Part 1, the Futurist Apocalypse is Now

Diana Lee

New Member
Diana, I was just looking at your web site, http://shattereddiana.com/, and noted the mention of the Wesley's. I was not aware of the input of the Wesley's beyond denominational Methodism.

As such, it would be interesting to see what our member, Marcilla Smith, might have to say about this given her Methodist upbringing, on a new thread that is.
Diana, I was just looking at your web site, http://shattereddiana.com/, and noted the mention of the Wesley's. I was not aware of the input of the Wesley's beyond denominational Methodism.

As such, it would be interesting to see what our member, Marcilla Smith, might have to say about this given her Methodist upbringing, on a new thread that is.
That would be interesting! :) Richard, I am summa cum laude and phi beta kappa history grad so I was not content until I found a copy of the letter Susanna Wesley wrote to her evangelist son John [1732] regarding child-rearing. My neuroscience prof told me her approach would create mental illnesses ----- as well as set me on the path for cancer ---- which I have. They taught that by age one the child should fear the rod. Christian fundamentalists have held her in highest esteeem as a child-rearing role model. [Mental illness created by parents and fundamentalism helps explain the far rights inability to think and vote for their best interests.]

My understanding is that Americans had not been particularly religious but for the religious, Methodism was the most popular American religion in the 19th century and many/most of the current denominations are spin-offs from it. William Sargart was Britain's equivilant to America's and Canada's Ewin Cameron. His book, "Battle for the Mind," shows how Wesley's fire and brimstone preaching coupled with offers of salvation were mind control and similar to Pavlov's experiments and experiences with his traumatized dogs. Sean Stone on RT recently interviewed Colin Ross, MD and he says there are two forms of mind control: psychiatrist involved and religious.

Richard, how do I send a message to Jerry and Joe regarding their podcast discussing Moses and Ahknaton? They do not sound like they are aware of Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silbermann's "The Bible Unearthed." Finkelstein is in the Tel Aviv U. archeaology department and is director of Megiddo. Along with Silbermann who is a historian they used numerous scientific fields and documented history to conclude that Egyptian enslavement, the Exodus, the Conquest is not just myth but propaganda written in the 7th century by King Josiah to justify his political agenda. They argue that "some" Hebrews may have experienced these things but that the stories are propaganda. Josiah wanted to fill the vacuum created when both Assyria and Egypt were in deline. They argue that the laws were created with this formula, "if THEY do it, WE don't." In short, the Yahweh-only group who took control of Judah after the fall of Israel were not just assimilating refugess, organizing and creating a hierarchical social and political structure ---- called civilization ---- I would argue they were creating a cult. MK-ULTRA researchers studied cults in order to better understand mind control and all the techniques they "discovered" are found not only in Wesley's fundamentalism but also 7th century Judah. Judah is where Silbermann and Finkelstein say the Torah was written and in the 7th century. Their book is quite technical but the documentary based on it is extremely well done and available for free online.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Richard, how do I send a message to Jerry and Joe regarding their podcast discussing Moses and Ahknaton?
This is the place, for me anyhow. You can send Joe email at <joeatwill@gmail.com>.

They do not sound like they are aware of Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silbermann's "The Bible Unearthed."
It's worse than that: I know it's a must-read in the field, and yet I haven't read it. The idea that the Torah was assembled under Josiah seems very plausible to me. Furthermore, I also agree that it's highly speculative to say anything at all about what might have happened earlier. Well, speculations R us :) I don't believe that the Torah could have been created out of a vacuum; it must have drawn on earlier sources and traditions.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Richard, how do I send a message to Jerry and Joe regarding their podcast discussing Moses and Ahknaton? They do not sound like they are aware of Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silbermann's "The Bible Unearthed." Finkelstein is in the Tel Aviv U. archeaology department and is director of Megiddo. Along with Silbermann who is a historian they used numerous scientific fields and documented history to conclude that Egyptian enslavement, the Exodus, the Conquest is not just myth but propaganda written in the 7th century by King Josiah to justify his political agenda. They argue that "some" Hebrews may have experienced these things but that the stories are propaganda. Josiah wanted to fill the vacuum created when both Assyria and Egypt were in deline. They argue that the laws were created with this formula, "if THEY do it, WE don't." In short, the Yahweh-only group who took control of Judah after the fall of Israel were not just assimilating refugess, organizing and creating a hierarchical social and political structure ---- called civilization ---- I would argue they were creating a cult. MK-ULTRA researchers studied cults in order to better understand mind control and all the techniques they "discovered" are found not only in Wesley's fundamentalism but also 7th century Judah. Judah is where Silbermann and Finkelstein say the Torah was written and in the 7th century. Their book is quite technical but the documentary based on it is extremely well done and available for free online.
I have discussed The Bible Unearthed in various places on the forum and I think even in some of my blog posts.

I generally agree with them that the OT was formalized as political propaganda using Josiah's "we found what the dog buried long ago" ruse. It may have actually occurred during the Babylonian Exile or Persian period. In any case, many of the stories seem to have been cobbled together from older sources into the final redaction. Doing so would offer the advantage of re-presenting [sic] familiar cultural stories and names to the common peoples being 'converted' to the new paradigm. These are best represented by the so-called doublets and triplets, where such as El is presented as the Hebrew god, though El was actually the heavenly father god of the Canaanites. The doublets and triplets allow El and Yahweh to become conflated in peoples minds. "You can call me Ray, or you can call me Jay, ... but don't ever call me ..."

Yes, they were indeed creating a cult. I see them as much like North Korea today AND as a controlled opposition to the political PTBs du jour. Ultimately, Jerry and I are arguing that the main and/or immediate impulse for the cult occurred in 18th Dynasty Egypt (and the remnants of Mari and the Mittani), using such evidence as the Sabbah brother's (French rabbis) amazing Secrets of the Exodus. The Egyptologist, Jan Assmann, argues in his book on Moses that he was not likely an historical character, but yes, that the Mosaic Law (of 613 laws) are all cultural inversions, and the associated monotheism can only set these people far apart from the mainstream of the time.

As such, the Exodus story was a cover story to hide the true sponsorship of the Egyptian pharaohs. Using this as a starting point, I have developed what I call the False Dialectic of Western Civilization, where the Jews were synthesized as a mirror image of the Classical Greeks, both of whom derived from the same ultimate sources. I have developed this notion partially from the works of the late Cyrus H. Gordon and the late Moses Hadas. The respective books The Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations and Hellenistic Culture, Fusion and Diffusion are heavily salted with discussions of the common cultural vectors that formed both societies.

My recent forum thread on the Egyptian origins of Freemasonry was initiated by the book of Flavio Barbiero, The Secret Society of Moses, was diverted heavily into a detailed discussion of the OT Judges, where one can see the initial processes of ethnic cleansing and such needed to prepare the ground, to allow for the new 'inverted' society to take root. As well, one can see from the Book of Leviticus where the Levites have been placed into absolute administrative control of the largest 48 cities of 'Israel' irrespective of asserted Hebrew tribal carve-outs, that the other tribes, with a few exceptions,) mattered little. This is basically the modus operandi of the Normans taking control over Britain (and Scotland [sic]).

However one wants to characterize the original historicity of the Biblical Conquest, writ large, the textual script was literally re-invoked to conquer the Americas and other parts of the world. The bible is chock full of assertions of globalist ambition, so these psychopaths have an end game and a script to follow.

Jerry is going to give you instructions on how to send a 'private message' using the forum tools. I think he just did.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Jerry has forgotten that if you go to the Inbox menu at the top of any forum page, you can create a privite'conversation' with any forum member, including us, or Joe for that matter.
 

Diana Lee

New Member
However one wants to characterize the original historicity of the Biblical Conquest, writ large, the textual script was literally re-invoked to conquer the Americas and other parts of the world. The bible is chock full of assertions globalist ambition, so these psychopaths have an end and a script to follow.
Re: "However one wants to characterize the original historicity of the Biblical Conquest, writ large, the textual script was literally re-invoked to conquer the Americas and other parts of the world. The bible is chock full of assertions globalist ambition, so these psychopaths have an end and a script to follow."

ABSOLUTELY!!! The American Puritans elevated the Old Testament over the New because they recognized the New was filled with Godess-Son/Isis-Horus paganism. :)
.
I have concluded the same thing. Deuteronomy is THE SCRIPT-----the literary, religious, social, political paradigm. My understanding is that this was new. While the earlier ancients were violent and conquerors they also assimilated with those they conquered. My understanding is that the formula of genocide, exclusion and "if they do it we don't" was unique to Josiah's Judaism and a most destructive ideology that the world has never recovered from.

Diana Lee
 

Diana Lee

New Member
This is the place, for me anyhow. You can send Joe email at <joeatwill@gmail.com>.



It's worse than that: I know it's a must-read in the field, and yet I haven't read it. The idea that the Torah was assembled under Josiah seems very plausible to me. Furthermore, I also agree that it's highly speculative to say anything at all about what might have happened earlier. Well, speculations R us :) I don't believe that the Torah could have been created out of a vacuum; it must have drawn on earlier sources and traditions.

I've listened to your and Joe's podcast about Moses and Akhenaton several times and I have felt saddened that you have not acknowledged solid science and have relied on speculation. And even suggest that there has been no academic work. Given that I've taken the time to read Finkelstein and Silbermann along with my education and research I am now questioning your credibility. I was educated to read all of the literature ----
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Given that I've taken the time to read Finkelstein and Silbermann along with my education and research I am now questioning your credibility.
This is a risk of covering a wide variety of topics on the podcast.

I was educated to read all of the literature ----
I agree that it's good to be well-read, and that not having read Finkelstein & Silbermann is a significant omission. But on the other hand, who can claim to have read "all" the literature? That is, aside from academic specialists on exceedingly narrow topics.

Having started in on F&S (it's been on my disk drive all along) I see this statement in their introduction: that the Torah assembled (according to them) in the 7th century BC, was "an epic saga woven together from an astonishingly rich collection of historical writings, memories, legends, folk tales, anecdotes, royal propaganda, prophecy, and ancient poetry. Partly an original composition, partly adapted from earlier versions and sources..."

How is that different from what we were saying on the show? Their summary seems rather nuanced compared to your claim that "Egyptian enslavement, the Exodus, the Conquest is not just myth but propaganda written in the 7th century by King Josiah to justify his political agenda."
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Another quote from F&S, p. 69: "It is impossible to say whether or not the biblical narrative was an expansion and elaboration of vague memories of the immigration of Canaanities to Egypt and their expulsion from the delta in the second millennium BC". In other words, F&S are saying here that they can't rule out some sort of actual event, and not just a myth.

While I have a lot of respect for academic expertise, one can't rule out the possibility that they aren't familiar with all the evidence either. Have you seen this thread here?

http://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/was-akhenaten-moses-and-even-more.1810/
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
ABSOLUTELY!!! The American Puritans elevated the Old Testament over the New because they recognized the New was filled with Godess-Son/Isis-Horus paganism. :)
Did you know that the USA almost took Hebrew as its official language instead of English? This stemming from that the original colonies were established as separate theocratic entities - land 'granted' by the crown. And, each with its own approved cult, most of which were rabidly focussed on the OT and/or proto-evangelical. I frequently reference a book by Tupper Saussey, Rulers of Evil, that details the actual history of the USA and demonstrates how the Mother Church's agents have orchestrated it all, even till today. But, consistent with Jerry's and my major thesis, there is a consistent and contiguous thread going back much further, that operates through various manifestations of religion, the most efficient tool of control.

Here is what I wrote in my blog post The Genesis of the Western False Dialectic:
...
Steps towards a Globally Harmonized Religion

The elite have two great and long-standing ambitions, which were expressly stated many times in the ancient canonical literatures of the Hebrews, Greeks and Romans. The first of these long desired ambitions, the universal harmonization of spiritual beliefs and practices, could be seen as beneficial to wider humanity; that is, if such a uniform belief system for all mankind would be a suitable price to pay for those benefits. The second ambition, a pathological greed for accumulating great material wealth and power based on a sense of class or caste entitlement, seems obviously and mundanely crass. Conceivably there could be other motives, but that possibility will be beyond the scope of this series. Whatever the case, the first ambition serves and helps to disguisethe second. Religion, as has been observed frequently by the more astute, is a tool of the political elite class that plays on the continuing neuroses of the gullible and/or to the wiles of ambitious sycophants. As such, the development of monotheism was an important part of this agenda.

The global aspect of these ambitions can be traced at least back to ~1000 BCE. Thomas McEvilley in his The Shape of Ancient Thought (ch.2) discusses approximately simultaneous textual assertions from that time, demonstrating priestly desires for subtle transitions from polytheism to pantheism. That is, they began to poetically express the view that all the gods are merely different exoteric aspects (or parts of the body) of one underlying supreme god that permeates all existence. It is highly plausible that these texts were produced by collaborating priesthoods from India, Mesopotamia, and Egypt. Such a collaboration also implies, in our opinion, the existence of a parallel motive by the respective priesthoods’ secular ruling counterparts. Perhaps their goal was to establish (or re-establish?) a uniform global caste system. If so, this would encompass the second, greed-based motive within a spiritual cloak. Of course, the credulous can still claim that such expressions were only part of God’s planned process of gradual ‘revelation’.

The gradual transition of religious form can also be seen when reading the Old Testament, or Tanakh. The oldest texts acknowledge the existence of all the polytheistic gods, but the focus gradually shifts jealously to the ‘one’ real god, confusingly known by several names. The plural elohim were originally part of the wider Canaanite pantheon. Yahweh was possibly a rank outsider, mirroring Abraham’s insinuation into Canaan. (For more on Judaic polytheism, also see Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God). The rise to the top by this junior sibling god is echoed in the Judaic narratives of Jacob and Joseph, among others. These were younger brothers who also arose to prominence, defying cultural norms of primogeniture.

The triumphs of younger brothers like Jacob and Joseph may also be taken as a metaphor for the otherwise odd (fictive) rise of Israel and Judea. In reality, the two regions had been relative backwaters and vassals to their much more powerful neighbors. While some might see this as something akin to a divine version of The Beverly Hillbillies, where the anointing ‘oil’ of God was bestowed on seemingly unlikely beneficiaries, we rather see it as further evidence of elite human planning. From the failed Amarna experiment, the elites learned that the imposition of monotheism was not a quick and easy thing. Thus, Palestine’s circumstances and geographical positioning (in the politically convenient middle of nowhere) was ideal for such a project.

But even so, as with any new real estate development or start of a new farm, the land must be cleared of troublesome weeds and other obstructions, humans in this case. Thus, the more appropriate modern cultural metaphor for all of this might be Green Acres rather than The Beverly Hillbillies. The barrenness of the patriarchs’ wives, which is overcome by the intervention of the ‘Lord’, is a metaphor for the clearing operation which must have preceded Israel’s synthetic creation, in service of the (human) lords’ agenda. ...

http://postflaviana.org/old-testament-intro-rev2/
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
They argue that the laws were created with this formula, "if THEY do it, WE don't." In short, the Yahweh-only group who took control of Judah after the fall of Israel were not just assimilating refugess, organizing and creating a hierarchical social and political structure ---- called civilization ---- I would argue they were creating a cult.
One further comment on this. This practice is what Jan Assmann calls "normative inversion". There is a prior such massive inversion, however, in this case, the emphasis was not on inverting cultural practices but rather on inverting the moral characteristics of clashing elites - in the process of creating two separate flocks of otherwise identical peoples. Here, I am talking about the major distinction between the Vedas and the Avestas, where the Devas are 'good' in the Indian and 'bad' in the Iranian (Iran - supposedly from the Arya). Same for the respective Asura and Ahura counterparts.

To keep us on an apocalyptic theme for this thread, I am planning on developing the collapse of the IVC as an even prior millennial construct, partially based upon the work of Indian scholar Malati Shendge,
The Language of the Harappans: From Akkadian to Sanskrit. Shendge's work, you'll agree, is consistent in dovetailing with my major thesis of the contrived, dialectic nature of '(Judaic) Semites' versus "Gentiles'.

Judah starts his eponymous tribe by having sex with his daughter-in-law, Tamar, whom he thought was really a street prostitute. Instead, she was tricking him into fulfilling the traditional Levirate (Aryan) marriage contract, because God had personally killed Onan after Onan's evil older brother croaked. Judah refused to comply and thus we supposedly have the Jews today, only they are mostly Ashkenazi, and thus not even genetically Semitic, per the Genesis genealogies. The term 'gentile' is almost equally as absurd regarding semantics.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I've now finished my reading assignment (aside from the appendices) and I can see why Finkelstein & Silberman's book is considered a landmark. It carefully lays out the archaeological findings in Palestine, and shows that they are impossible to reconcile with any literalist interpretation of the Old Testament.

The most convincing aspect, for me, was their argument that the various six-chambered gates and city walls that have sometimes been attributed to Solomon, are in fact from the Omride dynasty. This is based on the similar building style to Samaria, which is generally accepted as built by Omri, as described in the Bible. Similar monumental architecture has been unearthed all over the territory ascribed to the northern kingdom of Israel, while there is a complete absence of any such ruins in the southern kingdom of Judah, or any of the major cities of Solomon's kingdom that was supposedly in Judah. Finkelstein says that Judah was far less developed and prosperous during the 10th through 8th centuries BCE, compared to either Israel or to the coastal settlements of the Philistines or Phoenicians. As such, there was no material basis for a great empire such as the one ascribed to Solomon. They don't dispute that David and Solomon might have existed, but if they did, they must have been local chieftains, rather than captains of empire.

Finkelstein & Silberman also argue convincingly that there was never any mass migration of Israelites from Egypt. A connection with the Apiru of the Amarna Letters cannot be ruled out, and a connection with the Hyksos is also possible. But if so, the Apiru and Hyksos were ethnically and culturally Canaanite. In general, Israel and Judah emerged from the highlands of Palestine, where the inhabitants were typically Canaanite, perhaps aside from an aversion to pork.

I also agree with Finkelstein & Silberman, that the Deuteronomist biblical source seems to date to Josiah. As F&S point out, the Deuteronomist source seems perfectly aligned with the religious reform campaign attributed to Josiah. Furthermore, Josiah himself is treated in reverential terms, and is typologically linked to heroes like Moses and Joshua.

What I didn't find at all persuasive, was the F&S case that the entire Pentateuch can also be dated to Josiah. Their argument is that the Torah is entirely pro-Judah, and yet that the conditions didn't exist in Judah for writing such works prior to the brief interval when Judah was able to flourish as an independent state.

First of all, major parts of the Pentateuch are not nearly so pro-Judah as Finkelstein & Silberman say. The story of Judah & Tamar as discussed by Richard above, is hardly an enthusiastic endorsement. Yet this story is generally attributed to the "J" (Yahwist) source, by documentary hypothesis specialists like Richard E. Friedman. The entire "E" source is considered to be written from a Northern, Israelite kingdom perspective.

Secondly, we are arguing that "J" and "E" should be considered as originating in Egyptian propaganda, rather than Canaanite. The text might very well have been conceived in Hieratic and translated into ancient Hebrew, for all we know. The material conditions for writing this text might not have existed in Canaan, but they did exist in Egypt, which had accumulated a great ancient tradition of narrative prose.

The Josiah reforms certainly reflect a major change of direction for Temple Judaism, moving from a tolerance of other gods and other forms of worship towards a monomaniacal authoritarianism. The "J" and "E" sources might easily have been subject to some editing at that time. However, I tend to agree with Richard E. Friedman's arguments that "J" and "E" must both date back to the time before Israel fell to Sargon II of the Assyrians. Friedman makes a strong case that "J" was a literary work by a single author, but in turn this work was probably based on earlier legends and stories.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
What I didn't find at all persuasive, was the F&S case that the entire Pentateuch can also be dated to Josiah. Their argument is that the Torah is entirely pro-Judah, and yet that the conditions didn't exist in Judah for writing such works prior to the brief interval when Judah was able to flourish as an independent state.

First of all, major parts of the Pentateuch are not nearly so pro-Judah as Finkelstein & Silbermann say. The story of Judah & Tamar as discussed by Richard above, is hardly an enthusiastic endorsement. Yet this story is generally attributed to the "J" (Yahwist) source, by documentary hypothesis specialists like Richard E. Friedman. The entire "E" source is considered to be written from a Northern, Israelite kingdom perspective.
Yes, and then there is: one, Ruth (the Moabite great-grandmother of David); and two, the business of Esau (regaining his Abrahamic inheritance). Why would a pro-Judah propaganda work include these as well? However, all this makes sense if the 'shepherds' of humans are one level higher up the food chain than the Judahites.

And, the very name, Tamar, points to the Egyptian Maakhah Tamar queens, as discussed by author Ralph Ellis. In this vein, just as Helena of Adiabene was buried in a pyramid topped tomb in Jerusalem, Josephus claimed that the Maccabee kings were buried in pyramidal tombs, and Jacobovici claims to have found some evocative tomb ruins in an area that matches Josephus' description. As such, is there any relation between 'Maakhah' and 'Maccabee'?

I'm going to add a reference link from the relevant thread to this, as we have now gotten off-topic here.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Regarding the above reference to Ellis and the Maakhah Tamar(s), the following excerpt is from a piece by Ellis discussing the names of David, Sheba, and Tamar.

For those unfamiliar with Ellis, he has the Biblical David and Solomon as 21st Dynasty pharaohs ruling from the delta city of Tanis. In the article and his related book, he provides an interesting comparison of 'Davidic' and pharaonic names.

The Bible story has David marrying Bathsheba, whom Ellis considers to be father and daughter. Under the Egyptian system, this would be standard practice. But for later moral appearance sake this could be a reason for adopting the aspect of Uriah, the Hittite, having been Bathsheba's first husband whom David had meet his death in battle. And possibly having Bathsheba's narrative incorporate the narrative of the earlier Egyptian Queen Hatsetshup's famous visit to Punt.

...

If these two kings now appear to have once had rather similar attributes, their names still seem to be remarkably different. If these two monarchs are to be compared in some manner, then how did the Biblical scribes manage to confuse a complicated Egyptian name like Pa-seba-kha-en-nuit (Psusennes) with the Judaic name, David? The simple answer to this, is that the name David is a greatly shortened nickname, based upon the star glyph. The common pronunciation for this glyph is seba , as can be seen from the name Pa-seba-kha-en-nuit. However, seba is not the only word in Egyptian that can be used to describe a star, and the one that the scribes were thinking about when they made the Judaic translation of this name was actually djuat.

The Hebrew form of the name ‘David’ is pronounced Daveed dwd and even in this translation it is not difficult to see how this name was derived from the Egyptian original of djuat or djuait. But the Hebrew translation, as given in the text books, is not necessarily the original pronunciation of this royal name. The name of King David is only given by the three consonants of Daleth, Waw and Daleth, which can actually give us the name DVD or DUD dwd, and this is recognised as being the short form of the name David.

Since true vowels are not written in Hebrew text, they have to be inserted between these consonants to produce a name like DaVaD or DaUaD. But if the true pronunciation of this name is unknown then this insertion of vowels is largely based upon guesswork, and if the initial vowel were deleted in this particular case, then the resulting name for King David would be either DVaD or DUaD. Rectifying this error in pronunciation would mean that the real Hebrew name for King David was actually Duad, whereas the Egyptian word for this star was pronounced djuat. But the ‘t’ and ‘d’ consonants are almost interchangeable within the Egyptian alphabet, so the words djuat and djuad could be considered to be direct equivalents of each other. Only now can the truth of the matter be clearly seen, the Judaean King known as David [Duad] was most probably the Egyptian pharaoh called Psusennes (Pa-djuat-kha-en-nuit).

Sheba


Since this suggestion represents such a fundamental revision to both theology and history, such a list of similarities and coincidences is simply not enough evidence to convince the skeptical reader. Luckily for the theory, however, this scenario is further confirmed by the name of a daughter of this same pharaoh, who was known as Maakare Mu-Tamhat.


Surprising as it may seem, King David had a daughter who bore a strikingly similar name; she was called Maakhah Tamar rmt hkem. The only appreciable difference between the names of these two royal princesses is that the Judaean lady has dropped the ‘Mu’ from her second name – in the Hebrew texts, the Egyptian name Maakare Mu-Tamhat has become Maakare Tamhat, or Maakhah Tamar.



fig 2 Maakare mu-Tamhat or Maakah Tamar


It is at this point that the story diverges for a while, and the next task is to trace the origins of the legendary Queen of Sheba. So where did this famous queen really come from? Theologians will point towards Ethiopia, while historians will instead indicate that she came from Saba, an ancient city-state that was situated in modern-day Yemen. It transpires that both of these locations are wrong, and it was the first century historian Josephus who had a much better grasp of the history of this era, when he stated that the Queen of Sheba came instead from Egypt. This fact was actually noted in the Biblical texts, but the scribes were being typically obtuse in not actually naming this famous (Egyptian) queen in this particular verse:

And Solomon made a marriage alliance with Pharaoh king of Egypt, and took Pharaoh’s daughter, and brought her into the city of David. (1Ki 3:1)


While it is clear that an Egyptian princess did visit and marry King Solomon, the Bible tries to keep this verse separate from the section that details the ‘additional’ visit to King Solomon by the Queen of Sheba. (1Ki 10:1-13) But the Kebra Nagast, the Ethiopian Bible, eventually gives away the Judaic Bible’s long-lost secret. Firstly, the Kebra Nagast says that this ‘pharaoh’s daughter’ was actually the Queen of Sheba, which is remarkable enough. Secondly, the text then goes on to name this princess, and it would seem that she was originally known as Maakshare – a name that can also be read as Maakare, as the ‘kh’ and ‘sh’ transpositions between the Egyptian and Hebrew languages are numerous.

The result of this comparison between three different textual sources suggests that the Queen of Sheba was an Egypto-Judaean princess who was called Maakare Mu-Tamhat in the Egyptian language, and Maakhah Tamar in the Hebrew. But if this was true, then how did this Egypto-Judaean princess become known as the Queen of Sheba? The answer lies in the convoluted consanguinity rules that were applied during this era, and the resulting marriage between Princess Maakhah Tamar and her father, King David [Psusennes].

The precise Egyptian name for Pharaoh Psusennes [King David] was Pa-djuat-khaennuit. It was from the star glyph in this name , which can be pronounced as djuat, that this king’s nickname of Duad or David was derived. Since the djuat was a star that was closely associated with this particular pharaoh, the common phrase for this glyph became the ‘Star of Duad’ or the ‘Star of David’. In turn, since the princess called Maakhah Tamar was now married to King David [Psusennes], she would naturally have picked up the same associations, and so she is likely to have been known as the ‘Queen of King Duad’ or the ‘Queen of King David’.

But there is another, more common way of pronouncing this particular pharaoh’s name in the modern reference manuals, and that is Pa-seba-khaennuit . All that has happened here is that the star glyph has been translated as being the word seba (sheba) , which also means ‘star’. If this had been the fashion in ancient times, then King David could also have been known as King Sheba. This alteration would, of course, have had a corresponding effect on the title that was given to Maakhah Tamar, the daughter-wife of King David – instead of being known as the ‘Queen of King David’, she would quite naturally have been called the ‘Queen of King Sheba’, or perhaps the ‘Queen of Sheba’ for short.

The Biblical texts confirm this argument when they appear to show that Maakhah Tamar had another title, that of Bathsheba. This title is composed of two elements, bath tb meaning ‘daughter’ and sheba ebv meaning ‘Sheba’. However, this was the name of Maakhah Tamar before she married, and since she was King David’s daughter she would obviously have been called the ‘Daughter of Sheba’ (Bath Sheba). It was only after she married her father that she became the ‘Queen of Sheba’ (Malkah Sheba). ...

http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/author/ellis/solomon.html
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
A problem with Ellis' identification of David with Psusennes II, and Solomon with Shoshenq I, is that Shoshenq (not Psusennes) is recorded as engaged in significant military action in the Levant. Ellis suggests that maybe Shoshenq was taking credit for the conquests of his father. But the difficulty disappears if we consider that the Biblical stories were not precisely historical, but allegorical & typological.

Charles Pope noticed that Solomon also has a lot in common with Amenhotep III:

http://www.domainofman.com/ankhemmaat/solomon.html

And he compares the conquests of David with Thutmose III:

http://www.domainofman.com/ankhemmaat/david.html

These comparisons are not necessarily more or less compelling than Ellis, but the beauty of the literary model is that one doesn't have to choose one or the other.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Yes, the Bible redactors had freedom to play with narrative chronologies and disguise names and such. These pharaohs seem to fit within the millennial construct I've been working on.

Ignoring such obfuscations, perhaps we should be considering Shoshenq I's conquest of Canaan as the capture of Jerusalem by the Biblical David over the Jebusites? Although his campaign seems to be centered around 925 BCE, instead of 930 to make it perfect for fitting with 70 CE.

Hedjkheperre Setepenre Shoshenq I (Egyptian ššnq), (reigned c. 943–922 BC)—also known as Sheshonk or Sheshonq I (for discussion of the spelling, see Shoshenq)—was a pharaoh of ancient Egypt and the founder of the Twenty-second Dynasty. Of ancient Libyan (Meshwesh-Berber) ancestry,[2][3][4] Shoshenq I was the son of Nimlot A, Great Chief of the Ma, and his wife Tentshepeh A, a daughter of a Great Chief of the Ma herself. He is presumed to be the Shishaq mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, and his exploits are carved on the Bubastite Portal at Karnak. ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshenq_I

Note that Shishak is noted for doing exactly what Titus did almost 1,000 years later:

Shishak is best known for a campaign against the Kingdom of Judah, recorded in the Hebrew Bible (1 Kings 14:25, 2 Chronicles 12:1-12) and his supposed sacking of Jerusalem.

According to these books of the Hebrew Bible, Shishak had provided refuge to Jeroboam during the later years of Solomon's reign, and upon Solomon's death, Jeroboam became king of the tribes in the north, which became the Kingdom of Israel. In the fifth year of Rehoboam's reign (commonly dated ca. 926 BC[2]), Shishak swept through the kingdom of Judah with a powerful army of 60,000 horsemen and 1,200 chariots, in support of his ally. According to 2 Chronicles 12:3, he was supported by the Lubim (Libyans), the Sukkiim, and the Kushites ("Ethiopians" in the Septuagint). Flavius Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews adds to this a contingent of 400,000 infantrymen. The numbers given in Chronicles can be "safely ignored as impossible" on Egyptological grounds; similarly, the numbers of chariots reported in 2 Chronicles is likely exaggerated by a factor ten, leading 60,000 horses through the Sinai and Negev would have been logistically impossible, and no evidence of Egyptian cavalry exists from before the 27th Dynasty.[3]

According to Second Chronicles,

When Shishak king of Egypt attacked Jerusalem, he carried off the treasures of the temple of the Lord and the treasures of the royal palace. He took everything, including the gold shields Solomon had made." — 2 Chronicles 12:9
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shishak
That Jeroboam had to seek refuge in Egypt with Shishak is really pretty funny as well.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I'm not sure it's logically / chronologically possible for Shoshenq to be both the King David who conquered Jerusalem from the Jebusites, and also the Shishak who conquered Jerusalem and installed Jeroboam after Solomon's death approximately 80 years later?

A problem with the Shishak = Sheshonq equation is that although Sheshonq had many conquests in Palestine, Jerusalem was not on his list. There is a long list of other possible candidates: Velikovsky and Sweeney prefer Thutmose III; Rohl favors Rameses II. See:

https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-egypt/will-the-real-shishak-please-stand-up/

(which I think I've linked before...)
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Well, we were just talking about the freedom to shift matters chronologically, and besides, the premise of CM is the time shift of 40 years for Christ Jesus to Christ Titus, right?

Notice below that Shishak is mostly involved with the area of Benjamin. According to the Book of Judges, as I just covered, the 'Israelites' had nearly eliminated the Benjamites, and the remnant was still recovering with the help of the 400 virgins from Jabeshgilead and the dancing girls from Shiloh.

Maybe the real story is that the Egyptians eliminated the Benjamites and then put their replacements in Benjamin along with Jeroboam over 'Israel'? I see a problem with Shishak (or Sheshonq) being aligned with Israel (Jeroboam) over Judah / Benjamin -- and then waltzing through Israel all the way to Phoenician Byblos, while attacking Benjamin but not Jerusalem. BTW, Jeroboam was an Ephraimite.

As such, the real story could have been spread across time to disguise the hand of the PTB. Note at the bottom about the possible polemic of the Exodus Golden Calf regarding Jeroboam. How is this for playing with time and such?


Biblical Shishak
Shoshenq I is frequently identified with the Egyptian king Shishaq (שׁישׁק Šîšaq, transliterated),[12] referred to in the Hebrew Bible at 1 Kings 11:40, 14:25 and 2 Chronicles 12:2-9.[13] According to these passages, Jeroboam fled from Solomon and stayed with Shishaq until Solomon dies, and Shishaq invaded Judah, mostly the area of Benjamin, during the fifth year of the reign of king Rehoboam, taking with him most of the treasures of the temple created by Solomon. Shoshenq I is generally attributed with the raid on Judah: this is corroborated with a stela discovered at Megiddo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshenq_I

Shosshenq I's foreign policy:

He pursued an aggressive foreign policy in the adjacent territories of the Middle East, towards the end of his reign. This is attested, in part, by the discovery of a statue base bearing his name from the Lebanese city of Byblos, part of a monumental stela from Megiddo bearing his name, and a list of cities in the region comprising Syria, Philistia, Phoenicia, the Negev, and the Kingdom of Israel, among various topographical lists inscribed on the walls of temples of Amun at al-Hibah and Karnak. There is no mention of either an attack nor tribute from Jerusalem, which has led some to suggest that Sheshonk was not the Biblical Shishak. The fragment of a stela bearing his cartouche from Megiddo has been interpreted as a monument Shoshenq erected there to commemorate his victory.[17] Some of these conquered cities include ancient Israelite fortresses such as Megiddo, Taanach and Shechem.

There are other problems with Shoshenq being the same as the biblical Shishak: Shoshenq's Karnak list does not include Jerusalem—his biggest prize according to the Bible. His list focuses on places either north or south of Judah, as if he did not raid the center. The fundamental problem facing historians is establishing the aims of the two accounts and linking up the information in them.[18]

There have been some possible suggestions and proposals from scholars regarding this issue. Some argue that the mention of Jerusalem was erased from the list over time. Others believe that Rehoboam's tribute to Shoshenq saved the city from destruction and therefore from the Bubastite Portal's lists. Some scholars even propose that Shoshenq claimed a conquest that he did not enact and copied the list of conquered territories from an old Pharaoh's conquest list.[19]

As an addendum to his foreign policy, Shoshenq I carved a report of campaigns in Nubia and Israel, with a detailed list of conquests in Israel. This is the first military action outside Egypt formally commemorated for several centuries.[20] This report of conquests is the only surviving late Iron Age text concerning Canaan.[21] ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshenq_I
Time bandits:

It is likely that the story of the golden calf in the wilderness (cf. I Kings 12:28 with Ex. 32:4) was composed as a polemic against Jeroboam’s cultic restoration by claiming that its origins were inconsistent with worship of YHWH.[18]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeroboam

If the above is true, then likely Jeroboam's calf cult was not really apostasy for his day, but he was just following standard practice, his main goal to regain or consolidate political control for his Egyptian sponsors. Sheshonq I comes and eliminates Benjamin, and places an Ephraimite in charge, sardonically disguised as a Benjamite of Gibeah - and whom we know as the time shifted Saul.

The Israelites and the Judahites are placed into a divide and conquer opposition for generations before the Israelites are packed off to parts unknown on the far side of Assyria.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
http://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?posts/8536/

My post at this link discusses the evangelical relationship to Trump and Pastor Robert Jeffress' earlier statement that Obama had paved the way for the Antichrist. All this in the context of Trump drawing a line in the sand for North Korea. And in the context of Trump's apocalyptic language:


Jeffress' discussion of Romans 13 shows no contradiction in the embracing of Trump because they understand that Trump is working for the dark side of God's equation.

No doubt Jeffress would understand the same as I what Isaiah 45:7 KJV states:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Trump did draw a line here, and North Korea crossed it within a few hours, issuing a new threat to attack Guam. In response to these events, Bloomberg ran this bizarre editorial basically saying that everybody already knows that Trump acts like a fool, so nothing has changed.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-09/u-s-isn-t-less-safe-because-of-trump-s-fire-and-fury

...it was obvious from the first and to everyone that Trump’s statement on Tuesday didn’t mean that any verbal threat by North Korea would be met by nuclear bombs. Using nuclear force in response to words would be grossly disproportionate: illegal, immoral and foolish.

And we know for a fact that North Korea didn’t take Trump’s threat literally, because within a few hours of his making it, the North Koreans threatened Guam. They wouldn’t have done that if they expected imminent fire and fury in response. They were just trying to signal that Trump was full of bluster.

Trump’s statement shouldn’t therefore be taken as an empty threat that would affect his ability to make a serious threat later. Trump was just being Trump.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Perhaps the NKs were influenced by how weak Agent Orange Leaks appeared in his dealings with our Mexican and Australian friends?

In any case, the important takeaway is that we know for sure that this is the way many evangelical pastors view what is happening.

I just got back from lunch and we were talking about this, and that an evangelical mutual acquaintance was freaked out over biometrics and such. This related to that the Mark of the Beast is explicitly related to the ability to gain access to the marketplace in the future, and implying the elimination of the cash economy.

The following is an excellent summary of different interpretations of the Mark of the Beast:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast#Mark_of_the_Beast

Consistent with my premise, both the Preterist and Futurist possibilities could be true.
 
Last edited:
Top