THE HOUSE OF DAVID
by
Damien Mackey
Al's Menu Home Addtopics Submenu
Auf Deutsch
The 10 Devarim
Balaam
Gideon
Saul to David
Rise of David, Fall of Saul
Lessons from David-Absalom
Queen of Sheba
Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Ahab & Omri
Introduction
Blind leading the blind
Tell El Amarna
Who were the Contemporary Kings?
The Coronation Ceremony
Spread of Religion
Parallels in Constructions
Was David Thutmose I?
David as the biblical "Pharaoh
Thutmose I as David
King Saul
Returning to Thutmose
First Conclusion
David & Solomon as LBA Kings
Egypt Garrisoned
Contemporary Names
Inscriptions
The Cruelty Factor
Egyptian vs Israelite Law
Thutmose I's Burial & Descendants
Thutmose II and Hatshepsut
The Origins of Abishag - Princess Hatshepsut
Abishag
Second Conclusion & Graphic Illustration
What to think of ...
Did David & Solomon Exist?
As Queen of Egypt & Visiting Jerusalem
Her Separation from Solomon
Hatshepsut as Pharaoh
The Death of Solomon
The Death of Hatshepsut
The Last Years of King David
Notes and References

Encyclo Laws
Royal Jubilees
The Thutmosides

The Pottery driven chronology of the ancient Middle East is obviously at odds with written historical records!

Introduction

In a recent series of "Compass" shown on ABC TV (Australia), the presenter, an Englishman who had actually been held as a hostage in Israel for a time, and had as a result developed a great interest in that land, set out to find if the best known Old Testament stories had any basis in archaeological fact. Perhaps the title of the TV documentary,"It Ain't Necessarily So", already gave the viewer a preview, a foreboding, that this man's search was not going to prove terribly successful. Actually it turned out to be quite a disaster. The experienced archaeologists upon whose information this presenter had to depend completely, men like William Dever and Israel Finkelstein, unable to find any evidence for an Egyptianised Israel of the Exodus, or for the Joshuan conquest of Canaan, or for the Solomonic era, led him to the conclusion that these biblical events had no basis in reality. It was tragic - and frustrating in the extreme - to watch these archaeologists in action. Guided by their faulty Sothic dating system they, every time, pointed to an empty site or thin air as to where they thought Joshua (), or David (), or Solomon (), ought to be, whilst at that same moment standing upon the very archaeological layers where the evidences for these civilizations are actually to be found.

Talk about the blind leading the blind!

Some of the archaeologists interviewed did occasionally come to light with data that they thought belonged to a given biblical era or nation, such as the Philistines. A few, even though they had found nothing, argued the 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' line. In this regard one cited the case of the Byzantine era, known to have had a huge influence upon Jerusalem, of which he had nevertheless found "not a single sherd". But by far the majority of archaeologists interviewed were entirely of the minimalist Dever-Finkelstein view.

There were a couple of moments of light. As when the founder of the famous Tell Dan inscription referring to the "House of David" showed that actual inscription to the cameras and laughed at the early attempts by archaeologists to explain it away. However, the phrase shows up twenty five times in the OT and once in the NT letting us know it was a well used saying. And the program's presenter himself came to be convinced that a massive altar on Mount Ebal in Samaria was the one that Joshua had built there (Joshua 8:30). Indeed it was made of "unhewn stones" (v.31), and the archaeological data discovered around this altar seemed to fit very well that this was indeed an ancient Israelite site of sacrifice.

David himself was grudgingly accorded a real existence, based largely on the Tell Dan evidence, but now as only some very petty king over a tiny portion of Israel. Solomon, however, was virtually denied any real existence at all. Only lately began archaeologists to uncover the summit of Tell Rumeida upon which a Crusader monastery was built atop the location of the residences of rulers of the ancient city. David reigned from Hebron for 7½ years before he moved his administration to Jerusalem.[5] The irony is that, as with David, so with Solomon, there is an ancient, non-biblical reference to his "House"; but because it was found in Egypt (el-Amarna) - whose history has not been properly synchronized with Israel's - it cannot be identified, as can David's, for what it really is. I refer to the "Bit Šulmãni" references in pharaoh Akhnaton's archive (letters 74 & 290), which phrase translates as "House of Šulmãn" (and most plausibly, especially in its context: "House of Solomon").

Tell El-Amarna

The relevant el-Amarna letters were actually written to Akhnaton by the contemporary king of Jerusalem no less - most convincingly identified by revisionists as JEHORAM of Judah of the mid C9th BC - who wrote (letter 290):"…the capital of the country of Jerusalem - its name is Bit Šulmãni - the king's city, has broken away."

But with Akhnaton conventionally dated almost half a millennium before Solomon, there could be no thought that these two letters could really contain reference to that great king of Jerusalem.

One of the archaeologists interviewed in the TV program under discussion, comparing the biblical description of David's vast kingdom with what he believed to be the almost total dearth of historico-archaeological evidence for the king, exclaimed that if David were as great as the Bible describes him as being then we should expect some reference to him in historical documents outside of Israel, for instance "by the Egyptians and the Assyrians."

That is a fair enough remark. And my response to it is that there is such evidence for David in abundance, if one only knows where to look for it.

The glorious eras of David and Solomon will never be found where Finkelstein keeps looking for them, however, in the most impoverished Iron Age strata, but rather in the Late Bronze Age. Already in this revision we have seen that the Late Bronze Israelite civilization of king Solomon overflowed like a flood into Egypt and Ethiopia. Just as of old, when the ancient river of Eden (site of Jerusalem; cf. Ezekiel 28:12-17) "flow[ed] out" and gushed into Egypt as the Pishon (that part of the Nile that encompasses the gold-yielding regions of Koptos, Edfu, and Ombos) and into and around Cush (Ethiopia) as the Gihon(Nubian Nile, See Map), and watered the east as the Tigris and Euphrates(Genesis 2:10-14), so too did the Israel of David's and Solomon's time overflow to become the civilizing source of wisdom for the entire ancient world. "Thus King Solomon excelled all the kings of the earth in riches and in wisdom. The whole earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom, which God had put into his mind" (1.Kings 10:23-24).

And who were these contemporary wisdom-seeking "kings"?

They were great ones indeed. I am talking historically here. My revision has set Solomon at the time of such celebrated monarchs as:

1
2
3
HAMMURABI of Babylon;
IARIM-LIM (i.e., Hiram), Said to be a son of Abibaal (ca. 1000 BC), of Syro-Phoenicia;
HATSHEPSUT (biblical Queen Sheba ) of Egypt/Ethiopia.

Solomon himself is the great SOLON of Greek folklore appropriated by the Greeks from the Jews; Solon's laws being found to be largely Jewish however).

The glorious reign of Hammurabi, a veritable watershed in Mesopotamian history, reflects Solomonic influence in its every facet (socio-economic, law, religion, architecture) [10], as does Hatshepsut's reign over Egypt/Ethiopia. Just as Marduk becomes the supreme god in Babylon at the time; so does Hatshepsut thus honour her god, Amun.

Solomon is said to have had certain enemies, apart from Jeroboam, rise up in the latter, decadent part of his reign: namely, HADAD the Edomite and REZIN, a Syrian (1.Kings 11:14, 23). Rezin I have previously identified with Zimri-Lim of Mari. Now a possible candidate for Hadad is Ishkhi-Adad of Qatna, ally of David's arch-rival, Shamsi-Adad I (biblical Hadadezer ), and who continued on as a force for some time after the latter's death, though "the end of Ishkhi-Adad's reign is still obscure" [20]:

The two states of Aleppo and Qatna appear to have developed almost simultaneously. We are better informed about the history of the second during the reign of Shamsi-Adad because he was the ally of Ishkhi-Adad, who occupied the throne of Qatna at that time. The arrangement between the two monarchs had been sealed by a marriage, Iasmakh-Adad, the viceroy of Mari, having married Ishkhi-Adad's daughter. Co-operation was political and military as well as economic. There were frequent movements of troops between Mari and Qatna, and it seems likely that a detachment from Mari was stationed in the Syrian town. The presence of these foreign soldiers at Qatna does not seem to indicate a relation of dependence, for Ishkhi-Adad himself insisted on their being sent, and invites his son-in-law to take part in an expedition which seems likely to yield some spoils. It was Shamsi-Adad who had taken the first steps towards the marriage, stressing to his son that the house of Qatna had a 'name'. He also dealt on level terms with Ishkhi-Adad, whom he called his brother.

That Hadad would indeed have had a 'name', or would come to have had a 'name', is apparent from what we know of his drama-packed early life. Hadad was "of the royal house of Edom"; a country from which he had had to flee as "a young boy", with his retainers, when David's General Joab (whose cousin was Absalom's commander Amasis, 2.Sam. 17:25), systematically, over a six month period, slew every male in Edom (1.Kings 11:14-16). The prince managed to flee to Egypt, to Pharaoh (vv. 18-20), who [28]:

…gave him a house, assigned him an allowance of food, and gave him land. Hadad found great favour in the sight of Pharaoh, so that he gave him his sister-in-law for a wife, the sister of Queen Tahpenes ().

The sister of Tahpenes gave birth by him to his son Genubath, whom Tahpenes weaned in Pharaoh's house; Genubath was in Pharaoh's house among the children of Pharaoh.

Immanuel Velikovsky may very well have found, as he claimed, references to both Queen Tahpenes and Genubath in the Egyptian records, appropriately spaced according to his chronological revision. Thus Velikovsky wrote [30]:

The pharaoh [who received young Hadad] must have been Ahmose. Among his queens must have been one by the name of Tahpenes. We open the register of the Egyptian queens to see whether pharaoh Ahmose had a queen by this name. Her name is actually preserved and read Tanethap, Tenthape, or, possibly, Tahpenes.

… Hadad had returned to Edom [sic] in the days of Solomon, after the death of Joab.[32] Since then about forty years had elapsed. Genubath, his son, was now the vassal king of Edom; he dwelt either in Edom or in Egypt.

Tribute from this land, too, must have been sent to the Egyptian crown; there was no need to send an expedition to subdue Edom. When Thutmose III returned from one of his inspection visits to Palestine he found in Egypt tribute brought by couriers from the land "Genubatye", which did not have to be conquered by an expeditionary force.

"When his majesty arrived in Egypt the messengers of the Genubatye came bearing their tribute."

It consisted of myrrh, "negroes for attendants", bulls, calves, besides vessels laden with ivory, ebony and skins of panther.

Who were these people of Genubatye? Hardly a guess has been made with regard to this peculiar name. The people of Genubatye were the people of Genubath, their king, contemporary of Rehoboam.

And thanks to Velikovsky's 18th Egyptian dynasty reconstruction, we can know too that Saul of Israel was contemporaneous with pharaoh Ahmose, and that Israel was in fact allied with the Egyptians; an alliance forged in their common struggle against the hated Amu /Amalekites.

With this in mind, I had previously suggested that David's resounding defeat of Hadadezer's Syrian coalition (e.g. 2.Samuel 8:3-6) would have been achieved with Egyptian military support; this last being a factor that would become common practice (at least in theory) during a later phase of the 18th dynasty (el-Amarna).

But it had seemed that there was far more than just a military union between Israel and Palestine. Egypt was in fact beginning to be flooded by Israel's new, vibrant civilization. How could this be happening to a nation known to be extremely conservative, insular and closed to change?

The Encouraging Signs that King Saul of Israel was Pharaoh Amenhotep I.

There were, I found, some initial encouraging signs for Amenhotep I's being king Saul. For instance:

1. Amenhotep I was not related to Ahmose, but married his daughter, Ah-hotep. Now, amazingly, Saul had a father-in-law called Ahimaaz, which seems to be an exact Hebrew equivalent of the Egyptian name, Ahmose; Saul having married Ahimaaz's daughter, Ahinoam (1 Samuel 14:50).
2. Secondly, DNA testing has shown that Amenhotep I was not related to Thutmose I; just as David was unrelated to Saul.
3. Thirdly, Amenhotep I and Thutmose I may have shared a co-regency; just as Saul and David were yoked together (though usually in uncomfortable harness, as enemies) in a co-regency.
Despite these encouraging early signs, I considered my Amenhotep I = Saul equation to be extremely tentative when I wrote my article on the new 18th dynasty scenario, entitled "The House of David", in which I proposed that the Thutmoside 18th dynasty of Egypt was actually, in its origins, a Davidic Israelite dynasty.

The Coronation Ceremonies (For more click Here)

Moreover, the overflow from Israel went to the very heart of the matter: to the coronation ceremony. The very ceremonial procedure, in its three phases, that David had used for the coronation of his chosen son, Solomon, was the procedure used by Thutmose I (Amenhotep I's successor) in the coronation of the former's daughter, Hatshepsut.

I have followed J. Baikie for the Egyptian texts in the right-hand column below [40]:

David's Coronation Thutmose I's Coronation
The Assembly Summoned The Assembly Summoned
"David", we are told, "assembled at Jerusalem all the officials of the tribes, the officers of the divisions that served the king, the commanders of thousands, ... of hundreds, the stewards of all the property ... and all the seasoned warriors" (I Chronicles 28:1). Likewise in the case of the young Hatshepsut, her father, Thutmose I [50]:"... caused that there be brought to him the dignitaries of the king, the nobles, the companions, the officers of the court, and the chief of the people."
Future Ruler Presented Future Ruler Presented
Next, David presented his son, Solomon, to the assembly as his successor, saying:'... of all my sons ... the Lord ... has chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord, over Israel. He said to me, 'It is Solomon your son .... I have chosen him to be My son, and I will be his Father'.' (vv. 5-6). So did Pharaoh present his daughter to the august assembly [60]:"Said His Majesty to them: 'This my daughter ... Hatshepsut .... I have appointed her; she is my successor, she it is assuredly who will sit on my wonderful seat [throne]. She shall command the people in every place of the palace; she it is who shall lead you ...'."
Assembly Embraces King's Decision Assembly Embraces King's Decision
The assembly of Israel concurred wholeheartedly with David's decision:"And all the assembly blessed the Lord ... and bowed their heads, and worshipped the Lord, and did obeisance to the king .... And they ate and drank before the Lord on that day with great gladness" (29:20, 22). Similarly, in the case of the Egyptian officials [70]:"They kissed the earth at his feet, when the royal word fell among them .... They went forth, their mouths rejoiced, they published his proclamation to them."



Might not one have imagined that Egypt, so steeped in ceremony and cultic procedure over so many dynasties and centuries would by now have had its own inviolable court system? How great therefore must have been the Israel of David's time that even its ceremonial procedures had flowed into Egypt?

Religious Parallels

Perhaps even more remarkable still was that Israel's religion was overflowing into Egypt. That Hatshepsut was re-inventing Karnak as Egypt's Jerusalem is evidenced by the unmistakably Davidic psalmery that she had written on the base of one of her obelisks. Conventional scholar, Baikie, both notes it and chronologically misinterprets it [80]:

And then, in language which might have come straight out of the Book of Psalms, though it belongs to an age centuries before [sic] the first of the Psalms was written, she continues:

I did it under [God's] command; it was he who led me. "Yet the Lord will command his loving kindness in the daytime ... Teach me thy way, oh Lord, and lead me in a plain path ... he leadeth me ..." Ps. 42:8; 27:11; 23:2.
I conceived no works without his doing; it was he who gave me directions. "... when the king sat in his house, and the Lord gave him rest round about him from all his enemies ... thou shalt build me an house ..." 2.Sam. 7:1,5.
"He (David's son) shall build an house for my name ..." 2.Sam. 7:13
I slept not because of his temple; I erred not from that which he commanded. " The wicked have laid a snare for me: yet I erred not from thy precepts." Psalm 119:110.
My heart was wise before my father; I entered into the affairs of his heart. "Thou hast proved my heart; thou hast visited me in the night ... Who so is wise, and will observe these things, even they shall understand the loving kindness of the Lord." Ps. 17:3; 107:43.
"For he shall not much remember the days of his life; because God answereth him in the joy of his heart." Eccl. 5:20.
I turned not my back on the City of the All-Lord; but turned to it the face. "Our heart is not turned back, neither have our steps declined from thy ways ... Thy face, o Lord, will I seek." Ps. 44:18; 27:8.
I know that Karnak is God's dwelling upon earth ….
James Breasted, Records of Egypt, Vol. II, Sec. 316; p. 131.
"I have surely built thee an house to dwell in, a settled place for thee to abide in forever. ... The Lord God ... may dwell in Jerusalem forever." 1.Kings 8:13; 1.Chronicles 23:25.


Baikie continues [90]:

The sleepless eagerness of the queen for the glory of the temple of her god, and her assurance of the unspeakable sanctity of Karnak as the divine dwelling-place, find expression almost in the very words which the Psalmist used to express his sense of duty towards the habitation of the God of Israel, and his certainty of Zion's sanctity as the abiding-place of Jehovah: "Surely I will not come into the tabernacle of my house, nor go up into my bed; I will not give sleep to mine eyes, or slumber to mine eyelids. Until I find out a place for the Lord, an habitation for the mighty God of Jacob - For the Lord hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation. This is my rest for ever; here will I dwell; for I have desired it" Psalms 132:3-4, 13-14; 2.Samuel 7:5-6

As noted in previous articles, not only David's own writings [95], but even images from the pre-Davidic Torah (e.g. Genesis) - and from Solomon's wisdom writings and his love poem, Song of Songs - were used by Hatshepsut in her inscriptions.

Construction Parallels

Hatshepsut even built her magnificent temple at Deir el-Bahari along Solomonic lines - not surprisingly since Solomon himself, as Senenmut - was her chief architect. The Phoenician influence this beautiful temple displays (cf. Mariette) would undoubtedly be the work of Hiram's Phoenicians, allies of Solomon, who were amongst the master craftsmen for the building of the Temple in Jerusalem (1.Kings 5:7-18).

Covenant, Ark of the

Hatshepsut would even employ a high-priest in her religious infrastructure.

Now of the high offices of priest, secretary and recorder (herald) established by David in Israel (2.Samuel 8:16-17. Cf. 1.Kings 4:2-3), the latter two are actually considered by some to have been borrowed from Egypt [100]. But more likely now the correct order of influence is that these became established Egyptian offices only after having firstly been borrowed from Davidic Israel.

Furthermore, do we not find at the time of Hatshepsut greater attention being given to the greatest of all the gods, Amun, and to his barque (ark)-like vessel which was carried around by priests bearing poles on their shoulders? Thus Joyce Tyldesley [110]:

The Red Chapel, now known more commonly by its French name of Chapelle Rouge, was a large sanctuary of red quartzite endowed by Hatshepsut to house the all-important barque of Amen. Amen's barque, or barge, known as Userhat-Amen (Mighty of Prow is Amen), was a small-scale gilded wooden boat bearing the enclosed shrine which was used to protect the statue of the god from public gaze.[115] When Amen, on the holy days which were also public holidays, left the privacy of his sanctuary to process through the streets of Thebes, he sailed in style concealed within the cabin of his boat-shrine which was carried, supported by wooden poles, on the shoulders of his priests. When Amen was not traveling the barque rested in its own sanctuary or shrine.

The sacred barque had always played a minor role in Egyptian religious ritual, but during the early New Kingdom it had become an increasingly important part of theology, and most temples now gave great prominence to the barque sanctuary.

That strongly reminds one of the Ark of the Covenant, of great age, before which David danced (2.Samuel 6:14). David had re-emphasized the order that the awe-inspiring Ark was to be carried by "no one but the Levites" (1.Chronicles 15:2). The 'boat' aspect may even hark back to the time when baby Moses (little Horus in the Egyptian version) was enclosed by his mother in an ark (teba) and floated on the river (Exodus 2:3).

Both the Israelite and Egyptian versions of the ark were oracular. Both ideally went forth before their armies into battle (1.Samuel 14:18). Thutmose III (biblical "Shishak") will, after Hatshepsut's death, have that ark of Amun proceed before his own army up the terrifying Aruna (Araunah) pass as he marches to the conquest of Jerusalem and the plundering of its Temple's treasures.

This occurred in the fifth year of Solomon's son, Rehoboam (1.Kings 14:25).

The influence of David upon Egypt was so strong at this time that we may yet need to take our conclusions deeper than we have done so far. David may not merely have influenced Thutmose I in his proceedings.

David may actually have been Thutmose I!

The upshot of this would be that the Egyptians still remained their conservative, insular selves, doing what they had done for centuries. But Israel had also overflowed upon the land. We may have here a clash of two entirely different cultures. Something somewhat akin (and I would not want to push the analogy too far) to the situation that prevailed for a time with the co-existence in Mexico of the war-like Spaniards and the pyramid-building Aztecs. The former prepared to stop at nothing to impose their religion upon the land's inhabitants. The latter continuing with their rituals and re-writing the inexplicable Spanish phenomenon according to their own religious traditions and folklore.

Some questions immediately arise from this new scenario:


1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

If David really was Thutmose I, where does that leave Hatshepsut, supposed daughter of Thutmose I?
What is the connection between Solomon's coronation and Hatshepsut's?
Does David really stack up well as Thutmose I, origin-wise, career-wise, age-wise?
Did David conquer and enslave Egypt?
What about the typical Egyptian (and un-David-like) pagan trappings associated with Thutmose I as with the other pharaohs?

These are the questions that one must now begin to answer.

The questions concerning Thutmose I will be tackled first, in I; and those concerning Hatshepsut will be tackled in II.

David as the biblical "Pharaoh

Who was the `pharaoh' of 1.Kings 9:16 who had sacked Gezer as a dowry for his daughter to marry Solomon? Velikovsky had opted for Thutmose I, without his having attempted to make any link between this pharaoh and king David. Metzler likewise has identified this biblical "pharaoh" with Thutmose I, but with the far more interesting aspect to it that Thutmose I was David.[120] Unfortunately, though, Metzler appears to have confused early campaigns by David (1.Samuel 27:8,9), when Saul was still alive, with the biblical account of the conquest of Gezer, clearly occurring after Saul's death [123]:

[Metzler] "Since King David-Thutmosis I was also the father of Queen Hatshepsut-Sheba, King Solomon refers to her in his Song of Songs (4:10 et passim) as Achoti Kallah `my sister, my spouse!'. This explains, too, how it was possible that the city of Gezer, which King David had conquered, was given to King Solomon as dowry of `Pharaoh's daughter'. When the city of Gezer was destroyed by David Achinoam was already his wife, but he was not yet King of Judah and Israel, because King Saul was still alive [sic] (1.Samuel 27, 3-11) . Hence it is technically correct that the city was conquered by the pharaoh (1.Kings 9, 16), as she is the pharaoh's daughter who made him pharaoh by marriage."

"When David defeated Gezer, he killed all its inhabitants leaving `neither man nor woman alive' (1.Samuel 27, 8 and 9). Likewise, the pharaoh, whose daughter King Solomon married, is reported to have `gone up, and taken Gezer, and burnt it with fire, and slain the Canaanites that dwelt in the city' (1.Kings 9, 16). Since it was rebuilt and resettled only by King Solomon (1.Kings 9, 15), King David-Thutmosis I must be the pharaoh, who ceded it to him as a wedding present. There is no room for a foreign invasion towards the end of King David's reign, because `the Lord had given him rest round about from all his enemies' (2.Samuel 7, 1). Moreover, it does not make sense to conquer a city just to give it away, as pointed out by Abraham Malamat.[130]

I. Thutmose I as David (More)

To confront point 3 first, about whether David stacks up well as Thutmose I, we know that David was essentially - in career terms - a military man. And that is just what we find with Thutmose I. He was, when he came to the throne,"a middle-aged general" [140],"with a successful career behind him" [150]. Indeed he is regarded with the great Thutmose III as amongst the most effective of all Egypt's military pharaohs.

Thutmose I's sons were military men as well, and it is notable that Senenmut - whom I have identified as David's son Solomon in Egypt - is thought to have started his career in the army [160]. This is what one would expect with David's sons.

One of Thutmose I's sons was actually the military man par excellence [170]:

Amenmose, the younger but possibly longer-lived son, was accorded the title of 'Great Army Commander', the role now traditionally allocated to the crown prince. Physical bravery had become an important New Kingdom royal attribute and Amenmose was clearly expected to enjoy the hearty lifestyle of the male élite. A broken stela tells us that, during his father's regnal year 4, Amenmose was already hunting wild animals in the Giza desert near the Great Sphinx, a favourite playground of the royal princes.

Thutmose I's origins are not properly known, only guessed at [180]:

... the new heir to the throne may well have been a descendant of a collateral branch of the royal family. Tuthmosis himself, however, makes no claim to royal blood. His father is never named and remains a man of mystery, although it seems safe to assume that he had been of noble or royal birth.

We know who David's father was: JESSE the Bethlehemite (1.Samuel 16:1), his great-grandfather was Boaz with Ruth his wife and his grandfather was Obed. But this Jesse too remains, like Thutmose I's father, "a man of mystery"; his being "of noble birth" stemming from the fact that he was of the royal tribe of Judah.

King Saul

While J. Tyldesley calls Thutmose I "the new heir to the throne", others have considered his to be more a case - as with Ay and other non-designated officials of great influence - of one who had become too powerful for the crown of Egypt to ignore any longer.

Now this was precisely the situation that had begun to develop between Saul and David. And it would lead to a pathological jealousy on Saul's part. When Saul and David returned home from defeating the Philistines, we learn (1.Samuel 18:6-9):

"…the women came out of all the towns of Israel, singing and dancing … And the women sang to one another as they made merry:

'Saul has killed his thousands,
And David his ten thousands'."

Saul was very angry, for this saying displeased him. He said, 'They have ascribed to David ten thousands, and to me they have ascribed thousands; what more can he have but the kingdom?' So Saul eyed David from that day on."

Whether Saul liked it or not - and he assuredly did not like it - the fact was that David had become co-ruler with him. There was more to it even than that. The revered Samuel had in fact rejected Saul as king and had anointed David son of Jesse in his place. (Cf. 1.Samuel 15:28 & 6:13).

This situation of having two strong kings yoked together, in uncomfortable harness, is reflected, I believe, in the situation at the time in Egypt, leading me to wonder if Amenhotep I might not be Saul himself, co-ruling with Thutmose I as David. Tyldesley tells of at least possible evidence for a co-regency [190]:

There is some rather weak archaeological evidence to suggest that Amenhotep I may have associated himself in a co-regency with his intended successor. On the wall of the chapel of Amenhotep at Karnak, Tuthmosis I is shown dressed as a king, performing royal tasks and with his name written in the royal cartouche. If, as has been suggested, this scene was commissioned during the lifetime of Amenhotep I, there must have been two kings on the throne at the same time.

But, putting aside David for the moment, under what circumstances had Saul thus managed to bring his influence to bear upon Egypt?

The beginning of an explanation for this is to be found in Velikovsky's reconstruction of history, telling how - as he saw it - the 18th dynasty defeat of the Hyksos (Amu ) was the same war as Saul's defeat of the Amalekites [200]. Due to the danger posed by this common enemy, Egypt and Israel were now firm allies.

Now, according to the Bible, "Saul defeated the Amalekites, from Havilah as far as Shur, which is east of Egypt." Professor A. Yahuda has identified Havilah (cf. Genesis 2:11), watered by the Pishon (Nile), with those aforementioned regions of fine gold, Koptos, Edfu, and Ombos [210]. Saul's campaigns had thus taken him deep into Egypt.

Saul would manage to conquer, apart from the formidable Amalekites, "all his enemies on every side - … Moab … the Ammonites … Edom … the kings of Zobah [a Syrian coalition] … and the Philistines" (1.Samuel 14:47; 2.Sam. 8:3; 10:6; Zoba: a portion of Syria east of Coelesyria.). Certainly the Philistines and the Syrians, if not the others, had at that time hundreds upon hundreds of powerful chariots.[211]

So Saul must have been a great king indeed in terms of military power.

It should also be remembered that the 18th dynasty, under Ahmose, was emerging from a long period of native Egyptian subjugation and humiliation at the hands of the Hyksos foreigners. It would not be surprising to find therefore that Saul of Israel might have come to exert some degree of influence over Egypt during the reign of Ahmose. This would only have increased after the latter's death.

There is even a slight possibility that Ahmose was the very Ahimaaz whose daughter Ahinoam Saul had married (1.Samuel 14:50).

Unfortunately, though, we cannot say very much more about Amenhotep I, successor of Ahmose, because of the dearth of material about him in textbooks of Egyptian history. And if his body was indeed discovered in 1871 amongst the royal mummies at Deir el-Bahri, then he could not have been Saul who was finally buried at Jabesh in Israel (1.Samuel 31:12-13).

It is at least possible though that Amenhotep I's main theater of operation was in fact Israel, as Saul.

Thutmose Again

Returning to Thutmose I, the reason why he "is shown dressed as a king, performing royal tasks and with his name written in the royal cartouche", together with Amenhotep I, is, I suggest, because he already was a king. He never actually had to be made a king by Amenhotep I, nor by any Egyptian official.

He took, or was given by the Egyptians, the name "son of Ra Thutmose" [220]; that might translate, in Israelite terminology, as, "Son of God", "Son of Wisdom". David and Solomon are both referred to in the Scriptures as "Son of God" (1.Chronicles 22:6-12). And David was a great lover of wisdom, having instructed his son to pray for wisdom (V.12). David can therefore claim a good deal of the credit for Solomon's own renowned wisdom.

Thutmose I is thought to "have bolstered his claim to the throne by marrying Ahmes [Ahmose], the sister of Amenophis [Amenhotep]I" [230]. However, even that presumed link with Amenhotep I is not certainly established, according to Tyldesley [240]:

King Tuthmosis I was married to a lady named Ahmose, a popular female name in New Kingdom Egypt. There is some disagreement over the origins of this lady, with some authorities classing her as a daughter of Amenhotep I and others placing her as the daughter of Ahmose and Ahmose Nefertari and therefore a full sister of Amenhotep I. Whatever her parentage, until recently all experts were in agreement that Ahmose must have been a princess of the royal blood, and that Tuthmosis must have married her in order to make his position as king even more secure. …

But, Tyldesley continues, one cannot even be certain that Ahmose herself was of royal blood [250]:

However, Queen Ahmose, who bears the title of 'King's Sister' (senet nesu) is never accorded the more important title of 'King's Daughter' (sat nesu). The Egyptians were not generally shy of recording their ranks and achievements, and this unusual reticence may therefore be an indication that Ahmose was not the daughter of a king, and by extension that she could not be either the daughter or the sister of Amenhotep I. Instead, she may actually have been the sister or half-sister of Tuthmosis I.

Or, alternatively,"she may actually have been" one of David's own Israelite wives. For instance, Ahinoam the Jezreelite, whose name has at least the first element (Ahi, 'brother of') in common with Ahmose.

Was she even previously Ahinoam the wife of Saul, and hence already a Queen of Israel before David had married her? If so, then there is no reason to presume that David had gone beyond Israel, to Egypt, to marry a foreign wife.

First Conclusion

Thutmose I certainly matches David therefore in career-type, approximate age and non-royal Egyptian background though a king.

And his chronology fits extremely well, too, in regard to Senenmut's being Solomon.

With neither Thutmose I nor his wife Ahmose unequivocally of Egyptian royal blood, or of certain origin, we are left free to pursue our idea that Thutmose I was indeed David.

David and Solomon Were Late Bronze Age Kings

Peter James and David Rohl, British revisionists, have each proposed that an ivory found at Megiddo, one of Solomon's forts in Israel, "showing a monarch holding court", may actually be a depiction of Solomon himself and his queen in Egyptian guise.

Megiddo it should be noted was one of Solomon's great forts in northern Israel, where Solomon had, writes James [2010], built a "monumental palace compound" (1.Kings 9:15). And it was at the site of Megiddo that the "material culture of Palestine at the end of the Late Bronze Age [Solomon's era by the revision] is best seen". The ivory plaque, says James:

... is of particular interest. [The monarch] is seated on a throne decorated with sphinxes. If it was intended to represent a specific rather than an idealized ruler, would it be too much to imagine that in this ivory we actually have a depiction of the Egyptianized King Solomon?

Now Rohl (who has apparently fallen out so badly with James that they no longer refer to each other's writings) gives his descriptive account of this amazing item [2020], arriving at the same sort of conclusion as had James:

To the right the king arrives in his chariot, driving before him Shasu captives; in the center is an intimate cameo of the same ruler, seated upon his throne with his queen and lyre player standing before him; to the left, behind the king, two courtiers attend to the royal couple's needs. Now let us pick out what might be interpreted as Egyptian elements in the scene. First, above the chariot horses is a winged sun-disk; second, the queen offers a lotus flower to her husband; and third the king is seated upon a throne, the sides of which are guarded by winged sphinxes (i.e. human-headed lions). Surrounding the monarch we see three doves - a well known motif of peace, Solomon married an Egyptian princess; he had 'a great ivory throne' made for him which was protected by 'lions' on either side [1.Kings 10:18-20]; his traditional name means 'peaceful'.

Solomon's Hebrew name, Shelomoh - said to derive from shalom ('peace') - may indeed be said to mean 'peaceful'. Dr. Metzler though, in his inimitable fashion, argues that Solomon is partly an Egyptian name, derived from she-El Amon (sounds like a bit of a hybrid).

So far, I have not successfully managed to find any sort of connection between the names Solomon and Senenmut (whom I have nonetheless identified as the one person). The name Senenmut, Egyptian sn-n-mwt, depicted in hieroglyphs below, means:

"Brother of the mother."

"Brother of the mother" is not a particularly helpful concept, and I can in no way adapt it to the name Solomon. (Although it may pertain to some other name of Solomon's for he had apparently several names, e.g. he was also known as Jedidiah, 2.Samuel 12:25). However, we saw in "Solomon and Sheba" that Senenmut liked to manipulate the Egyptian hieroglyphs, for example creating cryptograms in regard to Hatshepsut's throne name, Makera (meaning "True is the Heart of Ra"). Perhaps he, as the crafty and intellectual Solomon, had adapted Egyptian names to Hebrew ones in Metzler-ian style. If so, the name Senenmut may be more cryptic than has so far been appreciated.


The Megiddo Ivory discussed above may well be a depiction of the famous Solomon and his Egyptian queen (Hatshepsut according to this reconstruction). But even if it is not, I propose that we have contemporary representations of king Solomon in the sketch of Senenmut, and in the statues (the latter including his daughter, Neferure) as found in many books.

Egypt Garrisoned

The Israel of Saul's and David's day had begun to overflow into the fertile land of Egypt, and even beyond, into Ethiopia (Nubia). Campaigns into Nubia were already being conducted in the days of Thutmose I's predecessor, Amenhotep I, whose Viceroy in that southern land was Turi.

Thutmose I, immediately upon his accession - according to P. Montet - sent notification of this to the Viceroy of Nubia, Thuroy (likely the Turi of Amenhotep I's reign) [260]. One would imagine that Thuroy's scribes in Nubia would have quickly set to work glorifying the new pharaoh in their traditional terms, which would of course have had no likenesses to David's own Yahwistic protocol or standard inscriptions.

A few years later Thutmose I's armies would actually appear in the land of Nubia, setting up there a string of garrisons. Tyldesley tells of the pharaoh's campaigns [270]:

The former general Tuthmosis I soon proved himself a worthy successor to the newly established tradition of the mighty Egyptian warrior-king, embarking on a series of flamboyant and highly successful foreign campaigns intended to impress Egyptian superiority on the traditional enemies of the south and north. In his second regnal year the Egyptian troops marched southwards into Nubia, where, as Ahmose, son of Baba, tells us, they successfully 'destroyed insurrection throughout the lands and repelled the intruders from the desert region', advancing past the Third Cataract of the Nile, where Tuthmosis set up a stela to commemorate his great achievement , and reaching the island of Argo. ….

He left behind him a subdued land controlled by a chain of Egyptian fortresses stretching across Nubia and the Sudan.

…This was followed by an even more spectacular victory. After establishing new military headquarters at the old northern capital of Memphis, Tuthmosis pressed eastwards into Naharin, crossing the River Euphrates and entering the territory ruled by Egypt's new [sic] enemy, the King of Mitanni. Here, as the ever-present Ahmose records:

[His Majesty] went to Retenu to vent his wrath throughout foreign lands. His Majesty arrived at Naharin. His Majesty - life, prosperity and health be upon him - found that the enemy was gathering troops. Then his Majesty made a great heap of corpses among them. Countless were the living captives of his Majesty from his victories. Lo, I was at the head of the army and his Majesty saw my bravery. I brought away a chariot, its horse, and the one who was upon it as a living captive to present to his Majesty. I was rewarded with gold yet again.

After a great battle with many of the enemy killed or taken prisoner, Tuthmosis laid down the foundations of what was later to develop into Egypt's Asian Empire. Once again a commemorative stela was needed, this time to be set on the bank of the River Euphrates.

These last-mentioned campaigns "eastwards", into Retenu and Mitanni, fit very well with David's conquests of his most formidable enemies, the Philistines and the Syrians; if Retenu be taken as Lower Retenu - that is, the Shephelah coastal plain where the Philistines dwelt - and if I am right in my previous identification of Mitanni with Syria (to the borders of Assyria).[278] According to Montet [280]: "Tuthmosis I derived great satisfaction from the fact that, during his reign, Egyptian messengers could travel the length and breadth of Syria without being molested."

We can thus conclude, regarding point 4, that David as Thutmose I had effectively conquered Egypt even as far as Nubia and the Sudan.

There is nothing of this in the Scriptures, however. No garrison in Memphis or garrisons in Nubia are mentioned amongst the other garrisons the conquering David (or his generals) are said to have set up in subjugated territories, e.g. in Syria, and all throughout Edom (2.Samuel 8:6,13). But Scripture is strangely silent anyway about Egypt. Moses tells us absolutely nothing of his career in Egypt. And the Egyptian (el-Amarna) rule over C9th BC Palestine is nowhere directly alluded to, though shrewd research has been able to bring the subtle pieces of the puzzle together. Incredibly, too, Solomon's huge influence over Egypt, as Senenmut, is passed over in the Bible in a verse or two. These matters were apparently of little interest to the biblical scribes.

Since the Bible gives no indication whatsoever of David's having ever left Israel for any period of time to rule Egypt, the extent of his 'rule' there may have been via garrisons commanded by his own officials (by proxy), amongst whom there were many heroes of great military skill (2.Samuel 23:8-39).

Thutmose III would later reverse all this, so that Egypt would in his day come to rule Syro-Palestine through its own garrisons and governors of choice.

Names

Contemporary names of Egyptian officials, like the enduring Ineni [290] for instance, could actually turn out to be Israelite, e.g. Hananiah. David also had plenty of sons from various wives to whom he could give official posts abroad (I Chronicles 3:1-9). Basically though the early kings of Israel, presuming they actually had garrisoned Egypt/Ethiopia, would have found it convenient to retain in place Egypt's own cumbersome bureaucracy.

Inscriptions

Indeed it is hardly likely that David would have been able to maintain a strong personal influence in Nubia so far to the south, and even for that matter in Thebes. And this may in part explain our point 5, how Thutmose I's inscriptions, if he were David, could be of the usual pagan formula, without much sign of modification. Johnny Zwick has provided the following useful explanation in regard to the practicality of this [300]:

"… inscriptions, attributions, ceremonial utterances, ushabtis and idolatrous items were produced quite automatically, without the 'kings' specific instructions, even if these inscriptions state he instructed them.

If such a thing was possible, Thutmose I being David, that would shed new light on the meaning of Egyptian inscriptions in the sense that they were 'canned' texts, automatically applied by trained artists based on traditions and quite automatically, without prompting or input by the ruler(s) him/themselves.

It would also shed light on how 'important' persons were regarded/honored even if non-native … even though we don't find that stated but logically implied.
It may also reveal a tolerance of Israelites on Egyptian ways in the name of these good relations and perhaps a hope of being a witness to them."

Later we are going to see too how Hatshepsut 're-worked' Thutmose I's inscriptions.

Ruling by proxy, through his ever-growing military and religious bureaucracy, David's Israeli influence must have increased greatly in Egypt upon the death of pharaoh Amenhotep I, after which he himself was regarded as the pharaoh for about ten to fifteen years. But these years may in part also have coincided with the late phase of David's reign in Israel, which were troublesome years of revolt against him, even by his own son Absalom (2.Samuel 13: 25-30), and towards the end of which David himself had begun to degenerate into senility.

Despite his undoubted power and success, Thutmose I (like Amenhotep I) is usually skimmed over in a few pages in Egyptian history books. The fact is that we do not know terribly much about him, and much of what we do know is post-mortem, through the testimony of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III who so greatly admired him. We do know that during the reign of Thutmose I building in the Valley of the Kings was firstly undertaken, chapels and obelisks were built. We know about his military campaigns. Thutmose I even concluded his war on Mitanni with an elephant hunt. This fits what we had seen on a previous occasion, that elephants were roaming Syria at the time, no doubt brought in from the great mercantile expeditions that were being conducted by the Phoenicians. [310]

Perhaps David never lost that youthful instinct as a hunter of which he had once spoken to Saul, in the face of Goliath's arrogance (1.Samuel 17:34-36):

'Your servant used to keep sheep for his father; and whenever a lion or a bear came, and took a lamb from the flock, I went after it and struck it down, rescuing the lamb from its mouth; and if it turned against me, I would catch it by the jaw, strike it down, and kill it. Your servant has killed both lions and bears; and this uncircumcised Philistine shall be like one of them, since he has defied the armies of the living God'.

The Cruelty Factor

The Egyptian army returning from the early Nubian campaign wanted it made known that it was not one to be messed with [320]: "The new king sailed home in triumph with the body of a Nubian bowman, a dreadful warning to others who might be tempted to rebel, draped 'head down over the bow of his majesty's ship, the Falcon'." Thutmose I's apparent cruelty in torturing and slaying enemies was not - it has to be said - out of place in David's régime, whether David was personally responsible or only by proxy. David and his officials could be cruel, or mutilating, by our standards. Had not David himself fulfilled Saul's demand for 100 Philistine foreskins in order to win the hand of Michal, Saul's prize daughter (1.Samuel 18:25, 27)?

Similarly, Ahmose son of Ibana, present at the siege of Avaris, boasted of having, as Tyldesley explains [330]:

"… brought away from there as plunder two women and a hand. …."
When Ahmose writes of capturing a hand he is referring to the practice of amputating a hand, or on some occasions the penis [foreskin], of a dead enemy so that the true scale of the victory could be assessed.

There are plenty of bloodthirsty incidents associated with David and his armies. Here for instance is 2 Samuel's account of David's stern treatment of the defeated Moabites (8:2):

[David] also defeated the Moabites and, making them lie down on the ground, measured them off with a cord; he measured two lengths of cord for those who were to be put to death, and one length for those who were to be spared. And the Moabites became servants to David and brought tribute.[340]

This is all the more surprising when one considers that the king of Moab had earlier permitted David to shelter his parents in Moab (1.Samuel 22:3-4).

Nor was David's commander, Joab, setting a precedent by killing all the Edomite males (1.Kings 11:15). David had, in earlier times, determined to annihilate all the males serving the testy Nabal, until Abigail prudently intervened to save the situation (1.Samuel 25:22-25).

Animals were not spared either. During his war with Hadadezer the Syrian: "David hamstrung all the chariot horses, but left enough for a hundred chariots" (2.Samuel 8:4).

Did not God finally tell his "beloved" (the meaning of David) servant: "You shall not build a house [Temple] for my Name, for you are a warrior and have shed blood" (1.Chronicles 28:3)?

But it seems that some of David's generals were too inhumane and merciless even for David. After Joab had murdered Saul's noble general, Abner, David would lament: "Today I am powerless, even though anointed king; these men, the sons of Zeruiah [Joab's mother], are too violent for me" (2.Samuel 3:39).


Egyptian vs Israelite Law: Contacts of Israel with Egypt from the time of King Saul to Solomon.

Purpose: Showing the Egyptian background to some affairs and events in the life of King Saul and David:

1. Saul achieved victory over the Amalekites at the River of Egypt (1.Sam. 15).
2. The Hebrew prophets [Samuel, Achijah (1.Kings 11:29) and Shemaiah (1.Kings 12:22)] fullfilled the function of state lawyers, experts, who could foresee legal consequences, or judges who knew what the courts would do and gave their advice on the basis of their professional know-how. (Exodus 18:13-26; 1.Sam. 7:15-17; See E. Metzler at `http://moziani.tripod.com/dynasty/ammm_2_1.htm')
3. Chief judges were called in Hebrew `Elohim' who `judged/shaphat' the people. `Elohim' in this legal usage does not mean `God'. The King James Version translates `Elohim' in Exodus 22:8 with `Dayanim' (English: judges). So the witch of Endor (1.Sam. 28:11ff) describes the `Elohim' judge as an old man with a mantle (Samuel).
[Exodus 22:8; "... he shall be brought unto the `judges'", `elohim' is gods in the ordinary sense, but specifically used of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to `magistrates'; and sometimes as a superlative to angels, judges, mighty, great, exceeding. Why Hebrew words can have so many meanings is explained here.]
Of course some even today claim they have encounters with biblical personalities of long ago. They claim they have seances and the like. All of these are being deceived by the master of deception.
4. Ancient 18th Dynasty Egypt permitted marriages between brothers and sisters in conjunction with matrilineal succession based on historical facts [450].
5. The Kingdom of Egypt was inherited by the eldest daughter of pharaoh, who had to marry her own brother in order to continue the dynasty. Alan Gardiner states that Thutmose II is shown accompamied by Queen Ahmose, the widow of Thutmose I, and by her daughter the `king's great wife' Hashepsowe/Hatshepsut [460], but read on.
6. In the Hebrew society marriage between brother and sister was unlawful and a sin. (Gen. 12:13, 19; 20:2; Lev. 20:17; Deut. 27:22)
7. Egypt is surrounded on every side by desert and relatively poor desert dwellers. Only in the east-to-northerly direction was an industrious people of considerable economical interest to Egypt. [Click here for a discussion on Punt.]
8. It was of paramount importance for Israel and native Egyptians to overcome their Amalekite/Hyksos occupiers if they wanted once again be masters of their own destiny.
9. According to history books, Ahhotep (II) was the daughter of Ahmose I and his wife Ahmose-Nefertari. Amenophis I was her brother and husband.
10. Amenhotep I died without an heir but a baby mummy was found with insignia identifying the body as a child of Amenhotep I. [See: http://www.touregypt.net/who/Ahhotep2.htm]
11. The name of the wife of King Saul was Ahinoam [500], daughter of Ahimaaz [510] (1.Sam. 14:50), whom he married at the beginning of his reign and one of the places they lived in was a fortress at Beth-Shan. Their palace fortress was at Gibeah (Tel el Ful), just north of Jerusalem. Ahinoam bore Saul 3 sons, Jonathan, Ishui, Melchishua, and two daughters, Merab and Michal, 1.Sam. 14:49.
12. The Goliath incident happened about in the 27th year of King Saul, when David was in his mid teens. Jonathan was at this time already a grown man and Ahinoam, Saul's wife, must have been by that time ca. 43 years of age. At the death of King Saul she would be ca. 56 years old.
13. The Bible tells us the names of the wives of David, Ahinoam and Abigail (1.Sam. 25:40,43). Who was Ahinoam, ostensibly the second wife of David? If she was Ahinoam, the wife of King Saul, David married Ahinoam before the death of King Saul according to 1.Samuel 25:43. If David did not immediately marry Ahinoam in a marriage of succession but kept her until the death of Saul, she would have been a ca. 56 year old woman. Could she have born him a son (Amnon) at that age (2.Sam. 3:2)? Or should we assume that she was, lets say, nine years of age when she married Saul and so, would have been 49 at the time when David married her? While today it is rare, women at that age can at times still bear a child according to medical reports.[515] If Ahinoam, wife of David, was not the Ahinoam, the former wife of King Saul, it may remain a question if she could have been a daughter or other close family member of Saul's Ahinoam.


Ahinoam (means `pleasant brother', Young's Concordance) could be read according to Egyptian thought as `Ahhotep' were `hotep' means `pleasant' [See #8]. She had a son by the Egyptian name of `Amnon', David's eldest son (2.Sam. 3:2). When trying to marry Tamar, his sister, Amnon acted according to Egyptian customs. Amnon could also be read as Amon-On, referring to the Egyptian god Amon in the city of On (Genesis 41:45, 50; 46:20).

Question: If Ahimaaz was Pharaoh Ahmosis, why does the Bible never call Ahimaaz/Ahmose, father of Ahinoam, a pharaoh? Two reasons may perhaps explain this question:
1. A weaker reason may be this, 2.Chronicles 35:20 introduces Necho as "Necho, King of Egypt...". In Vers 22 we read simply, "... hearkened not unto the words of Necho from ...".
Of course we still know from Vers 20 that this Necho is a king, but not writing the title again does occur here in the Book of Chronicles.
2. Today we think of Ahmose as a Pharaoh, but according to our revision, he did not become king until within the last 2 years of King Saul's reign. We may not be far off in suggesting that it took some unknown time span for Ahmose to ascertain his kingship over his own people, much more so, to become known as king to other people like the Israelites.

14. Samuel ordered a ban not to take spoils from the Amalekites.[520]
15. Saul's breach of promise to David precipitated his ruin since his prospective son-in-law David had already been selected and anointed as king over Israel. (1.Sam. 16:13)
16. Although Saul had 3 sons and 2 daughters by Ahinoam (1.Sam. 14:49), conflict between Egyptian and Israelite laws prevented him from establishing his own dynasty.
17. Under the law of matrilineal succession, whoever married his firstborn daughter Merab would become Saul's successor according to Egyptian practices.
a) If Saul wanted one of his sons to succeed him, the son (Jonathan) would have to marry his sister or even his mother in an incestuous marriage which was not acceptable according to Israelite standards, Lev. 18:11,12; Deut. 27:22.
b) At first Saul promised to give his eldest daughter to David (1.Sam. 18:17).
c) When Saul realized that the prophets slated David to be the next king, he gave Merab to one named Adriel the Meholathite (1.Sam. 18:19).[523]
d) Consequently instead of marrying Merab, David married Saul's younger daughter Michal (1.Sam. 18:17-27).
e) This breach of promise became a reason for the downfall of Saul's reign, since David had already been selected as the prospective son-in-law and had been anointed to be the next king (1.Sam. 16:13) to succeed Saul after he died (1.Sam. 26:10).
f) By marrying Michal, David had no claim to the throne according to Egyptian standards which, however, would not have affected the opinion of faithful Israelite prophets.
g) Saul continued to try and kill David (1.Sam. 20:31) since he wanted Jonathan to be king - (who probably could speak Egyptian since he was the son of an Egyptian mother, and who probably understood Egyptian and Israelite laws better than his father and therefore knew that according to Israelite law he could not be king, (1.Sam. 23:17; Exodus 34:16; Deuteronomy 18:14-17) but be only David's closest friend, 1.Sam. 18:3; 20:16-42).
h) David's wife Michal loved him and her brother Jonathan, and helped David to escape out of a window of Saul's fortress palace to flee to the Philistines, 1.Sam. 19:12.
i) Although David could have killed Saul, he instead took his wife Achinoam away from Jezreel (located at Beth-Shan, at the junction of the Jordan and Jezreel valley), where the Israelites stayed (1.Sam. 29:1; 25:43).[530]

Assumption: The Achinoam whom David married was Achinoam, wife of Saul.
j) This was a give and take: If Saul gave away David's wife, David had reason to retaliate by taking Saul's wife.
k) After Saul's death, David got Michal back from her brother Ish-Boshet (2.Sam. 3:14-16) and kept Achinoam.
l) Saul was angry towards Jonathan because Saul realized that David would end up marrying his Egyptian wife Achinoam. He realized that the promiscuity of a matrilineal (Egyptian) society would make this possible and that David would not be beyond doing this for later he would not hesitate to take the life of a woman's husband to make her his own wife (2.Sam. 11:2-27).
m) These serious legal problems of international marriages between an Israelite with an Egyptian princess were foreseeable to the Hebrew prophets.[540]
n) Saul had also 2 sons by his concubine Rizpah, a daughter of Aiah, who, we assume, was the Amalekite/Hyksos king Agag/Apophis (`Aiah' being a Hebrew corruption of saying Agog). Their names were Armoni and Mephibosheth (2.Sam. 21:6-10 Egyptian sounding names[550]). At some point in time all the sons of Rizpah and Michal (Saul's daughters) were hanged.
o) According to Israelite law, since David had married the widow of Saul, he could be king. This is demonstrated in the case of Adonijah, who was executed for treason by Solomon, because he had tried to marry David's widow Abishag of Shunem (1.Kings 2:22-25). Similarly, Saul's son Ish-Boshet, who reigned as king for 2 years (2.Sam. 2:10), felt challenged by Abner's affair with his father's concubine Rizpah (2.Sam. 3:7-10), possibly a daughter of Agag (misspelled Aiah), the last Amalekite king defeated by Saul and executed by Samuel (1.Sam. 15:32, 33).
p) The clash between Egyptian and Israelite law became evident in the lives of Saul and David because of their own actions and that of their children.
q) On what basis prophesied Samuel that the kingdom would be taken away from Saul? (1.Sam. 15:28; 28:17) On the same basis that the prophet Achijah the Shilonite predicted that Solomon's kingdom would be taken away from him (1.Kings 11:11-13, 31-32), and Jeroboam would rule over 10 tribes. Samuel and Achijah were both talking about laws governing inheritance [570]. Saul, David and Solomon had married into a matrilineal society. In doing so they followed the example of Abraham who also had marital relations with an Egyptian woman, Hagar. (Genesis 16:1) However, these actions occurred as a consequence to lack of faith in Yehova's instructions and the later consequences bore out the severity disobedience brought about when he (Abraham) acted on his own impulses. Peoples behavior toward each other and faith or lack of it toward the Great I Am were, and still are, inseparable from God's claim on humanity. As King David later freely admitted it, "Only a fool says there is no God." (Psalm 14:1)
False charges leveled against the Innocent were used throughout history
r) Saul had represented David as a traitor and a conspirator, lying in wait to take the life of the king, that he might possess the kingdom himself. The king had represented the matter to the people in such a light that it seemed necessary to deprive David of his life, that the prosperity of Israel might be preserved (1.Sam. 18:8-11,29; 19:1, 9,10; 20:31,32; 23:8,9). - Saul was chasing David around in the wilderness seeking to take his life. Generally when someone is doing this they have a pretext for doing it because it is not going to look very good to the people and the nation. Pretexts of this nature seem usually to make sense so it will look good to the people and so Saul tried to set up David as a traitor and conspirator, saying that he was laying in wait to kill the king so that he could become the new king.
s) The Prophet Jeremiah had false charges leveled against him. - Tidings of the words of Jeremiah were carried to the princes of Judah, and they hastened from the palace of the king to the temple, to learn for themselves the truth of the matter. "Then spake the priests and the prophets unto the princes and to all the people, saying, This man is worthy to die; for he hath prophesied against this city, as ye have heard with your ears." Jer. 26:11. But Jeremiah stood boldly before the princes and the people, declaring: "The Lord sent me to prophesy against this house and against this city all the words that ye have heard. Therefore now amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the Lord your God; and the Lord will repent Him of the evil that He hath pronounced against you. As for me, behold, I am in your hand: do with me as seemeth good and meet unto you. But know ye for certain, that if ye put me to death, ye shall surely bring innocent blood upon yourselves, and upon this city, and upon the inhabitants thereof: for of a truth the Lord hath sent me unto you to speak all these words in your ears." Verses 12-15.
The elders also united in protesting against the decision of the priests regarding the fate of Jeremiah. They cited the case of Micah, who had prophesied judgments upon Jerusalem, saying,"Zion shall be plowed like a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest." And they asked: "Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him at all to death? did he not fear the Lord, and besought the Lord, and the Lord repented Him of the evil which He had pronounced against them? Thus might we procure great evil against our souls." Jeremiah 18,19. Through the pleading of these men of influence the prophet's life was spared, although many of the priests and false prophets, unable to endure the condemning truths he uttered, would gladly have seen him put to death on the plea of sedition. [See also the trial of Jesus and the false charges against him, Luke 23:2,5; and the apostles, Acts 17:7; 24:5. These types of charges were also used by Francis I., King of France, as the reason why he burned to death many Protestants in his country. As people interested in history we should take note of these things because such exact charges will be placed against innocent people, again and again, even in diverse places for they are inspired by Satan.

Thutmose I's Burial and His Descendants

Had archaeologists found beyond any shadow of doubt Thutmose I's body in Egypt then that fact would spell the end of this reconstruction, since David was buried in Jerusalem (1.Kings 2:10). Thus it is a relieve to learn that Thutmose I's (empty?) 'coffin' was later borrowed by Pinedjem I (about 2 centuries after David by my revision), and that this has caused confusion [600]: "It is obvious that Tuthmosis' body must have been separated from its coffin before Pinedjem was buried. This must cast serious doubt upon the mummy tentatively identified as that of Tuthmosis I …."

The whole conventional reconstruction of the life and death of Thutmose I starts to look like a series of uncertainties.

And, even regarding Thutmose I's progeny, one cannot be definitive due to a paucity of evidence. Thus Tyldesley [610]:

There is some confusion over the number of children actually born to Tuthmosis I and his consort, Queen Ahmose. We know of two daughters, Princess Hatshepsut and her sister Princess Akhbetneferu … who died in infancy.
We also have firm historical evidence that Tuthmosis I fathered two sons, the princes Wadjmose and Amenmose, and possibly a third son, Prince Ramose.

Thutmose I's sons, princes Wadjmose and Amenmose, are thought - on the basis of no concrete evidence - to have predeceased their father. That is certainly a Davidic trait, with one of the great king's sorrows having been the untimely deaths of several of his much-loved, but unruly sons. But Tyldesley thinks it even possible, based on chronological difficulties, that none of these three sons was in fact Queen Ahmose's [620]:

However, the apparent discrepancy in ages strongly suggests that Amenmose and Wadjmose, and perhaps the ephemeral Ramose, may not in fact have been the children of Ahmose but of an earlier [sic] wife, possibly the mysterious Lady Mutnofret who features alongside Wadjmose in his father's funerary chapel.

I suspect that this last interpretation is the correct one.

I suggest that Mutnofret was the same person as Hatnofer on the basis of the exchangeable names, the mother of Senenmut (Solomon), i.e., Beersheba. It is thought that Mutnofret was a concubine of pharaoh - a woman of secondary importance with respect to Ahmose - who was the mother of Thutmose II. The fact, however, may rather be that she herself was an important queen, Bathsheba, the grand-daughter of Ahithophel. This Bathsheba bore David four sons:

"And these were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shimea, Shobab, Nathan and Solomon, four, of Bathshua the daughter of Ammiel." 1.Chronicles 3:5

Amenmose as son of Mutnofret, commander of the army, may not have predeceased his father at all. His name Amenmose may simply be another name for (the equally interchangeable) name Thutmose [II], the pharaoh who would succeed Thutmose I and whose wife was the famous Hatshepsut, his half-sister.

II. Thutmose II and Hatshepsut

In previous revisions I have argued that Solomon was Senenmut who came to exercise so profound an influence in Hatshepsut's Egypt upon the death of her husband, Thutmose II. I have also followed Velikovsky's view that Hatshepsut was herself the biblical queen (Sheba) who visited Solomon in Jerusalem at the peak of his power and wisdom there. I have tried to place this visit into a context, by proposing that it was the occasion of Solomon's marriage to his Egyptian queen, whom I have identified with Neferure, daughter of Thutmose II and Hatshepsut[630]; the latter two being Solomon's parents-in-law. Neferure would have been only a child at the time, which I took to be a permissible situation within the structure of ancient royal planned marriages. I have since learned that Thutmose III himself married a child-bride, Meritre-Hatsheput [II], who became the mother of Amenhotep II.[632]

Where this new revision is leading is that Hatshepsut's husband and daughter, Generations from Saul through David at least, linked with Solomon by law, were in fact his relatives as well, all descendants of David (as Thutmose I). They may have had little or no Egyptian blood in them. Thutmose II was thus David's son, possibly through Bathsheba. Hatshepsut, who claimed to be the daughter of Thutmose I, may have been David's daughter through another wife, say Ahinoam, making her her husband's half-sister. Neferure would therefore be David's grand-daughter. Whilst Thutmose III, son of Thutmose II, would be a grandson of David.

All very complex, but also typical of the strong tendency that we have seen for Israelites to marry, not only into their own tribe, but also into their own family (e.g. Tobit's Naphtalians; Judith's Simeonites; now David's Judaeans).

Presuming that Hatshepsut was not telling fibs in claiming to be the daughter of Thutmose I - and certainly the Egyptians would have known if she were - then where is the mention of her in the Scriptures, as a daughter of David? Actually the Scriptures do not tell us much about David's daughters, only his sons. An exception is the unfortunate incident of the beautiful Tamar, sister of Absalom, who was raped by David's oldest son, Amnon, who later paid for it at the hand of Absalom, Amnon's half-brother (2.Samuel 13:1-33).

We learn of no daughter of David's who was in her youth - as Hatshepsut must have been - in the latter part of David's reign. One interesting girl is mentioned at the time, Abishag, but she is nowhere said to have been David's daughter; though she could legitimately claim from the context to have been his adopted daughter.

See later discussion on Egyptian's wide use of the term, "father."

But let's get back to the star attraction of this article: Hatshepsut. What were her beginnings?

The Origins of Abishag - Princess Hatshepsut

Here I am going to propose something entirely new. I am going to argue that Hatshepsut was the beautiful Abishag, who warmed the bed of king David in his old age (1.Kings 1:1-4). It may be interesting, in the context of Hatshepsut's being ever desirous of emphasizing her 'divine birth', that the name 'Abishag' (its meaning though disputed) may mean "The Divine Father" [640].

Her 'divine birth' may have been Hatshepsut's way of indicating that she was, like David, a child of God, and that God had (through the agency of her father) chosen her to be ruler. The typical interpretation of Hatshepsut's 'divine conception' as recorded on her Deir el-Bahri temple, may perhaps be inadequate, if not seen as symbolic. The Egyptian use of concrete imagery, e.g. the graphic image of Amen-Re having sexual intercourse with Hatshepsut's mother, may actually have been the only way that the Egyptian scribes were able to express the more abstract Israelite notion of divine election. Having located the start of the story of her conception in heaven, Hatshepsut then proceeds to tell how Amen-Re came to Queen Ahmose (Ah-hotep) in the guise of Thutmose I. The child, shaped by Khnum on the potter's wheel, was herself divine (we might say, heavenly) in appearance. Thus Joyce Tyldesley [650]:

"I will shape for thee thy daughter … I will make her appearance above the gods, because of her dignity as King of Upper and Lower Egypt". Such a description of heavenly beauty was certainly apt in the case of Abishag. And it may therefore also be applicable to Hatshepsut, who boasted of her goddess-like looks [660]:

Her Majesty grew beyond everything; to look upon her was more beautiful than anything; her form was like a god, she did everything as a god; Her Majesty was a maiden, beautiful, blooming, But in her time. She made her divine form to flourish, by favour of him that fashioned her.

Here is the first part of Abishag's biography, as narrated in 1.Kings 1:1-4:

King David was old and advanced in years; and although they covered him with clothes, he could not get warm. So his servants said to him, 'Let a young virgin be sought for my lord the king, and let her wait on the king, and be his attendant; let her lie in your bosom, so that the lord my king may be warm'. So they searched for a beautiful girl throughout all the territory of Israel, and found Abishag the Shunammite, and brought her to the king. The girl was very beautiful. She became the king's attendant and served him, but the king did not know her sexually.

Enyclopaedia Judaïca makes this important comment regarding David's young nurse:

"Some see in Abishag, who is described as "very fair" (1.Kings 1:4), the Shulammite of the Song of Songs (= Shunammite)". Now a Song of Songs connection here would be most significant, because we have already learned from Hyam Maccoby that the Songs' leading female was Hatshepsut/Sheba herself, also described as a Shunammite. Was Hatshepsut therefore the beautiful Abishag, who could at least be termed - as in the Song of Songs - Solomon's 'sister', due to her intimate connection with Solomon's father? Metzler writes [2060]: "… King Solomon refers to her in his Song of Songs (4:10 et passim) as Achoti Kallah"my sister, my spouse …". A fortiori Abishag would have been Solomon's 'sister' if she were in fact Hatshepsut (who we have determined to have been the daughter of David/Thutmose I). This leads to the question: Did the servants of the ageing David have to 'interview' every single appropriate girl in Israel for this duty of David's nurse, or did they confine their search only to princess daughters of David?

This last sounds the more reasonable.

Why was it necessary that the girl picked for this purpose be beautiful? According to Enyclopedia Judaïca[670], it was "in the hope that her fresh beauty would induce some warmth in the old man." E.J. also makes the important comment that [680]:"Some see in Abishag, who is described as "very fair" (1.Kings 1:4), the Shulammite of the Song of Songs (= Shunammite)." Did the servants of the ageing David have to 'interview' every single appropriate girl in Israel for this duty, or did they confine their search only to princesses? Abishag, hailing as she did from Shunem, may have been the daughter of 'Ahinoam the Jezreelite'; for Shunem and Jezreel face each other in northern Israel.

Whatever Abishag's origins, she appears to have made a huge impact on the palace at Jerusalem - especially if she were Solomon's beloved 'Shunammite'. And when Solomon's older brother Adonijah's overt play for the throne, not long before David's death, was foiled by David and Bathsheba, Adonijah tried a more subtle tack after David had died. He bade Bathsheba ask Solomon to give him Abishag for his wife, thus tying her up with the intrigue that surrounded the succession to the throne. In fact Abishag had been present when David had promised Bathsheba that her son Solomon would succeed him (1.Kings 1:15-31). Solomon was furious at this request from his older brother, assuming that such a marriage would in effect give Adonijah the throne, and so Solomon had him put to death (1.Kings 2:17, 22-25).

The youthful Abishag thus looms as a very powerful and important figure by now in the palace of Jerusalem; having been intimately connected with the great David, she was close to his successor, Solomon, and the powerful Bathsheba. Moreover, princes desired her. One wonders why Solomon did not marry her.

His claim, as Senenmut, to have been already close to Hatshepsut "from her youth" now makes perfect sense in this new context.

Abishag, hailing as she did from Shunem, may well have been the daughter of David's wife (taken from king Saul) 'Ahinoam the Jezreelite' (Shunem and Jezreel face each other in northern Israel), the daughter of pharaoh Ahmose. Abishag would thus have been a part-Egyptian, part-Israelite princess. Whatever Abishag's origins, she appears to have made a huge impact on the palace at Jerusalem - especially if she were Solomon's beloved 'Shunammite'. And after Solomon's older brother Adonijah had made his overt play for the throne - not long before David's death - but was foiled by David and Bathsheba, he then tried a more subtle tack after David had died. He bade Queen Bathsheba ask Solomon to give him Abishag for his wife, thus tying her up with the intrigue that surrounded the succession to the throne. In fact Abishag had been present when David had promised Bathsheba that her son Solomon would succeed him (1.Kings 1:15-31).

No doubt Solomon had fully expected that the girl would be his own wife.

Anyway, Solomon was livid at this request from his older brother, assuming that such a marriage would in effect give Adonijah the throne, and so Solomon had him put to death (1.Kings 2:17, 22-25).

The youthful Abishag therefore looms as a very powerful and important figure by now in the palace of Jerusalem; having been intimately connected with the great king David, she was close to his son/successor, Solomon, and the powerful queen, Bathsheba. Moreover, princes desired her. Correspondingly, Hatshepsut is considered to have passed from the harem of Thutmose I (our David) to that of Thutmose II (our Solomon). Thus Tyldesley [700]:

"On the death of her father the young Hatshepsut, possibly only twelve years old, emerged from the obscurity [sic] of the women's palace to marry her half-brother and become queen consort of Egypt."

Senenmut's (Solomon's) claim to have been already close to Hatshepsut "from her youth" now makes perfect sense in this new context. The couple, Solomon and Sheba, were both very young when joined in marriage before David's death. Despite their youth, they were both apparently made co-regent by David/Thutmose I. Hatshepsut greatly revered the founder of the Thutmosides [800]:

Throughout her reign, Hatshepsut sought to honour her earthly father, Tuthmosis I, in every possible way, while virtually ignoring the existence of her dead [sic] husband-brother, Tuthmosis II. …Tuthmosis I was Hatshepsut's reason to rule, not her motivation, as Egyptian tradition decreed that son should follow father on the throne. Given Hatshepsut's unusual circumstances, she needed to stress her links with her father more than most other kings. Therefore, in order to establish herself as her father's heir - and thereby justify her claim to the throne - Hatshepsut was forced to edit her own past [sic] so that her husband - brother, also a child of Tuthmosis I, disappeared from the scene and she became the sole Horus to her father's Osiris.

Perhaps the reason why Solomon did not take Abishag for his own was that David may have already selected her to be the wife of an older son of Bathsheba's, who would become pharaoh Thutmose II of Egypt. If so, this might go some way towards explaining the ceremony that Hatshepsut later claims to have undergone at the hands of Thutmose I. Hatshepsut claims even more; an apparent co-regency with Thutmose I himself!

We do not know much about the reign of Thutmose II, who may nonetheless have been more competent than he is given credit for. Hatshepsut does nothing to enlighten us, because - after his death - she focuses upon her revered father, Thutmose I. Also Senenmut comes into her life again at this point. As far as she was concerned, she had shared a co-regency with Thutmose I, though historians do not tend to believe her [900]:

…Hatshepsut herself chose to gloss over her periods as consort and regent [with Thutmose II], rewriting her own history so that she might invent a co-regency with Tuthmosis I, which, together with the emphasis which was now to be placed on the myth of the divine birth of kings, would 'prove', beyond doubt her absolute right to rule.

Her emphasis upon her 'divine birth' may have been Hatshepsut's way of indicating that she was, like David, a child of God, and that God had (through the agency of her father) chosen her to be ruler [910]: "Her filial relationship with Amen was always extremely important to Hatshepsut and throughout her reign she took every available opportunity to give due acknowledgement to her heavenly father …."

The typical interpretation of Hatshepsut's 'divine conception' as recorded on her Deir el-Bahri temple, may perhaps be inadequate, if not seen as symbolic. The Egyptian use of concrete imagery, e.g. the graphic image of Amen-Re having sexual intercourse with Hatshepsut's mother, may actually have been the only way that the Egyptian scribes were able to express the more abstract Israelite notion of divine election.

Having located the start of the story of her conception in heaven, Hatshepsut then proceeds to tell how Amen-Re came to Queen Ahmose in the guise of Thutmose I. Again, this may simply be the Egyptian way of telling that God had desired this conception (as for instance in the story of the conception of Samson, or Samuel).

It is interesting, in this context, that the name Abishag (its meaning somewhat disputed) is thought to mean "The Divine Father" [920].

The child, shaped by Khnum on the potter's wheel, was herself divine (we might say, heavenly) in appearance [930]: "I will shape for thee thy daughter … I will make her appearance above the gods, because of her dignity as King of Upper and Lower Egypt." Such a description of heavenly beauty was certainly apt in the case of Abishag. And it may therefore also be applicable to Hatshepsut, who boasted of her looks [940]:

Her Majesty grew beyond everything; to look upon her was more beautiful than anything; her form was like a god, she did everything as a god; Her Majesty was a maiden, beautiful, blooming, But in her time. She made her divine form to flourish, by favour of him that fashioned her.

Hatshepsut greatly revered the founder of the Thutmosides [950]:

Throughout her reign, Hatshepsut sought to honour her earthly father, Tuthmosis I, in every possible way, while virtually ignoring the existence of her dead husband-brother, Tuthmosis II.
…Tuthmosis I was Hatshepsut's reason to rule, not her motivation, as Egyptian tradition decreed that son should follow father on the throne. Given Hatshepsut's unusual circumstances, she needed to stress her links with her father more than most other kings.

Therefore, in order to establish herself as her father's heir - and thereby justify her claim to the throne - Hatshepsut was forced to edit her own past so that her husband - brother, also a child of Tuthmosis I, disappeared from the scene and she became the sole Horus to her father's Osiris. To this end she redesigned her father's tomb in the Valley of the Kings, emulated his habit of erecting obelisks, built him a new mortuary chapel associated with her own at Deir el-Bahri and allowed him prominence on many of her inscriptions.

Thutmose III shared this desire to honour the dead Thutmose I [960]:

Nor was Hatshepsut the only 18th Dynasty monarch to revere the memory of Tuthmosis I; Tuthmosis III also sought to link himself with the grandfather whom he almost certainly never met while virtually ignoring the existence of his own less impressive father. As a sign of respect Tuthmosis III, somewhat confusingly, occasionally refers to himself as the son rather than grandson of Tuthmosis I. Fortunately the autobiography of Ineni tells us that Tuthmosis II was succeeded by 'the son he had begotten', removing any doubt as to the actual paternity of Tuthmosis III. The terms 'father' and 'son' need not be taken literally in these circumstances; 'father' was often used by the ancient Egyptians as a respectful form of address for a variety of older men and could therefore be used in a reference to an adoptive father or stepfather, patron or even ancestor. That Tuthmosis I should be regarded as an heroic figure by his descendants is not too surprising. Not only had he proved himself a highly successful monarch, he was also the founder of the immediate royal family. His predecessor Amenhotep I, although officially classified as belonging to the same dynasty, was in fact no blood relation of either Hatshepsut or Tuthmosis III.

Second Conclusion

According to what has been determined here, the mighty Thutmoside dynasty was in reality a Davidic dynasty!

Illustrating the Family Ties between `The House of David' and the `Thutmoside Pharaohs of the 18th Dynasty in Egypt' according to research by Damien Mackey

What to Think of the New Israeli Archaeologists ala Israel Finkelstein?

This is all very fine and nice of course, having Davidic kings of Israel ruling mighty Egypt, but what of the fact that the current crop of archaeologists in Palestine, led by that 'doyen of Israeli archaeologists', Israel Finkelstein, are currently writing ancient Israel right out of the history books? And this includes the glorious era of David and Solomon. Though these archaeologists are compelled by some authentic inscriptions that refer to the "House of David" to give king David at least a certain degree of credibility - but only as a petty king ruling a tiny kingdom, during an impoverished era - Finkelstein and his colleague, Silberman, are still bold enough to ask this question [2000]:

Did David and Solomon Exist?

followed by their response:

This question, put so boldly, may sound intentionally provocative. David and Solomon are such central religious icons to both Judaism and Christianity that the recent assertions of radical biblical critics that King David is "no more a historical figure than King Arthur", have been greeted in many religious and scholarly circles with outrage and disdain. Biblical historians such as Thomas Thompson and Niels Peter Lemche of the University of Copenhagen and Philip Davies of the University of Sheffield, dubbed "biblical minimalists" by their detractors, have argued that David and Solomon, the united monarchy of Israel, and indeed the entire biblical description of the history of Israel are no more than elaborate, skillful ideological constructs produced by priestly circles in Jerusalem in post-exile or even Hellenic times.

What these two Israeli historians have described here is a classical example of what I referred to above as a current trend to write Israel out of the history books. And Israeli 'scholars' seem to be at the forefront of this. Finkelstein and Silberman though do not outright deny the existence of king David. They return several times in their book for instance to mention the Tel Dan evidence: "... in the summer of 1993, at the biblical site of Tel Dan in northern Israel, a fragmentary artifact was discovered that would change forever the nature of the debate. It was the "House of David" inscription". And they think that there may even be another reference to David in the Moabite stone:

Furthermore, the French scholar André Lemaire has recently suggested that a similar reference to the house of David can be found on the famous inscription of Mesha, king of Moab in the ninth century BCE, which was found in the nineteenth century east of the Dead Sea.

However, the Israeli co-authors look to find models, or patterns, for David and Solomon, not in the cosmopolitan and wealthy Late Bronze I-II era (David's and Solomon's proper archaeological location according to the revision), but in the impoverished late Judaean Iron Age history.

This is a testimony to the bankruptcy of the conventional chronology, which yields a dead-end stratigraphy at every point. The effort of Finkelstein and Silberman is hardly to be acclaimed, as one admiring compatriot does, as: "The boldest and most exhilarating synthesis of the Bible and archaeology for fifty years".

As Queen of Egypt and Her Visit to Jerusalem

Though I am only guessing here, I propose that, as Solomon's huge workforce - under the guidance of king Hiram of Tyre - got to work (corvée) to build the wonders of Solomonic Jerusalem that the mis-directed spades of the current crop of Israeli archaeologists are completely missing out on, Solomon sent his young bride to dwell at Thebes in Egypt. According to Metzler [2090]:

"While under construction by a work-force of 183,300 (1.Kings 5:27-30), Jerusalem was no place for a princess to live."

Solomon may even have lived there in Egypt with her for some of the time.

Though Solomon's youth was passed in the military, as befitted a son of David, and he was, like his father, a keen hunter (the young sons of Thutmose I hunted wild animals in the Giza desert near the Great Sphinx, a favourite playground of the royal princes), he (as Senenmut) was depicted by the Egyptian artists with fine, sensitive hands and plump cheeks. Solomon, a profound thinker, probably preferred to let others get involved in building work; though he would have maintained a keen interest in it all. His title as "chief architect" in Egypt, as Senenmut, is probably due to the fact that it was he who actually employed the Phoenician artisans (cf. Auguste Mariette, who noted a Phoenician influence also in Hatshepsut's architecture) who would design Hatshepsut's own temple and chapels.

Hatshepsut ruled Egypt as the step-mother and guardian of young Tuthmosis III, Solomon's son by the concubine, Isis. For this period, she was known as "Queen", not "Pharaoh."

Solomon would have remained in Jerusalem at least as the work neared its completion; back there to receive his Egyptian wife when she returned to see, with her own eyes, what so far she had only heard about from messengers. The Bible presents Queen Sheba's visit to Jerusalem, and her encounter with Solomon, as if it were her first time. But it wasn't. The city of Jerusalem however was now nothing like she had remembered it. She drank it all in with amazement and determined that she must have the same for Egypt. And Solomon was never one to refuse her.

The young Thutmose III who accompanied Queen Hatshepsut to Jerusalem also took it all in. Five years after Solomon's death, he would return there with a conquering army, and sack the golden Temple and Solomon's palace. He is the biblical pharaoh Shishak, the name taken from Thutmose III's Horus name, Tcheser-kau ['Chase a Cow']. Ironically, today, most of the wealth and glory of Solomon's Jerusalem is to be found in Egypt, depicted on the walls and tombs of Thutmose III and his generals.

While the Bible may not give the impression that the Queen tarried long in Jerusalem, but simply came, saw and conquered (and was conquered by Solomon in his might and wisdom), and then returned home, Metzler thinks that she may have stayed there for about a decade.

But the Jews at the time apparently did not want the Egyptian queen, Hatshepsut/Sheba, living in the same royal palace with Solomon in the environs of the sacred Ark of the Covenant (2 Chronicles 8:11).

So Solomon moved her to a new location.

Rohl describes what he believes to be the compound that king Solomon had built for her, "beside the road to Shechem (now called the Nablus road) to the north of the City of David and Mount Moriah" [2100]:

The surviving vestiges of the Egyptian compound, with its royal residence and tombs, has been unearthed in the area of St. Etienne [Stephen's] monastery, the Anglican 'Garden Tomb' and the German convent school, just to the north of the Damascus Gate. Numerous artefacts have been found including a serpentine statuette, alabaster vases (late 18th Dynasty), a limestone funerary stela (depicting the deceased offering flowers to the god Seth), a hotep-style offering table; at least two palmiform column capitals, a scarab (bearing the motif of a khepri-beetle raising the sun-disc within crescent moon), faience rosettes (probably used to adorn a funeral canopy), and a faience ushabti figurine. All this points to the burial of an Egyptian of high status in the area - and just such a tomb has been identified by Professor Gabriel Barkay of Tel Aviv University. The rock-cut rooms are all scaled to the Egyptian royal cubit and the main, inner-most burial chamber contains three rock-cut sarcophagi (as opposed to the table-type burial installations generally found elsewhere in Jerusalem).[2110]

Though Hatshepsut's pharaonic husband, Thutmose II, is a somewhat obscure character, we can greatly supplement him with his alter ego, the very well known Senenmut. Hatshepsut's honouring of Senenmut gives the lie to the view that she has virtually nothing to say about her husband, focusing rather upon her revered father, Thutmose I. As far as she was concerned, she had shared a co-regency with Thutmose I, though historians do not tend to believe her - perhaps at their peril.

Her Separation from Solomon

Metzler has suggested that the biblical phrase "she [Sheba] turned" (to go back home) indicates 'divorce' (Latin divortium, from divertere, "to turn away") [2120]. What I suggest may have happened was that Solomon had kept Hatshepsut/Sheba there in Jerusalem along with Thutmose III for however long it took for the latter to be of an age to marry her, and that he then sent the couple back to Egypt to rule there. If I am correct, then Hatshepsut would therefore be the obscure Hatshepsut II so-called, who was to become the mother of Amenhotep II, eventual successor to the long-reigning Thutmose III.

Thus Sheba/Hatshepsut passed from the harem of Thutmose I, to that of Thutmose II, to that of Thutmose III.

Hatshepsut as Pharaoh

Hatshepsut, surprisingly to all, became Pharaoh. The famous expedition to Punt that she would later organize as Pharaoh was primarily to acquire myrrh trees from Lebanon - [one of the favourite places of Solomon and the Shunammite, as young lovers, appears to have been the myrrh-terraces or "mountains of myrrh" of Lebanon (e.g. Song of Songs 4:6)] - in order to provide fragrant incense for her shining new temple ('Splendour of Splendours') at Deir el-Bahri. This magnificent female, descendant of king David, had risen from obscurity in northern Israel, even though a royal princess, to become the close companion of successive kings of Israel (and wife of one) who also ruled Egypt.

Hatshepsut's dramatic rise to power was complete when she claimed the title of Pharaoh of Egypt.

The Death of Solomon

According to my reconstruction, Solomon/Thutmose II would have died about Year 18 of the reign of Hatshepsut/Sheba and Thutmose III. But according to Egyptology (and this is why I was formerly loathe to accept Metzler's view that Solomon was Thutmose II), Thutmose II died a sickly person in his early 30's, after a sole reign of from 10-14 years. Tyldesley though has cautiously noted [2130]:

…nothing in Egyptology can ever be taken for granted, and it is by no means one hundred per cent certain that the body of a man in his early thirties found associated with the wooden coffin of Tuthmosis II is actually that of the young [sic] king. The body and coffin were discovered not lying in their original tomb but as part of a collection of New Kingdom royal mummies which is now known as the Deir el-Bahri cache.

The Death of Hatshepsut

Hatshepsut's mummy has never been found in Egypt. Was Hatshepsut actually buried there, or was she buried in that compound described above, north of Jerusalem, that Rohl thinks is the one king Solomon had set up for her in Israel?



The Last Years of King David

The overthrow of Absalom did not at once bring peace to the kingdom. So large a part of the nation had joined in revolt that David would not return to his capital and resume his authority without an invitation from the tribes. In the confusion that followed Absalom's defeat there was no prompt and decided action to recall the king, and when at last Judah undertook to bring back David, the jealousy of the other tribes was roused, and a counter-revolution followed. This, however, was speedily quelled, and peace returned to Israel.

The history of David affords one of the most impressive testimonies ever given to the dangers that threaten the soul from power and riches and worldly honor--those things that are most eagerly desired among men. Few have ever passed through an experience better adapted to prepare them for enduring such a test. David's early life as a shepherd, with its lessons of humility, of patient toil, and of tender care for his flocks; the communion with nature in the solitude of the hills, developing his genius for music and poetry, and directing his thoughts to the Creator; the long discipline of his wilderness life, calling into exercise courage, fortitude, patience, and faith in God, had been appointed by the Lord as a preparation for the throne of Israel. David had enjoyed precious experiences of the love of God, and had been richly endowed with His Spirit; in the history of Saul he had seen the utter worthlessness of mere human wisdom. And yet worldly success and honor so weakened the character of David that he was repeatedly overcome by the tempter.

Intercourse with heathen peoples led to a desire to follow their national customs and kindled ambition for worldly greatness. As the people of Jehovah, Israel was to be honored; but as pride and self-confidence increased, the Israelites were not content with this pre-eminence. They cared rather for their standing among other nations. This spirit could not fail to invite temptation. With a view to extending his conquests among foreign nations, David determined to increase his army by requiring military service from all who were of proper age. To effect this, it became necessary to take a census of the population. It was pride and ambition that prompted this action of the king. The numbering of the people would show the contrast between the weakness of the kingdom when David ascended the throne and its strength and prosperity under his rule. This would tend still further to foster the already too great self-confidence of both king and people. The Scripture says, "Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel." The prosperity of Israel under David had been due to the blessing of God rather than to the ability of her king or the strength of her armies. But the increasing of the military resources of the kingdom would give the impression to surrounding nations that Israel's trust was in her armies, and not in the power of Jehovah.

Though the people of Israel were proud of their national greatness, they did not look with favor upon David's plan for so greatly extending the military service. The proposed enrollment caused much dissatisfaction; consequently it was thought necessary to employ the military officers in place of the priests and magistrates, who had formerly taken the census. The object of the undertaking was directly contrary to the principles of a theocracy. Even Joab remonstrated, unscrupulous as he had heretofore shown himself. He said, "The Lord make His people a hundred times so many more as they be: but, my lord the king, are they not all my lord's servants? why then doth my lord require this thing? why will he be a cause of trespass to Israel? Nevertheless the king's word prevailed against Joab. Wherefore Joab departed, and went throughout all Israel, and came to Jerusalem." The numbering was not finished when David was convicted of his sin. Self-condemned, he "said unto God, I have sinned greatly, because I have done this thing: but now, I beseech Thee, do away the iniquity of Thy servant; for I have done very foolishly." The next morning a message was brought to David by the prophet Gad: "Thus saith the Lord, Choose thee either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the Lord, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the Lord destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel. Now therefore," said the prophet, "advise thyself what word I shall bring again to Him that sent me."

The king's answer was, "I am in a great strait: let us fall now into the hand of the Lord; for His mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hand of man."

The land was smitten with pestilence, which destroyed seventy thousand in Israel. The scourge had not yet entered the capital, when "David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of the Lord stand between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders of Israel, who were clothed in sackcloth, fell upon their faces." The king pleaded with God in behalf of Israel: "Is it not I that commanded the people to be numbered? even I it is that have sinned and done evil indeed; but as for these sheep, what have they done? let Thine hand, I pray Thee, O Lord my God, be on me, and on my father's house; but not on Thy people, that they should be plagued."

The taking of the census had caused disaffection among the people; yet they had themselves cherished the same sins that prompted David's action. As the Lord through Absalom's sin visited judgment upon David, so through David's error He punished the sins of Israel.

The destroying angel had stayed his course outside Jerusalem. He stood upon Mount Moriah,"in the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite." Directed by the prophet, David went to the mountain, and there built an altar to the Lord, "and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings, and called upon the Lord; and He answered him from heaven by fire upon the altar of burnt offering." "So the Lord was entreated for the land, and the plague was stayed from Israel."

The spot upon which the altar was erected, henceforth ever to be regarded as holy ground, was tendered to the king by Ornan as a gift. But the king declined thus to receive it. "I will verily buy it for the full price," he said; "for I will not take that which is thine for the Lord, nor offer burnt offerings without cost. So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight." This spot, memorable as the place where Abraham had built the altar to offer up his son, and now hallowed by this great deliverance, was afterward chosen as the site of the temple erected by Solomon.

Still another shadow was to gather over the last years of David. He had reached the age of threescore and ten. The hardships and exposures of his early wanderings, his many wars, the cares and afflictions of his later years, had sapped the fountain of life. Though his mind retained its clearness and strength, feebleness and age, with their desire for seclusion, prevented a quick apprehension of what was passing in the kingdom, and again rebellion sprang up in the very shadow of the throne. Again the fruit of David's parental indulgence was manifest. The one who now aspired to the throne was Adonijah, "a very goodly man" in person and bearing, but unprincipled and reckless. In his youth he had been subjected to but little restraint; for "his father had not displeased him at any time in saying, Why hast thou done so?" He now rebelled against the authority of God, who had appointed Solomon to the throne. Both by natural endowments and religious character Solomon was better qualified than his elder brother to become ruler of Israel; yet although the choice of God had been clearly indicated, Adonijah did not fail to find sympathizers. Joab, though guilty of many crimes, had heretofore been loyal to the throne; but he now joined the conspiracy against Solomon, as did also Abiathar the priest.

The rebellion was ripe; the conspirators had assembled at a great feast just without the city to proclaim Adonijah king, when their plans were thwarted by the prompt action of a few faithful persons, chief among whom were Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, and Bathsheba the mother of Solomon. They represented the state of affairs to the king, reminding him of the divine direction that Solomon should succeed to the throne. David at once abdicated in favor of Solomon, who was immediately anointed and proclaimed king. The conspiracy was crushed. Its chief actors had incurred the penalty of death. Abiathar's life was spared, out of respect to his office and his former fidelity to David; but he was degraded from the office of high priest, which passed to the line of Zadok. Joab and Adonijah were spared for the time, but after the death of David they suffered the penalty of their crime. The execution of the sentence upon the son of David completed the fourfold judgment that testified to God's abhorrence of the father's sin.

From the very opening of David's reign one of his most cherished plans had been that of erecting a temple to the Lord. Though he had not been permitted to execute this design, he had manifested no less zeal and earnestness in its behalf. He had provided an abundance of the most costly material--gold, silver, onyx stones, and stones of divers colors; marble, and the most precious woods. And now these valuable treasures that he had collected must be committed to others; for other hands must build the house for the ark, the symbol of God's presence.

Seeing that his end was near, the king summoned the princes of Israel, with representative men from all parts of the kingdom, to receive this legacy in trust. He desired to commit to them his dying charge and secure their concurrence and support in the great work to be accomplished. Because of his physical weakness, it had not been expected that he would attend to this transfer in person; but the inspiration of God came upon him, and with more than his wonted fervor and power, he was able, for the last time, to address his people. He told them of his own desire to build the temple, and of the Lord's command that the work should be committed to Solomon his son. The divine assurance was, "Solomon thy son, he shall build My house and My courts; for I have chosen him to be My son, and I will be his Father. Moreover I will establish his kingdom forever, if he be constant to do My commandments and My judgments, as at this day." "Now therefore," David said, "in the sight of all Israel the congregation of the Lord, and in the audience of our God, keep and seek for all the commandments of the Lord your God: that ye may possess this good land, and leave it for an inheritance for your children after you forever."

David had learned by his own experience how hard is the path of him who departs from God. He had felt the condemnation of the broken law, and had reaped the fruits of transgression; and his whole soul was moved with solicitude that the leaders of Israel should be true to God, and that Solomon should obey God's law, shunning the sins that had weakened his father's authority, embittered his life, and dishonored God. David knew that it would require humility of heart, a constant trust in God, and unceasing watchfulness to withstand the temptations that would surely beset Solomon in his exalted station; for such prominent characters are a special mark for the shafts of Satan. Turning to his son, already acknowledged as his successor on the throne, David said: "And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve Him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the Lord searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek Him, He will be found of thee; but if thou forsake Him, He will cast thee off forever. Take heed now; for the Lord hath chosen thee to build a house for the sanctuary: be strong, and do it."

David gave Solomon minute directions for building the temple, with patterns of every part, and of all its instruments of service, as had been revealed to him by divine inspiration. Solomon was still young, and shrank from the weighty responsibilities that would devolve upon him in the erection of the temple and in the government of God's people. David said to his son, "Be strong and of good courage, and do it: fear not, nor be dismayed, for the Lord God, even my God, will be with thee; He will not fail thee, nor forsake thee."

Again David appealed to the congregation: "Solomon my son, whom alone God hath chosen, is yet young and tender, and the work is great: for the palace is not for man, but for the Lord God." He said, "I have prepared with all my might for the house of my God," and he went on to enumerate the materials he had gathered. More than this, he said, "I have set my affection to the house of my God, I have of mine own proper good, of gold and silver, which I have given to the house of my God, over and above all that I have prepared for the holy house, even three thousand talents of gold, of the gold of Ophir, and seven thousand talents of refined silver, to overlay the walls of the houses withal." "Who then," he asked of the assembled multitude that had brought their liberal gifts - "who then is willing to consecrate his service this day unto the Lord?"

There was a ready response from the assembly. "The chief of the fathers and princes of the tribes of Israel, and the captains of thousands and of hundreds, with the rulers of the king's work, offered willingly, and gave, for the service of the house of God, of gold five thousand talents and ten thousand drams, and of silver ten thousand talents, and of brass eighteen thousand talents, and one hundred thousand talents of iron. And they with whom precious stones were found gave them to the treasure of the house of the Lord. . . . Then the people rejoiced, for that they offered willingly, because with perfect heart they offered willingly to the Lord: and David the king also rejoiced with great joy.

"Wherefore David blessed the Lord before all the congregation: and David said, Blessed be Thou, Lord God of Israel our father, forever and ever. Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is Thine; Thine is the kingdom, O Lord, and Thou art exalted as head above all. Both riches and honor come of Thee, and Thou reignest over all; and in Thine hand is power and might; and in Thine hand it is to make great, and to give strength unto all. Now therefore, our God, we thank Thee, and praise Thy glorious name. But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly after this sort? for all things come of Thee, and of Thine own have we given Thee. For we are strangers before Thee, and sojourners, as were all our fathers: our days on the earth are as a shadow, and there is none abiding. O Lord our God, all this store that we have prepared to build Thee an house for Thine holy name cometh of Thine hand, and is all Thine own. I know also, my God, that Thou triest the heart, and hast pleasure in uprightness.

"As for me, in the uprightness of mine heart I have willingly offered all these things: and now have I seen with joy Thy people, which are present here, to offer willingly unto Thee. O Lord God of Abraham, Isaac and of Israel, our fathers, keep this forever in the imagination of the thoughts of the heart of Thy people, and prepare their heart unto Thee: and give unto Solomon my son a perfect heart, to keep Thy commandments, Thy testimonies, and Thy statutes, and to do all these things, and to build the palace, for the which I have made provision. And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the Lord your God. And all the congregation blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshiped the Lord."

With deepest interest the king had gathered the rich material for building and beautifying the temple. He had composed the glorious anthems that in afteryears should echo through its courts. Now his heart was made glad in God, as the chief of the fathers and the princes of Israel so nobly responded to his appeal, and offered themselves to the important work before them. And as they gave their service, they were disposed to do more. They swelled the offerings, giving of their own possessions into the treasury. David had felt deeply his own unworthiness in gathering the material for the house of God, and the expression of loyalty in the ready response of the nobles of his kingdom, as with willing hearts they dedicated their treasures to Jehovah and devoted themselves to His service, filled him with joy. But it was God alone who had imparted this disposition to His people. He, not man, must be glorified. It was He who had provided the people with the riches of earth, and His Spirit had made them willing to bring their precious things for the temple. It was all of the Lord; if His love had not moved upon the hearts of the people, the king's efforts would have been vain, and the temple would never have been erected.

All that man receives of God's bounty still belongs to God. Whatever God has bestowed in the valuable and beautiful things of earth is placed in the hands of men to test them--to sound the depths of their love for Him and their appreciation of His favors. Whether it be the treasures of wealth or of intellect, they are to be laid, a willing offering, at the feet of Jesus; the giver saying, meanwhile, with David, "All things come of Thee, and of Thine own have we given Thee."

When he felt that death was approaching, the burden of David's heart was still for Solomon and for the kingdom of Israel, whose prosperity must so largely depend upon the fidelity of her king. "And he charged Solomon his son, saying, I go the way of all the earth: be thou strong therefore, and show thyself a man; and keep the charge of the Lord thy God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, and His commandments, and His judgments, and His testimonies, . . . that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself: that the Lord may continue His word which He spake concerning me, saying, If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail thee (said He) a man on the throne of Israel." 1 Kings 2:1-4.

David's "last words," as recorded, are a song--a song of trust, of loftiest principle, and undying faith:

"David the son of Jesse saith,
And the man who was raised on high saith,
The anointed of the God of Jacob,
And the sweet psalmist of Israel:
The Spirit of Jehovah spake by me: . . .
One that ruleth over men righteously,
That ruleth in the fear of God,
He shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun riseth,
A morning without clouds;
When the tender grass springeth out of the earth,
Through clear shining after rain.
Verily my house is not so with God;
Yet He hath made me an everlasting covenant,
Ordered in all things, and sure:
For it is all my salvation, and all my desire."
2 Samuel 23:1-5, R.V.

Great had been David's fall, but deep was his repentance, ardent was his love, and strong his faith. He had been forgiven much, and therefore he loved much. Luke 7:47.

The psalms of David pass through the whole range of experience, from the depths of conscious guilt and self-condemnation to the loftiest faith and the most exalted communing with God. His life record declares that sin can bring only shame and woe, but that God's love and mercy can reach to the deepest depths, that faith will lift up the repenting soul to share the adoption of the sons of God. Of all the assurances which His word contains, it is one of the strongest testimonies to the faithfulness, the justice, and the covenant mercy of God.

Man "fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not," "but the word of our God shall stand forever." "The mercy of Jehovah is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear Him, and His righteousness unto children's children; to such as keep His covenant, and to those that remember His commandments to do them." Job 14:2; Isaiah 40:8; Psalm 103:17, 18.

"Whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever." Ecclesiastes 3:14.

Glorious are the promises made to David and his house, promises that look forward to the eternal ages, and find their complete fulfillment in Christ. The Lord declared:

"I have sworn unto David My servant . . . with whom My hand shall be established: Mine arm also shall strengthen him. . . . My faithfulness and My mercy shall be with him: and in My name shall his horn be exalted. I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers. He shall cry unto Me, Thou art my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation. Also I will make him My first-born, higher than the kings of the earth. My mercy will I keep for him forevermore, and My covenant shall stand fast with him." Psalm 89:3-28.

"His seed also will I make to endure forever,
And his throne as the days of heaven." Psalm 89:29.

"He shall judge the poor of the people,
He shall save the children of the needy,
And shall break in pieces the oppressor.
They shall fear thee while the sun endureth,
And so long as the moon, throughout all generations. . . .
In his days shall the righteous flourish;
And abundance of peace, till the moon be no more.
He shall have dominion also from sea to sea,
And from the river unto the ends of the earth."
"His name shall endure forever:
His name shall be continued as long as the sun:
And men shall be blessed in him:
All nations shall call him blessed."
Psalm 72:4-8, R.V., 17.

"For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David: and He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of His kingdom there shall be no end." Isaiah 9:6; Luke 1:32, 33.
[EG White, Patriarchs and Prophets, Chapter 73. Ch. 7, 11, 51, 59,]



Notes and references

[5] See BAR, Jeffrey R. Chedwick, Discovering Hebron, Sept. 2005, Vol. 31, No. 5, p. 25-33, 70,71. Images show the monastery, what is described as the MB II gate and tower, and underneath the EB III wall. Objects found in burials included a wide blade dagger with a limestone pommel, a jugglet, a red clay carinated (angled) bowl. From a 1966 dig is shown a scarab of Ramses II with his prenomen, his 4th name, User Ma'at Ra Setep N Ra, also LB age paint decorated sherds, a picture of the 1960 excavator Philip Hammond examining IA four room house, and a Hebrew stamp on an 8th cent. storage jar from the time of King Hezekiah. The name `Hebron' occurs 68 times in the Bible from Genesis 13:18 to 2.Chronicles 11:10. That seems to indicate that its former significance diminished with time in the eyes of the authors of the Bible.
[10] Those interested could read, for instance, G. Roux's Iraq (Penguin Books, 1992), chapters 12, 13.
[20] CAH , Vol. II, pt.1 (3rd ed.), 20.
[28] How does 1.Kings 11:19 read in the English? "And Hadad found great favor in the sight of Pharaoh, so that he gave him to wife the sister of his own wife, the sister of Tahpenes the queen." . . . and in the Septuagint? "Kai euren Ader xarin enantion Pharao sphodra, kai edwken autw gunaika adelphon tes gunaikos eotou, adelphen Tekeminas ten maixw." Reignorum III, 11:19. - It appears the Greek name here is given by how the name was pronounced by sound and not letter for letter. Apparently in the old Egyptian `hp' or `ph' sounded to them like a `k', so that `Tahpenes the queen' sounded to them like `tekeminas'.
[30] Ages in Chaos I , London (Sidgwick & Jackson Ltd., 1953), 80, 157-158.
[32] The Weak Strongman Joab: The life of Joab shows a man involved in power politics, intrigue, misguided loyalties, double-dealing, jealousy and stubborness. In his days survival is not guaranteed by a strong central administration and a comprehensive retirement plan. It is, during his time as David's strongman, that Israel becomes a nation. After the clan feuds and tribal rivalry that characterized the period of the judges, it is the figure of the king (Saul, David, Solomon) that unites Israel, even though the mentality of clan thinking will last on for several more decades. Even though Joab, linked to David's family (1.Chr. 2:13-17), had the responsibility of being in charge of David's troops, his character comes first out in 2.Sam. 2, he ends up murdering Abner, the general of King Saul. To avoid future reprisals Joab ingratiates himself as closely as possible with David to make himself indispensable. His primary goal seems to be to do what is best for himself rather than doing the right thing, thus he violates his conscience. Once a person violates his conscience, the good voice inside becomes duller and duller and such a one is eventually unable to stand up for what is right. Joab understood about God's great love toward the sinner (2.Sam. 14, woman of Tekoah incident). [**] His theology was correct but it remained head knowledge only. His later life shows Joab to be revengeful, unforgiving and immune to God's love. Religion, for him, seems to be something to apply toward political ends, to promote self. Having taken God in heaven out of the equation of what goes on on earth, Joab thinks he can always live as he pleases and escape the consequences. He forgets that God cannot be fooled, 1.Kings 2:28-35. Even though retribution may no come immediately, it will come one day - if not in this life, then in the final judgment. However, often at the end of the day in this life, "a man reaps what he sows." Galatians 6:7, NIV. -- However scheming, ambitious, and deceitful Joab was, everything he did could have been forgiven by the Lord had Joab come to God in faith, humility, and repentance. That we ourselves should never forget.
** God's Great Love: Nature and revelation alike testify of God's love. The God in heaven is the source of life, of wisdom, and of joy. Look at the wonderful and beautiful things of nature. Think of their marvelous adaptation to the needs and happiness, not only of man, but of all living creatures. The sunshine and the rain, that gladden and refresh the earth, the hills and seas and plains, all speak to us of the Creator's love. It is God who supplies the daily needs of all His creatures. In the beautiful words expressed by David, "The eyes of all wait upon Thee; And Thou givest them their meat in due season. Thou openest Thine hand, And satisfiest the desire of every living thing." Psalm 145:15,16. - Originally God made man perfectly holy and happy; and the fair earth, as it came from the Creator's hand, bore no blight of decay or shadow of the curse. It is transgression of God's law--the law of love--that has brought woe and death. Yet even amid the suffering that results from sin, God's love is revealed. It is written that God cursed the ground for man's sake. Genesis 3:17. The thorn and the thistle--the difficulties and trials that make his life one of toil and care--were appointed for his good as a part of the training needful in God's plan for his uplifting from the ruin and degradation that sin has wrought. The world, though fallen, is not all sorrow and misery. In nature itself are messages of hope and comfort. There are flowers upon the thistles, and the thorns are covered with roses. - - "God is love" is written upon every opening bud, upon every spire of springing grass. The lovely birds making the air vocal with their happy songs, the delicately tinted flowers in their perfection perfuming the air, the lofty trees of the forest with their rich foliage of living green -- all testify to the tender, fatherly care of our God and to His desire to make His children happy. The word of God reveals His character. He Himself has declared His infinite love and pity. When Moses prayed, "Show me Thy glory," the Lord answered, "I will make all My goodness pass before thee." Exodus 33:18, 19. This is His glory. The Lord passed before Moses, and proclaimed, "The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin." Exodus 34:6, 7. He is "slow to anger, and of great kindness," "because He delighteth in mercy." Jonah 4:2; Micah 7:18. -- It was Satan who led men to conceive of God as a being whose chief attribute is stern justice,--one who is a severe judge, a harsh, exacting creditor. He pictured the Creator as a being who is watching with jealous eye to discern the errors and mistakes of men, that He may visit judgments upon them. It was to remove this dark shadow, by revealing to the world the infinite love of God, that Jesus came to live among men.
[40] Baikie, J., A History of Egypt (A & C Black, Ltd. London, 1929), p. 63. See also the `Temple Scroll', column 56 through 59 which presents the rights and duties of the king od Israel. In column 56 which follows closely Deut. 17:14-16, we read: "He must not multiply horses for himself, or cause the people to return to Egypt, for war ... since I have said to you, you shall never return this way again." Other `Statutes of the King' described are the king's duties to organize an army and appoint officers, laws concerning conscription and taking booty during war, the king's marriage, the judicial council and the king's obligation to heed it, and more. Compare 1.Sam. 10:25.
[50] Breasted, Records, Vol. II, Sec. 236, p. 96. While the translation used by Breasted mentions Thutmose I's `companions', this may not be far off of a Hebrew parallel where the King's `friend' is mentioned.
[60] Ibid., Sec. 237.
[70] Ibid., Sec. 236 (last part) & Sec. 238.
[80] Baikie, J., A History of Egypt (A & C Black, Ltd. London, 1929), continued.
[90] Ibid., Baikie.
[95] Not only was poetry of Israel read in Egypt and vice versa, the very genre of epic poems praising the deeds of God or traditional heroes in a dignified manner seems to have been first used by Israelite poets like David and Solomon, long before Greek alter egos of Hebrew personalities borrowed their patterns, even content and heroes. [Examples: Exodus 15:19-21 Song of Miriam; Psalm 114;136;137; Isaiah 26; Habakuk 3.]
[100] The Jerome Biblical Commentary, New Jersey (Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968), 9:54.
[110] Joyce Tyldesley,`Hatchepsut the Female Pharaoh (JTH)', (Penguin Books, 1998), 106-107. For a detail image of the `Royal Barge' see KMT, Summer 1996, Vol. 7, p. 49; for the complete image see Ancient Egypt, Feb/Mar 2005, p. 29. For images of the `Red Chapel' see KMT, Summer, 1999, Vol. 10, p. 32f; KMT, Spring 2003, Vol. 14, p. 24; and KMT, Spring 2004, Vol. 15, p/ 19-33.
For drawings of the two types of solar barques of Ramses IX. see N. Reeves, The Complete Valley of the Kings, London, 1997, p. 47. On p. 100 the author mentions three large funerary barques in the tomb (KV 35) of Amenophis II with the body of a mummy in one of the boats, p. 198. None of these `barques' are alike.
[115] a) The `barque'of Queen Hatshepsut topped by the shrine of Amun and carried by 9 men can be seen in Andrew Hamilton, The Opet Festival in Ancient Egypt, Feb/Mar 2005, p. 29. b) See also Peter F. Dorman, `The Monuments of Senenmut', New York, 1988, `The Date of Hatshepsut's Priscription', p. 46-65. c) The `barque' of Tutankhamen is shown and discussed in Andy Joose, Tutankhamen's Perplexing Calcite Barque in KMT, Spring, 2005, p. 35-39. The author references a number of Egyptologists comments about the barque none of which offer a logical explanation but then discusses the not matching border decoration.
[120] But Metzler may well be right that David was the "pharaoh" just referred to, because I have since read that some noted biblical historians (Martin Noth, Hist. 216; Albright, ARI 136, n. 29; AASOR 12, 74-75) have concluded that David must have in fact sacked the city of Gezer.
[123] Archaeologists argue that Gezer was destroyed by Shishak (ca. 918). See William G. Dever, The Date of the `Outer Wall' at Gezer in BASOR, Feb. 1993, p. 33-(35)-54. At CIAS we hold that King David (ca. 1012-972 BC) destroyed Gezer.
[130] Abraham Malamat, `Das davidische und salomonische Königreich und seine Beziehungen zu Ägypten und Syrien', Zur Entstehung eines Großreichs, (Wien 1983) pp. 22 and 24. See also BA, Vol. XXI, Dec. 1958, p. 96-104.
However, The Jerome Biblical Commentary 10:23 (1968, Commentary on 1.Kings by P. Ellis) provides the following most interesting piece of information, authoritatively supported by conventional historians, that is very much compatible with the reconstruction aimed at by Metzler (though conventionally presuming the "pharaoh" in question to have been the 21st dynasty's "Psousennes [Psusennes] II"):
"Gezer is west of Jerusalem on the hills above the maritime plain, well situated as a western defence for Israel. It is difficult to see (v. 16) how Pharaoh, probably Psousennes II, would have had to conquer it, because presumably David had done so before him (cf. Noth, Hist. 216; Albright, ARI, 136, n. 29; AASOR 12, 74-75)."
[140] JTH, Ibid., 62. See also Peter Clayton, `Chronicles of the Pharaohs', London, 1994, p. 101-102.
[150] Ibid., 73.
[160] Dorman, P., The Monuments of Senenmut (Kegan Paul International, London, 1988), p. 69.
[170] JTH, p. 75-76.
[180] Ibid., 62.
[190] Ibid., 63. Emphasis added.
[200] Ages in Chaos, chapter 2 "The Hyksos". Velikovsky was wrong though in his suggesting (p. 73) that the "One" referred to in the Ahmose inscription for the siege of Avaris referred to someone other than the pharaoh, hence Saul. This use of "one" for pharaoh was standard Egyptian practice.
[210] The Language of the Pentateuch in its Relation to Egyptian (Oxford University Press, 1933), 107.; According to Genesis 25:16-18: "These are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names, by their towns, and by their castles; twelve princes according to their nations. ... And they dwelt from Havilah unto Shur, that is before Egypt, as thou goest toward Assyria." Accordingly, Sur was located east of Egypt in the direction of Assyria, which would equate Havilah with today's region of Jordan and Saudi-Arabia, possibly including the area of where the Euphrates enters the Persian Golf near Basra and thus include a part of Mesopotamia. If we allow that the water way of the Pisan of Genesis 2:11*) refers to the Arabian peninsula as it is surrounded by the waters of the Persian Gulf, the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea, this passage and the conquests of Saul take on a different meaning. Saul did not conquer Arabia but just some Arab tribes (Ammonites in Gilead, 1.Sam. 11:1; and others 14:47 ) bordering his territory. Saul's conquests, then, did not reach deep into Egypt but to its borders - but this all changed under King David. Saudi Arabia had one of the richest gold mines.
*) In contrast to Damien, I believe that the rivers flowing out of Eden point to the post-Flood: 1) Pisan, the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean surrounding Saudi Arabia, 2) the Gihon, the Indian and Atlantic Ocean surrounding Africa, 3) and the Mediterranean Sea, before Hiddekel, Assyria/Syria, and 4) the Euphrates River. While today we know oceans are not rivers, the ancients may have not made such a strict distinction not having maps of knowing the layout of their world exactly. Basically the geography/topography of the pre-Flood world was rendered unrecognizable by the world wide disaster.
[211] Malami, `The Kingdom of David & Solomon in its Contact with Egypt and Aram Naharaim', The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. XXI, 4, 1958, p. 96-104. While the author's conventional chronology cannot explain true history, he brings in otherwise data from this time period and the affairs and relations to Syria, etc. Most of all we wanted to document the source.
[220] Montet, P., Eternal Egypt (Phoenix Press, London, 1988), 42.
[230] Grimal N., A History of Ancient (Blackwell, 1994), 207.
There was also a secondary spouse of Thutmose I by the name of Mutnofret, the mother of Thutmose II. [KMT, Vol. 11, No. 2, p. 64]
About Amenhotep I Dr. Birch wrote the following: "It is rare to find on sepulchral objects other indications then those relating to the dead ... occasionally (they) have written on them the name and age of the deceased, and the name of the monarch under whom they were embalmed ... . They often have in their legends or decorations the name of Amenhotep I, of the 18th dynasty, who seems to have enjoyed posthumous honours, for unknown reasons, for a later period then the 18th dynasty."
See also information on the tomb of Ken. In a niche in the middle of the back side the prenomen of Amenophis I (Amenhotep I) of the 18th dynasty was found. Other names which occur include: 1. Hathor, the queen of Amenthi, 2. the divine wife of Amon `Ahmes-nefertari', 3. the sister of the king `Amen-meri-t', 4. royal offerings to `Ra-Harmakhis-Tum'. [Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, Nov 1884- June 1885, Vol. VII]
The Queen of Amenhotep I was Merytamen whose colossal rishi-style wooden outer coffin was found in her rock cut tomb at Deir el Bahari. A photo of this coffin and a detailed map and article on her tomb (An-B) can be seen in KMT, Winter 2003/04, p. 65.
[240] JTH, Op. cit., 65.
[250] Ibid.
[260] Op. cit., 44.
[270] Op. cit., 70. Argo Island is probably located offshore from Argin. See Map.
[278] It appear that Isaiah 11:11 retraces the approximate area of influence King David had covering the areas from (east) Assyria to (south) Pathros and Cush, Upper Egypt to Elam (unknown), Shinar (the plains of Babylon) to Hamath (Orontos River) to the islands in the sea.
[280] Op. cit., 114.
[290] Ineni was the chief architect during the time of Amenhotep I of the 18th Dynasty. In his titled capacity as `Chief of all Works at Karnak', he was also active in tomb constructions.
[300] In e-mails dated 11/03/02 and 12/03/02.
[310] An elephant is carved on the Assyrian period `Black Obelisk/Kurkh Stele' where it is presented as a gift from the king of `Musri', either Egypt or a place in Syria. BAR, Sep/Oct 1985, p. 47; See also BAR, Nov. 2002, p. 49.
[320] JTH, p. 70.
[330] JTH, p. 25-26.
[340] By measuring 2 cords for a death sentence, presumably for hanging, and 1 cord for staying alive, presumably long enough to tie someone's hands for a period of imprisonment.
[450] Alan Gardiner states that Ahmose married the daughter of his older brother Khamose who was therefore his niece (Egypt of the Pharaohs, p. 174.).; See also A. Rosalie David, The Egyptian Kingdoms, N.Y., 1975, p. 108-111.; Joyce Tyldesley, Hatshepsut, London, 1996, p. 65-69.
[460] Ibid., ref. 450, p. 181.
[500] Assumption: Ahinoam was an Egyptian woman.
[510] Assumption: Ahimaaz [#11] is an Egyptian name and could stand for Ahmose on the following basis:

(a) The first syllable of Ahmosis (`A-h-mes') contains the `Alef' and `Chet (h)' of Achimaaz as well as its Yod (i) "hand" which corresponds to the hieroglyphic `Ayin' "forearm with grasping hand", See Gardiner (N18) pp. 454 D 36, and 486 N12). The correspondence between `maaz' and `mosis/mes' is easily seen.
(b) Since King David is Thutmosis I, King Saul must be Amenophis I…. This is proved beyond reasonable doubt by his wife's name, who is known in Egyptology as Ahhotep, the daughter of pharaoh Ahmosis I, and in the Bible as Achinoam, the daughter of Achimaatz … which is absolutely identical.
…Translating Achinoam into Egyptian yields Ahhotep, for hotep corresponds to Hebrew no'am "pleasant" …. (See Strong's Concordance #5276.)
[515] According to Prof. Zion Ben-Rafael, Israel, "The peak of a woman's fertility is 28, after which a slight decrease occurs that accelerates after age 32. 40% of woman above 35 cannot become pregnant, while at 40 the rate stands at 60%. At age 45, only 10% of woman can get pregnant". [http://www.ummah.net/forum/showthread.php?t=40215] While women bearing a baby in their fifties (57 yrs of age) is very rare, fertility treatments were successful achieving it. Natural conception at that age would therefore be extremely rare. However, we recall that Sarah, the wife of Abraham, had her son Isaac at age 90, Genesis 17:17.
[520] Assumption: This order implied a ban on intermarriage of men from Israel with women of the Hyksos or Egyptians. It was also a test of faith for King Saul.
[523] There seems to exist a carnelian gem stone Ancient Hebrew seals or gems(2), not pierced, which was purchased along with some old Jewish coins in the late 18 hundreds. Besides that there is also a lengthwise pierced, red, opaque stone (3) about both of which M. Clermont-Ganneau wrote, "These two stamps seem to me to be very interesting by the names, `Haggit' (2.Sam. 3:4; 1.Ki. 1:5) and `Ya'driel' (1.Sam. 18:19), they contain."
Explanations: "In the middle is a bird. over the head of which is the `sickel'. Above and below in two lines / `Belonging to Temakh-el, the son of Hpt'. The second and third letters of the first line are slightly injured, but the reading is in no way doubtful. The seal appears to be ancient Hebrew. The radical `' is well known in the Old Testament. The name `Temakhel' is found as that of an Aramean in Mr. Levy's, `Siegel und Gemmen', p. 15, no. 22, where we read , with the characteristic difference of for "Belonging to ; perhaps also as that of a Phoenician in Levy, op. cit., p. 24. no. 4, if we may venture to read
"Belonging to Tomkhal ben Mapkemlaq", the gem being slightly damaged at this point (See image #3).
The name `Hpt' may perhaps be pronounced `Huppath/Huppah; compare `Huppath' in 1.Chr. 24:13.
3. In the lower half appears a bird, a star, and the sickel with the dot, like the moon with the sun cradled. The name of the owner is `Yedar-el' ("God marshals" or "God herds"), which may be compared to the Biblical Yedariel', Prov. 27:23; Joel 1:18. [Source: PSBA, April 3, 1883, p. 100-101.]
[530] JTH, ibid.
[540] God's warnings and prohibitions to Israel to befriend or marry idolatrous people is presented in Exodus 34:15,16 and Deuteronomy chapter 7.
[550] Egyptian sounding names ala Armais, Mephres and/or Mephtramuthosis (Manetho through Josephus/18th dyn.).
[570] Laws concerning inheritance: Judges 21:17; Deut. 21:15-17; Num. 27:1-11; 36:1-12.
[600] JTH, ibid., 127. Emphasis added.
[610] Ibid., 75. JEA 71: 180-183.
[620] Ibid., 76.
[630] For carved images of Thutmose II on the interior face of a shrine see, KMT, Winter 2002/03, Vol. 13, No. 4, p. 46ff, particularly p. 50. For a painted limestone colossal head of Hatshepsut see KMT, Winter 2002/03, p. 31. The relief block showing Hatshepsut as the Great Royal Wife with her half-brother Thutmose II can be seen in Dennis C. Forbes, Maatkare Hatshepsut in KMT, Fall 2005, p. 26-(30)-42. Many other images are shown.
[632] A smoothly carved and nicely, with painted motivs, decorated wooden model boat was found in the tomb of Amenhotep II and can be seen in KMT, Winter 2002/2003, p. 32.
[640] Encyclopedia Judaica (EJ), "Abishag the Shunammite."
[650] JTH, p.104.
[660] J. Baikie, A History of Egypt, p. 63.
[665] Metzler, Discovering the 3 Dimensional Structure of the Ten Commandments, p.14.
[670] EJ, "Abishag the Shunammite."
[680] EJ, Ibid.
[685] JTH, 80.
[700] JTH, p. 80.
[800] Ibid., pp. 117, 118-119.
[900] Ibid., 101.
[910] Ibid., 102.
[920] EJ, "Abishag the Shunammite."
[930] JTH, 104.
[940] Baikie, 63.
[950] JTH, 117, 118-119.
[960] Ibid., 119. Emphasis added.
[2000] In `The Bible Unearthed', 2002, p.128.
[2010] James, Peter, `Centuries of Darkness', p. 200.
[2020] Rohl, `A Test of Time', p. 178.
[2090] Metzler, p. 13. On corvée (forced labor), see 1.Sam. 8:12b-13,16; 1 Kings 9:21,22. Forced labor is also know from the El Amarna Letters.
[2100] Rohl, The Lost Testament, p. 361-362. Newer information seeks to address where the Palace of King David was located based on 2.Sam 5:7,17 which describes `David of going down, or descending (yered), from his residence to the citadel or fortress.' See Eilat Mazar, Did I Find King David's Palace?' in BAR, Jan/Feb 2006, p. 16-27,70.; Architectural evidence for the City of David may have been found by Ygal Shiloh when he studied a 6 inch, badly chipped column fragment. However, identical columns found at Ramat Rahel, a site halfway between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, have been restored as a palace window balustrade because such window balustrades were often used to decorate reliefs and ivories throughout the ancient Near East, including the famed `Lady at the Window' ivory from Nimrud. Ygael Shiloh, observing the striking similarity between the City of David column and those found at Ramat Rahel, concluded that the City of David column was probably part of a window balustrade in an important royal or public building near the temple. [See BAR, Mar 1988, p. 21.]
The site of Khirbet Qeiyafa, located on the hills north of the Elah Valley, has yielded two gates made with massive stones. It is surrounded by cassive casemate (double) walls containing rooms containing crished vessels,, including a lamp, a goblet, and a large number of storage jars with finger impressions - all dated to the Iron Age, which conventionally is dated to the 10th century BC. Two find two gates, which even Meggido did not have, is taken as a clue to correlate with the scripture where it says, "Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled. And the men of Israel and of Judah arose, and shouted, and pursued the Philistines, until thou come to the valley, and to the gates of Ekron. And the wounded of the Philistines fell down by the way to Shaaraim, even unto Gath, and unto Ekron." 1.Samuel 17:51,52. The Hebrew word `shaarrayim' is understood two mean "two gates." - K. Qeiafa was also the place where in 2008 a sherd with nine lines of writing was found, in Iron Age context, which was regarded as the oldest (or later unskilled?) Hebrew writing and where several words could be read including the words for `king, land, and judge'. In Paleo Hebrew they should look somewhat as follows - and we give the choice of words from perhaps later Hebrew times,
1.) `king' (a) `melek,' ( (b) `malka,' ,
2.) `land,' (a) `adamah', ; (b) `erets,' ; (c) sadeh), , and
3,) `judge,' (a) `dayyan', ; (b) palil, ; (c) `shaphat,' ,
[2110] G. Barkay & A. Kloner, `Jerusalem Tombs from the Days of the First Temple' in BAR, Vol. XII, May/Apr 1986, p. 22-39. A general overview, not specific.
[2120] Metzler, p. 24, n. 52.; See 1.Kings 10:13. The Hebrew word for `turn' is `panah (to face, front)' frequently used in the sense of changing direction but in Jer. 48:39 it could be used `as turning in shame or anger'. The Hebrew word for divorce is `kerithuth (cutting off)', Jer. 3:8.
[2130] JTH, p. 91. - A recent find of a 6 x 6 inch shard with Hebrew writing at the 5.7 acres site of Elah Fortress in Khirbet Qeiyafa located 20 miles SW of Jerusalem near Beit Shemesh, may throw more light on Old Testament times.
Khirbet Qeiyafa has yielded two monumental city gates, a feature that has not been found elsewhere in the Kingdoms of Judah or Israel so far. However, a pottery ostracon was found showing ancient Hebrew letters within a grit of drawn squares. Researchers said that they could make out the letters for `king, judge and slave.'
Bible Topics Main Menu Submenu