In response to Philip R. Davies’s brief article (“‘House of David’ Built on Sand,”BAR 20:04), a few observations are in order. Apart from the details of the Dan (and now the Mesha) inscriptions, there is a wider issue that concerns both Bible students and teachers.
Davies represents what he and a circle of colleagues call the “deconstructionist” approach to Biblical traditions. The present instance can serve as a useful example of why Davies and his “deconstructionists” can safely be ignored by everyone seriously interested in Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern studies.
The Tel Dan Stele is a stele (inscribed stone) discovered in 1993/94 during excavations at Tel Dan in northern Israel. Its author was a king of Damascus, Hazaelor one of his sons, and it contains an Aramaic inscription commemorating victories over local ancient peoples including "Israel" and the "House of David."
The inscription generated excitement among biblical scholars and biblical archaeologists because the letters 'בית דוד' are identical to the Hebrew (and earlyAramaic) words for "house of David." If these letters refer to the Davidic line then this is the first time the name "David" has been recognized at any archaeological site. The scholarly consensus among archaeologists and epigraphers is that the fragment is an authentic reference to the biblical King David.[1]
Like the Mesha stele, the Tel Dan Stele seems typical of a memorial intended as a sort of military propaganda, which boasts of Hazael's or his son's victories. Some epigraphers think that in the Mesha stele, the phrase "house of David" appears in the partly broken line 31 and that line 12 mentions David's name.
Although the name of the author of the stele does not seem to appear on the available fragments, it is most likely a king of neighboring Damascus. Language, time, and location make it plausible that the author was Hazael or his son, Bar Hadad II/III, who were kings of Damascus and enemies of the kingdom of Israel.
The stele was discovered at Tel Dan (also Tel el-Qadi), by a team of scholars and workers led by Israeli archaeologist Avraham Biran (1909 - 2008).[2][3][4] Tel Dan is a mound, an artificial hill where a city once stood, at the northern tip of modern Israel. Biran's excavations began in 1966 and ended in 1993, making the Tel Dan excavation the longest continuously excavated site in Israel.[5]
Fragment A was discovered in July 1993, and fragments B1 and B2, which fit together, were discovered in 1994. In the broken part of the stone below the smooth writing surface, there is a possible "internal" fit between fragment A and the assembled fragments B1/B2, but it is uncertain and disputed. If the fit is correct, then the pieces were originally side by side.
The inscription has been dated to the 9th or 8th centuries BCE. The 8th-century limit is determined by a destruction layer identified with a well-documented Assyrian conquest in 733/732 BCE. Because that destruction layer was above the layer in which the stele fragments were found, it is clear that it took place after the stele had been erected, then broken into pieces which were later used in a construction project at Tel Dan, presumably by Hebrew builders. It is difficult to discern how long before the Assyrian conquest these earlier events took place.
George Athas attempted to date the inscription to the early 8th century BCE, and credit it to Bar Hadad rather than his father Hazael.[6]Athas' view has been criticised by many[7] because the original excavators of Tel Dan argued for a date in the mid-ninth century BCE. However, Athas argued that the date suggested by the excavators needs to be revised in light of the fuller archaeological context. This, he argued, was only revealed more fully in the years following the discovery of the inscriptional fragments when the entire area had been excavated. Suriano attributed the stele to a point late in Hazael’s career based on apologetic motifs that suggest the inscription was made at the time his son (Bar Hadad) was appointed heir and successor.[8] A consensus has yet to be achieved.
Following is a line-by-line translation that follows the editio princeps (Biran and Naveh). Missing text (or text that is too damaged by erosion) is represented by "[.....]," and words and letters that appear within square brackets [ ] have been supplied by modern scholars:
1'. [.....................].......[...................................] and cut [.........................] 2'. [.........] my father went up [against him when] he fought at[....] 3'. And my father lay down, he went to his [fathers]. And the king of I[s-] 4'. rael entered previously in my father's land. [And] Hadad made me king. 5'. And Hadad went in front of me, [and] I departed from [the] seven[.....] 6'. of my kingdom, and I slew [seve]nty kin[gs], who harnessed thou[sands of cha-] 7'. riots and thousands of horsemen (or: horses). [I killed Jeho]ram son of [Ahab] 8'. king of Israel, and I killed [Ahaz]iahu son of [Jehoram kin]g 9'. of the House of David. And I set [their towns into ruins and turned] 10'. their land into [desolation........................] 11'. other ...[......................................................................... and Jehu ru-] 12'. led over Is[rael......................................................................and I laid] 13'. siege upon [............................................................]
The writings may coincide with certain events recorded in the Old Testament:
2 Kings 8:7-15 tells how, before Hazael became king of Aram, his predecessor was ill and finally died in his bed:
7. And Elisha came to Damascus; and Benhadad the king of Syria was sick; and it was told him, saying, The man of God is come hither.
8.And the king said unto Hazael, Take a present in thine hand, and go, meet the man of God, and enquire of the LORD by him, saying, Shall I recover of this disease?
9. So Hazael went to meet him, and took a present with him, even of every good thing of Damascus, forty camels' burden, and came and stood before him, and said, Thy son Benhadad king of Syria hath sent me to thee, saying, Shall I recover of this disease?
10. And Elisha said unto him, Go, say unto him, Thou mayest certainly recover: howbeit the LORD hath shewed me that he shall surely die.
11. And he settled his countenance stedfastly, until he was ashamed: and the man of God wept.
12. And Hazael said, Why weepeth my lord? And he answered, Because I know the evil that thou wilt do unto the children of Israel: their strong holds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their children, and rip up their women with child.
13. And Hazael said, But what, is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing? And Elisha answered, The LORD hath shewed me that thou shalt be king over Syria.
14. So he departed from Elisha, and came to his master; who said to him, What said Elisha to thee? And he answered, He told me that thou shouldest surely recover.
15. And it came to pass on the morrow, that he took a thick cloth, and dipped it in water, and spread it on his face, so that he died: and Hazael reigned in his stead.
2 Kings 8:28 and 2 Kings 9:15-16 record that, after being injured in fighting in Ramoth Gilead, Joram of Israel 'was laid up' in Jezreel:
28. And he went with Joram the son of Ahab to the war against Hazael king of Syria in Ramothgilead; and the Syrians wounded Joram.
15. But king Joram was returned to be healed in Jezreel of the wounds which the Syrians had given him, when he fought with Hazael king of Syria.) And Jehu said, If it be your minds, then let none go forth nor escape out of the city to go to tell it in Jezreel.
16. So Jehu rode in a chariot, and went to Jezreel; for Joram lay there. And Ahaziah king of Judah was come down to see Joram.
Due to the mention of both "Israel" and the "House of David", the Tel Dan Stele is often quoted as supporting evidence that a kingdom of Judah existed in the 8th century (although the name Judah is not mentioned) and was ruled by a dynasty tracing its descent from the biblicalDavid. However, critics[9] have suggested other readings of ביתדוד, usually based on the fact that the written form "DWD" can be rendered both as David and as Dod (Hebrew for "beloved") or related forms[citation needed]. In 1999, Biran, who, for 27 years, led the excavation team, responded to such criticism by saying: "(The)consonants are clear—bet, yod, tav, dalet, vav, dalet. It also clearly mentions "king of Israel". It was written by an Aramean king who says he killed the king of Israel and killed the king of the House of David, the king of Judah. Those who deny there was a David take the consonants dalet, vav, dalet and say the D and the V and the D represent the word dod, "uncle" or "lover"; or even "doad", which is a "big vessel."[10] In ancient Hebrew a dot was sometimes used to divide separate words. For example, the phrase "House of David" could be written as בית•דוד.The Aramean writer of the Tel Dan Stele, who is writing to commemorate a victory over the Hebrews, wrote ביתדוד without employing the Hebrew word divider.[11]
Anson Rainey, defending the reading "House of David" stated that "a word divider between two components in such a construction is often omitted, especially if the combination is a well-established proper name."[12] Gary Rendsburg supports Rainey's position, and stated that the phrase Bit ("house of") + X ("founder") is the Aramaean, Assyrian, andBabylonian way of referring to an Aramaean state. Rendsburg also stated, "[o]ne might even venture that the Assyrian designation Bit-Humri "house of Omri" for the kingdom of Israel reached Assyrian scribes through Aramaean mediation."[13] Philip Davies writes:
But let’s leave this wishful thinking and return to the critical six letters, BYTDWD, to see what they really might mean. Admittedly there are two verbal elements here, of which the first is beth, house. But the probability is that the second element completes a place-name, such as Beth Lehem (House of Bread) correct translation or Bethlehem (one word), as it is commonly written in Latin letters. Also a substantial minority believes that the correct reading and translation are, Bet Lachmu, (House of the God Lachmu) recognising a popular (and verified) local god. It seems intrinsically more likely that a place-name composed with beth would be written as one word, rather than a phrase meaning “House of David,” referring to the dynasty of David. Such a place name could be Beth-dod (the w serving as rudimentary vowel, a so-called mater lectionis; the same last three letters are consistently used to spell the last syllable of the Philistine city of Ashdod) or Bethdaud (with a slightly different vowel pronunciation). All these place-names are quite reasonable suggestions... There are other possibilities... For example, in a contemporaneous inscription, the famous Mesha stele or Moabite stone, the phrase ’R’L DWDH (אראל דודה) appears. The second word remains somewhat of a puzzle. Some scholars, though a minority, translate it “David” and regard it as the name of the founder of the ruling dynasty of Judah... But the final heh makes this meaning unlikely. The noun dawidum is also found in a cuneiform text from Mari (18th century B.C.E.), offering another possible clue, though the meaning of this term remains unclear. In the Bible DWD can mean “beloved” or “uncle,” and in one place (1 Samuel 2:14), it means “kettle.” So a number of ways of understanding DWD present themselves, most of them more plausible than translating “David.”[14]
Anson Rainey's response to Davies:
"In response to Philip R. Davies’s brief article[15] a few observations are in order. Davies represents what he and a circle of colleagues call the “deconstructionist” approach to Biblical traditions. The present instance can serve as a useful example of why Davies and his “deconstructionists” can safely be ignored by everyone seriously interested in Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern studies. Regarding the recently excavated Dan inscription, Davies makes a great quibble about the absence of the word divider between the components BYT (House) and DWD (David). Joseph Naveh and Avraham Biran did not explain the inscription in detail, perhaps because they took for granted that readers would know that a word divider between two components in such a construction is often omitted, especially if the combination is a well-established proper name. A well-known example of such a proper name composed of two components, is BL‘M.BRB‘R (Baalam, son of Beor) in line 4 of “Combination I” of the inscription from Deir ‘Alla. There is a word divider, a dot, between BL‘M (Balaam) and BRB‘R (son of Beor), but no word divider between BR (son [of]) and B‘R (Beor). The patronymic of the prophet Baalam consists of two vocables, BR (son [of]) and B‘R (Beor). These vocables are in the Semitic syntactical relationship known as “construct.” The first is closely attached to the second, which takes the accent for both.“The House of David” was certainly such a proper political and geographic name in the mid-ninth century B.C.E. André Lemaire’s recent discovery that the same name (BYTDWD) appears in the Mesha stela further confirms the reading in the Tel Dan inscription. The same situation pertains to BYTDWD (House of David) in the text from Dan. The first component is BYT (house), here in the “construct” form meaning “house of.” The main accent is on DWD (David), the second component. The combination was obviously recognized by the scribe of the Dan inscription as an important proper name. There is no reason whatever to doubt the correctness of the reading “House of David.” [16]
Thomas L. Thompson has argued that, even if it could be shown that the terms "of the house of David" and "of the house of Omri" were used to describe the kings of Judah and Israel at that time, we should not conclude that they saw David and Omri as recent ancestors who had founded dynasties in the modern sense, other interpretations of the term "house of" in this context are possible.
George Athas proposes that the three extant fragments of the inscription have been placed in a wrong configuration (for the popular configuration, see the figure above). He argues that Fragment A (the largest) should be placed well above Fragments B1 and B2 (which fit together). He also suggests that ביתדוד is actually a reference to Jerusalem, arguing that it is the Aramaic equivalent of "City of David". He also provides evidence for the authenticity of the fragments (called into question by some, such as Russell Gmirkin), and downdates the inscription, proposing that the author is not Hazael, as is popularly touted, but rather his son Bar Hadad.
Athas also provided evidence for the authenticity of the fragments, which were called into question by some, including Russell Gmirkin.[citation needed]In rebuttal to allegations of inauthenticity, the prominent American archaeologist, William Dever[17] states: " I was there (Tel Dan) shortly after it was found. I’ve known Biran for 40 years. The woman who found it, Gila Cook, I hired at Hebrew Union College. I have handled the inscription. I know what I’m talking about. There’s no way (the Tel Dan Stele is inauthentic). All of this was covered by debris until he (A. Biran) started digging. True, it was found in secondary use. Nobody ever argued that it was in primary position. It was re-used in the wall. But there is no way in the world anybody could have dug down there, found that wall five years before Biran came along and planted it. It’s impossible.[18]
Professional archaeologists object to these reinterpretations, often noting that they are suggested by Biblical scholars who have no formal qualifications in the relevant fields. In favour of the reading 'House of David', archaeologist Kenneth Kitchen writes in response to the contrary views of Thomas L. Thompson:
'(i) The name "David" may be unusual, but is not unparalleled. Long centuries before, it was borne by a West Semitic chief carpenter in about 1730 B.C. on an Egyptian stela formerly in the collection at Rio de Janeiro. (ii) Dwd is neither the name (which Thompson admits) nor an epithet of a deity. Others are beloved of deities (for which references are legion!), but male deities are not beloved of others, human or divine (only goddesses are beloved of their divine husbands in Egypt). (iii) Mesha's stela is ninth, not eighth, century. (iv) On Mesha's stela dwd(h) is not a divine epithet of YHWH or anyone else.' '(v) Contrary to TLT, "House of X" does mean a dynastic founder, all over the Near East, in the first half of the first millennium B.C.; it was an Aramean usage that passed into Assyrian nomenclature, and examples are common. (vi) Again, the expression, in part of its usage, is like the British "House of Windsor", etc. Such usages were not peculiar to Aram, Assyria, and Judah either: in Egypt, the official title given to the Twelfth Dynasty (Turin Canon) was "Kings of the House (lit. 'Residence') of Ithet-Tawy" = 'the Dynasty of Ithet-Tawy". And the Thirteenth Dynasty was duly entitled "Kings who came after the [House of] King Sehetepibre" (founder of the Twelfth Dynasty). (vii) The charge of forgery is a baseless slur against the Dan expedition, without a particle of foundation in fact.'[19]
Also in favour of the reading 'House of David', archaeologist William Dever writes:
'On the "positivist" side of the controversy, regarding the authenticity of the inscription, we now have published opinions by most of the world's leading epigraphers (all of whom are seasoned field workers with much experience in biblical archaeology and none of whom is an academic "biblicist"). in Thompson's sense. Thompson is a professor. IBE, University of Copenhagen. [20]The epigraphers maintain that the inscription means exactly what it says. On the "negativist" side, we have the opinions of Thompson, Lemche, and Cryer of the Copenhagen School. The reader may choose.'[21]
After reviewing a range of objections to the Stele's authenticity, Niels Lemche concludes that the Stele should be accepted as genuine until significant evidence to the contrary is found.
'Even if my observations about the almost uncanny prominence of the terms ‘King of Israel’ and ‘House of David’ are not accepted, I have to admit that the arguments in favour of seeing the Tel Dan fragments as fake need to be much more forceful—certainly stronger than I have been able to show in this survey—if they are to prove beyond doubt that the inscription is the work of a forger.'[22]
'At the end of the day, is the Tel Dan inscription important for the study of the history of Israel in Antiquity?Of course is important—if it is genuine. And, until the opposite has been proven, we have to reckon it to be genuine.'[23]
Lester Grabbe identifies the general scholarly consensus as regarding the Stele to be genuine, and as referring to the House of David.
'The Tel Dan inscription generated a good deal of debate and a flurry of articles when it first appeared, but it is now widely regarded (a) as genuine and (b) as referring to the Davidic dynasty and the Aramaic kingdom of Damascus.'[24]
A minority view is that DWD is the Hebrew rendering of Thoth (pronounced, according to the Ancient Greeks, as Toot — as in Tutmose), thus the expression might refer to a temple of Thoth.[citation needed] The EgyptologistKenneth Kitchen points out that there is no known temple of Thoth in the area.[citation needed]
^ 'On the "positivist" side of the controversy, regarding the authenticity of the inscription, we now have published opinions by most of the world's leading epigraphers (none of whom is a "biblicist" in Thompson's sense): the inscription means exactly what it says.' William Dever, 2004, 'What Did The Biblical Authors Know, And When Did They Know It?', pages 128-129
^ Biran, Avraham. "Biblical Dan." Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society, 1994.
^ Biran, Avraham and Naveh, J. "An Aramaic Stele Fragment From Tel Dan." Israel Exploration Journal 43 (1993).
^ Biran, Avraham and Naveh, J. "A New Fragment." Israel Exploration Journal 45 (1995).
^ Athas, G., The Tel Dan Inscription: A Reappaisal and a New Interpretation, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supp 360; CIS 12 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003).
^ See the reviews by William Schniedewind and Nadav Na’aman in ‘’Review of Biblical Literature’’[1]
^ citation from a colloquium "Face to Face: Biblical Minimalists Meet Their Challengers." Shanks,H. Biblical Archaeological Review, 23:04, Jul/Aug 1997.
^ Kenneth Kitchen, 2003, 'On The Reliability Of The Old Testament', pages 452-453
^ William Dever, 2004, 'What Did The Biblical Authors Know, And When Did They Know It?', pages 128-129
^ Lemche, N. P. (2003). 'House of David': The Tel Dan Inscription(s). In T. L. Thompson & S. K. Jayyusi (Eds.), Jerusalem in Ancient History and Tradition (T. L. Thompson & S. K. Jayyusi, Ed.) (66). London; New York: T&T Clark.
^ Lemche, N. P. (2003). 'House of David': The Tel Dan Inscription(s). In T. L. Thompson & S. K. Jayyusi (Eds.), Jerusalem in Ancient History and Tradition (T. L. Thompson & S. K. Jayyusi, Ed.) (66). London; New York: T&T Clark.
^ Grabbe, L. L. (2007). Reflections on the Discussion. In L. L. Grabbe (Ed.), Ahab Agonistes: The Rise and Fall of the Omri Dynasty (L. L. Grabbe, Ed.) (333). London: T&T Clark.
Davies, Philip R., “‘House of David’ Built on Sand: The Sins of the Biblical Maximizers.” Biblical Archaeology Review 20/4 (1994).
Erlanger, Steven. "King David's Palace Is Found, Archaeologist Says" New York Times, 5 August 2005.
Finkelstein, Israel. "State Formation in Israel and Judah: A Contrast in Context, a Contrast in Trajectory" Near Eastern Archaeology, Vol. 62, No. 1 (Mar., 1999), pp. 35-52.
Mykytiuk, Lawrence J.,"Corrections and Updates to 'Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200-539 B.C.E.,' "Maarav 16/1 (2009), pp. 49-132.
Rainey, Anson F., "The 'House of David' and the House of the Deconstructionists," Biblical Archaeology Review, 20/6 (1994): 47.
Rendsburg, Gary A., "On the Writing ביתדוד in the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan," Israel Exploration Journal 45 (1995): 22-25.
Suriano, Matthew J., “The Apology of Hazael: A Literary and Historical Analysis of the Tel Dan Inscription,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 66/3 (2007): 163-76.
Our historical revision, if correct, has completely revolutionized Egyptian18th Dynasty studies. Queen Hatshepsut, we have identified with (following Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky) the biblical Queen of Sheba. And we have also followed Dr. Ed (Ewald) Metzler in identifying her father, Thutmose I, with King David (and also with the “Pharaoh” of I Kings 9:16), archaeologically of Late Bronze I (following Dr. Bimson). This means that the 18th Dynasty was ‘Israelite’, as according to Dr. Metzler, with pharaoh Ahmose corresponding to the biblical Ahimaatz, whose daughter Achinoam (or Achinaam), Metzler concluded, must correspond to Ahmose’s daughter (of quite similar name meaning), Ahhotep. The latter married Amenhotep I, or King Saul (Metzler). It needs to be carefully noted that Hatshesput herself was not the daughter of this Ahhotep, but of an apparently non-royal woman, Ahmose. The latter I shall attempt to identify biblically in this article.
The Thutmosides, in turn, were David-ides. Hatshepsut had married the son of Thutmose I (or David), Thutmose II (i.e. Solomon), whilst Thutmose III, the biblical ‘Shishak’, was the son of Thutmose II (Solomon) by a concubine, Isis (or Aset).
I further concluded that Solomon was also Senenmut (Senmut), thought by some to have been ‘the real power behind the throne’ of Egypt during the time of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III (until the latter became fully independent due to the deaths of Senenmut and Hatshepsut), and that Hatshepsut/Sheba was also the beautiful young virgin and nurse to an ailing King David, Abishag, from Shunem. Hatshepsut is also considered by some revisionists (e.g. Hyam Maccoby) to have been the sister-bride of the Song of Solomon, which fits both Metzler’s view that she was the half-sister of Solomon, and my view that she was Abishag from Shunem (though some would prefer to render ‘Shunammite’ in the Song of Solomon, or Song of Songs, as ‘Shulammite’, i.e.‘of Solomon’). [Shunem was a very important place at this approximate time (see El-Amarna letters and perhaps also 2 Kings 4:8)].
Most recently I have wondered, if - in the light of a further conclusion of mine that Thutmose III may have been Nubian on his mother’s side, and hence was also the Kushite Neshi (Nehesy) who had led Hatshesput’s Punt expedition (thereby accounting for why Thutmose III himself seems to have taken so little part in this marvellous venture) - whether Solomon’s Egyptian bride, who describes herself as ‘I am black and beautiful’ (Song of Solomon 1:5), may also have had some Nubian blood in her veins. (See also note just below).
Whatever about that, I am now going to propose a further layer of identification to this most fascinating female personage, now as the biblical Tamar who was raped by her half-brother, Amnon, eldest son of King David.
Before that, though, just this note: I have found myself leaning towards a view favoured by Velikovsky, and strongly supported by some traditions, that ‘Sheba’ pertained to the queen’s name, rather than to her country or city (e.g. Sweeney) of origin/residence. However, I had forgotten about the suggestion of Dr. Eva Danelius (whose article I have never actually read) that ‘Sheba’ or ‘Seba’ (Saba) was also the name of a kingdom next to Ethiopia (i.e. Kush), that became known as Meroë in the days of Cambyses. The Bible in fact distinguishes the three: Egypt, Ethiopia and Seba (e.g. Isaiah 43:3). To identify this Seba as the home of the famous queen would be to add strength to the statement by Jesus Christ that she, ‘the Queen of the South’, had come ‘from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon’ (Luke 11:31), and it might also add weight to the supposition that she may have been black.
Amnon and Tamar
Before giving the biblical account of this story, this is how I think that Abishag (= Hatshepsut-Maat-ka-re) and Tamar may connect. I had previously imagined that King David had taken Abishag as his nurse in his very last years of old age. But now I think that it must have been somewhat earlier than this, and that the young woman was already performing this service for the king when his son Amnon conceived his desire for her and asked for her, as Tamar, to be brought to him to serve him in his illness (actually love-sickness), to nurse him, as she had been doing for the aged king. So David “sent home” (note), for Tamar to come to Amnon’s house, with disastrous results for the girl.
Here now is the biblical account of the rape of Tamar (2 Samuel 13:1-30), to which I add my own comments:
… Ab'sa-lom had a beautiful sister whose name was Ta'mar; and David's son Am'non fell in love with her. Am'non was so tormented that he made himself ill because of his sister Ta'mar, for she was a virgin and it seemed impossible to Am'non to do anything to her.
Comment: Recall that Abishag, too, was ‘beautiful’, and a ‘virgin’ (I Kings 2, 4), and we have already argued that she was a ‘half-sister’ of Solomon’s, who was in turn a brother of Amnon’s and Absalom’s. Dr. Metzler has also suggested that Amnon was an Egyptian name (he chose Amon-On). Recall also that another brother, Adonijah, had also desired this Abishag (I Kings 20:21). [Note also here that Adonijah calls the girl a ‘Shunammite’, which is thus unlikely to have meant ‘Shulammite’, ‘belonging to Solomon’, as some have proposed].
Having now an extra name for our female character, Tamar, and learning that her mother, common to both she and Absalom, was ‘Maacah, daughter of King Talmai of Geshur’ (I Chronicles 3:2), might seem only to add further complexities to an already fascinatingly complex subject.
But does it?
Perhaps, rather, it can help us.
Perhaps ‘Maacah’ may be an Egyptian name, Maat-ka-(re), or even Achimaatz (Ahmose, the name of Hatshepsut’s mother), abbreviated by the Jews to Maacah. And perhaps Tamar is another version of Maat-[ka]-re, the name changed around to distinguish her from her mother.
As to the royal father, King Talmai of Geshur, seemingly a further complication, see ‘A Note on Biblical Pharaohs’ at the end.
But Am'non had a friend whose name was Jon'a-dab, the son of David's brother Shim'eah; and Jon'a-dab was a very crafty man. He said to him, "O son of the king, why are you so haggard morning after morning? Will you not tell me?" Am'non said to him, "I love Ta'mar, my brother Ab'sa-lom's sister." Jon'a-dab said to him, "Lie down on your bed, and pretend to be ill; and when your father comes to see you, say to him, 'Let my sister Ta'mar come and give me something to eat, and prepare the food in my sight, so that I may see and eat it from her hand.'" So Am'non lay down, and pretended to be ill; and when the king came to see him, Am'non said to the king, "Please let my sister Ta'mar come and make a couple of cakes in my sight, so that I may eat from her hand."
Then David sent home to Ta'mar saying, "Go to your brother Am'non’s house, and prepare food for him." So Ta'mar went to her brother Am'non’s house, where he was lying down. She took dough, kneaded it, made cakes in his sight, and baked the cakes. Then she took the pan and set them out before him, but he refused to eat. Am'non said, "Send out everyone from me.” So everyone went out from him. Then Am'non said to Ta'mar, ‘Bring the food into the chamber, so that I might eat from your hand.” So Ta'mar took the cakes she had made, and brought them into the chamber to Am'non her brother. But when she brought them near him to eat, he took hold of her, and said to her, “Come, lie with me, my sister." She answered him, "No, my brother, do not force me; for such a thing is not done in Israel; do not do anything so vile! As for me, where should I carry my shame? And as for you, you would be as one of the scoundrels in Israel. Now therefore, I beg you, speak to the king; for he will not withhold me from you.” But he would not listen to her; and being stronger than she, he forced her and lay with her.
Comment: What was ‘not done in Israel’ might be done in Egypt (Metzler).
Then Am'non was seized with a very great loathing for her. Indeed, his loathing was even greater than the lust he had felt for her. An Am'non said to her, “Get out!” But she said to him, “No my brother; for this wrong in sending me away is greater than the other that you did to me”. But he would not listen to her. He called the young man who served him and said, “Put this woman out of my presence, and bolt the door after her.”(Now she was wearing a long robe with sleeves; for this is how the virgin daughters of the king were clothed in earlier times) So his servant put her out, and bolted the door after her. But Ta'mar put ashes on her head, and tore the long robe that she was wearing; she put her hand on her head, and went away, crying aloud as she went.
Comment: Cf. Song of Songs 5:7.
Her brother Ab'salom said to her, “Has Am'non your brother been with you? Be quiet now, my sister; he is your brother; do not take this to heart.” So Ta'mar remained, a desolate woman, in her bother Ab'salom’s house. When King David heard of all these things, he became very angry, but he would not punish his son Am'non, because he loved him, for he was his firstborn. But Ab'salom spoke to Am'non neither good nor bad; for Ab'salom hated Am'non, because he had raped his sister Ta'mar.
Absalom Avenges the Violation of His Sister
After two full years Ab'salom had sheepshearers at Ba'al-ha'zor, which is near E'phraim, and Ab'salom invited all the king's sons. Ab'salom came to the king, and said, "Your servant has sheepshearers; will the king and his servants please go with your servant?" But the king said to Ab'sa-lom, "No, my son, let us not all go, or else we will be burdensome to you." He pressed him, but he would not go but gave him his blessing. Then Ab'sa-lom said, “If not, please let my brother Am'non go with us." The king said to him, "Why should he go with you?" But Ab'sa-lom pressed him until he let Am'non and all the king's sons go with him. Ab'sa-lom made a feast like a king's feast. Then Ab'sa-lom commanded his servants, "Watch when Am'non's heart is merry with wine, and when I say to you, 'Strike Am'non,' then kill him. Do not be afraid; have I not myself commanded you? Be courageous and valiant." So the servants of Ab'sa-lom did to Am'non as Ab'sa-lom had commanded. Then all the king's sons rose, and each mounted his mule and fled.
While they were on the way, the report came to David that Ab'sa-lom had killed all the king's sons, and not one of them was left. The king rose, tore his garments, and lay on the ground; and all his servants who were standing by tore their garments. But Jon'a-dab, the son of David's brother Shim'e-ah, said, "Let not my lord suppose that they have killed all the young men the king's sons; Am'non alone is dead. This has been determined by Ab'sa-lom from the day Am'non raped his sister Ta'mar. Now therefore, do not let my lord the king take it to heart, as if all the king's sons were dead; for Am'non alone is dead."
But Ab'sa-lom fled. When the young man who kept watch looked up, he saw many people coming from the Hor-o.na'im road by the side of the mountain. Jon'a-dab said to the king, "See, the king's sons have come; as your servant said, so it has come about." As soon as he had finished speaking, the king's sons arrived, and raised their voices and wept; and the king and all his servants also wept very bitterly.
But Ab'sa-lom fled, and went to Tal'mai son of Am-mi'hud, king of Ge'shur. David mourned for his son day after day. Ab'sa-lom, having fled to Ge'shur, stayed there three years. And the heart of the king went out, yearning for Ab'sa-lom; for he was now consoled over the death of Am'non.
Comment: Absalom had told Tamar not to take it to heart, and now Jonadab tells the neglectful King David the same. David had not queried Amnon’s request for Tamar, but he did query Absalom’s request for Amnon. In all this it is the girl herself who acts the most honourably.
A Note on Biblical Pharaohs
Critics have sometimes claimed that the failure of the Book of Genesis to name the ruler of Egypt at the time of Abram, Jacob and Joseph, but just to call him “Pharaoh” instead, is an indication that these texts are not historical, otherwise, they say, the king’s name would be given.
But, firstly, Professor A. S. Yahuda (The Language of the Pentateuch in its Relation to Egyptian) has shown that this was perfectly legitimate Egyptian usage, with the ruler often being referred to as just “Pharaoh” (Per-aa) in Egyptian texts. And, secondly, I have argued in a recent article:
Abram’s “Pharaoh” Biblically Named
and Archaeologically Identified
Toledoth and chiasmus, the keys to the structure of the Book of Genesis,
lead us to a real name for this Pharaoh.
that, in the case of Abram at least, whilst the Egyptian-orientated toledôt of Ishmael simply calls the man “Pharaoh”, the parallel account in the Palestine-orientated toledôt of Isaac, names him, as Abimelech of Gerar.
“These are the generations of Ishmael ...” (Genesis 25:12).
“These are the generations of Isaac ...” (Genesis 25:19).
Similarly, Dr. Metzler has shown that “Pharaoh” in I Kings can be identified by the discerning as David himself.
And another “Pharaoh” in I Kings 11:18 is also called “Shishak” in v. 40.
-->
Hatshepsut [=Abishag/Tamar] was the “Pharaoh’s daughter” of I Kings 9:24; but this Pharaoh was actually a Jew (David himself). Her (as Tamar’s) mother, Maacah, was also the daughter of a king, King Talmai of Geshur (which we learn was actually in Aram, 2 Samuel 15:8). So - presuming her grandfather, King Talmai, was a Syrian (Aram) - if Hatshesput, as Abishag/Tamar, had any Egyptian (or Nubian) blood in her at all, it could only have come from her mother, Maacah. She may perhaps have been related to pharaoh Ahmose.
Feast of Our Lady of Good Counsel
(26th April 2011)
And, here is a great article on this subject, from:
[But AMAIC would consider this Jonadab to be General Joab, and Israel influencing Egypt and not vice versa. Perhaps, also, the plot is a bit far-fetched]
A JONADAB CONNECTION IN THE ABSALOM CONSPIRACY? Andrew E. Hill*
Israeli archaeologist, Israel Finkelstein, is quoted as saying in a recent National Geographic article, “Kings of Controversy” by Robert Draper (David and Solomon, December 2010, p. 85): “Now Solomon. I think I destroyed Solomon, so to speak. Sorry for that!” What Finkelstein ought to be “sorry” for, however, is not the wise King Solomon - who continues to exist as a real historical and archaeological entity, despite the confused utterances of the current crop of Israeli archaeologists - but for Finkelstein’s own folly in clinging to a hopelessly out-dated and bankrupt archaeological system that causes him to point every time to the wrong stratigraphical level for Israel’s Old Testament history (e.g. Exodus/Conquest; David and Solomon). Seemingly ignorant of the cosmopolitan Late Bronze Age and the 18th dynasty era of Egypt, which revisionists have now shown conclusively to have been contemporaneous with King Solomon (with the biblical King Shishak now clearly identified as pharaoh Thutmose III himself), Finkelstein and his colleagues persist with the old Sothic-based chronology of c. 1900 (together with F. Champollion’s now completely discredited identification of Shishak with Shoshenq I), which forces them to deny to Solomon and the Queen of Sheba their rightful c. C10th BC existence, relegating them instead to the impoverished Iron Age era of Israel. Thus Finkelstein (ibid., pp. 85-86):
But take Solomon, dissect it [sic]. Take the great visit of the Queen of Sheba – an Arabian queen coming to visit, bringing all sorts of exotic commodities to Jerusalem. This is a story which is an impossibility to think about before 732 B.C., before the beginning of Arabian trade under Assyrian domination. Take the story of Solomon as the great, you know, trainer in horses and chariots and big armies and so on. The world behind Solomon is the world of the Assyrian century.
But the Queen of Sheba was not “an Arabian queen”. She was, as Josephus clearly tells, ‘a ruler of Egypt and Ethiopia’. She was Queen Hatshepsut of the 18th dynasty, whose throne name, Makera (Maat-ka-re), can easily be seen in her name according to Ethiopian legend, Makeda. Her famous Punt expedition reveals this queen to have been one well capable of “bringing all sorts of exotic commodities …”. One does not have to descend to the C8th BC Assyrian era - and hence well out of Solomon’s chronological range - to discover this sort of luxurious and cosmopolitan scenario. Two El Amarna letters of the 18th Egyptian dynasty era actually refer to the “House of Solomon” (Bît Šulman), but historians - in typical Finkelsteinian fashion - have to dismiss this as long pre-dating Solomon. This evidence, amongst much else, should have led them to question their chronology.
The Tell Dan reference to the “House of David” usually receives grudging acceptance from archaeologists. Strangely - and I would say quite inconsistently - Finkelstein does accept that David was a C10th BC entity (despite his famous son Solomon’s being relegated to oblivion). Thus he says (Ibid., p. 85):
David, for example, is a historical figure. He did live in the tenth century B.C. I accept the descriptions of David as some sort of leader of an upheaval group, troublemakers who lived on the margins of society. But not the golden city of Jerusalem, not the description of a great empire in the time of Solomon.
This muddle-headed archaeologist can then say that this ‘David’ - a marginal troublemaker bearing absolutely no resemblance to the biblical King David in all his complexity and greatness - is, for him, “everything”. “If you want me to say it simplistically [which is about all that Finkelstein is capable of, apparently], I’m proud that this nobody from nowhere became the center of Western tradition”.
Draper, in his concluding sentence, will call Finkelstein “David’s dethroner”, when quoting Finkelstein, who says: “So for me, David is not a plaque on the wall, not even merely a leader of a tenth-century band. [Contrary to what he had just said] No. Much more than that”.
Does Draper suspect that Finkelstein perhaps imagines that he has now dethroned both David and Solomon? Does he presume to have obliterated them and to have taken over their throne? The King is a Fink!
Whatever Finkelstein himself might imagine, David and Solomon were real C10th BC kings. And they were, quite unlike Finkelstein, greatly endowed with wisdom.
