“The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia

by Damien F. Mackey “In the case of the Sumerians, the problems started from the very beginning; their very existence, their identity, their origin, their language, and their demise have all been questioned”. Nita Gleimius Nita Gleimius introduces us, with a standard explanation, of what has come to be called “The Sumerian Problem”: https://www.thecollector.com/sumerian-problem/ The Sumerian Problem(s): Did the Sumerians Exist? Did the Sumerian civilization really exist? Were they immigrants? And why is their language so unique? Oct 22, 2022 • By Nita Gleimius, BA Ancient Near Eastern Cultures & Biblical Archaeology Controversies regarding the Sumerian people — generally called “The Sumerian Problem” — started almost as soon as their civilization was rediscovered. After almost two centuries of discoveries and interpretations, and the deciphering of ancient cuneiform texts from various ancient Near Eastern sources, the very existence of the Sumerians as a distinct nation is still questioned today by some learned scholars. Add to this the various theories about ancient aliens and mysterious teachers, and we have a veritable melting pot of beliefs, myths, and interpretations that defy logic. Many Assyriologists and Sumerologists, like Thorkild Jacobsen and Samuel Noah Kramer, have contributed immensely to the unraveling and interpretation of facts from conjecture. They started to create a semblance of order using the conglomeration of information from archaeology, cuneiform texts, guesswork, and unsubstantiated theories. But even they had to guess and make assumptions. What Is the Sumerian Problem? Discovering our ancient roots is enlightening and wonderfully exciting, one clue leads to a discovery, which leads to another clue, which leads to another discovery, and so on — almost like a top-selling mystery novel. But imagine that your favorite mystery or crime novelist suddenly ends a book without tying up the pieces — and with some crucial pieces of the mystery still missing. Without crucial evidence, without enough hints to lead you further, you may check and recheck if you were right in your analysis and tentative conclusions. Sometimes archaeologists end up with just such a mystery. In the case of the Sumerians, the problems started from the very beginning; their very existence, their identity, their origin, their language, and their demise have all been questioned. Once most of the archaeological and linguistic fraternities agreed that a previously unknown group of people had in fact settled in southern Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) before 4000 BCE, theories abounded. Scholars theorized, reasoned, and debated. Instead of arriving at a reasonable potential geographic location, questions and mysteries multiplied. The issue became several issues. The Sumerian Problem became so emotional for some scholars that they attacked each other openly and personally. The media had a field day, and the scholarly war became in itself part of the problem. …. [End of quote] When, not long ago, I wrote an article entitled “Sumerian Geography in Chaos”, a veritable geographical revolution shifting far westwards (north and south) places that are conventionally thought of as being situated in the lands of Sumer and central Mesopotamia, it had not yet occurred to me that Sumer itself would likewise need to be shifted. Recalling what I wrote there: As explained in e.g. my article: Prince of Lagash (4) Prince of Lagash | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu none of these following locations: Akkad; Dilmun; Magan; Meluḫḫa; Lagash; Eshnunna; Girsu; Gu-Edin was actually located in - as we are commonly told - Sumer (for Akkad; Lagash; Girsu Gu-Edin); or Central Mesopotamia (for Eshnunna); or Bahrain/ Oman/Indus Valley (for Magan and Meluḫḫa). None of these was even situated to the east of the Euphrates River. We have been served up a ridiculous geography of Sumer, in part, and of its environs. So it is not really surprising – could almost be anticipated – that some of the places, such as Lagash and Girsu, seem to ‘fall permanently off the political map’ (and that is because they have never belonged on this map). According to Seth Richardson: Ningirsu returns to his plow: Lagaš and Girsu take leave of Ur (2008) (5) Ningirsu returns to his plow: Lagaš and Girsu take leave of Ur (2008) | Seth Richardson - Academia.edu The Ur III state came to its end through a series of passive defections of individual provinces over the course of about twenty years, rather than by any single catastrophic event. This pattern of defections is nowhere better reflected than in the gradual progression of provinces abandoning the use of Ibbi-Sîn’s year names over his years 2–8. Among the cities that fell away from the control of Ur in those years were Girsu and Lagaš, where Ur III year names are not attested after Ibbi-Sîn’s sixth year. …. Like Puzriš-Dagān and Umma (but unlike Larsa, Uruk, Isin, and Nippur), these cities seemingly fell permanently off the political map of lower Mesopotamia following their departure from Ur’s control, never again the seat of significant institutional life to judge by the low number of texts and inscriptions coming from the sites. At the same time, it is difficult to assert from evidence that any hardship or conflict either precipitated or resulted from Lagaš-Girsu’s decamping from Ur’s authority; no especial difficulty marks the event. …. [End of quote] All of these places in my list above I have re-located far to the west (and to the south of west). Akkad was, in fact, the famous port city of Ugarit (Ras Shamra) far away on the Mediterranean coast. The Egyptians knew Ugarit as IKAT (Akkad). It really makes no sense, does it, that the great Assyro-Babylonian monarchs would individually have boasted of being a “king of Sumer and Akkad” if there was no meaningful geographical separation between the two name-places. Locations thought to have been closely associated with Akkad, geographically, such as Dilmun, Magan and Meluḫḫa, were found to have been nowhere near Sumer either. These were, respectively, Tyre, Egypt and Ethiopia. The region of Sumer, long considered to have been the biblical Shinar (Genesis 11:2), and hence the “Cradle of Civilisation”, was, in fact, a region of late settlement due to the waters and marshes left over by the Genesis Flood. Post-Flood civilisation began in SE Turkey, at Karaca Dağ, the mountain of the Ark’s landing according to the brilliant research by Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White, “Candidate site for Noah’s Ark, altar, and tomb” (Journal of Creation 35(3):50–63, December 2021): https://creation.com/karaca-dag From there, it is a small step to the world’s most ancient civilisations of Göbekli Tepe, and other places traditionally considered to be the world’s “first city”, such as Abram’s Ur of the Chaldees (Sanliurfa), and Harran. Lagash and Eshnunna. This is the same place. And it is to be found in Judah. I had, in my university thesis (2007) distinguished between two forts named Ashdod, the well-known coastal one belonging to the Philistines, known in Sargon II’s Annals as Ashdudimmu, “Ashdod-by-the-Sea”, and another Ashdod that Sargon II’s General (Turtan) captured (Isaiah 20:1), which I determined to have been the famous Lachish. It needs to be noted that Lachish was second in importance to Jerusalem itself: https://www.baslibrary.org/biblical-archaeology-review/31/4/8 “Among cities in ancient Judah, Lachish was second only to Jerusalem in importance. A principal Canaanite and, later, Israelite site, Lachish occupied a major tell (mound) 25 miles southwest of Jerusalem, nestled in the foothills of Judah (the region known as the Shephelah)”. Eventually it struck me that my combination, Ashdod-Lachish, had to be the supposed Sumerian combination of Eshnunna-Lagash. (Friend Robert R. Salverda, at the same time, had come to the conclusion that Lagash was Lachish). Lagash is sometimes referred to as Lakish. Eshnunna as Ashdudda merely requires an n and d interchange. But why do we find Lachish (Lagash) being so important? What about Jerusalem? Well, it is an indication of the importance of Lachish. However, some Sumeriologists think that Lagash was not the capital, but that Girsu, the religious centre, actually was. The religious centre, Girsu, therefore, with Lagash secondary to it, must be Jerusalem. This has since led me to the realisation that the land of Sumer needs to be stripped of some of its most famous names. Places that seemingly just drop out of history. Puzrish-Dagan and Umma, that likewise fall off the map, need to come under scrutiny now as well. Happily, for Sumeriologists and the like, Larsa, Uruk, Isin, and Nippur, seem to be firmly established in Sumer. Though I would distinguish between the well-known Sumerian Uruk and the Urukku seemingly associated with Girsu (my Jerusalem) as its sanctuary. (Ur, Uruk, appear to have been very common ancient names, widely distributed). Also to be distinguished, in this context, are the Sumerian Ur and the home of Abram, “Ur of the Chaldees”, which is Urfa (Şanliurfa) in SE Turkey, far from Sumer. Finally, given my view (and that of others) that Jerusalem was the same site as the antediluvian Garden of Eden, then the Gu-Edin (Guedena) over which the king of Lagash, Eannatum (yet to be identified), and the king of Umma, fought, could perhaps be a reference to the region of Jerusalem (or some place closely associated with it). Akkad will also disappear from history, as did Ugarit at the time of the Sea Peoples. But this will be due purely to external destruction. When the Jews were exiled to Sumer, their history must have become known, but re-cast in Sumerian fashion, with Sumerian pronunciations replacing Hebrew ones. Now - and this will be examined in my next article, “Sumerian History in Chaos” - we have the absurdity that some of what is presented as extremely ancient Sumerian history was, in fact, far less ancient Judean history. [End of quote] Most recently I have argued that Babylon (Babel) itself, thought to have been situated in central-southern Mesopotamia, was actually Carchemish (now in southern Turkey): Correction for Babylon (Babel). Carchemish preferable to Byblos (3) Correction for Babylon (Babel). Carchemish preferable to Byblos | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And, just prior to my writing that article, I had come to the conclusion – belatedly, under the circumstances – that the land of Sumer, now with some of the major locations attributed to it moved far, far away, could no longer be located in the south of Mesopotamia: “With Sumer now de-nuded and gaping, like a mouth emptied of its many teeth, may it not be time to consider for it as well a new, more westerly, location?”: A new location proposed for Sumer (3) A new location proposed for Sumer | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu My tentative new candidate site?: “The stand-out candidate for Sumer, I think, must be the important SUMUR, a virtually identical name, which is a Syrian city situated between Byblos and Arwad”.

Noachic Flood, Ark Mountain, First Writing

by Damien F. Mackey Before the Flood (antediluvian), in the Beginning, Eden (centrally located where Jerusalem now is) was the Cradle of Civilisation. While, after the Flood (postdiluvian), new beginnings were made in, as we shall find, the region of modern SE Turkey. Early Genesis eyewitness accounts Neither before, or after, the Flood, was humanity’s beginning in southern Iraq, or ancient Sumer, as it is generally thought to have been, after millions of years of painful evolution. We have also been told that writing did not begin until about 1,000 BC. But that, too, is quite false. The Book of Genesis was composed from eye-witness accounts. Humanity’s ‘Cradle of Civilisation’ definitely not to be found in Iraq The following comments by Kristoffer Uggerud would be a typical conventional view: How Did Mesopotamia Become the Cradle of Civilization? Around 4500 BCE humans settled in Mesopotamia. Within a few centuries, the Sumerians developed what we today call the cradle of civilization. Apr 9, 2024 • By Kristoffer Uggerud, MA Area studies, BA History SUMMARY • Mesopotamia, between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, became the cradle of civilization due to its fertile land and the development of irrigation, which supported the growth of city-states like Ur, Eridu, and Uruk with populations over 50,000 around 5,000 years ago. • The Sumerians innovated with the world’s first written language, cuneiform, on clay tablets, facilitating record-keeping for food supplies and trade. This advancement, alongside their development of a numerical system, laid foundational aspects of modern society. • The decline of the Sumerian civilization around 2000 BCE was attributed to agricultural productivity loss due to soil salinization from irrigation. This led to the rise of subsequent empires in Mesopotamia, such as the Akkadian, Babylonian, and Assyrian empires. …. [End of quote] Sadly, none of this is correct – the inflated BC dates; attribution of first writing; Sumer preceding the Akkadian and Assyrian civilisations; and so on. Southern Mesopotamia was neither the Cradle of Civilisation before or after the Flood. Before the Flood (antediluvian), in the Beginning, Eden (centrally located where Jerusalem now is) was the Cradle of Civilisation. While, after the Flood (postdiluvian), new beginnings were made in, as we shall find, the region of modern SE Turkey. Due to the after effects of the Flood, the low-lying land of southern Mesopotamia was not able to be properly settled as early as were more northerly locations. That is why so-called ‘Sumerian’ civilisation springs up fully grown, much to the amazement of evolutionary-minded antiquarians. It was a late clutch of settlements that had benefitted from the long development of civilisations elsewhere. More accurate to regard The Fertile Crescent as being, approximately, humanity’s Cradle of Civilisation: https://news.uchicago.edu/explainer/fertile-crescent “The Fertile Crescent, often referred to as “the cradle of civilization,” is the crescent-shaped region in Western Asia and North Africa that spans the modern-day countries of Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine and, for some scholars, Egypt”. Written records were kept even before the Flood The beginning of the Documentary Theory of the Book of Genesis was actually based on a correct premise. Frenchman, Jean Astruc (1684-1766), a famous professor of medicine at Montpellier and Paris, claimed to have found several distinct sources in early Genesis. And he was quite right regarding that at least. But it soon went all pear-shaped! Liberal scholars, most notably German Lutherans, thought themselves able to detect no end of strands and sources throughout the Book of Genesis, culminating in the famous JEDP hypothesis of the likes of professors Karl Heinrich Graf (d. 1869) and Julius Wellhausen (d. 1918). Jean Astruc had correctly speculated that Moses used existing written or oral sources in constructing Genesis. Sadly, again, those who came after him effectively slammed the door shut on any notion of Mosaïc influence by proceeding, in stages - and by the early 1800’s - to the view that the Pentateuch was written around 900-800 BC, centuries after Moses. An extremely well-educated and intelligent Dominican priest once declared to me that “Moses and Joshua wrote nothing, that writing was not invented until about the time of King David (c. 1000-900 BC)”, and this despite passages such as Exodus 34:27: “Then the Lord told Moses, ‘Write down these words, because I’m making a Covenant with you and with Israel according to these words’”, and Joshua 8:32: “There, in the presence of the Israelites, Joshua wrote on stones a copy of the Law of Moses”. Writing not invented until. c. 1000 BC, eh? What, then, I queried the Dominican - using the same inflated sort of conventional dating in which the erudite priest would have been schooled - to make of the brilliant Autobiography of Weni in Egypt, written prior to 2150 BC? What about Moses being “educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians …”? (Acts 7:22) {This Weni, who was a Vizier and Chief Judge in ancient Egypt, exactly as was Moses: ‘Who made you ruler and judge over us?’ (Exodus 2:14), I have identified as Moses} The fourfold sigla, JEDP, of the Graf-Wellhausen theory has proven to be disastrous for biblical studies, “confusion confounded” as one scholar has well described it. This J-jaberwocky, E-eccentric, D-desolate, P-primitive, theory, quite lacking in archaeological awareness - pure Kantian a priorism - needs to be replaced with what might be called the PJ theory, of Air Commodore P. J. Wiseman, a wise and common-sense theory of the true structure of Genesis, based on sound archaeology and an acute awareness of ancient scribal methods. (See New discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis (1936), republished by Wiseman's son, Donald Wiseman, as Ancient records and the structure of Genesis: A case for literary unity, in 1985). Editor Moses did indeed make use of multiple sources to compile the Book of Genesis, so P. J. Wiseman would demonstrate, but these sources actually pre-dated him. Moses used the family histories (Hebrew toledôt) of his famous ancestral patriarchs, Adam; Noah; Shem, Ham and Japheth; Terah; etc; etc., some of which histories included triple repetition, as Jean Astruc had discerned - but was not able to explain correctly. The triple repetition in the second Flood account, for example, arises from the triple authorship of the document: “Shem, Ham and Japheth” (Genesis 10:1). It is as simple as that! The great Genesis Flood is an account by eye-witnesses, firstly Noah’s toledôt history, and then that of his three sons. Note that, afterwards, a separation appears to have occurred. Shem, formerly a co-author with his brothers, is now a sole recorder (Genesis 11:10). Psalm 104 on extent of the Flood The misinterpretation of the ancient texts by modern (say, Western) minds in regard to the Noachic Flood is well explained in the following piece by Rich Deem: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html The Genesis Flood Why the Bible Says It Must be Local Many Christians maintain that the Bible says that the flood account of Genesis requires an interpretation that states that the waters of the flood covered the entire earth. If you read our English Bibles, you will probably come to this conclusion if you don't read the text too closely and if you fail to consider the rest of your Bible. Like most other Genesis stories, the flood account is found in more places than just Genesis. If you read the sidebar, you will discover that Psalm 104 directly eliminates any possibility of the flood being global (see Psalm 104-9 - Does it refer to the Original Creation or the Flood?). In order to accept a global flood, you must reject Psalm 104 and the inerrancy of the Bible. If you like to solve mysteries on your own, you might want to read the flood account first and find the biblical basis for a local flood. The Bible's other creation passages eliminate the possibility of a global flood The concept of a global Genesis flood can be easily eliminated from a plain reading of Psalm 104 … which is known as the "creation psalm." Psalm 104 describes the creation of the earth in the same order as that seen in Genesis 1 (with a few more details added). It begins with an expanding universe model (reminiscent of the Big Bang) [sic] (verse 2 … parallel to Genesis 1:1). It next describes the formation of a stable water cycle (verses 3-5 … parallel to Genesis 1:6-8). The earth is then described as a planet completely covered with water (verse 6, parallel to Genesis 1:9). God then causes the dry land to appear (verses 7-8 … parallel to Genesis 1:9-10). The verse that eliminates a global flood follows: "You set a boundary they [the waters] cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth." (Psalm 104:9)…. Obviously, if the waters never again covered the earth, then the flood must have been local. Psalm 104 is just one of several creation passages that indicate that God prevented the seas from covering the entire earth. …. An integration of all flood and creation passages clearly indicates that the Genesis flood was local in geographic extent. The Bible says water covered the whole earth ... Really? When you read an English translation of the biblical account of the flood, you will undoubtedly notice many words and verses that seem to suggest that the waters covered all of planet earth. …. However, one should note that today we look at everything from a global perspective, whereas the Bible nearly always refers to local geography. You may not be able to determine this fact from our English translations, so we will look at the original Hebrew, which is the word of God. The Hebrew words which are translated as "whole earth" or "all the earth" are kol (Strong's number H3605), which means "all," and erets (Strong's number H776), which means "earth," "land," "country," or "ground." …. We don't need to look very far in Genesis (Genesis 2) before we find the Hebrew words kol erets. …. [End of quote] ‘Creationists’, having arrived at their completely artificial - and sometimes quite laughable, if they weren’t so serious - interpretations of the Bible, will then insist upon one’s adhering to their peculiar ‘biblical’ Weltanschauung as behoving Christians dedicated to the preservation of scriptural inerrancy. {Admittance: Since I used to share these views, I ought to be more sympathetic} Well, I would suggest that no one would have been more surprised than Noah (and his family) to learn that he had once ridden out a global Flood in a sea-going vessel the size of the Queen Mary! As to the once common view that ‘there had never been rain until the Flood’, it has no solid biblical support as far as I can tell. And even some ‘Creationists’ now seem to have dropped this idea. For example: https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/was-there-no-rain-before-the-flood/ Was There No Rain Before the Flood? Some Christians claim that there was no rain before the Flood; however, as Dr. Tommy Mitchell shows us, a close examination of Scripture does not bear this out. While we cannot prove that there was rain before the Flood, to insist that there was not (and even to deride those who think otherwise) stretches Scripture beyond what it actually says. …. Noah’s world Those who approach Genesis with a Fundamentalist mentality will take ancient biblical phrases such as “the whole earth”, “all flesh”, and, unhappily, re-present them in global terms. St. Peter writes of “… the world that then was being overflowed with water, perished” (2 Peter 3:6). Now, rather than for one instinctively here to seize upon the phrase, “the world”, and automatically take it to mean a global world, one would do better to learn from Genesis what “world”, “earth”, the Book of Genesis had so far presented to us. We find that only a few chapters before the Flood, in Genesis 2. It is a “world” that basically constitutes what would later come to be known as “the Fertile Crescent” – also regarded by some, as we read, as “the Cradle of Civilisation”. It stretches approximately from southern Mesopotamia (Iraq) to Egypt. Practically every nation today, great or small, has its Flood legends that bear greater or lesser similarities to the Genesis or Noachic Flood account. See for example: https://www.curioustaxonomy.net/home/floods.htm Mountain of the Ark This brings us to SE Turkey, as mentioned earlier, where, I believe, humanity had its second start (postdiluvian). A pair of researchers have conclusively, for mine, identified the mountain of the Ark’s landing as Karaca Dağ. Previously I wrote on this: The combined research of Ken Griffith and Darrell White has caused me (Damien Mackey) to move away from my former acceptance of Judi Dagh for the Mountain of Noah’s Ark Landing in preference for their choice of Karaca Dagh in SE Turkey. The pair have strongly argued for the validity of this latter site in their excellent new article: A Candidate Site for Noah’s Ark, Altar, and Tomb. (2) (PDF) A Candidate Site for Noah's Ark, Altar, and Tomb. | Kenneth Griffith and Darrell K White - Academia.edu My main reason for entertaining this switch is that the latter site appears to have been the place, unlikely as it may look, for the world’s first agriculture, including grapes, and for the domestication of what we know as farmland animals. For example, Ken Griffith and Darrell White write: This mountain, Karaca Dag, is where the genetic ancestor of all domesticated Einkorn wheat was found by the Max Planck Institute. …. The other seven founder crops of the Neolithic Revolution all have this mountain near the centre of their wild range. …. This was so exciting that even the LA Times remarked how unusual it is that all of the early agriculture crops appear to have been domesticated in the same location: “The researchers reported that the wheat was first cultivated near the Karacadag Mountains in southeastern Turkey, where chickpeas and bitter vetch also originated. Bread wheat—the most valuable single crop in the modern world—grapes and olives were domesticated nearby, as were sheep, pigs, goats and cattle.” …. …. Manfred Heun was the botanist who followed the DNA of domesticated wheat back to its source on Karaca Dag: “We believe that the idea is so good—the idea of cultivating wild plants—that we think it might be one tribe of people, and that is fascinating,” said Manfred Heun at the University of Norway’s department of biotechnological sciences, who led the research team. “I cannot prove it, but it is a possibility that one tribe or one family had the idea [emphasis added].” …. A 2004 DNA study of wild and cultivated grapevine genetics by McGovern and Vouillamoz found the region where grapevines were first domesticated. Vouillamoz reports: “Analysis of morphological similarities between the wild and cultivated grapes from all Eurasia generally support a geographical origin of grape domestication in the Near East. In 2004, I collaborated with Patrick McGovern to focus on the ‘Grape’s Fertile Triangle’ and our results showed that the closest genetic relationship between local wild grapevines and traditional cultivated grape varieties from southern Anatolia, Armenia and Georgia was observed in southern Anatolia. This suggests that the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in the Taurus Mountains is the most likely place where the grapevine was first domesticated! ... . This area also includes the Karacadağ region in the northern part of the Fertile Crescent.” …. The Göbekli Tepe Phenomenon This is fitting, because a site considered to be the world’s oldest, the now famed Göbekli Tepe (“Potbelly Hill”), is ‘just down the road’ (so to speak) from Karaca Dağ. And two most ancient sites, Ur (Sanliurfa) and Harran, relevant to Abram (Abraham), are also situated close by. It makes sense that, if Karaca Dağ was Noah’s mountain, then Göbekli Tepe (unrealistically dated to c. 12,000 BC) must have been a very early settlement - perhaps the first - after humanity’s departing from the mountain. {A tradition has Noah remaining on the Ark mountain for a century} Now the significance of Göbekli Tepe in possible connection with the Ark of Noah may be enormous. Klaus Schmidt, who first discovered the site, referred to it as “a Stone Age zoo”. It features an abundance of depictions of different animals seemingly in enclosures. Do we have here a representation of the types of animals that really were on board Noah’s Ark? Not exactly what we might have expected! No hint whatsoever of any dinosaurs – I definitely would not have expected them. No wonder scientifically-minded people laugh at this sort of desertion of common sense, that once again takes a “literalistic” approach to a global sounding phrase, “every living thing of all flesh” (Genesis 6:10). Noah simply would have taken pairs of such animals, dwelling close at hand, as he and his family would have needed for food and sacrifice, and to kick-start his new life on terra firma, until conditions began to revert back to normal. Boars, lions, bulls, foxes, gazelles, birds (cranes, vultures), snakes (cf. Genesis 7:8): “Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground …”. All of these and more are depicted at the Göbekli Tepe site. Apropos of this, we read at: https://nt.am/en/news/221107/ Gobekli Tepe, Noah’s Ark & Lost Atlantis …. Meanwhile, where else but in Noah’s Ark can we find a menagerie as eclectic as the one portrayed on the megaliths of Gobekli Tepe – a menagerie that includes spiders, scorpions and snakes (‘every creeping thing of the earth’), birds and cattle (‘fowls after their kind, and cattle after their kind’), and foxes, felines, goats, sheep, gazelles, boars, bears, etc, etc (in short – as Genesis 6: 20 has it, ‘every kind of animal and every kind of creature’)? Likewise we read in the Bible that Noah sacrificed some of the animals and birds that he had just saved from the flood as an offering to God. At Gobekli Tepe archaeologists have found the butchered bones of many of the animal species depicted on the megalithic pillars. Further highly recommended reading: https://archaeotravel.eu/noahs-beasts-released-on-the-hills-of-gobekli-tepe/ “Noah’s Beasts Released on the Hills of Göbekli Tepe”, by Joanna Pyrgies. Where did Noah build and launch the Ark? This appears to be a largely neglected question and there does not seem to be much at all in the way of legend or tradition to help one answer it. The types of animals depicted at Göbekli Tepe might provide geographical clues for some enterprising future researchers. Armadillos, for instance, are apparently not native to the Göbekli Tepe region. There is a tradition that Noah had had to flee to “Egypt” (whatever that land was like, and called, back then) to escape the violence of the age. (“Nu (/nu/ “watery one”), also called Nun (/nu:n/ “inert one”) - a name somewhat like Noah - is the deification of the primordial watery abyss in ancient Egyptian religion). Did Noah then return and, like Moses, who built the Ark of the Covenant at the Holy Mountain (Har Karkom near the Paran desert), build the great Ark there? Who knows? It is a question that still needs to be answered. I just like the symmetry of it. For Moses is clearly presented as “a new Noah” in the Book of Exodus (on this, see Before Abraham Was: The Unity of Genesis 1-11, 1984, by Isaac M. Kikawada and Arthur Quinn). But there is far more to Göbekli Tepe than just animals. Of special interest to Australians might be certain symbols that the site has in common with our aboriginals. Ancient Australians – culture going south Previously I wrote: Great Gobbling Turkeys! There’s an archaeological site in Turkey, at Göbekli Tepe, that has palaeontologists scratching their collective heads. Dated to as early as 12,000 – 10,000 BC, the site exhibits cultural and technological advances that ought not to have occurred during a phase in human evolution (supposedly) when man was still just a primitive hunter-gatherer. “History is Wrong” declares one site regarding “The Mystery of Gobekli Tepe” (2018): https://coolinterestingstuff.com/the-mystery-of-gobekli-tepe …. many have proposed that Gobekli Tepe can even be a temple inside the Biblical Eden of Genesis. Is it possible that what we know about the ‘uncivilized and primitive’ prehistoric men is not at all true? Is it possible that advanced civilizations existed before 6000 BCE and their tracks are simply lost in time? Or is it possible that extra-terrestrials interfered and helped men to build monuments throughout the history of humanity? The questions are certainly compelling. Man was supposed to have been a primitive hunter-gatherer at the time of the sites’ construction. Gobekli Tepe’s presence currently predates what science has taught would be essential in building something on the scale such as those structures. For instance, the site appears before the agreed upon dates for the inventions of art and engravings; it even predates man working with metals and pottery but features evidence of all of these. …. [End of quote] This site finds it all so incomprehensible as to have to resort to the extreme suggestion of ancient aliens. But forget those large palaeontological numbers (12,000, 10,000) variously suggested for the BC age of Göbekli Tepe. These people play with, and throw away, 100’s and 1,000’s, like reckless gamblers. Australia’s Mungo Man, for instance, was dated to 60,000 BC and then, in the space of a week, dropped to 40,000 BC. Nobody seemed to raise a Neanderthalian eyebrow. Creationist Dr. John Osgood has made an impressive start towards sorting out the Stone Ages in his excellent series: “A Better Model for the Stone Age” (pts. 1 and 2): https://creation.com/a-better-model-for-the-stone-age https://creation.com/a-better-model-for-the-stone-age-part-2 The Acheulean era, which according to Pierto Gaietto, impacted upon the Göbekli Tepe masonry: “Regarding the topic of evolution in general I am of the opinion that the strong tendency towards the dressing of large stones at Göbekli Tepe had its origin in the Acheulean tradition of the Mousterian culture”, has been placed by Dr. Osgood during the dispersal after the Noachic Flood. Acheulean The characteristic feature of this culture was, of course, the large hand axe prominent in it. Comment has already been made about the possible relationship between the virgin forests, an early spreading people, and the necessity to use hand-axes in much of their culture. The widespread common relationship of these tools in Europe, Asia and Northern Africa certainly is not inconsistent with the biblical model of the recent origin of the spread of people from the Middle East into diverse places having initially similar cultures. There does seem to be a definite stratigraphic relationship between the so-called Paleolithic strata - Acheulian, Mousterian and Aurignacian in ascending order. This, however, does not indicate that they were cultures that succeeded one another all over the country, but the principle of mushrooming may legitimately be investigated here as in the Mesopotamian Chalcolithic. In other words, the superposition of one stratum on the other may only be a measurement of the cultures in one dimension. It fails to come to terms with the possible horizontal contemporaneity of at least the last two of these cultures, the Mousterian and the Aurignacian. …. [End of quote] Most striking of all are the art-works and symbols common to far-away Australian Aboriginals, so much so that author Bruce Fenton has been prompted to query whether Göbekli Tepe may actually have been an Australian Aboriginal site: Following the typical evolutionary view, though, which requires much time for the human development from ape-man, Bruce Fenton must locate the origins of the Göbekli Tepe culture down south in Australia, before its having arrived at the degree of sophistication enabling for the spread of that culture in the far north (e.g. Turkey). A biblical view, instead, would have cultures like Göbekli Tepe emanating at a stage after the Flood from an already fairly sophisticated antediluvian world (Genesis 4:20-22) – Tubal-Cain, for instance, forged implements of copper and iron. Those who later became the Australian Aboriginals - who were not just one people, but many tribes/nations with different languages - would have absorbed this, and other northern cultures (e.g. Aboriginal art connects also with the ‘Ubaid culture in Mesopotamia), and carried the vestiges of these in their long journeys southwards, inevitably losing much of that knowledge over time and distance. Contrary to Bruce Fenton, then, Australian aboriginality is a cultural devolution, rather than an evolution. Ian Wilson, exploring the Lost World of the Kimberley (2006), the northernmost of the nine regions of Western Australia, has pointed out striking similarities between art figures of the Mesopotamian ‘Ubaid culture and the Kimberley’s aboriginal art figures. The Australian Aboriginal languages apparently have some affinity with ancient Sumerian: http://www.hungarianhistory.com/lib/cser.pdf Hungarian language belongs to the family of agglutinative languages. Officially it is a member of the Finno-Ugric language family. Structurally similar – although in a very distant relationship with it – are the Turkish, the Dravidian groups of languages, the Japanese and the Korean in the Far-East and the Basque in Europe. A large portion of ancient languages were agglutinative in their nature, such like the Sumerian, Pelagic, Etruscan, as well as aboriginal languages on the American and Australian continents. …. [End of quotes] World Economic Forum’s interference at Göbekli Tepe “He who controls the past controls the future”. George Orwell Political and national agenda do not sit easily with such archaeological sites as Ebla and Göbekli Tepe, whose findings may support the Bible, a Hebrew (Jewish) book, anathema to the Syrian government, on the one hand, that wants to represent Ebla as a purely Syrian kingdom, and anathema to the World Economic Forum (WEF), on the other hand, that wants to control the narrative about human origins and about virtually everything else. So the WEF has put a lid on Göbekli Tepe. Shockingly, we learn at: https://www.summarize.tech/www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPNgGnUrCKM You Won’t Believe This Disturbing Gobekli Tepe Update …. 00:00:00 - 00:20:00 In the YouTube video titled "You Won’t Believe This Disturbing Gobekli Tepe Update," the speaker expresses shock over the slow progress of excavations at the ancient site of Gobekli Tepe in Turkey, which is the world's oldest and largest megalithic site, dating back approximately 11,600 years. The site covers an area of approximately 22 acres and consists of over 200 T-shaped pillars, some reaching heights of nearly 20 ft and weighing up to 22,000 lbs each. Despite its size and age, little is known about who built it or when. The speaker also shares concerns over recent developments, such as a partnership between the site and the World Economic Forum (WEF) in 2018, which has led to the preservation of the site and the construction of tourism infrastructure, but has hindered full excavation efforts. The speaker also notes intriguing similarities between certain aspects of Gobekli Tepe and other ancient sites around the world, fueling speculation about a lost ancient global connection. The speaker encourages further investigation and excavation at the site and invites viewers to join the conversation. …. • 00:00:00 In this section of the YouTube video titled "You Won’t Believe This Disturbing Gobekli Tepe Update," the speaker expresses his shock over new information regarding the world's oldest and largest megalithic site, Gobekli Tepe, located in Turkey. …. However, the mystery deepens as historians previously believed that something this old and sophisticated couldn't exist, and it's unclear how such a civilization could have achieved this and what motivated them to do so. Additionally, only a small percentage of the site has been excavated, with only six of the 20 known circular sections or enclosures having been fully excavated, and many more areas remain unexplored. The speaker emphasizes that only 5% of the site has been excavated, a figure first reported in 2008, and gives credit to Graham Hancock for bringing international attention to the site through his books and podcast appearances. • 00:05:00 In this section of the YouTube video titled "You Won’t Believe This Disturbing Gobekli Tepe Update," the speaker expresses his surprise that the excavation progress at the ancient site of Gobekli Tepe in Turkey has not improved since 2017, despite excavations beginning nearly three decades ago. He was initially investigating if the 5% excavation figure had changed, but learned that it had not. The speaker then shares that recent visitors to the site, including author Hugh Newman, have suggested that future generations may focus on excavations at neighboring sites instead. The speaker's investigation led him to discover that the Dogus Group, a large Turkish conglomerate, has a partnership deal to oversee excavations and tourism management at Gobekli Tepe since 2016, with a generous donation of $15 million for ongoing excavations. The speaker finds it disturbing that the focus seems to be on preserving the site and establishing tourism infrastructure rather than increasing excavation efforts. …. • 00:10:00 In this section of the YouTube video titled "You Won’t Believe This Disturbing Gobekli Tepe Update," the speaker reveals that a 20-year partnership between the ancient site of Gobekli Tepe in Turkey and the World Economic Forum (WEF) was announced at the WEF meeting in Davos, Switzerland, in 2018. The CEO of the Dogus Group, Fet Sahen, who is a Turkish billionaire and a longtime WEF member, was involved in the deal. The speaker expresses surprise that such a partnership existed, as it involves the oldest and most mysterious structure in human history. The infrastructure developed for tourism and preservation, including protective roofs and walkways, has obstructed parts of the site and impeded its full excavation. The speaker also questions when the orchards located in the midst of ruins were planted and whether any ancient ruins lie underneath them. Additionally, 900 miles of walkways and roads were constructed after the partnership began, some of which destroyed ruins at the site. The speaker implies that the WEF's involvement in the management and excavations of Gobekli Tepe raises questions about their motives and goals. • 00:15:00 In this section of the YouTube video titled "You Won’t Believe This Disturbing Gobekli Tepe Update," the widow of archaeologist CLA Schmidt, who was the first to excavate at Gobekli Tepe until her husband's passing in 2014, expressed deep concern upon visiting the site in 2018. She was dismayed to find that heavy equipment, asphalt roads, and concrete sidewalks had destroyed parts of the ancient site. Mrs. Schmidt's photos of the destruction sparked worldwide outrage, leading to a statement from the ministry of culture and tourism denying the use of concrete or asphalt. However, evidence of extensive concrete walkways and the removal of wooden walkways for permanent concrete replacements contradicts their claims. The limited excavations currently taking place make it unlikely that the remaining 14 circular enclosures will be fully excavated, leaving potentially valuable information hidden in the ground. The decision-making power and resources of the World Economic Forum, which infiltrated excavation management in 2016, are believed to be hindering a full excavation of the site. …. Listen to it on the YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPNgGnUrCKM

Joshuan Miracle of the Sun absorbed into Homer’s Iliad

by Damien F. Mackey The fictitious Greek king, Agamemnon, appears in Homer’s The Iliad, in at least one notable instance, like Joshua, praying for the Sun not to set so that Agamemnon might be victorious. “Zeus, most glorious, most great, the one of the dark clouds, that dwellest in the heaven, grant that the sun set not, neither darkness come upon us, until I have cast down in headlong ruin the hall of Priam … burned with consuming fire”. (Illiad II:412-415) This is not the only instance in which The Iliad has borrowed from colourful biblical events. See e.g. my article: Judith the Jewess and “Helen” the Hellene https://www.academia.edu/24417162/Judith_the_Jewess_and_Helen_the_Hellene The Greeks may have inadvertently replaced the most beautiful Jewish heroine, Judith of Bethulia, with their own legendary Helen, whose ‘face launched a thousand ships’, given, for instance, these striking similarities (Judith and The Iliad): The beautiful woman praised by the elders at the city gates: "When [the elders of Bethulia] saw [Judith] transformed in appearance and dressed differently, they were very greatly astounded at her beauty" (Judith 10:7). "Now the elders of the people were sitting by the Skaian gates…. When they saw Helen coming … they spoke softly to each other with winged words: 'No shame that the Trojans and the well-greaved Achaians should suffer agonies for long years over a woman like this - she is fearfully like the immortal goddesses to look at'" [The Iliad., pp. 44-45]. This theme of incredible beauty - plus the related view that “no shame” should be attached to the enemy on account of it - is picked up again a few verses later in the Book of Judith (v.19) when the Assyrian soldiers who accompany Judith and her maid to Holofernes "marvelled at [Judith's] beauty and admired the Israelites, judging them by her … 'Who can despise these people, who have women like this among them?'" Nevertheless: 'It is not wise to leave one of their men alive, for if we let them go they will be able to beguile the whole world!' (Judith 10:19). 'But even so, for all her beauty, let her go back in the ships, and not be left here a curse to us and our children'. And, in Virgil’s Aeneid, the encounter between Achior and Holofernes re-emerges with Sinon before Priam: Trojans ought not have ‘signed on’ with Sinon (4) Trojans ought not have 'signed on' with Sinon | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu There I wrote: I, in my article showing that parts of The Odyssey were drawn from the Books of Job and Tobit, was at pains to point out that the history of Tobias (= Job), fixed in the C8th BC neo-Assyrian era (conventional dating), was the basis for some major parts of Homer’s fictitious The Odyssey. And, elsewhere, I have asked the question regarding the Book of Judith and Homer (The Iliad, this time) - and now introducing Sinon: If the very main theme of The Iliad may have been lifted by the Greeks from the Book of Judith, then might not even the Homeric idea of the Trojan Horse ruse to capture Troy have been inspired by Judith’s own ruse to take the Assyrian camp? Before going on to add this note: [According to R. Graves, The Greek Myths (Penguin Books, combined ed., 1992), p. 697 (1, 2): “Classical commentators on Homer were dissatisfied with the story of the wooden horse. They suggested, variously, that the Greeks used a horse-like engine for breaking down the walls (Pausanias: i. 23. 10) … that Antenor admitted the Greeks into Troy by a postern which had a horse painted on it…. Troy is quite likely to have been stormed by means of a wheeled wooden tower, faced with wet horse hides as a protection against incendiary darts…”. …. (Pausanius 2nd century AD: Wrote `Description of Greece’.)]. And then I proceeded to make this radical re-assessment of Virgil’s character, Sinon: What may greatly serve to strengthen this suggestion is the uncannily ‘Judith-like’ trickery of a certain Sinon, a wily Greek, as narrated in the detailed description of the Trojan Horse in Book Two of Virgil’s Aeneid. Sinon, whilst claiming to have become estranged from his own people, because of their treachery and sins, was in fact bent upon deceiving the Trojans about the purpose of the wooden horse, in order “to open Troy to the Greeks”. I shall set out here the main parallels that I find on this score between the Aeneid and the Book of Judith. Firstly, the name Sinon may recall Judith’s ancestor Simeon, son of Israel (Judith 8:1; 9:2). Whilst Sinon, when apprehended by the enemy, is “dishevelled” and “defenceless”, Judith, also defenseless, is greatly admired for her appearance by the members of the Assyrian patrol who apprehend her (Judith 10:14). As Sinon is asked sympathetically by the Trojans ‘what he had come to tell …’ and ‘why he had allowed himself to be taken prisoner’, so does the Assyrian commander-in-chief, Holofernes, ‘kindly’ ask Judith: ‘… tell me why you have fled from [the Israelites] and have come over to us?’ Just as Sinon, when brought before the Trojan king Priam, promises that he ‘will confess the whole truth’ – though having no intention of doing that – so does Judith lie to Holofernes: ‘I will say nothing false to my lord this night’ (Judith 11:5). Sinon then gives his own treacherous account of events, including the supposed sacrileges of the Greeks due to their tearing of the Palladium, image of the goddess Athene, from her own sacred Temple in Troy; slaying the guards on the heights of the citadel and then daring to touch the sacred bands on the head of the virgin goddess with blood on their hands. For these ‘sacrileges’ the Greeks were doomed. Likewise Judith assures Holofernes of victory because of the supposed sacrilegious conduct that the Israelites have planned (e.g. to eat forbidden and consecrated food), even in Jerusalem (11:11-15). Sinon concludes – in relation to the Trojan options regarding what to do with the enigmatic wooden horse – with an Achior-like statement: ‘For if your hands violate this offering to Minerva, then total destruction shall fall upon the empire of Priam and the Trojans…. But if your hands raise it up into your city, Asia shall come unbidden in a mighty war to the walls of Pelops, and that is the fate in store for our descendants’. Whilst Sinon’s words were full of cunning, Achior had been sincere when he had warned Holofernes – in words to which Judith will later allude deceitfully (11:9-10): ‘So now, my master and my lord, if there is any oversight in this people [the Israelites] and they sin against their God and we find out their offense, then we can go up against them and defeat them. But if they are not a guilty nation, then let my lord pass them by; for their Lord and God will defend them, and we shall become the laughing-stock of the whole world’ (Judith 5:20-21). [Similarly, Achilles fears to become ‘a laughing-stock and a burden of the earth’ (Plato’s Apologia, Scene I, D. 5)]. These, Achior’s words, were the very ones that had so enraged Holofernes and his soldiers (vv.22-24). And they would give the Greeks the theme for their greatest epic, The Iliad. Johan Weststeijn is of the opinion - and it is a typical one - that the Book of Judith (as well as the Arabic Zenobia) was based on an earlier work, or “Vorlage”, with Achior of the Book of Judith being an ‘adaptation’ of Sinon at Troy. Thus: https://www.academia.edu/3639903/Zenobia_of_Palmyra_and_the_Book_of_Judith_Common_Motifs_in_Greek_Jewish_and_Arabic_Historiography Abstract: This article points to the many parallels between the book of Judith and the Arabic account of the life and death of Zenobia of Palmyra. By comparing these two stories with the episode about Zopyros in Herodotus’ Histories and the episode about Sinon in accounts of the fall of Troy, it argues that these similarities can only be explained if we assume that the book of Judith and the Arabic Zenobia Legend are adaptations of the same Vorlage, an earlier story that contained a Holofernes motif (heroine kills enemy) and a Sinon motif (enemy deceives heroine). When this Vorlage was adapted to create the book of Judith, the part of the deceiving Sinon was adapted to create the role of the sincere Achior, whereby he lost his function in the story and became a blind motif. Sinon tells the Trojans that the Greeks have built the wooden horse as an offering to the goddess Athena, and that they built it this big to prevent the Trojans from bringing it inside their walls, for if the Trojans would succeed in doing so, Athena would make Troy invincible. The trouble is that the goddess Athena (Athene) can be, in The Iliad and The Odyssey, a paganised version of a lofty biblical character (such as the angel Raphael). Moreover, the famous standoff between Agamemnon and Achilles, also in The Iliad, reminds me of the hostile encounter in the Book of Judith (chapter 5) between the bombastic “Holofernes” and his subordinate, “Achior” (a name not unlike Achilles). And I have previously provided abundant evidence for the use of the books of Tobit and Job in Homer’s The Odyssey. Yet we constantly read statements such as: “Western civilization begins with the two greatest books of the ancient world, the Iliad and the Odyssey by the Greek poet Homer”. https://www.memoriapress.com/curriculum/classical-studies/iliad-odyssey-complete-set/ The crucial Hebrew inspiration behind all of this usually goes completely unacknowledged.

Judge Shamgar could be Samson but not Shammah

by Damien F. Mackey “History doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes”. Mark Twain Two things, people, places, historical events, can be alike but not the same as. “History doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes,” (Mark Twain). Thus World War I was like in many ways, but not the same as, World War II. An archaeologist in 1500 years time might have great difficulty distinguishing the two, especially if a nuclear war has intervened (which is now almost inevitable) to destroy much of what was on earth. David and Elhanan, both of whom struck down a Philistine giant, are like in some regards, but cannot be the same person. Though some would argue that David was Elhanan. Judge Shamgar is like Samson, but also somewhat like David’s warrior, Shammah. Again, some like to bind these three names (Shamgar, Samson, Shammah) into the one heroic person. David and Elhanan While a case could (and has) be (been) made for identifying these two as the same Israelite hero, there are stronger reasons for not doing so. “And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, struck down Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam”. 2 Samuel 21:19 Might the biblical giant, Goliath, have been polycephalic? Could David’s Goliath also have been Elhanan’s Goliath? No, because, on closer inspection, Elhanan’s Goliath was not really a Goliath. We know this much, at least (I Samuel 17:51): “Then David ran over and pulled Goliath’s sword from its sheath. David used it to kill him and cut off his head”. But it could seem that, in fine folkloric fashion, Goliath thereupon grew another head, only to have this one removed by Elhanan (from 2 Samuel 21:19). Or is this simply a case of a biblical repetition, due to the insertion of a different source using another name for David the Bethlehemite: namely, Elhanan? The matter is well resolved, I think, at: http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/joshua-esther/who-killed-goliath-david-or-elhanan in the article: Who killed Goliath, David or Elhanan? 1 Samuel 17:50 and 2 Samuel 21:19 1. David did (1 Samuel 17:50) - "Thus David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, and he struck the Philistine and killed him; but there was no sword in David’s hand." 2. Elhanan did (2 Sam. 21:19)- "And there was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam." The answer lies in two areas. 1 Chronicles 20:5 says, "And there was war with the Philistines again, and Elhanan the son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam." This is the correct answer; namely, that Elhanan killed Goliath's brother. Second, it appears there was a copyist error in 2 Samuel 21:19. According to Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties on page 179, it says, 1. The sign of the direct object, which in Chronicles comes just before "Lahmi," was '-t; the copyist mistook it for b-t or b-y-t ("Beth") and thus got Bet hal-Lahmi ("the Bethlehemite") out of it. 2. He misread the word for "brother" ('-h) as the sign of the direct object ('-t) right before g-l-y-t ("Goliath"). Thus he made "Goliath" the object of "killed" (wayyak), instead of the "brother" of Goliath (as the Chronicles passage does). 3. The copyist misplaced the word for "weavers" ('-r-g-ym) so as to put it right after "Elhanan" as his patronymic (ben Y-'-r-y'-r--g-ym, or ben ya 'arey 'ore -gim -- "the son of the forests of weavers" -- a most unlikely name for anyone's father!). In Chronicles the 'ore grim ("weavers") comes right after menor ("a beam of ") -- thus making perfectly good sense. Therefore, we see that 2 Samuel 21:19 had a copyist error and 1 Chronicles 20:5 is the correct information. Shamgar and Samson At first glance, an identification here (Shamgar = Samson) would seem less likely than that of the contemporaneous David with Elhanan, due to chronologies tending to separate the one from the other by not much less than a century. According to these, Shamgar well preceded Samson. However, I have, in my attempted re-organising of the Judges period, proposed a tucking up of certain poorly attested Judges with like, better-attested ones. Jair the Gileadite as Jephthah the Gileadite, for instance; Ibzan of Bethlehem as Boaz of Bethlehem (from the contemporaneous Book of Ruth); Shamgar as Samson, following the article: https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2018/11/23/shamgar-son-of-anat-and-israels-age-of-heroes/ Shamgar Son of Anat and Israel’s Age of Heroes NOVEMBER 23, 2018 PAUL D. Shamgar, Samson and Shammah In the same article, the author will proceed to include in the mix, Shammah. This is a case of like, but definitely not the same, due to, for one, the chronological gap of several hundred years: Shammah and the Plot of Lentils There is yet another biblical character whose story closely resembles those of Shamgar and Samson: Shammah son of Agee the Hararite. He was one of David’s gibborim—his war champions—who single-handedly defeated the Philistines in strikingly similar fashion to that of Shamgar and Samson: Next to him was Shammah son of Agee, the Hararite. The Philistines gathered together at Lehi, where there was a plot of ground full of lentils. Now the army had fled from the Philistines, but he took his stand in the middle of the plot, defended it, and killed the Philistines; and Yahweh brought about a great victory. (2 Samuel 23:11–12) Note that this battle is especially similar to Samson’s feat, including the location at Lehi, an otherwise obscure place. Either Shammah and Samson (Shimshon) are based on the same legend, or details have been borrowed from one to the other. The malleability of biblical legend [sic] is evident in the way the Chronicler reassigns Shammah’s feat to Eleazar and David, substituting Lehi with Pas-dammim and the plot of lentils with a plot of barley: And next to him among the three warriors was Eleazar son of Dodo, the Ahohite. He was with David at Pas-dammim when the Philistines were gathered there for battle. There was a plot of ground full of barley. Now the people had fled from the Philistines, but he and David took their stand in the middle of the plot, defended it, and killed the Philistines; and Yahweh saved them by a great victory. (1 Chronicles 11:12-14) Regular readers may also recall how the defeat of the giant Goliath by the champion Elhanan (2 Sam. 21:19) was reattributed to David by a later author. Similarly, Shammah is downgraded in the more familiar Goliath story to become one of David’s brothers (1 Sam. 16:9), a mere bystander in the battle against the Philistines and the giant Goliath. Biblical legends shift like quicksand [sic]. Giants in the Land In Genesis 6, the gibborim (warriors of old) born from the mating of gods and women are also understood to be giants, the Nephilim.³ The Nephilim and other giant races (Anakim, Rephaim, Zamzummim, and Emim)⁴ occasionally appear elsewhere in the Deuteronomic History, with no regard for the flood that is supposed to have wiped them out. If the Genesis 6 story reflects general Hebrew ideas about the origins of ancient heroes with great strength and stature, then those ideas probably apply to giants where they appear elsewhere. The term “Rephaim” in particular is closely connected with divine beings, being used not only to describe the Philistine giants (“sons of Rapha”) and mythical king Og of Bashan, but also certain inhabitants of the underworld (Psalm 88:11) who, according to pre-biblical Ugaritic texts, were chthonic deities (see Wyatt 590). Incidentally, in the same Ugaritic texts, these Rephaim were ruled by none other than Shapash (Shemesh), the sun goddess.⁵ …. Shammah’s enemy, the Philistines, included giants according to Samuel and Chronicles, and David’s chief warriors, among whom Shammah was counted, are described as slaying several of these giants. Although it is an army of Philistines rather than a giant that Shammah defeats in 2 Sam 23, the son of David’s brother Shammah/Shimei slays one in 2 Sam 21:20, and it is possible that both individuals are variations of the same legendary hero, as I suggested above. While giants are not specifically mentioned in Judges, it is widely recognized that Samson himself is portrayed as a giant. In a recent journal article, Christophe Lemardelé remarks (translation mine): Now, that Samson was a giant in a tale older than its later form in Judges 13-16 is not in doubt. Indeed, all of his exploits and, most of all, the one in which he carried the gates of the city of Gaza to the mountain across from Hebron (16,3), reveal just such a figure. Even though the hero was updated to illustrate a ritual involving young men and was “shrunk” to make him a judge in one view of the historical reconstruction of “Israel” (14,20 and 16,31), the character retains the traits of a giant that inspire fear (14,11). (Lemardelé [2010] 171) Thompson agrees, and links Samson’s superhuman stature and strength to his divine parentage: Samson is a giant, like those born of the sons of God in Genesis 6, and Samson has divine strength. The story [of Samson’s birth] is a comic adventure of this figure of folklore, vigorously drawing on the amusement that the husband’s ignorance of divine intervention allows. (Op. cit. 342) Is it possible Shamgar son of Anat was originally conceived of as a giant as well? Superhuman strength and size would go a long way in explaining how one could kill 600 men with a farming tool. ….

Moses a trusted world trader for Egypt in the Pyramid Age

by Damien F. Mackey “It is likely that Iny travelled to Anatoly by land before Weni led several mighty military expeditions by land and sea against “native” countries, which were not specified in his biographical inscription, but the word “native” … is the same used for people to be brought to Egypt from Hundašša”. Alessandro Roccati Upon reading through Alessandro Roccati’s absorbing paper: Iny’s Travels (3) Iny's Travels | Alessandro Roccati - Academia.edu finding common purpose in Iny’s adventures, by way of comparison with those of Weni - and throwing in Sinuhe, to boot - it occurred to me that Iny most likely was Weni. The latter, as well as Sinuhe (a semi-fictitious character along the lines of Imhotep at the hands of later scholars), I have already identified as the biblical Moses: Historical Moses may be Weni and Mentuhotep (2) Historical Moses may be Weni and Mentuhotep | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Since Iny served during the same Sixth Dynasty period as did Weni, travelled to some of the same geographical locations, and traded in the same sort of fine quality material (jewellery, precious stones, etc.), I think it a fairly safe bet that - Occam’s Razor and all - this was one and the same official of Old Egypt, Iny = Weni (Uni) = Sinuhe. Weni: “His majesty sent me to Hatnub to bring a huge offering-table …. of lapis lazuli, of bronze, of electrum, and silver; copper was plentiful without end, bronze without limit, collars of real malachite, ornaments (mn-nfr’t) of every kind of costly stone. of the choicest of everything, which are given to a god at his processions, by virtue of my office of master of secret things”. From what will follow, I may need to refresh the readers’ minds about the Pharaohs whom I think the historical Moses served. Despite a multiplicity of names; dynasties; and even kingdoms, the career of Moses, until his recall from Midian, knew only the one dynasty in revised terms. In conventional terms, this will constitute the Old Kingdom’s Fourth; Fifth and Sixth dynasties, and the so-called ‘Middle’ Kingdom’s Twelfth Dynasty. And there were only the two major Pharaohs, plus a female ruler at the end. But there were many names amongst these, including: 1. “New King” of Exodus 1:8: Khufu (Cheops); Teti (Merenre[s]); Amenemhet[s]. 2. Moses’ foster father-in-law “Chenephres”: Chephren; Pepi[s]; Sesostris[s]. 3. Sobeknefrure (female). One feature I find most appealing about Alessandro Roccati’s article is his adventurous approach to ancient geography – whether or not I agree with all of his conclusions. That a massive overhaul of ancient geography is urgently required is apparent from the tectonic effect a new geography has had upon a multi-volumed book that I was writing: My book, “A History of the Fertile Crescent”, swamped by a new and unforeseen geographical paradigm (3) My book, "A History of the Fertile Crescent", swamped by a new and unforeseen geographical paradigm | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and, again, geography will be most relevant subject matter to this present article, especially this one concerning the location of Tarḫuntašša: More uncertain ancient geography: locations Tarḫuntašša and Arzawa (3) More uncertain ancient geography: locations Tarḫuntašša and Arzawa | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Alessandro Roccati writes: “The splendid jewellery discovered in Egypt bears silent testimony to a trade intercourse, direct or indirect, with many remote and little known lands; and it would be of considerable interest to learn through what channels the precious stones that adorned the necks of the Memphite and Theban ladies found their way to the Egyptian markets ... we are tolerably well informed concerning the expeditions that journeyed thither (Sinai) almost annually in quest of the turquoise; but with regard to other much used stones … some of them, like lapis lazuli, from countries farther afield – our ignorance is almost complete.” …. A passage in the Story of Sinuhe was definitely explained as quoting the titles of rulers as far as the Luvian country … and a biography found in Dahshur told of an official, who in the middle of the 12th Dynasty travelled well beyond Byblos. …. Thereafter, although the outstanding archive found at Ebla/Tell Mardikh in 1975 still keeps silent about a likely partnership with Egypt concerning the trade of precious materials … an exciting discovery by Michele Marcolin in Japan … provides decisive evidence in favour of an Egyptian trade much farther than Ebla, reaching the heart of Anatoly in the same time of pharaoh Pepy I, to whose reign the Ebla archive is currently dated. …. A stone built chapel from somewhere in Egypt was illicitly dismantled and sold out in pieces all over the world. It had belonged to a first rank official who lived through the Egyptian 6th Dynasty and left a detailed account of his journeys northwards from Egypt: “… I reached (litt. “I did”) ɂmȝw, ḫntš, pȝws four times when I was a chancellor of the god under the Person of my lord Pepy (I). …. I brought him silver and every good produce that his ka wished, and his Person praised me because of that … exceedingly. Then I was sent to Byblos by the Person of my lord Mernerê. …. I brought three Byblos ships and made the big Palace boats. I brought lapis lazuli, tin … silver, bitumen and every gift that his ka wished, so that I was praised therefore in the Palace … and treasures were given to me. I went down to Byblos from R-ḥȝt and came back … in peace. Never was the same done by any general sent by my god earlier”. …. I was sent by the Person of my lord Neferkarê (Pepy II) to ḫntš. …. brought back one Byblos ship and cargo boats laden … with silver, native men and women. …. The Person of my lord praised me etc.” …. Hitherto almost nothing was known of Egypt’s outreach beyond the Sinai peninsula in this early period, but for the expeditions of general Weni during the reign of pharaoh Pepy I, and the information coming from Byblos and Ebla excavations. Although Marcolin could find out and join together several inscribed slabs from different collections, the relevant piece is kept in Tokyo Archaeological Museum (Kikugawa slab). On it one can read the record of four journeys of Iny under the long reign of Pepy I, that took him to three remarkable towns or countries, their names being perfectly preserved as well as somehow unprecedented. I shall now venture to tackle a reasonable clue for all three, provided that the horizon of the Egyptian civilization is extended in a way that had never been admitted before for such an early period, highlighting the magnificence of Pepy I’s reign, whose pyramid gave the name to Memphis. The reason for presenting a paper in a conference at Istanbul is that the farthest point reached by Iny was sited in central Anatoly and must be the renowned silver market of Burus-ḫanda. This place is well known in the later archive of the Assyrian merchants at Kaneš … and is even quoted in the poem Šar Tamkari. However, Iny’s mention is by far the oldest one, and the hieroglyphic spelling is exactly what we should expect for a name “Purus” or “Bur(r)us” in this period. Its connection with silver ensures the correct identification, whereas the lack of “ḫanda” in Iny’s inscription may be due to it being a later addition, or something that could be omitted in the very concise Egyptian writing. Consider however what is going to be said about ḫntš below. Damien Mackey’s comment: As exciting as one might find the thought of Egyptian Sixth Dynasty expeditions into Anatolia, to Purushanda, this may actually be a bridge too far for that early period of time. What could greatly curtail the geographical distance in Iny’s account is my identification of Tarḫuntašša (thought also to be in Anatolia) as Karduniash, now revised to, approximately, NW Syria. Alessandro Roccati continues: Before reaching Burus, Iny touched two certainly important places, one of which had already been known for a long time, though its exact location is still open to debate. I have the impression that their succession may not represent an exact itinerary, but rather mark the extreme points reached on the east and west (and north) sides. The western place name (ḫntš) occurred during the 12 th Dynasty in the annals of pharaoh Amenemhet II [Mackey: same period as Iny], and later in various sources of the 18th Dynasty … and then until the end of the pharaonic civilization. Moreover, it was mentioned in the 6th Dynasty as the source for the (precious) wood of a prince’s coffin. …. [I cannot reproduce the hieroglyphs here] looks to me as a good Egyptian rendering of “Ḫundašša” (omitting the initial “Tar” of “Tarḫundašša”) and must be related to somewhere on the sea coast. …. Even if a geographical term may have changed its reference in the course of time, I believe that a correspondence with Cilicia Aspera might well fit Iny’s route to Burus. Otherwise that stretch is the closest shore in the continent to Cyprus. …. Damien Mackey’s comment: Byblos is fairly well placed in relation to Cyprus. Alessandro Roccati continues: The third term (ɂmȝw: the first place reached by Iny according to his inscription) is the least certain for a topographical identification as it is known to me only in the present instance, but I suppose that an equation with Palmyra/Tadmor may hit the point. …. Its redundant writing is normal for the archaic writing of the period, but may entail the reduplication of m, perhaps due to assimilation (d > m before m): *Dammuru, or even better *Ṭammuru < *Ṭadmuru. The reference to the writing of the verb “to see” (mȝ, determined with the “eye” sign) may offer a hint of some sort for its reading. Palmyra is already quoted in the letters of Mari, and it must have been from early times the crossroads of important caravan routes. …. The hieroglyphic rendering looks satisfactory in default of another solution, and Palmyra would well suit the easternmost country crossed by Iny. If we trace a line from Palmyra to Cilicia, we notice that it passes not far from Ebla, a town Iny might have stopped at, where a major commercial trade centre for lapis lazuli and tin was thriving and fragments of gifts by the Egyptian pharaohs Chephren (4th Dynasty) and Pepy I have been dug out by the Italian archaeological mission. Moreover most of the evidence in the archive for a trade between Ebla and Dugurasu (Egypt according to Biga) lies during the rule of Išar-Damu, a contemporary of Pepy I …. Damien Mackey’s comment: I never would have thought that: Dugurasu as Egypt, or somewhere therein. Alessandro Roccati continues: It is likely that Iny travelled to Anatoly by land before Weni led several mighty military expeditions by land and sea against “native” countries, which were not specified in his biographical inscription, but the word “native” (ɂȝm = [drm]) is the same used for people to be brought to Egypt from Hundašša. …. During the reign of Pepy I, Iny was not looking for timber or any other materials, but silver, the metal mined in the Amanus. Under the successor of Pepy I, pharaoh Mernerê, Iny was sent not only for silver, but also lapis lazuli and tin … besides bitumen, wherefore he travelled to Byblos (Kbn, namely Gubla), and the inscription stresses that he moved from R-ḥȝt (= Dugurasu ?) …. The choice of a different (sea ?) route was perhaps due to the fact that the inland route was no longer safe and Ebla had been destroyed. Damien Mackey’s comment: Was it a ‘different ’sea route’? Alessandro Roccati continues: Anyway, Iny’s mention of Byblos is the second one we get for the Old Kingdom, after the first one in the reign of Pepy I … besides another one datable to the 6th Dynasty, while the archaeological evidence has shown how many contacts underwent with Egypt since the fourth millennium, and Byblos is well known to the Middle Kingdom Coffin Texts. …. Eventually Iny went back to Ḫundašša once more under the reign of the last pharaoh of the 6th Dynasty, Pepy II, who succeeded Mernerê after his rather short reign. Damien Mackey’s comment: In a revised context, this may have been the same trip. Alessandro Roccati continues: He must have been old by this time, being perhaps the most experienced of the pharaoh’s envoys to the northern countries, and he voyaged by sea, in quest of silver, without going as far as Burus … and of people, male and female, from that “native” country. …. Finally the three place names reported by Iny seem to forecast a parallel to the three ruler names quoted in the Story of Sinuhe. …. A similar expedition to Hundašša, on a larger scale, was sent under Amenemhet II, and it was doubtless directed towards the same country as Iny’s, again reached by sea, in order to provide silver (from Amanus ?), copper (from Cyprus ?), tin (from Iran ?), trees (for the transportation of which ships were indispensable), “native” people. …. Damien Mackey’s comment: Conventional history may be repeating itself.

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”).

Moses a Figure of Controversy

by Damien F. Mackey “Freud had argued that Akhenaton, the supposedly monotheistic Egyptian pharaoh, was the source of the religious principles that Moses taught to the people of Israel in the desert”. The Velikovsky Encyclopedia Moses the Lawgiver, so revered within the Judaeo-Christian tradition, appears to be a figure of enormous controversy amongst certain highly-respected scholars and writers. From at least the time of Sigmund Freud and his book, Moses and Monotheism (1939), Moses has been presented as an enlightened Egyptian: http://www.sigmundfreud.net/moses-and-monotheism.jsp Freud was quite interested in Jewish history. At his time, persecution and hatred for the Jewish people was quite common. Being a pioneer in the field of psychoanalysis, he set out to investigate the origins of the Jewish people. Among his most astonishing claims was that Moses was not [of] Jewish. For one, the name Moses is not of Jewish origin and can be traced back to ancient Egyptians. The book is an attempt to apply psychoanalysis to the field of history. An extension on his earlier works such as Totem and Taboo. In keeping with his suggestion about the primal father, Freud argues that a small band of individuals, which Moses led out of Egypt during a time of great civil war, conspired against him and eventually killed him. [End of quote] In more recent times, the concept of Moses-as-an-Egyptian has been taken up by Ahmed Osman in his book, Out of Egypt: The Roots of Christianity Revealed (Century, 1998). In Part I, Osman presumes to identify Moses with the Eighteenth Dynasty pharaoh, Akhnaton (Akhenaten). I wrote an entirely unsympathetic review of this bizarre distorting of history in my article: Osman’s ‘Osmosis’ of Moses. Part One: The Chosen People (6) Osman's 'Osmosis' of Moses. Part One: The Chosen People | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Freud’s book on Moses had also been a catalyst for Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky’s revision of ancient biblico-history. Thus in The Velikovsky Encyclopedia, we read: In 1939, with the prospect of war looming, Velikovsky travelled with his family to New York, intending to spend a sabbatical year researching for his book Oedipus & Akhnaton (which, inspired by Freud's Moses and Monotheism, explored the possibility that Pharaoh Akhenaton was the legendary Oedipus). Freud had argued that Akhenaton, the supposedly monotheistic Egyptian pharaoh, was the source of the religious principles that Moses taught to the people of Israel in the desert. Freud's claim (and that of others before him) was based in part on the resemblance of Psalm 104 in the Bible to an Egyptian hymn discovered on the wall of the Tomb of Akhenaton's general, Ai, in Akhenaton's city of Akhetaten. To disprove Freud's claim as well as to prove the Exodus as such, Velikovsky sought evidence for the Exodus in Egyptian documents. One such document was the Ipuwer Papyrus which reports events similar to several of the Biblical plagues. Since conventional Egyptology dated the Ipuwer Papyrus much earlier than either the Biblical date for the Exodus (ca. 1500 – 1450 BCE) or the Exodus date accepted by many of those who accepted the conventional chronology of Egypt (ca. 1250 BCE), Velikovsky had to revise or correct the conventional chronology. [End of quote] Dr. Velikovsky had, for his part, his own idiosyncratic view of Moses, to which I referred in my: Distancing Oneself from Velikovsky https://www.academia.edu/3689825/Distancing_Oneself_from_Velikovsky with reference to Martin Sieff: Velikovsky was a Jewish nationalist, according to Martin Sieff in his most interesting paper, “Velikovsky and His Heroes” … and consequently his heroes seem to have been more the ‘baddies’ of the Bible (Saul, Ahab), [since these were the nationalistic types] rather than the ‘goodies’ (Moses, Isaiah). But whether or not Velikovsky believed in God, not to have done so would not disqualify him from being able to arrive at a right synchronism for the Eighteenth Egyptian Dynasty, which I believe he achieved. Sure, his original model was defective and needed modifications in various places. But the final result has been an impressive platform for the re-building of ancient history upon proper foundations. His critics, including Clarke, have not been able to come anywhere near it. [End of quote] A major obstacle to the progress of the Velikovsky-inspired revision was the academically entrenched - and, purportedly, astronomically-fixed - “Sothic” (Sirius star) theory of ancient Egyptian history as worked out by the Berlin School chronologist, Eduard Meyer. Thankfully, pioneer revisionists such as Drs. Velikovsky and D. Courville, followed by other bright minds, have been able to blow holes in this absurdly artificial scheme. On this, see also my article: The Fall of the Sothic Theory: Egyptian Chronology Revisited https://www.academia.edu/3665220/The_Fall_of_the_Sothic_Theory_Egyptian_Chronology_Revisited This Eduard Meyer was also the one who had denied the very existence and work of Moses. We read this information in the Preface to Martin Buber’s book, Moses (1946): IN the year 1906 Eduard Meyer, a well-known historian, ex¬pressed the view that Moses was not a historical personality. He further remarked: "After all, with the exception of those who accept tradition bag and baggage as historical truth, not one of those who treat him as a historical reality has hitherto been able to fill him with any kind of content whatever, to depict him as a concrete historical figure, or to produce anything which he could have created or which could be his historical work." [End of quote] Admittedly Moses - not a native Egyptian, but a Hebrew fully educated in Egyptian wisdom (Acts 7:20-22): “At that time Moses was born, and he was no ordinary child. For three months he was cared for by his family. When he was placed outside, Pharaoh’s daughter took him and brought him up as her own son. Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in speech and action” - has been most difficult for historians to identify in the Egyptian records. Impossible for conventional historians, who will always be searching in the wrong historical period, underpinned by its archaeology, but also difficult for revisionists. My own hopeful attempt to identify Moses as a high official in ancient Egypt can be found in an article such as: Historical Moses may be Weni and Mentuhotep (6) Historical Moses may be Weni and Mentuhotep | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Finally, regarding Eduard Meyer’s “… anything which [Moses] could have created or which could be his historical work”, see my set: Tracing the Hand of Moses in Genesis https://www.academia.edu/8175774/Tracing_the_Hand_of_Moses_in_Genesis Tracing the Hand of Moses in Genesis. Part Two (6) Tracing the Hand of Moses in Genesis. Part Two. | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu