives! Happy are these your servants, who continually stand before you and hear your wisdom! Blessed be the Lord your God, who has delighted in you and set you on the throne of Israel! Because the Lord loved Israel for ever, He has made you king, that you may execute justice and righteousness".
Then she gave the king a hundred and twenty talents of gold, and a very great quantity of spices, and precious stones; never again came such an abundance of spices as these which the Queen of Sheba gave to King Solomon.
Moreover the fleet of Hiram, which brought gold from Ophir, brought ... a very great amount of almug wood and precious stones.
... And King Solomon gave to the Queen of Sheba all that she desired, whatever she asked besides what was given her by the bounty of King Solomon. So she turned and went back to her own land, with her servants. (Cf. I Kings 10:1-11,13 & II Chronicles 9:1-10, 12).



The modern reader of the biblical story of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba delights in it just as did the reader in the distant past. The picture of courtly elegance and grandeur, the display of cleverness and wisdom, friendship between the two heads of state, the exchange of costly gifts, and the exclamation of surprise on the part of the queen upon seeing Solomon's wealth and witnessing his display of wisdom - these are images that kindle the imagination of the simple and sophisticated alike.
Still, as J. Pritchard has noted (in Solomon & Sheba, Phaidon, p. 7), the twentieth century reader also likes to pose questions regarding the factual nature of this story:



What, if any, historical evidence is there for the celebrated visit? Has modern archaeology uncovered the remains of the age of Solomon sufficiently to make credible the details of the story? What is known from other sources about the ancient kingdom of Sheba and its queens? What appeal did this romantic tale have that could account for its continuing popularity through three millennia?


Questions, questions, but no firm answers.

It was left to Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky (Ages in Chaos, I) to identify this legendary queen, as the great Queen Hatshepsut of Egypt’s 18th Dynasty, who became ruler of Egypt an Ethiopia.


We have greatly developed Velikovsky’s pioneering work. The answers to all of Pritchard’s questions, and more, can be found in the articles at this site.

A Correction Re Name of Prophet Samuel

Damien F. Mackey writes:

I had once surmised that the name, Samuel, might have been of Egyptian origin, and this has been picked up at:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=27089&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45

as follows:

Samuel
It could be that the name `Samuel' is of Egyptian origin according to Damien Mackey. In that case `Moses, or Mu-sa (re) could be read Sa-Mu, with God `El', replacing the Egyptian theophoric, Re.

What it means for Israel to desire a king to rule over them - 1. Samuel 8. 8:1 And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel"".
....

I was quite wrong about this, as the First Book of Samuel distinctly tells us the meaning of the name (as referred to by Wikipedia):
According to 1 Samuel 1:20, Hannah named Samuel in memory of her requesting a child from God and God listening. Samuel is translated as Heard of God or possibly as a sentence "God has heard" (from 'Shama', heard and 'El', God — with "Shama" as the verb and "El" as the subject).^[1]

Influence of Kings David and Solomon on Hatshepsut of Egypt

A. The Scriptural Influence

Hatshepsut must have dispatched her expedition to Punt near to the very beginning of her reign (that is, about the seventh year of Thutmose III), because in the ninth year she gathered together all of her nobles and proclaimed before them the great things that she had done at the behest of her father Amon-Ra. Senenmut and Nehesi were given places of honour while she recounted to the assembly the result of her great venture. Hatshepsut reminded them all 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".

(i) An Image from Genesis

It is at the conclusion of Hatshepsut's speech to her nobles that we encounter a further scriptural image. Thus Baikie has commented briefly on Hatshepsut's boast that: "I have made for [Amon-Ra] a Punt in his garden at Thebes ... it is big enough for him to walk about in", 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" (op. cit., 74).

(ii) An Image from Proverbs

In another, related verse of the Punt reliefs, referring to Amon-Ra's leading of the expedition to "the Myrrh-terraces ... a glorious region of God's Land", the god speaks of his creating of the fabled Land of Punt in playful terms that can only remind one of the words that Solomon wrote about Wisdom's role in the work of Creation:

"I, Wisdom ... was with [the Creator], forming all things, and was His delight every day, playing before Him at all times, playing on the surface of His earth, delighting to be with the sons of men" (Proverbs 8:12, 30-31).

In the Egyptian version there is also reference to Hathor, the goddess 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 roles of the goddesses Hathor and Isis, in the prestigious Heliopolitan 'theology', were ones very similar to those of Moses' sister and mother, re-spectively (the god Horus reminding of Moses). Thus we read in Grimal (op. cit., 42-43): "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 ...".
Compare this with the action of Moses's mother and sister:

"[Moses's mother] put the child in [the basket] and placed it among the reeds at the river's brink. And his sister stood at a distance .... Then his sister said to Pharaoh's daughter, 'Shall I go and call you a nurse from the Hebrew women to nurse the child for you?' ... And the child grew ..." (Exodus: 2:3-4,7,10).

(iii) Images from the Song of Songs

In the weighing scene of all the goods acquired from Punt, Hatshepsut boasts:

'His 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'.

This passage can be favourably compared with various verses from King Solo-mon's love poem, Song of Songs (also called Song of Solomon), for example: "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). (Cf. 4:6, 14; 5:1, 5),
The question has to be asked: Did Solomon write this poem in honour of Queen Hatshepsut? Maccoby (op. cit.) certainly believed this to be the case, for the following reasons:

1. "To a mare among Pharaoh's cavalry would I compare you, my darling" (1:9). This direct reference to Egypt seems strange if applied to an Israelite girl, but quite natural if the beloved is 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" (1:6). The dark complexion of the female beloved, making her conspic-uous among the "daughters of Jerusalem", would not be surprising in an Egyptian woman.
3. "Who is she that cometh out of the wilderness ... perfumed with myrrh and frankincense, with all the fragrant powders of the merchant?" (3:6). According to Veli-kovsky's reconstruction, the Queen of Sheba came up to Jerusalem from the direction of the southern wilderness, travelling overland from Aqaba (Ezion-geber). Moreover, she brought with her a great store of perfumes. She gave to 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 has been regarded as a great puzzle that the female here is represented as a humble vineyard-watcher, whilst elsewhere in the poem she appears as a great lady. But may it not be, asks Maccoby, that here she is speaking metaphorically about her kingdom as a "vineyard"?

[And perhaps - as I would like further to suggest - about her native religion?].

The anger of her "brothers", countrymen, may easily be understood if she were the Queen of Egypt. Her involvement with Solomon had both political and religious impli-cations that would have been unwelcome. It might well have led to the subjection of Egypt to the power of Solomon.
5. There would be no objections, however, to a match between Solomon and an Egyptian princess whose hand would not bring with it power over Egypt.
We know that Solomon did marry an Egyptian princess.

Here, I would like to slip in another comment. Previously, I had suggested that Solomon may have married Hatshepsut's daughter, Neferure, who would have been only a child at the time. I think it likely that it was in regard to the little Neferure that Solomon wrote the words: "We have a little sister, and she has no breasts" (8:8), intending these words to be understood as if having been spoken by the Egyptians.
Fittingly, then, according to Maccoby's interpretation of this verse, the Egyptians were here offering to Solomon an Egyptian princess whom he could marry, when she was old enough.
I continue with Maccoby's useful comments:

6. "O that you were as my brother ... I would lead you and bring you to my mother's house" (8:1-2). She regrets that Solomon is not an Egyptian, so that she could marry him.
"My own vineyard is before me ..." (8:12). She must return to her own country.

In Egypt, at the time of Hatshepsut, we find a very similar type of love poetry.

(iv) An Image from the Psalms

When, late in her reign, the time came for Hatshepsut to celebrate the jubilee of her father's acknowledgement of her as heiress of the land, she summoned her favourite, Senenmut, and put him in charge of the immensely difficult task of procuring from Aswan the great shafts of granite that were needed to make her two commemorative obelisks. When the obelisks had been completed, the usual, formal words were inscribed upon them. Of a different tone however, as Baikie has pointed out, were those words in-scribed at the base of the obelisks (op. cit., 88):

"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 utter-ances the expression of something very like a genuine piety struggling to find expression underneath all the customary verbiage of the Egyptian monumental formulae. After the usual recitation of the titulary and en-comium of the queen, she goes on: 'I have done this from a loving heart for my father Amen; I have entered into his scheme for this first jubilee; I was wise by his excellent spirit, and I forgot nothing of that which he exacted. My Majesty knows that he is divine'."

And then in language that according to Baikie "might have come straight out of the Book of Psalms" (had it not been for the fact that his chronology would not allow it), the queen continues:

'I did it under his command; it was he who led me. I conceived no works without his doing; it was he who gave me directions. I slept not because of his temple; I erred not from that which he commanded. My heart was wise before my father; 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, and encompasses those who follow him'.

Baikie continues with his insightful commentary, though blissfully unaware that it really was the Psalms, and the sapiential words of David and Solomon, that would have influenced Hatshepsut's prayer (ibid., 89):

"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".

B. Influence of the Temple and Its Liturgy

It is difficult to determine precisely when Hatshepsut commenced the building of her beautiful temple, "The Most Splendid of Splendours", at Deir el-Bahri. Even Dorman, in his detailed analysis, cannot arrive at a specific date; though he would place the temple's beginning very early during Hatshepsut's rule (from the seventh year of Thutmose III).
In the context of our reconstruction, it would be surprising if Hatshepsut and Senenmut, the temple's architect, had not been greatly influenced by the design of the glorious Temple in Jerusalem. This latter magnificent edifice - the plans for which it should be recalled were David's (cf. I Chronicles 28:11) - had been built about a decade earlier.
Certainly Velikovsky had urged that Solomon's Temple had provided the model for the Deir el-Bahri temple - according to his belief that Punt was Jerusalem. He had naturally, therefore, interpreted Hatshepsut's fulfilment of Amon-Ra's command, that she "establish for him a Punt in his house, to plant the trees of God's Land beside his temple, in his garden", as indicating that Hatshepsut was trying to imitate the terraces of trees sur-rounding the Temple in Jerusalem.
In a footnote, Velikovsky referred to G. Maspero's comment (in The Struggle of the Nations, 241, n.2) about the opinion of the early Egyptologist Mariette:

"Mariette, struck by the strange appearance of the edifice [Hatshepsut's temple], thought that it betrayed a foreign influence, and supposed that Queen ... [Hatshepsut] had constructed it in the model of some buildings seen by her officers in the land of Puanit [Punt]".

Intriguing too, in the light of the biblical information that Phoenician craftsmen had assisted in the building of Solomon's Temple, was Mariette's observation that Hatshepsut's temple "probably represents ... a Phoenician influence" (Quoted by Naville, op. cit., 1).

Bimson (op. cit., 16), however, was critical of Velikovsky's claim that the design of Hatshepsut's temple was based upon the Jewish model. Clearly, he argued, it was based upon the layout of the Eleventh Dynasty temple in the vicinity ...:

"Although on a smaller scale than Hatshepsut's temple, [the Eleventh Dynasty one] foreshadows it in many ways. Like Hatshepsut's, it was terraced and approached by a causeway and ramp, and had an open court with a cloister-like colonnade. There is no doubt that the designer of Hatshepsut's temple, Senmut, was inspired by [the] earlier construction".

Against the massive western cliffs of white limestone at Deir el-Bahri, that time and the sun have coloured a rosy yellow, Hatshepsut had her temple built. Into these cliffs, which form an absolutely vertical barrier, its 'holy of holies' was cut.
Of this temple, Mariette had remarked: "it is an exception and an accident in the architectural life of Egypt". (As quoted by E. Naville, op. cit.).

Mariette was not alone in his acknowledgement of the striking originality of Hat-shepsut's temple. Baikie (op. cit., 67-68) for instance, whilst admitting that the Eleventh Dynasty temple would have offered to Senenmut "... the suggestion of how it would be best to treat such a site ...", was nevertheless adamant that Hatshepsut's temple was far from being a slavish imitation of the older building:

"Since the earlier temple has been completely excavated, it has become customary to deny to Hatshepsut's architect any claim to originality in the design which he evolved for the great temple. "Hatshepsut's temple", says Dr. H.R. Hall ..., "was directly imitated from that of her predecessor, to whom, and not to her or her architect Sennemut, any praise for its sup-posed (not real) originality is due"."

But Baikie, for his part, would not have a bar of Hall's line of reasoning:

"This, however, is to carry purism to an extravagant extent. It is quite obvious that Hatshepsut and her architect took the suggestion of a terraced temple from the earlier building beside which they were placing their own; but that is the beginning and the end of their indebtedness to the earlier architect. Senmut appreciated a good suggestion when he saw it - all the more credit to him for his commonsense; but to say that he must therefore be denied any credit for originality is to set up a canon of criticism which would deprive Shakespeare of the credit for the creation of Hamlet, and Donatello of that for the creation of the Gattamelata statue. Having got his suggestion, he proceeded to glorify it, until he had produced a building which is infinitely superior ... to that of the earlier architect".

Baikie regarded the Eleventh Dynasty effort as being "stumpy and sawn-off looking compared with the grace of the successive terraces, the long ramps and the graceful colonnades of the XVIIIth Dynasty artist". The earlier temple, "if it was completed, as is suggested by a small pyramid", he went on to observe somewhat humorously:

"... deliberately sacrificed the very gain of long horizontal lines for which its terraces were designed, and which was the one possible gain of using such a design and such a site together, and put a fool's cap on the whole structure by inviting comparison between the towering cliffs and the diminutive pyramid which perked up below them".

By contrast, according to Baikie:

"Senmut's work ... disturbs us by no distracting element. Its successive stages, with their long lines of alternating light and shadow, actually emphasise, instead of competing with, the height of the giant cliffs behind them, but offer to us a totally different kind of majesty and beauty in which the work of man, no longer aspiring to rivalry with that of Nature, derives fresh loveliness from the majestic setting in which it has been placed.

Grimal's comment on the Deir el-Bahri edifice was somewhat similar, though more terse (op. cit., 211): "The great originality of Hatshepsut's complex lay in its organ-ization into a succession of terraces in which the changes in plan enabled the monument to harmonize with the natural ampitheatre of the cliffs".
Importantly Professor Breasted, an earlier admirer of the temple's design, regarded this marvellous structure as being a sure witness to the fact that the Egyptians had developed architectural styles for which the later Greeks would be credited as the origin-ators (History, 274):

"In front of the terraces were ranged fine colonnades, which, when seen from a distance, to this day exhibit such an exquisite sense of proportion and of proper grouping, as to quite disprove the common assertion that the Greeks were the first to understand the art of adjusting external colon-nades, and that the Egyptian understood only the employment of the column in the interiors".

It is clear from the above descriptions of the majestic Eighteenth Dynasty temple at Deir el-Bahri that its sweeping terraces were one of its most notable features. Similarly, as Velikovsky has pointed out (op. cit., 121):

"The Temple of Jerusalem was built upon terraces planted with trees. These terraces were cut by an ascending path. The processions of the Levites started on the lowest terrace, and as they sang they mounted the path. This explains the fact that some of their Psalms are called Shir ha-maaloth, "song of the ascent"."

More than anything else, according to Velikovsky (ibid., 121-122), it would have been the nature of the respective sites at which the temples of Jerusalem and Deir el-Bahri were built that would have determined any significant differences between them.
Velikovsky then went on to say, in regard to the temple service, that (ibid., 122):

"Not only the temple architecture but also the temple service in Egypt were given many new features. It was not until the temple of the Most Splendid at Deir el Bahari was constructed that twelve priests, with a high priest heading them, officiated before the altar. A relief on a fragment, now in the Louvre Museum, shows twelve priests divided into four orders, three in each order, and a damaged inscription over their heads reads: "... in the temple of Amon, in Most Spendid of Splendors, by the high priest of Amon ..."."

It ought not to surprise us that Hatshepsut would have copied all that she had seen pertaining to Solomon's Temple during her visit to Jerusalem, if - as we believe - she was the Queen of Sheba. For the Bible tells us how she had drunk it all in with astonishment:

"And when the Queen of Sheba had seen all the wisdom of Solomon ... his cup-bearers, and his burnt offerings which he offered at the Temple of the Lord, there was no more spirit in her. And she said to the king, 'The report was true which I heard in my own land of your affairs and of your wisdom, but I did not believe the reports until I came and my own eyes had seen it ...'.
... And King Solomon gave to the queen of Sheba all that she desired" (II Chronicles 9: 3, 4-5, 6, 12).

Including the plans of his Temple and details relating to its priesthood and liturgy?

We shall let Velikovsky have the last word on this matter, since this article would never have been written had he not provided the important synchronism between King Solomon and Queen Hatshepsut:

"The office of the high priest was established in the Egyptian service only at the time of Queen Hatshepsut. This reform in the religious service was in-troduced after the visit of the queen to the Divine Land, where shortly before the House of the Lord had been completed".

The Fate of a Thesis

During the same years in which Breasted was assessing the Egyptian campaign, a German team under Schuhmacher began to excavate at the presumed site of Megiddo (i.e. Tell el-Mutesellim). But as the report stated, concerning identification of the mound with that besieged and conquered by Thutmose (54): "At the spot excavated by Schuhmacher, absolutely nothing has been found which could provide any further information".
Schuhmacher's excavation was much too limited, however, to permit final judgment. Breasted, quite rightly, refused to give up so easily. He wanted scientific proof for his identification; so he suggested to one of his students, Harold H. Nelson, that he dedicate his doctoral thesis to the problem.
Danelius takes up the rather tragic story of Nelson's assignment (55):

Nelson was not given freedom to look for the frightening defile among the mountains of Palestine; Breasted confined him to a specific region: "This study is confined almost entirely to ... interpret the Annals of Thutmose III in the light of the geography of the environs of Megiddo" [Nelson's own words in the preface to his thesis, The Battle of Megiddo, 1913].

In other words, the "scientific investigation" had to verify a foregone con- clusion of Breasted - it was "prove or perish" for the unhappy, young man.
For the sensitive reader, the resulting dissertation is a moving testimony of an intelligent and honest young student who tried desperately to har-monise the theory of his venerated teacher with the observations made on the spot, which simply did not fit.

Nelson travelled the Wadi 'Ara pass in 1909, and again in 1912. He described it in detail:

... the road enters the Wady 'Ara which is there ... flat and open ... All the way to a quarter of a mile above 'Ar'arah the valley is wide and level ... the ascent is so gradual as to be scarcely perceptible ... a watcher posted on the hill above Lejjun could descry an approaching army at least a mile above the mouth of the pass.

Nor did Nelson even believe that the name of the pass matched that of the defile named in Thutmose's account (56): "Etymologically, it seems hardly possible to equate (Egyptian) 'Aruna with (Arab) 'Ar'arah".

Commenting on this unhappy situation, Danelius continued:

Neither the physical appearance of the road as described by Nelson, nor its use as an international highway justify its identification with a road described as "inaccessible", "secret" or "mysterious" in the Egyptian records (57).

But Nelson's difficulties were not only of a geographical nature. Logistics had to be taken into account as well. According to the timetable drawn up by Breasted, the Egyptian army emerged from the pass in the afternoon, set up camp, and spent a quiet night, to go forth to battle the next morning (58). All this in full view of the army of the Asiatics!
Nelson was unable to understand the behaviour of "the Allies" - as he called them - or why they should have, as he said (59):

"... thrown away the advantage afforded by the narrowness of the pass ... to strike Thutmose under circumstances so favourable to the success of the Allies. Our meagre sources must leave us forever ignorant of the reasons of the Allies for thus throwing away the greatest chance of victory ...".

Despite the name given to Nelson's thesis, The Battle of Megiddo, it appears that there was no battle.
As Nelson himself admitted (60):

"On the actual conflict which took place there is not a vestige of information. To judge from the Annalist's narrative it would seem that the Asiatics fled without striking a blow ... why the Asiatics fled is not plain. They probably mustered a considerable force".

And finally, why was the city of Mkty not taken by storm? Nelson could only wonder at this: "Just why Thutmose did not make such an attempt at once is hard to surmise ...".

Danelius concluded philosophically (61): "Habent sua fata libelli - books have their own fate, and Nelson's was no exception".

At least Breasted apparently was well satisfied with Nelson's effort, and the doctorate was awarded. World War I broke out while Nelson was in Beirut for the cuts of the illustrations and the maps. Later, Nelson had the opportunity of discussing his thesis with some British officers who had participated in the conquest of Palestine, 1917/1918. Nelson referred to the outcome of these meetings in the Preface to the 1920 edition of his thesis:

"Had the University of Chicago [with which Professor Breasted was con- nected] regulations governing the publication of theses permitted, I would gladly have re-written the whole manuscript in the light of the recent campaign of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force under Lord Allenby in the same region in which Thutmose III, nearly 3,500 years earlier [sic], also defeated an enemy advancing from the north towards Egypt, [but] I cannot make use of certain valuable suggestions made by those who campaigned in Palestine in 1917-18 ...".

A Rockefeller-Financed Excavation

Unfortunately, Nelson never re-wrote his dissertation. Professor Breasted, armed with his pupil's precious study, approached John D. Rockefeller Jr. and persuaded him to finance a renewed excavation of Tell el-Mutesellim for a five-year period. Clarence S. Fisher was to be the director, and he came to Palestine in 1925 to start with preparations for the dig. A comfortable house was built for members of the expedition, and in 1926 excavation was started, lasting until 1939.
About this new excavation, Danelius has tellingly remarked (62):

"Results, as far as the Thutmose campaign was concerned, were as negative as those of Schuhmacher's excavation. Concerning identification of the mound with the city besieged and conquered by the Pharaoh, the excavators relied only and solely on Nelson's dissertation":

"There can now be no doubt concerning the identification of tell el-Mutesellim as Megiddo (Armageddon). What little doubt might have remained ... was entirely dispersed by Nelson's translation of and com- mentary on the account of the Battle of Megiddo given in the annals of Thutmose III ..." (R. Lamon & G. Shipton, Megiddo I, Seasons of 1925-34, Introduction, xix)".

Despite the fact that now, for more than half a century, the doctoral thesis of the young Nelson has become the unanswerable proof of the how, when and where of Thutmose III's first Palestinian campaign, Nelson himself, when parting with the last copy of his thesis, giving it to the librarian of the Cairo Museum, apparently told the latter that he no longer identified himself with his findings as expressed in the study (63).
Another authority who doubted the conventional view of the localisation was P. Guy, a Scotsman, who nonetheless accepted Breasted's invitation to take over the leader- ship of the Megiddo excavation (the biggest and most richly endowed in Mandatory Palestine) that Fisher had had to give up for health reasons.
Concerning Guy's opinion, Danelius wrote (64):

"Guy died in 1952. His wife, who had lived with him at Megiddo and shared work on the site, continued working with the Department of Antiquities of the State of Israel. Mrs. Guy most willingly answered all my questions. Again and again she stressed the fact that nothing, absolutely nothing, had been found during their nine years of digging which would throw any light on the story of Thutmose's campaign".

Great credit must go to Dr. Danelius for firstly maintaining (against the conventional point of view) that the geographical description of Thutmose's campaign cannot reasonably find its place in the environs of Tell el-Mutesellim/Megiddo (as Nelson had shown); and for secondly having insisted (from the revisionist point of view) that king Rehoboam of Judah would by no means have been involved with a city so far to the north as is Megiddo (which lay in enemy territory anyway). ....

Re-considering the Nature of Hammurabi’s So-called ‘Law Code’

From M. van de Mieroop's
A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC. Pp. 106-107:

"The function of the law code itself has been much debated, but consensus is growing that the modern designation of it is wrong: it is not a code of law but a monument presenting Hammurabi as an exemplary king of justice. The text is best known to us from a 2-meter-high black diorite stele almost fully covered with an inscription …. Framed between a prologue and epilogue are listed some three hundred statements, all structured on the same pattern: “if …, then …”. For example “If a man commits a robbery and is caught, that man will be killed” (§ 22). While dealing with many areas of life, the entries do not, by far, cover all possible crimes …. Moreover, the many legal documents of the period, including records of law cases, never make reference to the code. Instead of a list of legal precepts, the entire monument is a vivid expression of Hammurabi as a king who provides justice in his land. He said himself:

"May any wronged man who has a case come before my statue as king of justice, and may he have my inscribed stele read aloud to him. May he hear my precious words and may my stele clarify his case or him. May he examine his lawsuit and may he calm his (troubled) heart. May he say: “Hammurabi …. provided just ways for the land”. …".

To prove his ability to guarantee justice, Hammurabi listed these three hundred-some cases, and thus urged future kings to study and follow his example".

....