Pepi pertinent to Palace G at Ebla

by Damien F. Mackey “Freedman himself even noted that the king named Birsha ruled not in Gomorrah but in Admah, contrary to what Genesis says …”. Matt McClellan Matt McClellan, in his article, “Abraham and the Chronology of Ancient Mesopotamia” https://answersresearchjournal.org/abraham-chronology-ancient-mesopotamia/ ambitiously - and, I think, unsuccessfully - grapples with issues pertaining to the right historical and stratigraphical location for Abraham; the ill-fated cities of Pentapolis; the Akkadian and Ur III dynasties; Hammurabi of Babylon; and Pepi ruler of Egypt. A focal point for his discussion will be Palace G at Ebla. Some of these issues, such as the location of Pentapolis, and the stratigraphy for Abram and the four coalitional invader kings of Genesis 14:1 - and hence for Pentapolis (14:2) - can be most satisfactorily settled, I believe, with reference to the penetrating research of Dr. John Osgood. Abraham, Moses and Hammurabi Matt McClellan, in his Abstract, will accept the old view that it was in Sumer “that Abraham had lived before he set out to the Promised Land”. And he refers here to another old view, that Abraham and Hammurabi were approximately contemporaneous: For many years, Abraham was believed to have lived at the same time as Hammurabi, king of Babylon. Later scholars would date Abraham to the period shortly before the reign of Hammurabi. However, the result of recent research is that the chronology of the ancient world is being redated. Hammurabi now appears to be a near contemporary of Moses instead of Abraham. All of this I consider to be wrong. Regarding Abram’s original home, for instance, see e.g. my article: Abram’s “Ur of the Chaldees” (11) Abram's "Ur of the Chaldees" | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And, regarding King Hammurabi, he ruled centuries later than Moses, and, a fortiori, later than Abraham. On this, see e.g. my series: Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as Contemporaries of Solomon (11) Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as Contemporaries of Solomon | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and: (11) Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as Contemporaries of Solomon. Part Two: Zimri-lim's Mari Palace and King Solomon | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and: (11) Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as contemporaries of Solomon. Part Two (b): Zimri-Lim's Palace and the four rivers? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Dr. John Osgood, too, ceases to be helpful here with his mis-dating (my view) of Hammurabi to the time of Joshua. If Hammurabi were, as written above, “a near contemporary of Moses”, then it could be argued, as many have done, that the Mosaïc Torah was inspired by a pagan Babylonian Law Code. In a properly revised context (my view), King Hammurabi would instead have come under the influence of Mosaïc law filtered through, say, King David of Israel. Unfortunately, therefore, Matt McClellan will proceed ‘up a garden path’ in trying to establish what he calls “this new chronological revolution”: In Egyptian chronological studies, the patriarchs are dated earlier than ever before. In spite of this, there has been little research conducted on the relationship between Abraham and Mesopotamia in this new chronological revolution. This article will look at the current trends in chronological studies and how they relate to the life of Abraham. It will come to the conclusion that Abraham lived much earlier in Mesopotamian history than what most have realized. Matt McClellan will pursue a course that would set Abraham in the Ur III to Isin-Larsa period (c. 2112-1763 BC): Today the usual dating of Abraham in Mesopotamia is in either the Ur III or Isin-Larsa periods (see table 1). This depends upon the different interpretations concerning biblical chronology. …. Kenneth Kitchen, for instance, dates the oppression of the Israelites in Egypt from c. 1320–1260/1250 and the Exodus around 1260/1250 and uses a 645 year period between Abraham and the Exodus. This gives a date for the period between Abraham and Joseph from around 1900–1600 (Kitchen 2003, pp. 358–359). …. This would place Abraham during the Isin-Larsa period. There are other ways of dating Abraham including the use of the popular date of 1446 for the Exodus and 645 years between Abraham and the Exodus. Using this method one will date Abraham’s 75th year in the year 2091 during the Ur III period. It is during this period that Gleason Archer has placed Abraham (Archer 2007, p. 183). With 430 years between Abraham’s 75th year and the Exodus he would have arrived in Canaan in the year 1876 during the Isin-Larsa period like Kitchen dates him. Alfred Hoerth, in his Archaeology and the Old Testament, uses this method to date Abraham to this period (Hoerth 1998, pp. 58–59). The Ur III and Isin-Larsa period, needing to be re-dated and re-defined, is nowhere near the time of Abraham, or even that of Moses. Ur III again pertains to Hammurabi at the time of King Solomon of Israel, according to e.g. my article: Ur III and Hammurabi (14) Ur III and Hammurabi | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The Middle Bronze Age, which coincides with Ur III, proves to be a disastrous choice for the archaeological era of Abraham. The Middle Bronze I (MBI) people are clearly the Exodus Israelites, a half a millennium after Abraham, who belongs to the Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze era. This is where Dr. John Osgood’s research really comes to the fore and is a must read (EN Tech. J., vol. 2, 1986, pp. 56–76): https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j02_1/j02_1_56-76.pdf The Times of the Judges — The Archaeology: (a) Exodus to Conquest See also my article Egal Israel accepts the MBI peoples as being the Israelites of the Exodus (3) Egal Israel accepts the MBI peoples as being the Israelites of the Exodus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu For the correct archaeology of Abraham, finally, see Dr. Osgood’s groundbreaking article (EN Tech. J., vol. 2, 1986, pp. 77–87): https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j02_1/j02_1_77-87.pdf The Times of Abraham Matt McClellan, by contrast, struggles with a lack of specificity regarding Abraham, Ur III, and the Archaeological Ages: Using Ussher’s date of 1491 for the Exodus and 645 years Abraham would have entered Canaan in the year 2136 during the reign of the Gutium. Using 430 years would place the same event in 1921 during the Isin-Larsa period. To make things even more complicated many scholars seem to date Abraham (and the other patriarchs) to the Middle Bronze Age without being specific on whether Abraham lived during Ur III or Isin-Larsa (Albright 1963, pp. 4, 7; Bright 1981, p. 83; LaSor, Hubbard and Bush 1996, pp. 41–43; Rooker 2003, pp. 233–235). …. Adding Ebla (Tell Mardikh) Thanks to the truth-depriving censorship of Ebla by the Syrian government: Bible-affirming Ebla hampered and censored by Syrian authorities (14) Bible-affirming Ebla hampered and censored by Syrian authorities | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu biblical scholars and historians have been dreadfully short-changed regarding the fascinating site of Ebla. Hence one is not entirely sure what to believe about it. Matt McClellan introduces the important Ebla as “A New Twist”: …. In 1974, the archaeological world was rocked with the discovery of the archives of the ancient city of Ebla in Syria. The archives of the city dated back to before the days of the Akkadian Empire …. These texts reveal that Ebla was a thriving commercial city with contacts stretching in all directions for hundreds of miles. The discovery affected not only Near Eastern studies but also biblical studies. Shortly after this discovery David Noel Freedman argued that the discovery of the archives gave evidence for placing the patriarchs into the period of Mesopotamian history before Sargon, the founder of the Akkadian Empire. This would have been the period which Kitchen said was too early for the patriarchs. David Noel Freedman was highly enthusiastic about Ebla, but he wrongly identified Pentapolis (and many have followed him in this) with Bab edh-Dhra and its environs, which Dr. John Osgood, however, with a properly set archaeology for the Israelites as the MBI people, has been able to show were Transjordanian (not Pentapolitan) sites conquered by the marauding Exodus Israelites. According to Matt McClellan: Freedman stated that one of the tablets listed the five Cities of the Plain in the same order in which they were listed in Genesis. It even named one of the five kings in almost the same form as Genesis (Birsha). This allowed Freedman to say that the patriarchs lived in the Early Bronze Age (EBA) which is traditionally dated to the third millennium BC (Freedman 1978, pp. 148, 154–155, 157–158). Freedman went on to argue that the Early Bronze Age remains just east of the Dead Sea were where the five cities were located. It was believed that Bab edh-Dhra and four other sites nearby were the Cities of the Plain. This was backed up by the fact that there were no Middle Bronze Age sites in the area but only Early Bronze Age sites. Interestingly the Early Bronze Age was the same period as the Ebla archive (Freedman 1978, p. 152). It is now accepted by most scholars that Freedman’s conclusions are false. The tablet does not list all five of the cities and concerning the name of Birsha, John Bimson notes that there are several examples of kings with the same name ruling centuries apart. So just because the name sounds like that of the king mentioned in Genesis 14 does not mean that it was him (Bimson 1980, pp. 66–67). Freedman himself even noted that the king named Birsha ruled not in Gomorrah but in Admah, contrary to what Genesis says (Freedman 1978, p. 155). Bimson also argues against Freedman’s archaeological evidence. He notes that Freedman’s argument depends on the fact that no Middle Bronze I sites have been discovered so that Freedman must assume that the Early Bronze Age sites are the Cities of the Plain. Bimson says: Unless the EBA settlements can be identified with certainty as the “cities of the plain” (which would require four of them being shown to have suffered a simultaneous fall in the EBA; Zoar was not destroyed according to [Genesis] 19), Freedman’s case remains weak (Bimson 1980, p. 67). Adding Egypt to Ebla Pepi I is to be considered here. I have identified Pepi I of the Sixth Dynasty (top right) all at once with Chephren/ Khafre of the Fourth Dynasty (top left); Pepi II of the Sixth Dynasty; and Sesostris I-III of the Twelfth Dynasty (bottom). On this, see e.g. my article: Moses, Egypt, Kings before the Exodus (5) Moses, Egypt, Kings before the Exodus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Matt McClellan continues, now telling at which of its stages Ebla synchronises with Pepi (so-called I) of Egypt, McClellan’s favoured era for Abraham: … The city of Ebla is located in present-day Syria. The city was discovered in the remains of Tell Mardikh. Among the findings discovered was the city’s archive located in the palace. Archaeologists have designated this palace as palace G. Interestingly palace G is dated to the Early Bronze Age. The archive includes more than 17,000 complete and fragmentary documents. Included are letters, administrative, economic, juridical, lexical, and literary texts which give us information concerning the city’s social, economic, and governmental structure, as well as the religion of the city (Archi 1997, pp. 184–185; Matthiae 1997, p. 181). The Ebla tablets were written during the reigns of the last three kings of Ebla and thus constitute a “living” archive (Archi 1997, p. 184; Astour 2002, p. 59; Matthiae 1997, p. 181). …. The Ebla archives allow us to connect Mesopotamian chronology with Egyptian chronology during this early period at one very specific point: the name of Pepi I (of the Sixth Dynasty) was found among the ruins of palace G (Archi 1997, p. 184; Astour 2002, p. 60; Gelb 1981, p. 58; Matthiae 1997, p. 181; Pettinato 1986, p. 58). The name of Pepi I (along with another Egyptian king—Khufu, the builder of the Great Pyramid during the Fourth Dynasty) was found in undisturbed layers of the debris of palace G which shows us that it was not placed there after the destruction of the palace archive (Astour 2002, p. 60). This all fits like a glove with my revision. Pepi I (Chephren) was the ruler of Egypt who followed the dynastic “new king” (Exodus 1:8). Moses was Mentuhotep/Weni, the Chief Vizier and Judge of Egypt at the time. His foster-mother was Ankhesenmerire, the wife of Pepi, the daughter of Khui (Khufu = Cheops). She (also Meresankh) was the “Merris” of Artapanus (“On Moses”), who married “Chenephres” (or Chephren = Pepi). Moses eventually fled from Pepi (as Sesostris), as according to the garbled Egyptian account of the adult Moses in The Story of Sinuhe. In the Book of Exodus we are told that Moses fled to the land of Midian (2:15). So, it is perfectly in accord with my revision that successive rulers of Egypt, Cheops and Pepi {“The name of Pepi I (along with another Egyptian king—Khufu …”)} - conventionally well separated, and of different dynasties - should be found together. And, indeed at the Early Bronze level {“Interestingly palace G is dated to the Early Bronze Age”}, which is the very level of Canaanite civilisation against which Moses, Joshua and the MBI Israelites would later march. An Abrahamic context this is not, so Matt McClellan is probing in the wrong place at the wrong time: The Sixth Dynasty is the latest that Abraham could have been in Egypt (McClellan 2011). Since Pepi I was a king during this dynasty and is dated to the period before the destruction of palace G, we can use the palace archives to date Abraham within Mesopotamia history. The question is to which period in Mesopotamian history does palace G correlate? There are different opinions, but Ebla is dated using thousands of texts discovered there to show that the palace was destroyed before or sometime during the Akkadian Empire. Nor would I be so quick as to dismiss Paolo Matthiae’s suggested identification of Sargon and Akkad at Ebla – though, if he is correct, this could not have any possible correlation with the much later era (about half a millennium after Sargon) of Moses: Sargon and his grandson, Naram-Sin, the first and fourth kings of Akkad, have been the two most cited kings who could have destroyed palace G. Both kings boast that they conquered Ebla (Bermant and Weitzman 1979, p. 172). Paolo Matthiae is one scholar who believes that palace G was destroyed by Naram-Sin. He notes that the name Shariginu in a text found at Ebla may be Sargon and that Akkad is mentioned as A-ga-duki EN (Matthiae 1977, pp. 166–167). These two names would mean that Sargon reigned during part of the Ebla dynasty before the destruction of palace G (Matthiae 1977, pp. 168–169). To support the theory of Naram-Sin as the conqueror, the pottery found at Ebla seemed to correspond to the period of Naram-Sin, suggesting that he was, in fact, the conqueror of Ebla and destroyer of palace G (Bermant and Weitzman 1979, p. 170). However, there are problems with this thesis. Bermant and Weitzman (1979, p. 172) note that the pottery once thought to belong to the period of Naram-Sin now is believed by some scholars to date to the period before Naram-Sin. Names originally translated as Sargon and Akkad were shown to be a nonentity called Shariginu and an unimportant town named Arugadu (Bermant and Weitzman 1979, p. 174). Perhaps yet further solutions may be attained by recognising: Sargon [as] Naram-Sin (4) Sargon and Naram-Sin | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Matt McClellan will go on to refer to Michael Astour’s view that Sargon’s Akkad is not mentioned in the Ebla archive: “Besides these problems, there are others as well. Astour (2002, p. 64) notes that there is no mention at all of Akkad in the Ebla tablets”. Be that as it may, I have identified Akkad with Ugarit: My road to Akkad (4) My road to Akkad | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and Ugarit is most certainly referred to at Ebla: “The first written evidence mentioning the city comes from the nearby city of Ebla, c. 1800 BC” (Wikipedia, “Ugarit”).