Aram and Edom are often confused

by Damien F. Mackey “… Cushan is an Edomite king who subjugated the tribe of Judah whose territory was adjacent to Edom …”. jewishvirtuallibrary In the first two of three cases given here, (i) Balaam and (ii) Cushan-rishathaim, so-called, Aram occurs where I think the correct geography would be Edom. Whereas, in the third case, conversely, (iii) Hadad, the foe of King Solomon, the story is situated in Edom, when I think it should be Aram. (i) Case of Balaam Following a clue from W. F. Albright, I wrote an article: Baleful Balaam son of Beor (1) Baleful Balaam son of Beor according to which Balaam was an Edomite: “Balaam was an ancient Edomite sage”, wrote W.F. Albright (“The Home of Balaam”, Jstor, 1915), whilst himself failing to connect “Balaam son of Beor” (Numbers 22:5) - as do some commentators - with “Bela son of Beor”, who “became king of Edom” (Genesis 36:31). James B. Jordan is one who has proposed such a connection, whilst in the same article including the prophet Job amongst the list of Edomite kings (“Was Job an Edomite King? (Part 2)”, 2000). Job, though, was not Edomite king, but a Naphtalian Israelite: Job’s Life and Times (2) Job’s Life and Times Job would have lived almost a millennium after Balaam and the Edomite king, Jobab, with whom Jordan (as do others) had hoped to identify Job. Jordan has written as follows on this Genesis 36 list of Edomite kings: http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-131-was-job-an-edomite-king-part-2/ … Genesis 36:31-39 provides us a list of seven kings over Edom, followed by an eighth. 1. Bela ben Beor from Dinhabah 2. Jobab ben Zerah from Bozrah 3. Husham from Teman 4. Hadad ben Bedad from Avith 5. Samlah from Masrekah 6. Saul from Rehoboth 7. Baal-Hanan ben Achbor 8. Hadar/d from Pau …. The third Edomite king was Husham, the second was Jobab, and the first was Bela son of Beor. I suggest that this Bela is to be linked with Balaam son of Beor (Numbers 22:5). We know that there were already kings in Edom at this time, because one such king denied Moses passage through his territory (Numbers 20:14-21). If this king was Bela son of Beor, Balaam would possibly be his brother. The name Bela is written bela` while the name Balaam is written bil`am. The E in Bela is short, and could easily shorten further to an I if the name is extended, as it is in the name Bilam: Bela is accented on the first syllable, while Bil`am is accented on the second, after a break in sound. Thus, it is entirely possible that Bela and Balaam are the same person. The name seems to be a shortened form of Baal, which means "lord, husband, eater." Bela, as first king of Edom, would be "Lord/Husband/Eater," while Balaam means "Lord/Husband/Eater of a People." (Compare the Babylonian god Bel with the Canaanite god Baal for a similar association.) The lord of a people is their husband, and "eats" them into himself as a body politic, as part of his body. …. Whether Bela and Balaam were the same person or not, the fact that they are both sons of Beor, the only mention of any "Beor" in the Bible, indicates the strong possibility that they were at least brothers, and thus contemporaries. …. Now, assume that Bela and Balaam are the same person. Moses put this man to death right at the end of the wilderness wanderings (Numbers 31:8 — and the mention of Balaam the son of Beor alongside five kings of Midian heightens the possibility that Balaam was Bela, king of Edom). …. [End of quote] (ii) Case of Cushan-rishathaim I explained the geographical situation for this oppressor of Israel in my article: Cushan rishathaim was king of Edom (1) Cushan rishathaim was king of Edom “Therefore the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and he sold them into the hand of Chushan rishathaim ... and the children of Israel served Chushan rishathaim eight years”. Judges 3:8 The version of the Bible from which I recently read this verse, Judges 3:8, had Cushan rishathaim as “king of Edom”; whereas I had usually read him as being a “king of Aram Naharaim”. There is, of course, a fair bit of distance between Edom, to the south of Israel, and Aram Naharaim, in Upper Mesopotamia. Armed with this new piece of information, I decided to re-visit the list of Edomite kings to be found in Genesis 36, in anticipation of perhaps finding there a name like Cushan (כּוּשַׁן). Having previously thought to have identified Balaam in that Edomite list (following Albright): William Foxwell Albright a conventional fox with insight ‘outside the box'’ (1) William Foxwell Albright a conventional fox with insight 'outside the box' and knowing that Balaam (at the time of Joshua) to have pre-existed Cushan (the time of Othniel), I checked for an appropriate name not far below King No. 1 in the list, Bela ben Beor (or Balaam son of Beor): 1. Bela ben Beor from Dinhabah 2. Jobab ben Zerah from Bozrah 3. Husham from Teman 4. Hadad ben Bedad from Avith 5. Samlah from Masrekah 6. Saul from Rehoboth 7. Baal-Hanan ben Achbor 8. Hadar/d from Pau King No. 3 looked perfect for Cushan, or Chushan: namely, Husham (or Chusham, חֻשָׁם). Later I would learn that other scholars (see below) had already come to this same conclusion (i.e., Husham = Cushan). In the following brief article, the jewishvirtuallibrary will query both long names associated with this enemy of Israel, the “Rishathaim” element and the “Naharaim” element. “The second element, Rishathaim ("double wickedness"), is presumably not the original name”, and: “The combination Aram-Naharaim is not a genuine one for the period of the Judges”: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/cushan-rishathaim CUSHAN-RISHATHAIM (Heb. כּוּשַׁן רִשְׁעָתַיִם), the first oppressor of Israel in the period of the Judges (Judg. 3:8–10). Israel was subject to Cushan-Rishathaim, the king of Aram-Naharaim, for eight years, before being rescued by the first "judge," *Othniel son of Kenaz. The second element, Rishathaim ("double wickedness"), is presumably not the original name, but serves as a pejorative which rhymes with Naharaim. The combination Aram-Naharaim is not a genuine one for the period of the Judges, since at that time the Arameans were not yet an important ethnic element in Mesopotamia. In the view of some scholars, the story lacks historical basis and is the invention of an author who wished to produce a judge from Judah, and raise the total number of judges to twelve. Those who see a historical basis to the story have proposed various identifications for Cushan-Rishathaim: (1) Cushan is to be sought among one of the Kassite rulers in Babylonia (17th–12th centuries; cf. Gen. 10:8). Josephus identifies Cushan with an Assyrian king. Others identify him with one of the Mitannian or Hittite kings. (2) Cushan is an Egyptian ruler from *Cush in Africa (Nubia; cf. Gen. 10:6; Isa. 11:11, et al.). (3) The head of the tribe of Cush, which led a nomadic existence along the southern border of Palestine. Such Cushite nomads are mentioned in the Egyptian Execration Texts of the first quarter of the second millennium B.C.E. and in the Bible (Num. 12:1; Hab. 3:7; II Chron. 14:8; 21:16). (4) Aram (Heb. ארם) is a corruption of Edom (Heb. אדום) and Naharaim is a later addition. Thus, Cushan is an Edomite king who subjugated the tribe of Judah whose territory was adjacent to Edom. (5) Cushan is from central or northern Syria, and is to be identified with a North Syrian ruler or with irsw, a Hurrian (from the area of Syria-Palestine) who seized power in Egypt during the anarchic period at the end of the 19th dynasty (c. 1200 B.C.E.). In his campaign from the north to Egypt, he also subjugated the Israelites. Othniel's rescue of the Israelites is to be understood against the background of the expulsion of the foreign invaders from Egypt by the pharaoh Sethnakhte [sic], the founder of the 20th dynasty. BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. Taeubler, in: HUCA, 20 (1947), 137–42; A. Malamat, in: JNES, 13 (1954), 231–42; S. Yeivin, in: Atiqot, 3 (1961), 176–80. Point 4 above: “... (4) Aram (Heb. ארם) is a corruption of Edom (Heb. אדום) and Naharaim is a later addition. Thus, Cushan is an Edomite king who subjugated the tribe of Judah whose territory was adjacent to Edom”, will now be viewed as the relevant one, with the addition of Husham the Temanite as the actual identification of this “Edomite king”. Avrāhām Malāmāṭ has, I think, managed to sew it all up, following Klostermann. In “Cushan Rishathaim and the Decline of the Near East around 1200 BC” (Jstor 13, no. 4, 1954), Malāmāṭ wrote (p. 232): The second component of the name Cushan Rishathaim is even more obscure and is undoubtedly a folkloristic distortion of the original form. ... Among the various efforts to ascertain the original name, those of Klostermann and Marquart have found the widest acceptance. Klostermann's proposal was that רִשְׁעָתַיִם originally represented [` נ] תימ ה ש[א]רֵ, “chieftain of the Temanites”, and identified כּוּשַׁן with חֻשָׁם, “(Husham) of the land of the Temanites”, who is third in the list of the kings of Edom (Gen. 36:34). .... Understandably, those who proposed that Cushan Rishathaim reigned in the south of Palestine could not believe the name Aram-Naharaim or Aram (Judg 3:10) to be the genuine form. They accepted the emendation of Aram to Edom, a proposal made as far back as Graetz. Naharaim was considered as a later gloss inserted for the sake of rhyming with Rishathaim. .... Consequently, our passage was viewed as the echo of a local struggle between the Edomites (or Midianites) and Othniel the Kenizzite, the leader of a southern clan related to the tribe of Judah. .... Given the lack of detail associated with the oppression of Israel by Cushan, this scenario appears to make more sense than my previous notion that Cushan was a significant Mesopotamian (perhaps Assyrian) king controlling Palestine. It was more of “a local struggle”. This now means that I must also re-consider Dr. John Osgood’s view (as previously discussed) that the Khabur culture in the north was archaeologically reflective of the period of domination by Cushan. We would need to look instead for a localised cultural dominance. (iii) Case of Hadad Solomon’s Adversaries I Kings 11:14-22: Then the Lord raised up against Solomon an adversary, Hadad the Edomite, from the royal line of Edom. Earlier when David was fighting with Edom, Joab the commander of the army, who had gone up to bury the dead, had struck down all the men in Edom. Joab and all the Israelites stayed there for six months, until they had destroyed all the men in Edom. But Hadad, still only a boy, fled to Egypt with some Edomite officials who had served his father. They set out from Midian and went to Paran. Then taking people from Paran with them, they went to Egypt, to Pharaoh king of Egypt, who gave Hadad a house and land and provided him with food. Pharaoh was so pleased with Hadad that he gave him a sister of his own wife, Queen Tahpenes, in marriage. The sister of Tahpenes bore him a son named Genubath, whom Tahpenes brought up in the royal palace. There Genubath lived with Pharaoh’s own children. While he was in Egypt, Hadad heard that David rested with his ancestors and that Joab the commander of the army was also dead. Then Hadad said to Pharaoh, ‘Let me go, that I may return to my own country’. ‘What have you lacked here that you want to go back to your own country?’ Pharaoh asked. ‘Nothing’, Hadad replied, ‘but do let me go!’ But was this Hadad really a Syrian (Aramite), rather than an Edomite? 2 Samuel 10:13 Commentaries: So Joab and the people who were with him drew near to the battle against the Arameans, and they fled before him. Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible And Joab drew nigh, and the people that were with him, unto the battle against the Syrians,.... Fell upon them; attacked them first, began the battle with them; rightly judging, that if they, being hired soldiers, were closely pressed, they would give way, which would discourage the Ammonites, who depended much upon them; and the fight, according to Josephus (x), lasted some little time, who says, that Joab killed many of them, and obliged the rest to turn their backs and flee, as follows: and they fled before him: the Syriac and Arabic versions in this verse, and in all others in this chapter where the word "Syrians" is used, have "Edomites", reading "Edom" instead of "Aram", the letters "R" and "D" in the Hebrew tongue being very similar. (x) Ut supra. (Antiqu. l. 7. c. 6. sect. 2.) ….

by Damien F. Mackey “Finally, Josephus actually gives us information about the Exodus as does Artapanus, the Egyptian historian. The story is actually amazing. Moses had been the Commander in charge of the Egyptian military, and had led an expedition south and extended Egypt's territory 200 miles into Nubia. This was a unique event, and the troops sought to make him pharaoh instead of Khaneferre (Sobekhotep IV) who had married Merris (the daughter of Pharaoh Palmonothes who rescued him from the river)”. Barry Setterfield ________________________________________ Introducing Barry Setterfield Paul Romano tells us something about him: Introducing Barry Setterfield — New Life Magazine We are thrilled to announce that NewLife Magazine has a new addition to our team of talented contributors! Joining us is Barry Setterfield. With an impressive background in various fields including physics, astronomy, and theology, Barry Setterfield brings a wealth of knowledge and deep insights to NewLife's diverse range of topics. We are excited to welcome Barry Setterfield to NewLife Magazine family, and we cannot wait to see the impact his contributions will have on our readership! … Barry John Setterfield was born 15th April, 1942 in Northam, Western Australia, to Salvation Army parents. His high school results earned him a full Commonwealth Scholarship for university where he majored in physics and geology and minored in mathematics and chemistry. Because of a family crisis in 1964 and an acute attack of a genetic disease, Barry had to quit university and so has no formal degree. On March 8th 1964 he accepted Christ as his Saviour. Early in 1965 he was asked by the Astronomical Society of South Australia (ASSA) to prepare for publication the research of the recently deceased Government Astronomer for South Australia, George Dodwell. From 1966 to 1971 he lectured in Astronomy for the ASSA, as well as presenting astronomy to schools, colleges and scout groups. In August 1987 he co-authored a Report for Stanford Research Institute (SRI) International on the changing values of the constants of physics. This led to his ongoing research into the effects on these constants caused by the expansion of the universe. …. During this time, he was invited to speak on a variety of biblical topics at churches and Bible colleges in Australia. In October of 2000 he married Helen (Penny) Fryman, and they presented on both bible topics and the implications of Barry’s research internationally. Barry & Penny settled in Grants Pass, Oregon, where Barry was appointed Director of the New Hope Observatory and taught astronomy at both a Christian school there as well as presenting by invitation at a secular college. He and Penny have regular Bible studies at their home as well as a monthly pastors meeting where the Bible and current events are discussed and the notes emailed internationally. [End of quote] His interests in Science and Time Although a Creationist, Barry Setterfield appears to be a highly original thinker, with certain views that would not be standard fare amongst Creationists. I first heard about him in the 1980’s, I think, when his views on the velocity of Light not being a constant were making waves, so to speak: The Atomic Constants, Light, And Time Barry Setterfield suggests that the velocity of light may not be constant and could be decreasing over time. His research indicates that all constants that carry units of per second have been decreasing since the beginning of the universe, with the velocity of light being one of the most established cases. Setterfield's hypothesis has been supported by statistical analyses, which indicate no significant variation in the velocity of light over the last 300 years. However, this hypothesis has faced criticism and has not been widely accepted in the scientific community. I, having been an ardent fan of Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky in those days, particularly his historical revision, was then somewhat interested, too, in his catastrophism, which figures in Barry Setterfield’s research. Recently, I explained very briefly to a 90+ year-old lady in Brisbane (Australia) – who is a real enthusiast of astronomy and physics, having tremendous knowledge in these areas – who drew my attention to Barry Setterfield again, why my interest in scientific catastrophism had fallen right off: … Probably why I tended to drift away from Barry Setterfield … was due to his Catastrophism, which I initially liked following Dr. Velikovsky. I used to follow the latter holus bolus, in his history and (so-called) science. Later, I came to reject his Catastrophism. For one, there was no indication whatsoever in the OT that Venus had played any sort of backdrop role in the Plagues and Exodus. But, more meaningfully for me, Mars was not the cause of the zapping of the 185,000 Assyrian army. Judith was. It was not a cosmic zapping, but a rout (as is clear from Isaiah), set in train by Judith's slaying of “Holofernes” (Sennacherib's oldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, the Nadin/Nadab of the Book of Tobit 14:10). …. Another area where I would not be in agreement with Barry Setterfield is with his use of the long biblical chronology (Septuagint), which cancels out Shem, son of Noah, from being Melchizedek (as according to Hebrew Tradition); and which necessitates a four-century sojourn of Israel in Egypt. While I, following the likes of Drs. Courville and Velikovsky, have sought to fix an over-extended Egyptian chronology to the much shorter biblical one, Barry Setterfield, on the other hand, with his unique adding of supposed biblical catastrophes (A Brief Earth History: A Brief Earth History), has now tied Egyptian dynastic history to his much enlarged biblical chronology. Thus he would have pharaoh Khufu (Cheops) and the Pyramid Age around 2550 BC, corresponding closely to the conventional system. I, on the other hand, have Khufu as the “new king” of Exodus 1:8, at close to 1550 BC, a millennium later. However, despite, our entirely different approaches, our Egypto-biblical models actually meet in several major places. Let us consider these. His biblico-Egyptology Barry Setterfield writes: Egypt and Exodus There are always a number of questions about the Exodus of the Israelites from ancient Egypt. Here are two of them regarding two different articles: Amenhotep II and the Historicity of the Exodus Pharaoh and A New Chronology which Barry has been asked about in two separate emails. Amenhotep II and the Historicity of the Exodus Pharaoh Mackey’s comment: Thankfully, Barry has rejected the highly unsuitable identification of the Pharaoh of the Exodus with Amenhotep II, which has become quite popular lately. Here, though, he shows his preference for the Septuagint chronology which I believe is far too long. Thanks for the link, which is appreciated. Unfortunately, there are a number of problems with both the dating and the Pharaoh of the Exodus here. First, the author is using the Masoretic text which originated at the Council of Jamnia about 100 AD. This was not the text used by Christ, the Apostles nor by the Ante-Nicene Fathers. The preferred text was the same as the Alexandrian Septuagint. This gives a significantly longer chronology back to Adam and allows for all the Egyptian Dynasties to be accounted for basically in the dates currently accepted by most archaeologists. The Masoretic text for the Old Testament, which all our modern Bibles have, does not allow that to happen. As a result, generations of Christian archaeologists have spent their lives trying to re-date Egyptian dynasties in order to bring them into conformity with the Masoretic text. This is entirely unnecessary if the Septuagint (LXX) text is used. Mackey’s comment: Barry will now ‘swing and a miss’ with his identification of the biblical “Shishak” as Ramses III. Dr. Velikovsky’s identification with Thutmose III is, I believe, far preferable. Secondly, mention is made of the fact that Pharaoh Sheshonq I is actually mentioned in our Bibles as Shishak. This again is an artifact of the Masoretic text. The LXX actually states that this pharaoh is Shushaqkim. Shishak is a shortening of this title to Shushaq. This was the Horus name for Ramesses III. Since this is fixed as being the name of the pharaoh who invaded Israel on the death of Solomon, all Biblical-Egyptological chronologies need to take note of this fact. The current authors do not do that. So the exodus event in Egyptian history needs re-evaluation. Third. much is made of the fact that 1Kings 6:1 gives us accurate information. There is an unfortunate aspect to this. That time-listing actually drops over 100 years from the record of Israelite history in the time of the Judges when Israel was under the control of foreign kings and out of fellowship with God. The early church recognised this and it is actually hinted at in Stephen's speech to the Sanhedrin in Acts 7. This passage has posed a problem for those who ignore what has been called the "Omission Principle" whereby years out of fellowship with God are omitted from the record. When these things are factored in, a much earlier date for the exodus is obtained. Mackey’s comment: Here, Barry gives his rationale for his much earlier than usual date for the Exodus, at 1603 BC, when c. 1450 BC would be more common amongst conservative biblical scholars. Fourth, the date which results from the study in the URL gives a date for the entry into Canaan under Joshua which disagrees with most of the archaeological data. As a result, many Christian archaeologists try to find "problems" with the archaeology that has been done by "unbelievers". Fifth, the use of Jubilee cycles has been shown to be notoriously unreliable. The Talmud and its suggestions for these cycles was written after the Babylonian captivity and they were making guesses based on tradition. Finally, Josephus actually gives us information about the Exodus as does Artapanus, the Egyptian historian. The story is actually amazing. Moses had been the Commander in charge of the Egyptian military, and had led an expedition south and extended Egypt's territory 200 miles into Nubia. This was a unique event, and the troops sought to make him pharaoh instead of Khaneferre (Sobekhotep IV) who had married Merris (the daughter of Pharaoh Palmonothes who rescued him from the river). Mackey’s comment: Amazingly, despite our quite different methodologies and chronologies, Barry and I will arrive at the same conclusion, that pharaoh Khaneferre Sobekhotep was the traditional “Chenephres” (Artapanus). But this is only one of my many identifications for this “Chenephres”, beginning with Chephren, son of Khufu, of the Fourth Dynasty (Pyramid Age), which Barry has way back in c. 2550 BC. See e.g. my article: ‘Chenephres’ drives Moses out of Egypt (2) 'Chenephres' drives Moses out of Egypt For this reason, Khaneferre sought an excuse to get rid of Moses, so that when Moses killed the Egyptian, Pharaoh had an excuse, and Moses went into exile. Mackey’s comment: Whereas Barry (as apparently with Dr. David Rohl) has Dudimose as the Pharaoh of the Exodus, my own preference is for the slightly earlier Neferhotep so-called I, of the same Thirteenth Dynasty. The Exodus was then in the reign of Dudimose II (Djedneferre), and what followed immediately was the 2nd Intermediate Period in Egyptian history when the Asian Hyksos marched into Egypt and took the country "without a single battle" as Manetho records. The escaping Israelites also met these "Hyksos", and the Bible calls them the Amalekites. The date of the Exodus then becomes 1603 BC from all these considerations, not 1440 BC or thereabouts as these other authors suggest. Furthermore, we have the history of Egypt to agree with that since the Ipuwer Papyrus tells of the 10 plagues suffered by Egypt just before the Hyksos came in. EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY & THE BIBLE Years B.C. (BCE) Pharaohs/ Events 2067- 2047 Mentuhotpe I (Thebes only) begins 11th Dynasty 2047-1603 The Middle Kingdom begins when Mentuhotpe united all Egypt under his control 2047-2016 Mentuhotpe I (united kingdom until his death) 2041 Joseph made Prime Minister at age 30 by Pharaoh Mentuhotpe I 2032 Israel enters Egypt 2016-2004 Mentuhotep II 2015 Israel (Jacob) dies; Joseph could not approach Pharaoh to bury Jacob --Genesis 50:4 2004-1997 Mentuhotep III Twelth Dynasty begins Amenemhet I usurps Throne – strongly anti-Semitic – oppression starts; oppression continues for about 400 years, as prophesied 1961 Joseph dies sometime after 1783 13th Dynasty Starts 1683 Moses born during the reign of Pharaoh Palmonothes whose daughter Merris rescued Moses (Prince Mousos) about 1650 Moses commander for Pharaoh Khaneferre (Sobekhotep IV) whom Merris had married 1643 Moses exiled from Egypt during Moses' exile Sobekhotep V (Kha’hotepre) Aya (Merneferre) Mentuemzaf (Djed’ankhre) Dudimose II (Djedneferre) 1603. Exodus in time of Dudimose II (Djedneferre) 1603 - 1532 Second Intermediate Period Begins Hyksos invade, take over, no battle Mackey’s comment: Amazingly, once again, Barry and I have several concurrences: Joseph in the Eleventh Dynasty, at the time of a Mentuhotep; Amenemhet I as the Oppressor Pharaoh (identical with Khufu, see above); and Moses a commander for Khaneferre Sobekhotep. Barry continues on with his long chronology. It is certainly true that the Septuagint currently appears to give the time of 430 years as the total time of the Children of Israel in both Canaan and Egypt. We will deal with the reason for this shortly. However, the implication is that this time is counted from the time of the entry of Abram into the Canaan unto the Exodus. This leaves about 215 years for the sojourn in Egypt, and many chronologists have accepted that as a fact uncritically. However, the debate is ongoing and has basically been fueled by the LXX as the link you gave makes plain. ….