KING SOLOMON’S
RICHES
Putting together the pieces
Jonathan Gray
2010
2
C O N T E N T S
Page
3 Solomon’s reputed wisdom – the
lady’s baby
5 “Out With David and Solomon”
8 The Answer: Just Change the
Dates
16 Dates Fit Bible historical
records
1. THE EXODUS, OCCUPATION OF
PALESTINE,
AND THE JUDGES PERIOD
18 (a) The Hebrews only mythical?
19 (b) No Exodus from Egypt?
20 (c) No Hebrew desert wandering?
23 (d) No Hebrew invasion of Palestine?
27 (e) 7 times around a city in one day?
28 (f) Conquest in the 14th century?
30 (g) Was Israel only an indigenous Canaanite state?
2. DAVID, SOLOMON AND THE MONARCHY
32 (a) No archaeological evidence?
33 (b) David never ruled Israel?
34 (c) David’s empire not extensive?
35 (d) Solomon’s Jerusalem small, unimportant?
36 (e) Only vassals of other kingdoms?
40 (f) Only Jews or Christians believe in the glories of Solomon?
44 (g) No great Solomon temple?
50 (h) Solomon’s gold wealth an exaggeration?
51 (i) No temple or big stones found?
54 (j) Solomon’s domain not so big?
57 (k) Other nations testify to the glory of Solomon’s empire
66 3. NATIONAL EXILE TO ASSYRIA AND
BABYLON
– The land emptied
67 4. THE RETURN FROM EXILE
– Dramatic upswing in population
68 What about carbon dating?
69 The critic’s mistake
71 Appendix 3
The lady’s baby
Two prostitutes came to King Solomon to have an argument settled.
"Please, my lord," one of them began, "this woman
and I live in the same
house. I gave birth to a baby while she was with me in the house.
Three
days later this woman also had a baby. We were alone; there were
only
two of us in the house.
"But her baby died during the night when she rolled over on
it. Then she
got up in the night and took my son from beside me while I was
asleep.
She laid her dead child in my arms and took mine to sleep beside
her.
And in the morning when I tried to nurse my son, he was dead! But
when
I looked more closely in the morning light, I saw that it wasn't
my son at
all."
Then the other woman interrupted, "It certainly was your son,
and the
living child is mine."
"No," the first woman said, "the living child is
mine, and the dead one is
yours." And so they argued back and forth before the king.
Then the king said, "Let's get the facts straight. Both of
you claim the
living child is yours, and each says that the dead one belongs to
the other.
All right, bring me a sword." So a sword was brought to the
king.
Then he said, "Cut the living child in two, and give half to
one woman
and half to the other!"
Then the woman who was the real mother of the living child, and
who
loved him very much, cried out, "Oh no, my lord! Give her the
child—
please do not kill him!"
But the other woman said, "All right, he will be neither
yours nor mine;
divide him between us!"
Then the king said, "Do not kill the child, but give him to
the woman who
wants him to live, for she is his mother!"
4
When all Israel heard the king's decision, the people were in awe
of the
king, for they saw the wisdom God had given him for rendering
justice. (1
Kings 3:16-28)
If one is to believe the Bible story, Solomon’s wisdom was
legendary
among other nations. We are told that “all the kings of the earth
sought
the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom that God had put in
his
heart.” (2 Chronicles 9:23)
There is an historical tradition that two vases of flowers were
placed
before King Solomon. One contained natural flowers. The other
contained exquisitely life-looking man-made imitations. The
artificial
flowers were so cleverly made that it was thought nobody would be
able
to tell the difference. And so it was that Solomon was asked,
without
touching them, to distinguish between the artificial and the
natural.
What would you do? Solomon went to the window and said, “Bring in
the
bees.”
Every one watched, as a little bee came buzzing its way in.
Ignoring the
first vase of flowers, it headed straight to the second.
“These flowers are natural,” pronounced Solomon. “Those in the
first
vase are not.”
Today our technology permits us to manufacture silk or plastic
flowers so
like nature’s originals that it is often difficult to tell the
difference. I am
tempted to wonder what kind of technology existed in Solomon’s day
that
could produce such perfect specimens of artificial flowers, such
as we see
in our shops today.
However, King Solomon of ancient Israel is famous for his great
wealth
and the majesty of the temple he constructed in Jerusalem, his
capital
city. But this is where my friend George voiced his skepticism…
5
“OUT WITH DAVID AND SOLOMON”
George folded his arms smugly. “Out with David and Solomon!” he
exclaimed. “Archaeology has dismantled the Bible's claim to
history."
I looked at him intently. “Okay, George, you have my ear.”
“Well,” he continued, “archaeologists have examined the remains
from
the Late Bronze to Early Iron Age, when King Solomon is supposed
to
have reigned, and found that, in the Late Bronze to Early Iron
Age,
Canaan was in poverty, with a depleted population, scant building
activity, and a ridiculously tiny Jerusalem. Certainly no evidence
of any
world famous great monarch like Solomon. So…what do you say to
that?”
“I totally agree.”
“You agree?” he said in surprise.
“Yes, if we accept the dates popularly assigned to the
archaeological eras
your argument is absolutely valid.”
“So you admit so-called Bible history is pure fiction!”
“If your dates are right… yes.”
Before we go any further, you may be wondering how George reached
his conclusion?
HOW CITIES GOT LAYERED
You see, the procedure with ancient cities was to rebuild on top
of the
occupational debris that accumulated. Storms, earthquakes and
invasions
often destroyed part or all of these cities and subsequent
occupants
simply levelled off the area and built on top of it.
And today, as archaeologists cut into this debris, it is possible
to
distinguish the successive layers of occupation by the style of
identifiable
6
pottery they contain. These layers have been named Early Bronze,
Middle
Bronze, Late Bronze and Iron Age. No one will dispute these
identifications.
BUT WHAT DATES ARE THESE LAYERS?
However, the question is, what are the dates of these successive
layers?
Ignoring the chronological data supplied in the biblical account,
certain
archaeologists in their wisdom have assigned their own approximate
dates to these eras - which mean that David and Solomon would have
lived at the beginning of the Iron Age.
And that makes the Bible account dead wrong.
Let me show you how this works.
Theoretical periods What is found It is claimed Therefore:
Early Bronze Age An absolute break;
new people
Middle Bronze II Thriving urban culture
Magnitude of palaces, temples
Late Bronze, Poverty, depleted population, “The Bible says “The
Bible
Early Iron Age scant buildings, tiny Jerusalem this was the great
story is not
period of Kings true
David and Solomon” history”
Iron I Period Dramatic upswing
in population
As you can see from the chart, in the supposed time of King
Solomon
(dubbed Late Bronze – early Iron Age) Canaan was in poverty – with
a
depleted population, scant building activity, and a very tiny
Jerusalem.
And that contradicts the Bible account: "Solomon built Gezer,
Lower
Beth Horon, Baalath, and Tadmor in the wilderness (Palmyra in
Syria), in
the land of Judah, all the storage cities that Solomon had, cities
for his
chariots and cities for his cavalry, and whatever Solomon desired
to build
in Jerusalem, in Lebanon, and in all the land of his
dominion." (1 Kings
9:17-19)
“That’s fiction,” says the skeptic, “because not one goblet, not
one brick,
has ever been found to indicate that such a reign existed."
7
Again, the Bible says, "The king made silver and gold as
common in
Jerusalem as stones, and he made cedars as abundant as the
sycamores
which are in the lowland." (2
Chronicles 1:15)
“But the artefacts and pottery from this Iron Age indicate pitiful
poverty
and few people.” says the critic. “Jerusalem was scarcely a city.”
So if the popular chronology is correct, the Bible is wrong. It’s
as clearcut
as that.
It seems the critic has won.
Is it as clear cut as that? Not quite. A problem arises for the
critic. Two
problems, in fact. And there appears no way to solve them.
What problems? Let’s look at that chart again.
THE DILEMMA
Theoretical periods What is found Two problems:
Early Bronze Age An absolute break;
new people
Middle Bronze II Thriving urban culture
Magnitude of palaces, temples
Late Bronze, Poverty, depleted population, 1. Why and how
Early Iron Age scant buildings, tiny Jerusalem did half of the
Middle Bronze II
population vanish?
Iron I Period Dramatic upswing 2. Where did this
in population sudden influx of
people come from?
Do you see the dilemma? This was well expressed in an article in The
Financial Review 28
March/1 April 2002:
MB II, Late Bronze and Iron I periods ... leave two critical
questions for which satisfactory answers must be found.
Why and to where did over half of the MB II population,
i.e., virtually all the inhabitants of the hill country, 'vanish'?
From where did the people who settled the hundreds of sites
in Iron I 'materialise'?" (The Financial Review 28
March/1 April
2002, "False Testament, Daniel Lazare explains how
archaeology has
dismantled the Bible's claim to history.")
8
THE ANSWER:
JUST CHANGE THE DATES
Okay, is there a solution? Yes. But it is going to require some
radical
thinking - it necessitates lopping anything up to six centuries
off the
traditional dates.
Change the dates and the dilemma goes away.
But how can we justify this revision of dates? Can we just fiddle
the
figures just to make them fit what we want?
Yes, we can, when we consider that the dates for the
archaeological strata
have been assigned, NOT on information that comes from the strata
themselves, but simply by their
correlation with the dynasties of
Egypt. And such Egyptian dates are now
being seriously challenged.
EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY IN ERROR
Now brace yourself for a shock. Our current conjectured history of
Egypt
is probably 600 to 800 years too long!
Some six to eight supposed “dynasties” never existed!
In case you didn’t know, inscriptions we dig up don’t carry a
date, nor a
ruler’s sequence number. It means we can easily get our dates
wrong,
even by hundreds of years.
The problem began in the early days of Egyptology. Modern
archaeologists were giving highly exaggerated datings for the
Egyptian
dynasties. Dates like 6000 BC… 4000 BC.
Scholars built up a system of Egyptian dating that went back
thousands of
years earlier than is possible if one accepts the chronology in
the Bible.
Clearly one party was wrong – either the modern scholars (with
their
longer system), or the Bible (with its shorter dating system).
So why were the longer dates for Egypt accepted?
9
Simply because all the listed kings were placed one after another,
in
succession. This added thousands of extra years to Egyptian
history.
These lists of pharaohs had been provided by 3rd century BC Egyptian
priest Manetho in his Aegyptica.
Manetho’s exaggerated time period
Herodotus vouches for the fact that at one time there were no
fewer than
12 kings of Egypt reigning at the same time. However, Manetho made
no
allusion to this (Wilkinson, Egyptians, vol. I, p. 148), but rather made his
Thinite, Memphite and Diospolitan dynasties of kings, and a long
list of
other dynasties, all successive!
The duration of all these dynasties, commencing with Menes, is so
long,
it passes all rational belief.
Virtually all of the ancient kingdoms – Egyptian, Babylonian,
Phrygian,
and so on - were fond
of exaggerating their antiquity in
competition
with each other. It has been suggested that Manetho, who recorded
Egyptian king-lists, was probably in competition with the
contemporary
Babylonian historian Berossus to exaggerate the antiquity of their
respective nations.
In Egypt the method was to add up the number of years in the
reigns of
all the kings on their lists (even though several kings had
reigned
simultaneously in different parts of Egypt) and tot them all up to
wildly
inaccurate figures.
So when the Greek historian Herodotus visited Egypt around 450 BC,
he
was given by this method an authoritative date of 12,040 BC for
the
founding of Egyptian civilization.
The present chronology of Egypt is largely the product of Eduard
Meyer
of the Berlin School of Egyptology. (E.
Meyer, Aegyptische Chronologie,
Philosophische und historische Abhandlungen der Koeniglich
preussischen Akad. Der
Wiss. Berlin, 1904)
Meyer realised that the lists of pharaohs provided by the ancient
chronologer Manetho were greatly exaggerated. It certainly did not
correlate with the more precise information of the monuments.
10
The Egyptians did not keep clear records of eclipses and other
astronomical events that could help in establishing a precise
chronology.
But Meyer read that the Roman author, Censorinus (3rd century AD) had
recorded that a Great Sothic Year had concluded in 140 AD. (Censorinus,
De die Natali Liber ad Q. Caerellium, trans. D. Nisard. Paris: Hildesheim, 1965)
The Sothic Cycle was the number of years it took the star Sirius
to pass
from one heliacal rising (that is, first visible rising of the
star before
dawn) on New Year’s Day to another such rising. This cycle took
1460
years.
So with 140 AD as a starting point, Meyer calculated backwards
(using
multiples of 1460), and concluded that Sothic cycles must have
commenced in 1320 BC, in 2780 BC and in 4240 BC. This latter date
of
4240 BC, Meyer called the first fixed date in history of which one
could
be absolutely certain... based upon the notion (presumed from some
Egyptian texts) that the ancient Egyptians counted time by the
heliacal
rising of the star Sirius.
Universities behind the times
However, the most reliable archaeoastronomers today (for example, B.
Schaeffer, “Predicting Heliacal risings and Settings”, Sky and Telescope,
September,
1985, pp. 53-55; R. Purrington, “Heliacal Rising and Setting:
Quantitative Aspects”,
Archaeoastronomy No 12,
JHA, xix, 1988, S72-75) have abandoned this theory,
and the Egyptologists have abandoned Meyer’s date of 4240 BC in
favour of another date, 3100 BC.
Despite this, it is Meyer’s Sothic chronology of Egypt, basically,
that is
still the one found in the text books of colleges and
universities. Meyer
rearranged Manetho’s lists of Pharaohs according to the Sothic
rule. It
was thought that he had thereby created so mathematically precise
a
history of Egypt that Egyptologists still claim to be able to pinpoint
the
very day certain events occurred, back as far as the 15th century BC. They
believe these events to be “astronomically fixed”.
The problem is that, whilst various Classical texts do make
allusion to the
Great Sothic Year, the Egyptian documents that refer to Sirius
never do.
The truth of the matter is that there is not the tiniest shred of
evidence
from Egypt to suggest that the Egyptians ever computed
calendrically
according to the Great Year of Sothis.
11
5 ways we have been misled
Here are some facts of which early Egyptologists were not aware:
Problem 1: Rulers were known by
a title, as well as by a personal name.
For example, it has now been discovered that Rameses II was not
Rameses II, at all! He was most probably Rameses XLII – that is,
the 42nd
ruler called Rameses, which was rather a title, like Pharaoh. (Charles V.
Taylor, Creation Ex Nihilo, September-November, 1987, p.9)
So where a ruler’s title and name both appeared, Egyptologists had
listed
them separately, as though they were different pharaohs.
Correcting this
would shorten the list.
Problem 2: Then it was
discovered that pharaohs regularly had as many
as five, and even more, names. The Egyptologists had taken these
and
listed them one after another.
So, again, the chronology had to be shortened.
Problem 3: It was also
discovered that other listed pharaohs ruled at the
same time over different parts of Egypt. (Ibid.) Rulers sometimes
appointed others as co-regent during their lifetime. This means
that two
“names” ruled concurrently.
Egyptologists have been adding many of these names on to a long
list of
what they thought were “consecutive” reigns.
What a mix-up! The dating was thrown into chaos. More shortening!
With such discoveries, the span of Egyptian history had to be
progressively reduced. So that today it is commonly believed that
Egyptian civilization began about 3000 BC.
Now take a deep breath. It turns out that even this is too long!
Problem 4: To add fuel to the
fire, linguistic expert and university
lecturer Edo Nyland of Canada has recently decoded and translated
some
120 of the pharaohs’ names. These appear in his book Linguistic
Archaeology. In a personal
communication to the author, Ed reported:
In doing my research I came upon some disturbing mistranslations
by the ‘specialists’. I found two early pharaohs whose
12
names could not possibly be correct, because instead of names,
they were curses aimed at intruders to the tomb. When I
pointed this out to an archaeologist, I was brushed off with:
‘All pharaohs' names have been properly translated, the book
is closed on that subject’. (Edo
Nyland, private letter)
Do you see? If some pharaohs were not really pharaohs at all, but
merely
curses…
More shortening of the chronology? Oh, boy! But that’s not all!
Problem 5: Comparing documents
on a generation-by-generation basis,
Immanuel Velikovsky matched the history of Egypt with those of
Babylon, Assyria, Israel, Greece and Persia, from roughly 1400 BC
to
about 330 BC.
His conclusion was startling: events of Egyptian history are
described
twice - and 600 years later they are repeated exactly, to the
detail.
Boycott threat
Velikovsky’s findings evoked an uproar. His original publisher was
threatened by astronomers and professors. They warned that if his
books
were published, there would be a boycott of the publisher's
standard
textbooks!
So popular history is too long
The mistake lies not with history, but with the historians. This
has led to
a mistaken increase in the total year count.
“Scholars” sabotage ancient documents
Now at this point the Turin
Papyrus enters the picture. This ancient
document was prepared during the late 18th Dynasty of the Pharaohs and
included lists of all the kings of every dynasty of ancient Egypt
through
to the 18th Dynasty.
This papyrus was found during a temple excavation in the 19th century.
The King of Sardinia carefully preserved it and entrusted it to
some
“scholars” at Turin for translation. It arrived in perfect
condition, but then
something went wrong. The “scholars” destroyed or hid most of it.
Why
13
would scholars do that? Horror of horrors, it proved the “LONG
dynastic” history of Egypt to be UNTRUE! So to “explain” the
“changed condition” of the papyrus, they accused the King of
Sardinia
of sending it “unwrapped”.
The Palermo Stone contained a similar list. And while many
“scholars”
quote from “missing parts” of the stone, “unapproved researchers”
can
have access to only a few fragments. It is obvious that the stone
was
broken recently, since all inner edges of the fragments show
recent
fracture conditions.
Our Egyptian knowledge
mostly guesswork
W.B. Emery is one of the rare few who admit how limited our
knowledge
of ancient Egypt really is:
“Unfortunately,” he says, “our knowledge of the archaic
hieroglyphs is so
limited that reliable translation of these invaluable texts is at
present
beyond our power and we can only pick out odd words and groups
which
give us only the vaguest interpretations.” (W.B. Emery, Archaic Egypt.
Penguin Books Reprint, 1984, p.59)
Yet, in most books we read, translations and conclusions are never
stated
as being theory; they are stated as firm fact.
Dating of early world history in chaos
The truth is, Egyptologists have been contracting the Egyptian
chronology for decades.
For instance, down Bobbin Head Road in Turramurra, Sydney,
Australia,
stands a memorial in the bush. It is close to the gates of the
park leading
down to Bobbin Head – and within walking distance of the Lady
Davidson Hospital, where after World War I wounded or gassed
soldiers
could recuperate.
One such soldier, Private Shirley, used to walk to this spot from
the
hospital. Out of a rock in the bush he carved a pyramid, sphinx
and other
objects, as a memorial to his friends who had served with him in
Egypt -
but never returned!
14
According to a plaque fixed at the spot, he completed his work in
1926,
featuring “the Great Pyramid and Sphinx dating back to the 4th
Dynasty
in 4700 BC”. (A colleague of mine, Bruce Price of Sydney, has
photos
showing this date on the original plaque.) However, by the time
Bruce
visited the park in 1996 - seventy years later - the date given
for the 4th
Dynasty was 2600 BC! The Egyptologists had themselves in seven
decades contracted it by 2,100 years!
How embarrassing! It now turns out that the scientific structure
of
Egyptian history is built on the framework of a mistaken
chronology. The
result of the artificial Sothic scheme is a vastly over-extended
chronology
of Egypt.
Such an Egyptian chronology, far from serving as a suitable guage
for the
histories of other nations, only manages to throw one nation out
of
alignment with another. Does that help you to understand why the
accepted Canaanite (Palestine) dates are all wrong?
Due to this mis-alignment (especially for the period prior to the
9th
century BC), archaeology is seldom able to bring face to face
contemporaries from one nation to another right across the board.
This impediment of mis-alignment that the conventionally trained
scholars have inherited has led them into trying all sorts of
clumsy
techniques to make their data fit.
Consider early Greek history, for example. In order to make the
shorter
Greek history align with the Sothic chronology of Egypt,
archaeologists
have found it necessary to insert into Greek history a so-called
“Dark
Age” of about 300 years (c. 1200 to 900 BC). And they have
inserted
Dark Ages in many other places as well.
The painful fact is, there is absolutely no archaeological
evidence for the
existence of these Dark Ages. (Peter
James, Centuries of Darkness. London:
Jonathan Cape, 1991. This book comes with a high recommendation,
in the
Foreward, from Colin Renfrew, Professor
of Archaeology at Cambridge University.)
And since Egyptian chronology is the rule and the standard for the
entire
world history, the
history of the entire ancient world is consequently
now in a most chaotic state.
Adjustments and revisions of Egyptian history will tend to considerably
shorten human history in general.
15
The point now is that the dating of layers of rubble in the
ancient cities of
Canaan is in error – simply because it has been pegged to Egyptian
dating.
So if the critic of the Bible changed his dates he would soon
discover that
the Bible was not at fault after all. And he would discover the
answers to
his own problem of data that frustrates him because it just won’t
fit
together neatly.
In the introduction to Peter James’ book Centuries of Darkness the
highly
regarded Cambridge Professor, Colin Renfrew wrote,
The revolutionary suggestion is made here that the existing
chronologies for that crucial phase in human history are in
error by several centuries, and that, in consequence, history
will have to be rewritten ... I feel that their critical analysis
is
right, and that a chronological revolution is on its way.
(Peter James, Centuries of
Darkness pp. XIV, XVI)
In 1995 David Rohl published his book A Test of Time. A series of
programmes based on the book was also aired on prime time TV by
the
BBC in UK. He wrote,
The new chronology has determined that Rameses II should
be dated to the tenth century BC - some three hundred and
fifty years later than the date which had been assigned to him
in the orthodox chronology." (David
Rohl, A Test of Time p. 143)
16
DATES FIT BIBLE RECORDS
And what happens when the dates are corrected? Just this: They are
found
to be in remarkable accord with the biblical records. David and
Solomon
did exist and were the triumphant builders of a great nation that
dominated Palestine and the surrounding areas.
FOUR ERAS OF HISTORY
The Bible history of Israel is divided into four neat periods for
which, if it
is true, we should expect solid archaeological evidence:
1. The Exodus from Egypt and occupation of Palestine followed by
the period of the Judges.
2. A period of prosperity and power during the Israelite monarchy
of King David, then Solomon
3. The national exile into Assyria and Babylon.
4. The return from exile.
NO MORE MISSING PIECES
Examine this chart again and see how this solves the critic’s
problem of
things not fitting:
Theoretical periods What is found The answer:
Early Bronze Age An absolute break; The Exodus, the occupation
new people of Canaan, and the
Judges era
Middle Bronze II Thriving urban culture Kings David and Solomon
Magnitude of palaces, temples and
the Monarchy
Late Bronze, Poverty, depleted population, Exile; the land emptied
Early Iron Age scant buildings, tiny Jerusalem
Iron I Period Dramatic upswing Return
from exile
in population
17
You see how it now makes sense? And also the two mysteries that
plague
the critic regarding periods 3 and 4 (in the chart repeated below)
are
solved:
Theoretical periods What is found The problem The answer
1. Early Bronze Age An absolute break;
new people
2. Middle Bronze II Thriving urban culture
Magnitude of palaces, temples
3. Late Bronze, Poverty, Why and how
Exile to Assyria
Early Iron Age depleted population, did half of the and Babylon;
scant buildings, Middle
Bronze II the land
tiny Jerusalem population vanish?
emptied
4. Iron I Period Dramatic upswing Where did this Return from
in population sudden influx of exile
people come from?
The dating, once adjusted, not only fits Bible chronology, but
also solves
the dilemmas caused by the critic’s dating errors.
You see, the problem was not with the Bible, but with the critic.
What the critics say
With this in mind, let’s examine a few of the problems the critic
has
raised concerning the Bible record.
18
1. THE EXODUS, OCCUPATION OF
PALESTINE, AND THE JUDGES PERIOD
(a) THE HEBREWS
ONLY MYTHICAL?
IT IS CLAIMED:
The Hebrews were not a historical people, but only mythical.
There was no Hebrew sojourn in Egypt.
IN REALITY:
Some Egyptian monuments mention an enigmatic people: the "Apiru". In
one of these was carved on the stone walls a scene depicting men
working at a wine press. Beneath the picture was a title which
ran:
"Straining out wine by the Apiru". The date of the monument is
calculated to be during the reign of queen Hatshepshut and
Tutmoses III,
about the year 1470 BC.
Scholars immediately recognized the similarity of the word "Apiru" to
"Hebrew", with a scene depicting manual labour, as described in the
biblical book of Exodus concerning Hebrew people under bondage in
Egypt.
The "Apiru" are called elsewhere "Habiru" or "Habiri".
(See other evidence for the Hebrews in Egypt: The Weapon the Globalists Fear,
ch.
15, “Were the Hebrews Really in Egypt?”
<http://www.beforeus.com/weaponebook,
html>)
19
1. THE EXODUS, OCCUPATION OF
PALESTINE, AND THE JUDGES PERIOD
(b) NO EXODUS
FROM EGYPT?
IT IS CLAIMED:
There was no sojourn in Egypt and no Exodus.
IN REALITY:
The book of Exodus records the Hebrew escape from slavery in Egypt
and their pursuit by the Pharaoh’s army. It recounts the opening
of the
Red Sea, the safe passage of the Hebrews to the opposite shore,
and the
drowning of the Egyptian army.
Since 1992, our archaeological teams, comprising some 35
international
divers on more than 200 dives, have been discovering skeletal
remains of
men and horses strewn across the floor of the Red Sea and mixed
among
chariot cabs, axles and wheels, at the precise location where the
Exodus
account says the event occurred.
Furthermore, Dr Ali Hassan of Egyptian Antiquities dated a sample
from
this discovery as belonging to the 1400s BC, which is consistent
with the
biblical date for the Exodus.
If these are not remains of the Egyptian army that pursued the
Hebrews
during the Exodus, I would like to know what they are.
20
1. THE EXODUS, OCCUPATION OF
PALESTINE, AND THE JUDGES PERIOD
(c) NO HEBREW
DESERT WANDERING?
IT IS CLAIMED:
The slate is blank concerning the 40 years that the Israelites
supposedly
wandered in the Sinai. Not so much as a skeleton, campsite or
cooking
pot has turned up.
IN REALITY:
It is correct that there are no such remains found in the
traditional Sinai
peninsula. And with good reason. This is not where the Hebrews
camped
for 40 years. Archaeologists have been looking in the wrong place!
The
Sinai peninsula has always been under Egyptian control (except for
a
brief period after 1967, when Israel took over that area). For
that reason,
it would not be a safe place of refuge for runaway slaves!
However, we are not left to speculate. An ancient record clearly
informs
us that the true Sinai was not in Egypt but in Arabia (Galatians
4:25)
And in Saudi Arabia several of our team have been discovering,
documenting and filming evidence of a large encampment of people.
And, preserved in the dryness of the desert, monuments, artefacts
and
other remains answering the descriptions given in the book of
Exodus.
Certainly, these are exciting finds –and precisely what you would
expect
if the biblical account were true. These have been copiously
documented
with photographs in my books Discoveries:
Questions Answered and
Sinai’s Exciting Secrets.
The critic’s problem is he has been searching in the wrong place!
Were there slaves in Egypt called "Apiru", "Habiru", "Habiri" or
21
"Hebrew"? Did they escape a pursuing Egyptian army through the Red
Sea? Did they camp in the desert? Physical evidence says YES.
The biblical record says the Israelites stayed for 40 days at a place
called
Kadesh Barnea, while twelve spies went in to search the promised
land of
Canaan and bring back a report.
Dr Rudolph Cohen, former Deputy Director of the Israel Antiquities
Service, excavated for 25 years in the Negev (southern Israel),
including
Kadesh Barnea where the Israelites stayed for 40 days while the
twelve
spies searched the promised land. He claims there is so much
evidence
for the presence of a large number of people there at the
beginning of the
MBI period that he is of the firm conviction that these were the
migrating
Israelites.
In the July 1983 edition of Biblical
Archaeology Review Dr Rudolph
Cohen, recently retired Deputy Director of the Israel Antiquities
Service
wrote an article entitled "The Mysterious MBI People, in
which he stated,
"In fact, these MBI people may be the Israelites whose famous
journey
from Egypt to Canaan is called the Exodus." (BAR p. 16)
He even claims that, from the pottery they left behind, he could
trace the
route the Israelites took. He wrote:
It is interesting, however, to note that this migratory drift,
as I have reconstructed it, bears a striking similarity to that
of the Israelite's flight from Egypt to the Promised Land,
as recorded in the book of Exodus." (Ibid. p. 28)
In 1993, David Down’s Australian group worked with Dr Cohen in his
excavations at Ein Hatzeva, south of the Dead Sea. During the
course of
the excavations site supervisor Egal Israel came by to see what
they were
finding.
Down asked him whether he agreed with Dr Cohen's views identifying
the MBI people with the Israelite migration.
Without hesitation he replied, "Of course I do, and so do all
the
archaeologists down here."
Down said, "The archaeologists in the north do not accept
it."
22
He replied, "They do not know what they are talking
about."
23
1. THE EXODUS, OCCUPATION OF
PALESTINE, AND THE JUDGES PERIOD
(d) NO HEBREW
INVASION OF PALESTINE?
IT IS CLAIMED:
There is no evidence of any Hebrew invasion of Canaan.
IN REALITY:
If such an invasion took place, there should be evidence of destruction,
fire, and the appearance of a new people with new pottery styles,
different
burial practises and manufacturing skills. After all, they had
come from
the advanced civilization of Egypt.
This is exactly what we find at the end of the Early Bronze Age
and the
beginning of the Middle Bronze I Period. }
Kathleen Kenyon, who excavated Jericho, wrote:
The final end of the early Bronze Age civilisation came with
catastrophic completeness. The last of the Early Bronze Age
walls of Jericho was built in a great hurry, using old and
broken bricks, and was probably not completed when it was
destroyed by fire. Little or none of the town inside the walls
has survived subsequent denudation, but it was probably
completely destroyed, for all the finds show that there was an
absolute break, and that a new people took the place of the
earlier inhabitants. Every town
in Palestine that has so far
been investigated shows the same break. The newcomers
were nomads, not interested in town life, and they so completely
drove out or absorbed the old population, perhaps already
weakened and decadent, that all traces of the Early Bronze Age
civilization disappeared. (Kathleen
Kenyon, Archaeology in the Holy
Land, page 134)
24
"An absolute break ... a new people ... every town in
Palestine ...
newcomers were nomads ... completely drove out or absorbed the old
population ... " Could we expect to find a more apt
description of the
Israelite invasion - nomads from the desert who initially were not
interested in living in the cities?
James Pritchard, who excavated in Gibeon in 1956, found the same
types
of evidence. Writing of his own discoveries at Gibeon he stated:
These relics of the Middle Bronze l people seem to indicate a
fresh migration into the town of a nomadic people who brought
with them an entirely new tradition in pottery forms and new
customs in burial practices. They may have come into Palestine
from the desert at the crossing of the Jordan near Jericho and
may then have pushed on to settle eventually at places such as
Gibeon, Tel el-Ajjul and Lachish, where tombs of this distinctive
type have been found. (James
Pritchard, Gibeon, Where the Sun
Stood Still page 153)
Nothing could more aptly fit the Biblical record of the Israelites
coming
in from their desert wanderings, crossing the Jordan at Jericho
and
occupying the Promised Land.
In this connection, why don’t we explore the old city of Jericho,
on the
Jordan’s West Bank?
According to the biblical book of Joshua, this was the first
outpost
standing in the way of the Hebrew tribes occupying the Promised
Land of
Canaan (Palestine).
It is recorded that the Hebrews camped nearby. Then they marched
around the city every day for a week. Except, on the seventh day
they
marched around it seven times. Yes, seven times in a single day.
They
then blew a chorus of trumpets. And the walls came crashing down.
A bit far-fetched, you think?
THE WALLS OF JERICHO
How big, really were the walls of Jericho?
The city of Jericho was built upon a large mound of earth
surrounded by
an embankment with a stone retaining wall at its base. On top of
this 12-
15 foot high retaining wall was another mud-brick wall 6 feet
thick and
25
about 25 feet tall. Then, at the crest of this embankment was
another
similarly sized wall whose base was about 45 feet above the ground
level
outside the retaining wall.
So if you were standing in front of the retaining wall, it would
appear to
you that the wall was over 70 feet tall. Without a doubt, the wall
was
impossible for the Israelites to overcome on their own. The city
and its
several thousand occupants were prepared for a long siege. The
harvest
had just been taken and water was plentiful, so the city could
easily have
handled a siege of many months or possibly several years.
Yet, regardless of its mighty wall, the city of Jericho fell
around the year
1400 BC.
Today, you can see what remains of ancient Jericho.
Archaeological evidence confirms that an earthquake truly did
bring
down the walls of Jericho. According to Dame Kathleen Kenyon, who
excavated the site in the 1950s, scorching and ashes throughout
the city
prove that ‘the destruction of the walls was the work of enemies.’
This is precisely how Joshua’s capture of Jericho is portrayed in
the Bible
– an earthquake that broke down the city walls and the whole city
burned
to the ground. (Joshua 6:24)
During his excavations of Jericho (1930-1936), John Garstang found
something so startling that he and two other members of the team
prepared and signed a statement describing what was found. In
reference
to these findings Garstang says:
As to the main fact, then, there remains no doubt: the
walls fell outwards so completely that the attackers
would be able to clamber up and over their ruins into
the city. Why so unusual? Because the walls of cities do
not fall outwards, they fall inwards. And yet in Joshua
6:20 we read, ‘The wall fell down flat. Then the people
went up into the city, every man straight before him and
they took the city.’ The walls were made to fall outward.(
John Garstang, The Foundations of
Bible History; Joshua,
Judges. New York: R.R.Smith, Inc.,
1931, p.146)
The fallen walls of Jericho seen today are precisely those that
came
tumbling down in the face of Joshua’s army.
26
Kenyon’s expedition uncovered a portion of a house wall and floor,
with
an oven and a small jug, which appeared to be ‘part of the kitchen
of a
Canaanite woman, who may have dropped the juglet beside the oven
and
fled at the sound of the trumpets of Joshua's men’. (Kathleen M. Kenyon,
Digging Up Jericho, p. 263)
The single dipper juglet was beside the oven, lying on the floor.
It was
found in situ.
The biblical story has been substantiated in a number of ways.
1. There was a king for each of the small city-states, just as the
Bible
suggests.
2. There were double walls.
3. Only one gateway was found. This harmonizes with the biblical
comment about ‘shutting of THE gate.’
Apparently all of the city of the time of Joshua (and parts of
even earlier
levels) was eroded away. This is not surprising. The crumbling
mudbrick
structures were not preserved by being built upon by later
inhabitants, because the city was unoccupied for centuries after
Joshua’s
time. (Joshua 6:21) Pottery finds in the tombs outside the city, indicate that
Jericho was inhabited in 1400 BC, just as the Bible states.
The point is, these physical facts are all true. And if so, then
there was
truly an invasion – and the benefit of the findings must go not to
the critic
but to the Bible record.
27
1. THE EXODUS, OCCUPATION OF
PALESTINE, AND THE JUDGES PERIOD
(e) 7 TIMES AROUND
A CITY IN ONE DAY?
IT IS CLAIMED:
Surely it would seem impossible to march around a city seven times
in
one day, as the Bible says.
IN REALITY:
I have enjoyed the privilege of exploring those ruins. It turns
out that
Jericho was a collection of tiny dwellings compactly crowded
together on
such a scale that you can easily walk around the foundations in 30
minutes or less! The city’s total size was less than 8 acres.
Seven times
around would be less than 3 miles.
It is now evident that the Bible stands up to this investigation
remarkably
well – certainly better than the opinions of scholars!
28
1. THE EXODUS, OCCUPATION OF
PALESTINE, AND THE JUDGES PERIOD
(f) CONQUEST IN THE
14th CENTURY?
IT IS CLAIMED:
The Hebrew Exodus and the subsequent conquest of Canaan, was not
around 1400 BC, but as late as 1200 BC.
IN REALITY:
In Egypt there has been discovered a complete royal archive,
dating from
around 1400 BC. This comprises hundreds of official letters
received by
the Egyptian kings Amenhotep III and IV from their Palestinian and
Syrian vassals.
Known as the Amarna Letters, these documents prove Egypt was
politically weak around 1400 BC, during the very time which the
Bible
claims the Hebrews were invading Palestine (Canaan).
Some of these letters come from the king of Jerusalem, Abdu-khepa
– a
Hittite. He pleads for weapons and soldiers from Egypt to defend
his city
from the invading Habiru.
He writes that they have already taken over great parts of the
country, and
that they threaten to overrun the whole land. He wanted to know
why the
king was leaving them to behave in this way; why was he not
sending
archers to protect his, the king's, properties. If he did not send
military
help the whole land would be given to the Habiru.
So here is a description of the Hebrew conquest of Canaan as
the
Canaanites saw it.
WHY DID EGYPT IGNORE
THE CANAANITE PLEA?
Where was the well-trained Egyptian army? Maybe it was at the
bottom
29
of the Red Sea. (Exodus 14:22-28) And Egypt had still not recovered from
that devastating event.
The activities of the Habiri in Southern Canaan concerns many scholars;
they believe this area was not attached to Israelite territory
until much
later. However, Chapters 10 to 12 in the Book of Joshua describe
just
such conquest, with the very names listed in the Amarna tablets,
including Lachish, Gezer, Gath, and the king of Jerusalem.
A quote from one tablet shows the state of affairs: "See the
deed which
Milkilu and Shuwardata have done to the land of the king, my lord!
They
have the troops of Gezer, troops of Gath, and troops of Qeila.
They have
seized the land of Rubute. The land of the king has fallen away to
the
Habiri. And now, even a city of the
Jerusalem district, Bit-nin'ib by
name, a city of the king, has fallen away to the side of the
people of
Qeila. Let the king listen to Er-Heba, your servant, and send an
army of
archers that they might restore the land of the king to the king.
For if
there are no army of archers the land of the king will fall away
to the
Habiri."
The identification of groups of Habiri
and their activities corresponds
well to the conquest of Canaan described in the Book of Joshua.
The
Amarna letters suggest that this class of people held unique
status in the
Near East. All these documents lead to fully identify these Habiru with
the Israelites.
And there is further evidence – this time, proving that in the 13th century
BC the Hebrews were already
in Canaan – long before the time
claimed
by critical scholars.
Monuments in the form of high stone pillars were frequently
erected by
Egyptian pharaohs to commemorate their victories and political
success.
One such stele set up by Pharaoh Merneptah mentions Israel as a
people
he had defeated in a battle in one of his Palestine campaigns.
This bears
witness to the existence of the Israelites in Palestine in the 13th century,
just as the Bible says.
30
1. THE EXODUS, OCCUPATION OF
PALESTINE, AND THE JUDGES PERIOD
(g) WAS ISRAEL ONLY
AN INDIGENOUS
CANAANITE STATE?
IT IS CLAIMED:
Israel, Judah and Samaria were simply Canaanite states that arose
out of
indigenous Canaanite culture and not from the invasion of a
mythical
people called the Hebrews. (To put it another way, Israel and
Judah were
only indigenous Canaanite states.)
IN REALITY:
There are two credible witnesses that can help us:
(a) physical archaeological discoveries
(b) the ancient book of Genesis.
Archaeology is a science which
deals with physical objects from the past
that one can see, smell and touch. In deciding between theories
and facts,
physical facts must always take precedence.
Physical archaeological evidence unearthed confirms the book of Genesis
to be a supremely
credible witness to the past. Any
discussion on this
should take into account the stunning evidence documented in my book
The Weapon the Globalists Fear. (<http://www.beforeus.com/ weaponebook.
html>)
Regarding the Table of Nations found in Genesis chapter 10, the
greatest
of Middle East archaeologists, Professor William Albright of John
Hopkins University, declares:
… [It] stands absolutely alone in ancient literature without
a remote parallel…an astonishingly
accurate document.
[and] shows such remarkably “modern” understanding of the
ethnic and linguistic situation in the modern world, in spite
31
of all its complexity, that scholars never fail to be impressed
with the author’s knowledge of the subject. (William F.
Albright, Recent Discoveries
in Bible Lands. New York: Funk and
Wagnalls, 1955, pp.70ff)
In fact, Albright begins his classic essay, The Biblical Period, by
stating:
Hebrew national tradition excels all
others in its clear
picture of tribal and family origins. In Egypt and Babylonia,
in Assyria and Phoenicia, in Greece and Rome, we
look in vain for anything comparable. There is nothing like
it in the tradition of the Germanic peoples. Neither India nor
China can produce anything similar.
So you can ignore the skeptic who pretends it’s only folklore.
What do the Genesis chronologies tell us?
On one hand, that the Hebrews are descended from Eber (hence the name
“Hebrew”).
Descendants of Noah’s son Shem are known as Semites. The Semitic
people include the Hebrews, Arabs, and ancient nations such as
Babylonians and Assyrians. Eber, in the third generation from
Noah’s son
Shem, was the progenitor of both the Israelites (including
Judah) and
Arabs.
On the other hand, the Canaanites were descended from Canaan, second
generation from Noah’s son Ham. HAM is the progenitor of the
Negroid
groups.
It is clear, therefore, that the Hebrews (including Israel and Judah) were
not indigenous Canaanites at all!
So were Israel and Judah indigenous Canaanite states? You be the
judge.
32
2. DAVID, SOLOMON
AND THE MONARCHY
(a) NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL
EVIDENCE?
According to the Bible record, this second period was one of
affluence
and power, during the centuries of the Israelite monarchy when
King
David and his son Solomon, under the direction of God, enlarged
and
enriched the nation.
IT IS CLAIMED:
But there is no archaeological evidence to support the stories of
David
and Solomon.
IN REALITY:
This argument is rather irrelevant. It is simply an argument from
silence.
There is no inscriptional evidence to prove the existence of
dinosaurs, but
scientists see no problem with that.
33
2. DAVID, SOLOMON
AND THE MONARCHY
(b) DAVID NEVER
RULED ISRAEL?
IT IS CLAIMED:
The House of David never ruled in Israel. It ruled over the
Canaanite
State of Judah. Not over Israel. Only over Judah.
IN REALITY:
In 1993, a team of archaeologists led by Prof. Avraham Biran, were
excavating Tel Dan, a beautiful mound at the foot of Mount Hermon
in
northern Galilee, beside one of the headwaters of the Jordan
River.
On July 21, they came upon a triangular piece of basalt rock,
measuring
23 x 36 cm. It was inscribed in Aramaic.
This was later identified as part of a victory pillar erected by
the king of
Syria and later smashed by an Israelite ruler.
The inscription on the stone is dated to the 9th century BC. This was about
a century after David was believed to have ruled Israel. The
inscription
includes the words “Beit David” (which means "House" or
"Dynasty" of
David") and also
refers to “King of Israel”.
This reference to David does strongly indicate that a king called David
established a dynasty in
Israel during the period that the Bible
states.
34
2. DAVID, SOLOMON
AND THE MONARCHY
(c) DAVID’S EMPIRE
NOT EXTENSIVE?
IT IS CLAIMED:
The empire of King David was not as extensive as the Bible
implied.
IN REALITY:
On the contrary, archaeological discoveries now show that a
significant
city given in the record of David’s empire lies far to the north.
Anson Rainey, professor of ancient Near Eastern cultures cautions
the
unwary about assuming that David did not have an empire such as
the
Bible describes:
As someone who studies ancient inscriptions in the original,
I have a responsibility to warn the lay audience that the new
fad, the ‘deconstructionist school’, … is merely a circle of
dilettantes. Their… denial of the existence of a United
Monarchy [over Israel], is a figment of their vain imagination.
The name ‘House of David’ in the Dan and Mesha inscriptions
sounds the death knell to their specious conceit. (Biblical
Archaeology Review,
November-December, 1994, p.47)
This period was one of affluence and power. Concerning the Middle
Bronze IIB Period, prominent Israeli archaeologist Dr Amihai Mazar
wrote,
"The Middle Bronze Age architecture was to a large extent
innovative and original.
Together with the massive fortifications of this period, it
evidences a thriving,
prosperous urban culture. The magnitude of the palaces and temples
manifests the
wealth and power concentrated in the hands of the autocracy and
theocracy of the
period." (Archaeology of the
Land of the Bible page 213. Double Day 1990)
35
2. DAVID, SOLOMON
AND THE MONARCHY
(d) SOLOMON’S JERUSALEM
SMALL, UNIMPORTANT?
IT IS CLAIMED:
In the time of David and Solomon, Jerusalem was an unimportant
very
small town.
IN REALITY:
In the 1990s, Dr. Avi Ofer conducted an archaeological survey in
the hills
of Judea. His findings were that in the 11th-10th centuries BC,
the
population of Judah almost doubled compared to the preceding
period.
He employed the so-called Rank Size Index (RSI), which is a method
of
analyzing the size and positioning of settlements, to evaluate to
what
extent they were a self-contained group. He found indications that
during
this alleged period of the reign of David, a strong centre of
population
existed at the edge of the region. Jerusalem is the most likely
candidate
for this centre.
The facts of archaeology show that:
1. In the 10th century BC, a dynasty was established by David.
2. The population in the hill country of Judah doubled.
3. This acquired a strong central point, probably Jerusalem.
4. Jerusalem was an already settled site, important enough to be
mentioned in Egyptian documents.
These facts are also consistent with the biblical record.
36
2. DAVID, SOLOMON
AND THE MONARCHY
(e) ONLY VASSALS
TO OTHER KINGDOMS?
IT IS CLAIMED:
The Babylonians and Assyrians were probably not happy with sharing
their territory with the Jews and there IS PROOF that these
empires
physically occupied the territories allegedly attributed to
Solomon's
"Empire". Israel and Judah were, comparatively
speaking... very humble
Kingdoms indeed and were vassals to both Egyptian AND
Babylonian/Assyrian monarchs.
IN REALITY:
In the 20th century,
France was a “vassal” to Germany. But this applies
not to that century as a whole - but only to a brief period in the
1914-1918
war, then again from 1940 to 1944. For most of the 20th century France
was a powerful, independent nation.
One should not generalise from temporary examples.
From the accession of Saul as the first king of Israel in 1050 BC
to the
destruction of Judah in 586 BC, we have 464 years. The term
“vassals”
applies to a very limited period of this long sweep of history. In
all
honesty, we must examine the 5 centuries in total.
We discover that there were two periods:
1. The united monarchy, under Kings Saul, David and Solomon.
2. The two kingdoms of Judah and Israel.
THE UNITED MONARCHY
Concerning this period, we have archaeological evidence from the
nations
of Egypt, Assyria and Babylonia.
37
According to the biblical record, under Solomon’s rule (around
1000
BC), Israel reached the pinnacle of wealth and power. Solomon’s
rule
was also a time of peace. (1
Chron.22:9)
From contemporary Egyptian, Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions
(around 1000 BC) we find these once-powerful nations afflicted by
military weakness. This would have left Solomon free to greatly
develop
and enrich his nation through many profitable commercial
alliances, as
the Bible reports.
In fact, Israel gained respectability among its neighbours, and
for a short
period became one of the strongest powers in the Middle East.
The conditions described in the Bible for 1000 BC (the period of
Solomon’s reign) fit the political climate of the surrounding
nations
perfectly.
THE SUBSEQUENT 2 KINGDOMS
OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH
Israel sat at the crossroads of the world, close to where Africa,
Europe
and Asia converged. It would be odd if such a strategic location
would
not be the envy of other world powers.
After Solomon’s death the kingdom split into two separate weaker
nations, Israel and Judah.
In subsequent times, invaders cast their eyes upon this coveted
region.
And occasionally the sovereign countries of Judah and Israel were
attacked.
1. Pharaoh Shishak of Egypt came against Judah and plundered the
Temple. “And it happened in the fifth year of King Rehoboam, that
Shishak, king of Egypt came against Jerusalem because they
transgressed
against the Lord. . . So Shishak king of Egypt came up against
Jerusalem
and took away the treasures of the house of the Lord and the
treasures of
the king’s house; he took everything. He also carried away the
gold
shields which Solomon had made.” (2
Chronicles 12:2, 9).
2. The Assyrians attacked Israel on several occasions, finally
conquering
it in 719 BC, after which the kingdom of Israel ceased to exist.
38
3. The Babylonians invaded Judah three times, until they finally
burned
the Temple in 586 BC, along with most of the city.
However, throughout most of this period, both Judah and Israel
survived
as independent sovereign nations. They were not vassals of other
countries.
It is significant that wherever Egyptian, Assyrian and Babylonian
inscriptions speak of events recorded in the Bible account, they
harmonise.
Because so many names– and events – were known only from the
Bible,
the critics calmly told us that these were pure myth. This
skepticism
prevailed for many years. But now archaeology has turned the whole
situation around. Here is a handful of the many examples:
• Pharaoh Shishak’s successful
Palestinian campaign in the fifth
year of King Rehoboam: a fragment of his victory monument
found at Megiddo, confirms the biblical account. (1 Kings
14:25,26)
• Many fragments of beautifully
carved ivory plaques originating
from Ahab’s ivory palace. (1 Kings
29:39)
• Assyrian inscriptions of
Sennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem in
701 BC, against Hezekiah. (2 Kings
18:13 to 19:36)
• Assyrian inscriptions mentioning
the biblical kings Joash,
Azariah and Manasseh, Ahab, Jehu, Jehoash, Menahem, Pekah
and Hoshea.
• Babylonian receipts confirming
the exile and food rations of
Judah’s king Jehoiachin. (2 Kings
24:8-15; Jeremiah 52:30-34)
• Excavations at Susa in Iran, show
the layout of the Persian
palace in such perfect agreement with the biblical description of
it (in the Book of Esther) that scholars have been led to admit
that only someone well acquainted with the palace, its environs,
its divisions, and its court ceremonial could have written it.
• Almost every Assyrian,
Babylonian, or Persian ruler mentioned
in the Bible has been rediscovered in contemporary documents
– Shalmaneser, Tilgath-pileser, Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar,
Cyrus, Darius the Great, Xerxes, Sargon, and many others.
• Even officials whose names are in
the Bible, such as Nebuzaradan
(2 Kings 25:8) or Nergal-sharezer (Jeremiah 39:3) are met with
in the official documents of their time.
39
• During the excavation of Gezer in
1969, a massive layer of ash
was discovered. Sifting through it yielded pieces of Hebrew,
Egyptian, and Philistine artefacts. Apparently all three cultures
had been there at the same time. This greatly puzzled
researchers. And then they examined the Bible account, which
confirmed exactly what they found: “Pharaoh king of Egypt had
attacked and captured Gezer. He had set it on fire. He killed its
Canaanite inhabitants and then gave it as a wedding gift to his
daughter, Solomon’s wife.” (1 Kings
9:16)
Archaeologist Horn was forced to conclude:
Archaeological discoveries show us that the historical
setting is true to fact and that the events described did
really happen. (Siegfried H. Horn, Records
of the Past IIluminate
the Bible. Washington, D.C.:
Review and Herald Publishing
Association, 1975, p.62)
I have to agree with the renowned archaeologist Nelson Glueck when
he
draws attention to
…the almost incredibly accurate historical memory of the
the Bible, and particularly so when it is fortified by archaeoarchaeological
fact. (Nelson
Glueck, Rivers in the Desert, p.31)
It can now be stated with confidence that in every case where the
physical
science of archaeology has been able to test the Bible’s
historical details,
the “myth” charge has failed.
Yet, oddly enough, the critics’ out-dated anti-Genesis propaganda
is still
rehashed and served to us deceptively as “new information”.
40
2. DAVID, SOLOMON
AND THE MONARCHY
(g) ONLY JEWS OR CHRISTIANS
BELIEVE IN THE
GLORIES OF SOLOMON?
IT IS CLAIMED:
But I suppose the main reason why I question all this talk of the
splendours of Solomon is that the ONLY people that claim this as
fact are
either Jews and/or Christians.
IN REALITY:
And why do Jews and Christians speak of the splendours of Solomon?
It
so happens they have the benefit of a document which is
increasingly
confirmed by archaeological discovery. You could say that gives
them a
unique advantage.
This is a fact with which every skeptic must come to terms.
Interesting isn’t it, how a critic would rather believe a modern
writer who
lives 3,000 years after the events, than a scribe who recorded the
events
of his own day.
Does the critic assume that witnesses cannot be reliable if they
were close
to the events about which they give testimony?
Come on, now, who is more likely to be correct?
In court stands a person who has survived a vicious attack. Isn’t
he in the
best position to give an accurate report of what happened to him?
Or a
survivor of a bomb attack in Iraq or Israel - isn’t he more
qualified to
recall the event?
Wouldn’t Old Testament writers contemporary with David, Solomon,
or
the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, be in the best position to know
what
41
happened? …especially if they were there …if the events happened
to
them?
Does any clear thinking person believe these witnesses should be
disqualified because they were close to the events they relate?
So what is the issue… really?
It boils down to this. On the one hand, Old Testament writers
state that
their reports are factual. On the other hand, the critic in the
year 2010
accuses them of lying, misrepresenting the truth, or not knowing
what he
was writing about.
Good scholarship will follow Aristotle’s Dictum:
The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document
itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself.
In other words, one must listen to the claims of the document
under
analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author
disqualifies
himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies.
It is to be accepted that a document is genuine, unless there is
compelling
reason to believe otherwise.
In our case, we have an accused and an accuser.
In my country a man is considered innocent till proven guilty. Would
it
be fair to apply this same ruling to the Old Testament writers?
After all, no classical scholar would doubt the authenticity of
the classical
authors. So I invite the critic to answer honestly: Why treat the
Old
Testament writings differently?
I press this point, because it reflects on the critic’s honesty.
Unless the
accuser can prove the professed “eyewitnesses” are phony, isn’t
his own
integrity on the line if he refuses to accept.their.testimony?
VERDICT OF ARCHAEOLOGY
So the issue is not at all about Jews and Christians versus
others. The
issue is the physical facts of archaeology
– and our honesty with these
42
facts.
And what is the truth? This may surprise you, but:
1. Thousands of finds from the ancient world support in broad
outline
and often in detail the biblical picture.
2. There exists today not one unquestionable find of archaeology
that
proves the Bible to be in error at any point.
My own findings – from some 25 expeditions – compel me to agree
with
renowned archaeologist Nelson Glueck, who admits:
It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery
has ever controverted a biblical reference.
Glueck draws attention to
…the almost incredibly accurate historical memory of the
Bible, and particularly so when it is fortified by archaeological
fact. (Nelson
Glueck, Rivers in the Desert, p.31)
One of the greatest archaeologists of all time, William F.
Albright,
agrees:
There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the
substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition.” (Albright,
Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press,
1942, p.176)
Do you get that? In every case where the physical science of
archaeology
has been able to test Bible history, the “myth” charge has failed.
Donald J. Wiseman, Professor Emeritus of Assyriology, University
of
London, says:
It has been my long experience that when the Bible is rightly
understood and interpreted it is never contradicted by
archaeological
and historical evidence when that too has been
subjected to strict scrutiny.” (Forward
to Victor Pearce’s book
Evidence For Truth: Archaeology, 2nd edition,
1998)
43
Experts in archaeology reject the empty pretenders to knowledge,
who try
to discredit the ancient records.
44
2. DAVID, SOLOMON
AND THE MONARCHY
(h) NO GREAT
SOLOMON TEMPLE?
IT IS CLAIMED:
In the time of David and Solomon, Jerusalem had no great Temple.
IN REALITY:
I have personally examined and photographed an artefact from the
Temple built by Solomon. It is a beautiful ivory head of the
priestly
sceptre from Solomon’s Temple. It has been termed “the only
surviving
relic from the Solomonic Temple”. (Biblical Archaeology Review,
Jan-Feb.,
1984)
It bears an inscription, identifying it as belonging to “the House
of
Yahweh” [the Temple built by Solomon].
So now we have an actual artefact, long listed in the old writings
as
belonging to the items from Solomon’s Temple, now found.
You’d better believe it. Solomon’s magnificent temple was real.
But
there’s more…
1. SOLOMON’S TEMPLE TABLET:
Israeli geologists announced on January 12, 2003 that they had
examined
a stone tablet dating to 800 BC which detailed repair plans for
the Jewish
Temple of King Solomon. Tests confirmed it to be authentic.
About the size of a legal pad, the sandstone tablet contained a 15-line
inscription in ancient Hebrew. The inscription strongly resembles
descriptions in the Bible's Book of Kings (2 Kings 12:1-6,11-17).
Israel's
Geological Survey, which examined the artefact said that the words
refer
to King Joash, who ruled the area 2,800 years ago.
According to the Israeli daily Haaretz,
the piece was claimed to have
45
been found during renovations carried out by the Muslim
administrators
of the Temple Mount.
It eventually found its way into the hands of a major antiquities
collector
in Jerusalem.
The Jerusalem collector has failed to identify himself, and his
lawyer,
David Zailer, declined to say where the tablet was found or give
further
details.
Biblical archaeologist Gabriel Barkai, reported that the collector
asked
the Israel Museum to determine the authenticity of the
inscription. He had
been told that the museum's experts could not rule out a forgery.
The tablet was then taken to Israel's Geological Institute Their
experts
studied it over the year.
Shimon Ilani, who performed geological tests on the inscription,
announced, "Our findings show that it is authentic.”
In the outer layer of the tablet, Ilani and his colleagues found
microscopic
flecks of gold. This may have been burnt into the stone when a
building
containing both the tablet and gold objects was destroyed.
Amos Bean, director of the institute, said this might suggest that
the tablet
was actually part of Solomon's Temple, which the Babylonian army
destroyed in 586 B.C.
"These specks of gold are not natural material, but a sign of
human
activity," said Bean. "They could be from gold-plated
objects in the home
of a very rich man, or a temple. ... It's hard to believe that
anyone would
know how to do these things to make it look real."
The stone itself was probably from the Dead Sea area and was
originally
whiter than its current dark grey, Bean said.
Hershel Shanks, editor of the Washington-based Biblical Archaeology
Review, said the tablet, if authentic,
would be "visual, tactile evidence
that reaches across 2,800 years."
Of significance is the inscription's resemblance to biblical
passages. This
has far-reaching implications of the historical importance of the
biblical
text. (Laurie Copans, The Associated
Press, January 14, 2003)
46
2. PHOENICIAN-SOLOMON TREATY:
Independently kept copies of a treaty that King Solomon made with
Hiram, king of the Phoenician city of Tyre (just as the Bible
records),
were preserved by the Phoenicians.
The Bible records a treaty that King Solomon made with the
Phoenicians
at the time when the temple was being built: “…and there was peace
between Hiram [king of Tyre] and Solomon, and the two of them made
a
treaty together.” (1 Kings 5:1,12)
A thousand years later, independently kept copies of this treaty
could be
read in the public archives of Tyre in Phoenicia.
The copies of these epistles remain at this day, and are
preserved not only in our books, but among the Tyrians
also; insomuch that if any one would know the certainty
about them, he may desire of the keepers of the public
records of Tyre to shew him them, and he will find what
is there set down to agree with what we have said. (Flavius
Josephus, Antiquities of the
Jews, Book VIII, Chapter II, Section
7)
A word concerning this testimony. Joseph Scaliger, who was highly
familiar with Josephus’ work, concludes:
Josephus is the most diligent and the greatest lover of truth
of all writers: nor are we afraid to affirm of him, that it is
more safe to believe him, not only as to the affairs of the
Jews, but also as to those that are foreign to them, than all
the Greek and Latin writers, and this, because his fidelity
and his compass is of learning are everywhere conspicuous.”
(Joseph Scaliger, In the Prolegomea to De Emendations
Temporum, p.17)
So our critic the good professor still wants us to believe that in
the time of
David and Solomon, Jerusalem had no great Temple?
SOLOMON’S MAGNIFICENT TEMPLE
The tremendous wealth that poured into Israel from these global
expeditions can be appreciated to some extent when we reflect on
the
magnificence of Solomon’s Temple.
47
It has been calculated that this famous building contained 86 tons
of gold
and 126 tons of silver.
INCREDIBLE CONSTRUCTION METHOD
And the technological expertise involved was ingenious.
The first book of Kings reports that it "was built of stone
made ready
before it was brought thither: so that there was neither hammer
nor axe
nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in
building.” (1 Kings
6:7)
SIZE AND BEAUTY
Can you imagine it? Surviving stones from the second temple, which
was
inferior to the temple of Solomon, hold us in awe. Some of those
massive
stones were as long as a bus... from 10 to 40 feet long by 6 feet
wide. One
of them at least weighed approximately 445 tons.
We are told that the massive stones for Solomon’s Temple were
pre-cut,
then transported from the quarry and slid into place so accurately
that it
would be difficult to find the seams.
The splendour of Solomon’s Temple would defy comprehension.
Nowhere on the face of this planet did a structure of such size
and beauty
command the awe of man.
Travellers from many lands would travel great distances just to
set eyes
on this Temple, never to be disappointed.
Its array of shining metals and precious stones was dazzling
beyond
belief.
This enormous Temple featured planks of cedar and cypress - fir
trees
hand-crafted to expose their elegant grains.
The entire structure was overlaid on the inside with gold.
Precious stones
of onyx and marble were seen in abundance. Silver, brass and iron
were
used in the Temple. Outer courtyards and inner chambers were
adorned
with high-reaching palm trees and colourful flowers.
48
Using modern equipment capable of determining very precisely the
isotopic content of different metals, it has been shown that the
lead used
in drainpipes in the area of Solomon’s Temple came from the Mendip
Hills in Somerset, Britain.
This type of analysis is made possible because lead samples from
different locations contain varying amounts of the isotopes of
lead,
resulting from the decay of radioactive materials.
Similarly with tin. The Temple was adorned with plenty of bronze,
and
this alloy was made by adding tin to copper in the smelting. The
presence
of tin caused the copper to become much harder and less easily
tarnished.
Tests show that it was British tin that was used by Solomon. The
date was
about 1000 BC.
MYSTERIOUS TECHNOLOGY USED
Two cast pillars of brass stood boldly at the entrance. According
to an old
tradition, the two great pillars were hollow. Stored inside them,
according
to the same tradition, were "ancient records" and
"valuable writings"
pertaining to the past of the Hebrew people.
And included among these records had been information on something
known as the shamir. (Alexander
Home, King Solomon’s Temple in Masonic
Tradition, p.219)
You may wonder, what was this mysterious shamir?
Moses had instructed his people not to use "any iron
tool" in the
construction of the holy places.
And Solomon likewise directed that no hammers, axes or chisels
should
be used to cut and dress the stone blocks with which the Temple
would be
built.
Instead, according to Jewish sources, he provided the workmen with
an
ancient device called the shamir, that had been used in the time
of Moses
to engrave writing on the precious stones of the high priest’s
breastplate.
(Louis Ginsberg, The
Legends of the Jews, vol I, p.34 and vol. IV, p.166)
Known as "the stone that splits rocks," the shamir was
capable of cutting
the toughest materials without friction or heat. This included
"the
remarkable property of cutting the hardest of diamonds".
49
There must have been something special about the shamir, for it
was said:
“The shamir may not be put in an iron vessel for safekeeping, nor
in any
metal vessel: it would burst such a receptacle asunder. It is kept
wrapped
up in a woollen cloth, and this in turn is placed in a lead basket
filled with
barley bran.”
With the destruction of the Temple the shamir vanished.
Islamic traditions concerning the shamir paralleled those of the
Jews,
with the additional statement that it had been quite noiseless
while it was
at work.
BUILT SPECIFICALLY FOR THE ARK
Why did King Solomon build his famous Temple? Would you have
guessed this?: It was for one purpose - to house the Ark of the
Covenant!
That reason was actually given in the records they left behind.
That magnificent Temple of fabulous wealth and world renown was
specifically conceived and built, for what purpose, but to
enshrine the
Ark of the Covenant! That was its reason to be!
The actual room known as the Holy of Holies, in which the Ark
stood,
was a perfect cube - and immensely strong. It measured just over
34 feet
long, by 34 feet wide, by 34 feet high.
Its floor, walls and ceiling were lined with fine gold, weighing
an
estimated 45,000 pounds, that is, more than 20 tons! And it was
all
riveted with golden nails.
So, what was so important about the Ark of the Covenant? And what
became of it when Solomon’s Temple was destroyed?
There have been many decoys, if you wish – and many claims.
It took our team years to track down the facts. And a recent
expedition
took it further.
This priceless artefact has been found – and its location will
stagger you!
So much so, that the Middle Eastern host government walks on a
knife
edge. So you won’t see it yet.
Perhaps that’s enough for you know. But if you would like to dig
into this
further, here’s where to start: http://www.beforeus.com/aoc.html
50
2. DAVID, SOLOMON
AND THE MONARCHY
(i) SOLOMON’S GOLD WEALTH
AN EXAGGERATION?
IT IS CLAIMED:
Some critics have claimed that the Bible descriptions of Solomon’s
gold
are gross exaggerations - that the quantity of gold mentioned is
simply
unbelievable, even unimaginable.
IN REALITY:
Just place the Bible beside other ancient texts since discovered
and you
will find that the Bible record is wholly in keeping with the
practices of
the ancient world, not only in the use of gold, but also in its
records of
quantities. While this does not confirm the actual figures given
for
Solomon, it does show that the quantity is reasonable.
But where is this precious treasure?
* What happened to the hidden gold of Solomon’s Temple?
* Has the most priceless artefact on earth – the Ark of the
Covenant -
now been found?
* Is its location really known?
The truth will stagger you! So much so, that the host government
walks
on a knife edge. So you won’t see it yet.
And linked with these tantalising questions, are others:
* Did Phoenician ships really come to the Americas?
* Where did King Solomon get his gold?
* What was the SINGLE stated reason that his magnificent Temple
was
constructed?
Stay tuned....
51
2. DAVID, SOLOMON
AND THE MONARCHY
(j) NO TEMPLE OR
BIG STONES FOUND?
IT IS CLAIMED:
Solomon's Temple has yet to be found! NO blocks of several hundred
tons were found to be used in its construction because there has
been no
temple found.
IN REALITY:
Even in the absence of a “body”, the convergence of other evidence
can
be so overwhelming, so powerful, so evident, that the truth shouts
at us
anyway.
It is true that Solomon’s temple has not been uncovered and
excavated.
However, its location has now been visually confirmed and
physically
measured.
Dutch archaeologist Leen Ritmeyer, one of the leading scholars in
Temple Mount research, has found the location of Solomon's Temple
with a keen eye, biblical and historical knowledge and a tape
measure.
Ritmeyer served as surveyor and field architect of the
archaeological
expedition at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem for many years as well
as
throughout the Jewish Quarter.
In his story appended to the end of this article you will see reasonable
evidence to agree with his conclusions.
HUGE SIZE OF TEMPLE BLOCKS
But concerning the huge stones used in Solomon’s temple.
52
Solomon’s temple was built of stone quarried and prepared by
masons
from the Phoenician cities of Tyre and Jbail (Byblos).
Actual physical discoveries show that the Phoenicians always used huge
stones for foundation. Why? Because the
Levant is located on the Great
Rift Valley - the big stones helped make buildings
earthquake-proof.
And who helped construct Solomon’s temple? Phoenician craftsmen,
no
less!
Now notice the following facts carefully.
Solomon’s temple was destroyed in 586 BC when the Babylonians
captured Jerusalem.
When the Persian Empire took over from the Babylonian Empire, King
Cyrus allowed the Hebrews to return to Jerusalem and build a
second
temple on the site of the first.
This second temple was built by Zerubbabel from 538 to 516 BC and
refurbished by King Herod about 500 years later. Both
constructions are
considered one temple, as the religious functions did not cease
during
Herod’s reconstruction.
In the restoration of the second temple, a trench was dug around
the
mountain, and huge stone "bricks" were laid. Some of
these weighed well
over 100 tons, the largest measuring 44.6 feet by 11 feet by 16.5
feet and
weighing approximately 567 to 628 tons. (Dan Bahat: Touching the Stones
of
our Heritage, Israeli Ministry of
Religious Affairs, 2002. The History Channel cited
the 16.5 depth 567 ton estimate in "Lost Worlds of King
Herod")
This second temple was completely destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD
and has never been rebuilt. All that remains is the foundation of
the west
wall. Jews go there to lament the second temple’s destruction so
it is now
known as the wailing wall.
The blocks of stone are huge, following
the Phoenician model of 1,000
BC (King Solomon’s time), in which
blocks of stone commonly weighed
hundreds of tons.
This second temple, although containing such huge blocks of stone,
was
still inferior to Solomon’s temple. (Josephus,
Antiquities of the Jews, B-XV, CXI,
V.1. Haggai 2:3-4)
53
So you can be certain that King Hiram’s Phoenicians from Tyre who
helped build Solomon’s temple (1 Kings
5:18) used large stones consistent
with their normal building practice, just as the Bible says:
“…they
brought GREAT stones, costly stones” (v. 17).
54
2. DAVID, SOLOMON
AND THE MONARCHY
(k) SOLOMON’S DOMAIN
NOT SO BIG?
IT IS CLAIMED:
I do not think Solomon was the type
of king the Bible says he was… with
so big an Empire.
IN REALITY:
Remember that splendour and greatness does not depend on land
size.
Great powers in history have often been small in land area. For
example,
Great Britain and Japan. But they have enjoyed access to resources
held
by other nations, resources which they have utilised to propel
their
homeland to greatness.
Having said that, it should be understood that Solomon’s kingdom
extended from the borders of Egypt to the Euphrates (1 Kings 5:1). That
was a fairly vast area, which quickly prospered from trade. Around
this
time travel greatly increased, since it was possible for caravans
to cross
the desert with a two and three day supply of water.
Ample archaeological evidence indicates that there were extensive
trade
routes between the Fertile Crescent and southern Arabia. Solomon
monopolized the entire caravan trade between Arabia and
Mesopotamia
and from the Red Sea to Palmyra or Tadmor (2 Chronicles 8:4), an oasis
140
miles north east of Damascus that he built (1 Kings 9:18).
Controlling the trade routes to both the east and west of the
Jordan the
Israelite monarch collected enormous sums of revenue from
merchants
seeking passage through his territories (1 Kings 10:15).
Archaeological exploration indicates that Solomon possessed
deposits of
copper. With the help of Phoenician technicians a seaport was
built at
Ezion-geber. These technicians and craftsmen were experts at
setting up
copper furnaces and refineries at similar settlements in Sardinia
and
Spain. Copper refining and exporting was another source of
Solomon's
55
proverbial wealth; and it indicates that he was the first to place
the mining
industry in the Wadi Arabah on a national scale (Nelson Glueck, The
Other
Side of the Jordan, 1941,
p. 98).
The royal fleet departed from Ezion-geber carrying raw ore, and
returned
with valuable imports from all around the world.
Considerable research has discovered evidence of these Hebrew
voyages
in South America, Australia, Samoa and Tahiti.
Remember, Solomon had an alliance with the globe-trotting
Phoenicians,
which gave his crews access to wealth from the remotest corners of
the
planet.
PHOENICIAN VOYAGES
Do you want the truth? Navigation across open ocean was no problem
to
these explorers.
Due to the insufficient attention paid to this aspect of the
subject, we have
tended to belittle the size and sophistication of Phoenician
shipping.
There is evidence that they had the benefit of sophisticated
instruments
and large, fast, modern vessels carrying over 500 people. This
will be a
surprise to many readers.
SILVER AS CHEAP AS STONES
Anyway, suddenly, in the 10th century BC we find gold and silver
in
such abundance in Jerusalem that Israel’s king Solomon “made
silver to
be in Jerusalem as stones for abundance.” So reports the book of 1
Kings.
(ch.10:27)
And why? "... for the king had at sea a navy of Tarshish with
the navy of
Hiram: once in three years came the navy of Tarshish, bringing
gold and
silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks.” (v. 22)
Hiram was a Phoenician king. And the Israelites and Phoenicians
were
allies. They sent out global expeditions together.
There can be no question that the peacocks came from south-East
Asia.
But whence the abundance of silver?
This we shall later investigate.
56
OUR WOEFUL MODERN IGNORANCE
Because of the depth of ignorance into which Europe fell during
the Dark
Ages, at times we are apt to forget how advanced were the ideas of
the
ancients, and how much they knew about the earth and about
astronomy
and navigation.
Harvard professor Barry Fell concurs. (America BC: Ancient Settlers in
the
New World, p.88)
Field researchers in South America are firmly convinced that the
Phoenicians traded with South America. Today there is a whole
library
full of their reports. The Phoenicians even left inscriptions
there.
KING SOLOMON’S RIVER
It now appears that the Americas were the source of much of the
gold and
silver that found its way to Solomon’s temple.
There is good reason to believe that the ships of King Solomon
(975-935
BC) had once come to the Amazon; that the gold countries of Ophir,
Tarshish and Parvaim were NOT to be looked for in the Old World at
all,
BUT HERE in the Amazon region on the Rio Solimoes, Solomon’s
River.
But that is another subject. (It is
covered in my book Ark of the Covenant,
chapters 10,11 <http://www.beforeus.com/abook.html>)
57
2. DAVID, SOLOMON
AND THE MONARCHY
(l) OTHER NATIONS TESTIFY
TO THE GLORY
OF SOLOMON’S EMPIRE
According to the Bible record, the most opulent golden structure
in the
world was erected in Jerusalem in Israel. The walls of Solomon's
Temple
were lined with gold. There was not enough gold in all of ancient
Israel to
accomplish that task.
The builder — King Solomon — sent huge ships to the ends of the
earth
in his quest for gold and silver. The voyages took three years.
And the question arises, Where did the ships go?
Why did each voyage take three years?
The ultimate destination of the ships of Hiram and Solomon was a
place
or region called Ophir. (1 Kings 9:28; 10:11) But just where was it, that
land of gold, the fabled land of Ophir?
Scholars have driven themselves wild on the matter for years, but
no one
seems to have a satisfactory answer.
For centuries, historians, scholars, and archaeologists have tried
in vain to
find the source of King Solomon's gold.... to determine the
location of
Ophir, the biblical name of
a secret land, where Hiram's Phoenician
sailors loaded their ships with gold and precious stones from King
Solomon's mines to adorn, in Jerusalem, the walls of Solomon's
Temple.
Was it in Arabia? Was it in eastern Africa? No evidence of the
name
Ophir anywhere… except in
the Bible story.
“That’s because the whole story is fiction,” says a critic. “There
never
was an Ophir. And in the time of David and Solomon, Jerusalem had no
great Temple. So you can stop looking for Ophir. It never existed.”
58
For what it’s worth, the book of Genesis and the historian
Josephus both
speak of Ophir as the general name for the rich southern countries lying
on the African, Arabian and Indian coasts. (Genesis 10:29,30; Josephus,
Flavius Antiquities of the Jews vi.4)
But when we ask, Where was that Ophir which could be
reached that
provided silver in such abundance, we are faced with a problem.
It can be shown that the source was not Asia, the greater portion
of whose
silver was imported. Silver was so scarce in Arabia, that it was
assessed
at ten times the value of gold. (Thomas
Crawford Johnson, Did the Phoenicians
Discover America? London:
James Nisbet and Co., Ltd, pp.127,128,131)
Yet in Solomon’s Jerusalem it became as common as stones.
I am aware of the nineteenth century explorers’ tales that
supposedly
identified the mines of Ophir
with central Africa. Such
identification with
King Solomon must be regarded as romantic fiction.
That the expeditions pushed into regions much more distant than
the
Indian Ocean is apparent from the "three years" required
for the double
voyage, only nine months being required for a return journey to
the
extremities of Arabia. (Ibid., p.130)
An American destination accords well with the fact that the
world’s
largest silver deposits are in the Americas — in the United
States,
Mexico, Canada and Peru.
And this is where ancient Israel’s next door neighbour enters the
picture.
The Bible story says that King Solomon teamed up with his royal
Phoenician buddy, King Hiram of Tyre.
If you didn’t know, Phoenicia was the great manufacturing nation
of the
ancient world. Her dyed textiles, glass technology, superb
stonework,
ceramics and gem engraving were unsurpassed.
Indeed, L.A. Waddell (citing Sir Flinders Petrie) asserts that the
Phoenicians "had a civilization equal or superior to that
of Egypt, in taste and skill.., luxury far beyond that of
the Egyptians, and technical work which could teach
59
them rather than be taught.” (Waddell,
L. A. Phoenician
Origin of the Britons, Scots and Anglo-Saxons. London: Williams
and Norgate, Ltd 1924, p.220.. P.H.E. 2.146)
The city of Tyre was the London of antiquity, the centre of a vast
global
trading network.
Phoenicia, mistress of the seas, sent ships to all ports and
traversed all
oceans. From the thirteenth century BC she was the dominant naval
and
commercial power. Her mercantile operations were enormous. This
great
naval power had the trade of the planet in her hands. She was a
great
distributing nation; her people were the carriers of the world.
The famous Indian epic, the Mahabharata, states that:
The able Panch (Phoenicians) setting out to invade the
Earth, brought the whole world under their sway. (Maha-
Barata, Indian epic of the Great Barats.
Book 1, ch.94, sloka 3738)
They were termed "leaders of the Earth" (Waddell, p.1, quoting, Rig Veda
Hymn)
And Phoenicia was, in the tenth to eleventh centuries BC as great
as
Babylon or Egypt.
The coasts and islands of the Mediterranean were rapidly covered
with
colonies. Today’s "Venice" preserves the ethnic title of
"Phoenicia".
The Straits of Gibraltar were passed and cities built on the
shores of the
Atlantic. They founded Gades (Cadiz) on Spain’s west coast, 2,500
miles
from Tyre, as the starting point for the Atlantic trade.
In the expanding range of their voyages, Phoenician ships out of
Spain
were battling the wild Atlantic en route to the tin of Cornwall
and even to
Norway (2,000 miles beyond Gades).
Eastward, there is evidence that Phoenicia built factories on the
Persian
Gulf and traded as far as Ceylon.
Phoenician ships probed ever further. Navigation across open ocean
was
no problem to these explorers.
Due to the insufficient attention paid to this aspect of the
subject, we have
tended to belittle the size and sophistication of Phoenician
shipping.
60
If we conceive of it as represented by types of marine craft as
outlined on
Phoenician coins and tombs, we shall not be able to suppose that
the
nation was ever employed on such voyages as those that shall
shortly
engage our attention.
There is evidence that they had the benefit of sophisticated
instruments
and large, fast, modern vessels carrying over 500 people. (Johnston, Thomas
Crawford Did the Phoenicians Discover
America? London: James Nisbet and Co.,
Ltd, l9l3, pp.70-l04, 289. Compare with Jonathan Gray’s Dead Men’s Secrets, pp.77-
81) This will be a surprise to many readers.
The type of vessel built especially for ocean travel was
designated "ship
of Tarshish" to distinguish it from the smaller craft which
merely plied
the eastern Mediterranean.
From West Africa, it would be a simple matter to follow the trade
winds
to where, but South America.
To some, the idea that ancient mariners would have known the
Americas
may appear too ridiculous to consider, and it will be cast aside.
But
before such actions are taken, surely the evidence for this
position should
be carefully considered.
As Michael G. Bradley aptly put it, "The truth is just now
being glimpsed
by a handful of specialists - it is still almost completely
unsuspected by
the average civilized citizen.” (Michael
Bradley, The Black Discovery of
America. Toronto: Personal
Library Publishers, 1981)
Voyages to the New World at around the time of King Solomon of
Israel
now seem more likely than not.
Some twelve years’ research for the book Dead Men’s Secrets finally
convinced me that these colonists of a forgotten age were indeed
part of a
great network of ancient civilizations that once maintained a
flourishing
trade between Europe, Asia, and the Americas, some 3,000 years
ago.
I was surprised to discover that Harvard professor Dr. Barry Fell,
from
his own research as one of the world’s foremost epigraphers, had
reached
the same conclusion. He considered the ancient visitors to North
America
were probably not explorers, but rather merchants, trading with
wellestablished
fur trappers and very likely also mining precious metals on
those sites where ancient workings have been discovered.
Fell states:
61
Because of the depth of ignorance into which Europe fell
during the Dark Ages, at times we are apt to forget how
advanced were the ideas of the ancients, and how much
they knew about the earth and about astronomy and
navigation. (Barry Fell, America BC: Ancient Settlers in the New
World. London: Wildwood House Ltd, 1978,
p. 88 )
Fell is also convinced that "America shares a history with
the Old World,
and ancient Americans must have been well acquainted with much of
that
history as it took place."
Between 1850 and 1910, travellers in the Amazon region and other
parts
of Brazil were reporting the finding of old inscriptions on rock
faces.
Former rubber tapper Bernardo da Silva Ramos, in a now rare book
in
Portuguese, has published 1,500 reproductions from such rock
carvings.
They are all covered over with the letters of the Phoenician
alphabet.
One by one competent scholars who hold responsible positions in
universities and museums are now coming forward with
confirmations of the decipherments.
We know that Hiram I, king of Tyre, shared a friendship with
Israel’s
King David, and with his son Solomon.
There was also a religious sympathy. These early Phoenicians —
contrary
to the now current notions of popular writers — were monotheists.
As a result of a commercial treaty, Hiram assisted in the erection
of
Solomon’s Temple and Israel granted Phoenicia the two ports of
Eilat and
Ezion-geber on the Gulf of Aqaba. There is evidence suggesting
that
these ships contained both Phoenicians and Israelites. (Jonathan Gray, Ark of
the Covenant, chapters 10,11
<http://www.beforeus.com/abook.html>)
So where was this legendary Ophir?
Before pursuing that further, I shall share with you some
information
which is both unexpected and startling.
From Ethiopia to India to Mexico to South America, we find pieces
of a
jigsaw puzzle that one by one fit together to form a picture
consistent
with the Bible account of the greatness of King Solomon of Israel.
62
In these widely scattered regions we discover local people
independently
speaking of the greatness of this man Solomon (Samon) and of a
great
temple.
1. India: In Srinagar, India, is a mountain called Tahkti Suleiman
(“Solomon’s Mountain”).
Think about that for a moment. Is it not strange that a mountain
in far
away India should be named Solomon’s Mountain – after a Hebrew
king?
Except that an ancient Moslem tradition declares that King Solomon
came there and arranged for the construction of the temple on the
summit.
It also speaks of the high technology that Solomon used. Indeed,
Solomon’s fame reached to India.
2. Ethiopia: The Bible recounts
the visit to King Solomon by the queen
of Sheba. And did you know that an ancient Ethiopian epic has been
discovered, the Kebra
Nagast (from about 850 BC), which tells
that very
same story from the other side?
But it goes further.
It records that King Solomon lavished on a visiting Ethiopian
queen
enormous riches and gifts. Here is evidence that Solomon’s fame
reached
to Ethiopia.
May I ask you this question: Why would we find two different
reports, or
claims if you wish –FROM TWO DIFFERENT CONTINENTS - one
from Africa, the other from Asia, concerning Solomon of Israel and
flying machines? Doesn’t that make you wonder?
But there is more…
3. Mexico: Votan, historian of the Maya, living around the time of King
Solomon, recorded his visit to a magnificent temple being built.
If one believes the biblical record, the splendour of Solomon’s
Temple
would defy comprehension. Nowhere on the face of this planet did a
structure of such size and beauty command the awe of man. The
Bible
states that visitors from many lands would travel great distances
just to
set eyes on this Temple, never to be disappointed.
And now, from the other side of the world, we have the independent
record of Votan, the first historian of the Maya, who lived around
1000
63
BC.
Votan had come originally from the Phoenician city of Chivim, on
the
eastern Mediterranean coast. He records that he later made four or
more
visits to his former home on the eastern Mediterranean coast, not
far from
the land of Israel.
On one of these trips he visited a great city wherein a
magnificent Temple
was in the course of construction, thought by a number of
researchers to
have been Jerusalem.
Was it Solomon’s Temple that visitors from as far away as the
Americas
came to see? According to the Bible record, "all the kings of
the earth
sought the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom.” (2 Chronicles 9:23) It
appears that Solomon’s fame did reach to Mexico.
4. Brazil: And now we pick up
the Ophir story again. In the barely
explored eastern Andes region of north-west Brazil’s Amazon jungle
live
the Ugha Mongulala tribe. These people, now primitive, have within
their
possession records written by their ancestors that mention an
ancient city
called Ofir
(Ophir) which once stood at the mouth of
the Amazon River.
The Bible says that Solomon’s ships went to Ophir to obtain gold.
This primitive Amazon tribe (with no knowledge of the Bible) says
that
ships from the east, from Samon’s empire, came to their
city of Ofir to
trade for gold.
Their tradition states that:
Lhasa, the prince of Akakor... commanded the construction
of Ofir, a powerful harbour city at the mouth of the Great
River [the Amazon]. Ships from Samon’s [Solomon’s?]
empire docked there with their valuable cargoes. In exchange
for gold and silver… (Karl
Brugger, The Chronicle of Akakor. New
York: Delacorte Press, 1977, p.58)
Perhaps, like that of Tarshish, the name Ophir became displaced, and as
the trade of the Phoenicians moved further eastward and westward,
it
moved with the trade, until in course of time it came to be
applied to a
more distant region controlled by the Phoenicians.
Corroborating this, the Phoenician Ophir or Ofir means, in their
language, the Western Country. (Fontaine,
How the World was Peopled. Cited
64
by Bancroft, Works of Bancroft, Vol. V, p.65)
And what land lay to the west? The Americas, no less. Yes,
Solomon’s
fame reached to South America.
My very first expedition was into the Amazon. I was greatly
astonished to
learn about this Ugha Mongulala tribe preserving written records
of an
ancient city of their ancestors called Ofir (Ophir) which was related to
the
gold trade.
To my knowledge this was the ONLY independent mention of a
specific
locality called Ophir, outside of the Bible.
5. Peru:
Then I learned of the explorations of Gene Savoy. In the 1960s
this
intrepid explorer achieved international fame with a series of
daring
expeditions into the dense Peruvian jungles of the eastern Andes
and
Amazon region.
Numerous ancient and mysterious stone cities and settlements were
discovered where none were thought to exist, including the now
wellknown
Vilcabamba, one of the most dramatic and important
archaeological finds of the 20th century.
In the winter of 1966, Savoy found in Amazonas, Peru, a series of
figures
inscribed on the wall of an ancient tomb. High up in the Andes, in
the
region of the legendary Chachapoyas, the largest and most imposing
of
the glyphs resembled a figure that Savoy knew to be of Middle
Eastern
origin. He translated the glyph as saying “Ophir”.
After Savoy had discovered that enigmatic glyph in the Andes,
another
inscription appeared, but this time in Israel, at Tel Qasile, an
ancient site
near Tel Aviv that dates from King Solomon's time. The
inscription, on a
potsherd unearthed by archaeologists, bears this message in
Phoenician-
Hebrew:
Gold of Ophir, the possession of Beth-Horon, thirty shekels.
The inscription once marked a pot of gold stored in the hold of an
ancient
Phoenician merchant ship.
At its centre was the same symbol Savoy had found cut into the
cliff face
of the mountain in South America.
65
The inscription on the potsherd in Israel verifies two important
facts:
(1) Voyages to Ophir
actually took place.
(2) Phoenician ships acquired gold there during the time of Solomon.
It is believed that this symbol marked all the ships that
travelled to Ophir
in Solomon's navy.
For years, Savoy’s expedition team had called the South American
glyph
a "ship figure" because it resembled the shape of an
ancient vessel at sea.
Now it is simply referred to as the "Ophir symbol.”
Then, in 1985, a startling announcement was made to the world: the
discovery in Amazonas of a vast ancient metropolis that may prove
to be
not only the largest pre-Columbian city in South America, but also
one of
the largest and most unique ancient cities yet discovered in the
history of
archaeology. This intricate network of well over 24,000 round,
ovaline
and walled cut-stone structures covers an estimated 100 square
miles in
the Department of Amazonas west of the Utcabamba River and east of
the Maranon.
Savoy named the city, centred on and around the Vilaya River
drainage,
Gran Vilaya, and from 1985 through 1994 led six expeditions into
the
region.
Near the end of the 1989 Gran Vilaya expedition, the explorers
came
upon a set of inscribed tablets on the outskirts of the city,
hidden away
high in a cliffside cave.
Among the many inscriptions contained on these large dolmen-type
tablets was a symbol similar to the previously discovered “Ophir symbol”
as well as the one discovered in Israel.
Summary
So what have we discovered? Totally unexpected, but conclusive,
witnesses to the truth of the Bible claims concerning Solomon.
66
3. NATIONAL EXILE TO
ASSYRIA AND BABYLON
THE LAND EMPTIED
The third period was the exile into Assyria and Babylon when large
portions of the population were despatched into captivity.
Writing soon after the Assyrian conquest of Israel in 722 BC the
prophet
said: "Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with
fire; strangers
devour your land in your presence; and it is desolate, as
overthrown by
strangers." (Isaiah 1:7)
We should find in this next layer, the Late Bronze Age, evidence
of a
depleted population, and we do.
Israeli archaeologist Israel Finklestein wrote,
The entire country flourished in MBIIB - fortified cities,
villages,
and individual farms were founded throughout the region ... In
contrast to the extraordinary prosperity of MB II, the Late Bronze
period was characterized by a severe crisis in settlement ...
Moreover,
those sites where occupation did continue, frequently shrank
in size." (Israel Finklestein, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlemen,t pp.
339-341. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem 1988)
This matches precisely the condition during the period of the
exile in
Assyria and Babylon. It fits the Bible account like a glove.
67
4. THE RETURN FROM EXILE
DRAMATIC UPSWING
IN POPULATION
The fourth period was the return from exile when many of the
Israelites
migrated back to their original lands. "The whole
congregation (which
returned under Ezra) together was forty-two thousand three hundred
and
sixty." (Ezra 2:64)
Finklestein wrote:
The Iron I period again witnessed a dramatic swing in the
population of the hill country, this time in the opposite
direction.
68
WHAT ABOUT
CARBON DATING?
It may be asked, But what about carbon dating? Does not that
establish
the traditional chronology?
I do not know of any archaeologist who has ever altered his dates
from
the results of carbon 14 testing. Dates are assigned on pottery
styles.
Samples of organic material may be sent for testing but the
results will
not influence the conclusions already reached.
As David Rohl says in his book:
All too often a dozen or so radiocarbon dates are included in an
archaeological site report merely as scientific window dressing.
This attitude is clearly reflected in a regrettably common
practice: when a radiocarbon date agrees with the expectation of
the excavator it appears in the main text of the site report; if
it is
slightly discrepant it is relegated to a footnote; if it seriously
conflicts it is left out altogether ... As the senior radiocarbon
scientist Professor Ingrid Olsson frankly concluded at the
Gothenburg
conference: 'Honestly, I would say that I feel that most
of the dates from the Bronze Age are dubious. The manner in
which they have been made ... forces me to be critical.'" (David
Rohl, A Test of Time p. XIX)
To learn more about the scandalous dating coverups, I invite the
reader to
study my book The Great Dating Blunder.
(http://www.beforeus.com/shopcart_ebooks.html Scroll down to item
No.52)
69
THE CRITIC’S MISTAKE
Yes, there are arguments against the reliability of the historical
records of
the Bible, but there are also some powerful arguments supporting
them.
For a critic to live in his little world of tells, strata, Carbon
14 dating,
Jericho IV, the Early, Middle and Late Bronze Age, Iron Age I and
Iron
Age II, pottery shards, architectural styles, and what have you –
but to
neglect to keep himself updated on discoveries elsewhere which
impact
on all this, is not very smart.
Many critics, acting with woefully incomplete information, have
simply
rushed to judgment.
One who presumes to teach others should not be so negligent.
CRITICS OUT OF DATE
Until recent times, many ancient customs, names and events were known
only from the Bible. And critics had a field day,
blasting them as pure
myth. There was virtually no modern biblical archaeology to “test”
their
assertions.
But now archaeology has turned the whole situation around. From
numerous independent records we know that people, places and
events
the biblical writers wrote about, were real. Time and continued
research
have demonstrated that historically the Bible is better informed
than its
critics.
In fact, on every
point where critics and the Bible have
taken opposite
sides, when the evidence comes in, the Bible has won. In every
case!
Today, the critic has no excuse.
The most eminent of all Middle East archaeologists Professor
William
Albright, after examining a critic’s argument and the flawed
reasoning
that prompted it, noted, “This is typical of the utter absurdity of much
so-called ‘critical’ work in the
Biblical field.”
70
It’s enough to make one cringe. Should not an honest critic do
himself a
favour by reassessing his position?
Discoveries are turning the critic’s theories upside down.
The records of the Bible are supported more and more by
archaeological
discovery.
I think it was F.F. Bruce of Manchester University who observed:
A man whose accuracy can be demonstrated in matters where
we are able to test it is likely to be accurate even where the
means for testing him are not available. Accuracy is a habit of
mind, and we know from happy (or unhappy) experience that
some people are habitually accurate just as others can be
depended upon to be inaccurate.
The track record of the Bible entitles it to be regarded as a
document of
habitual accuracy.
Without it we would be greatly impoverished.
71
APPENDIX
For interest only
Dutch archaeologist Leen Ritmeyer, one of the leading scholars in
Temple Mount research, has found the location of Solomon's Temple
with a keen eye, biblical and historical knowledge and a tape
measure.
Ritmeyer served as surveyor and field architect of the
archaeological
expedition at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem for many years as well
as
throughout the Jewish Quarter.
According to Ritmeyer, the original Temple Mount platform measured
500 cubits by 500 cubits. The "royal cubit" used for the
temple was 20.67
inches long. Later, King Herod expanded the platform on the Temple
Mount, doubling its size. It is the expanded, Herodian platform
that
tourists in Jerusalem visit today.
The current platform has two levels. Eight staircases lead from
the lower
level to the higher level where the Muslim Dome of the Rock shrine
stands.
Because the Muslims who control the Temple Mount will not allow
excavations, Ritmeyer relied on observational skills as he
searched for the
location of Solomon's Temple. And on the surface of the platform,
he
found his breakthrough.
At the bottom of a staircase in the northwest corner of the higher
section,
Ritmeyer noticed a stone with a unique chiselled edge. The stone
resembled the pre-Herodian blocks visible on the eastern wall of
the
platform. He also noted that the stone was not aligned with the
rest of the
raised platform.
Ritmeyer believed the stone was not placed there as a step, but
was
actually part of the original temple platform wall built by King
Hezekiah
(eighth century B.C.). Such a find would be helpful in locating
the
original temple.
"This step was the archaeological beginning of my research
into the pre72
Herodian Temple Mount," Ritmeyer said.
Ritmeyer tested his theory by measuring the space between the
stone and
the eastern wall. It was exactly 500 cubits -- the measurement
listed in the
Mishnah, a book on Jewish law from the second century A.D. He then
measured the pre-Herodian foundation visible on the eastern wall
from
the north to the south. It also was exactly 500 cubits.
The measurements confirmed the location of the original Temple
Mount
platform. The stone Ritmeyer discovered now bears his name in many
archaeological texts and graphics.
According to Ritmeyer, Muslim authorities repaved the area around
the
stone step in 1974 after learning of the discovery. The top of the
stone is
still visible, but the chiselled side that Ritmeyer first noticed
is not.
Ritmeyer, however, keeps a photograph that attests to his
discovery.
From there, Ritmeyer searched for the location of the temple and
the
altar. From information in the Mishnah, he theorized that the
temple
stood where the Dome of the Rock shrine now stands. If so, the
Holy of
Holies and the Ark of the Covenant would have rested on the rock
inside
the Dome of the Rock. Though some archaeologists dispute his
claims,
Ritmeyer presents a compelling case for his view.
The Mishnah stated that the temple was not located in the centre
of the
500 cubit by 500 cubit platform but was slightly northwest of
centre. This
gave credence to his view. Ritmeyer then looked for confirmation
on the
surface of the rock.
The archaeologist saw that the large rock had numerous cuts, lines
and
indentions on its surface. Many other archaeologists had rejected
the rock
as a source for clues because of the number of cuts on the
surface. Not so
with Ritmeyer.
"I look at every stone on the Temple Mount as archaeological
evidence,"
Ritmeyer said.
Ritmeyer searched for marks consistent with the information he
knew
about the Holy of Holies. Again, he relied on the Bible,
historical records
and a tape measure to test his theory. He speculated that some of
the cuts
were made to level the site for the temple's foundation.
Ritmeyer knew the dimensions of the Holy of Holies from 1 Kings 6
-- 20
73
cubits by 20 cubits. He also knew the thickness of the walls.
Ritmeyer
discovered that cuts on the rock matched the thickness of the
walls and
the width of the room. He also found cuts made for the back wall
of the
Holy of Holies.
Another rectangular mark caught Rimeyer's attention. He believed
that
this depression was the place the Ark of the Covenant stood in
Solomon's
Temple. Ritmeyer went to Exodus 25 for the ark's dimensions -- two
and
a half cubits by a cubit and a half. Using photographs and
computers to
measure the depression, scholars have found that the cut measures
two
and a half cubits by two cubits -– ample space to receive the ark.
Ritmeyer then measured from the back of the Holy of Holies to find
the
boundaries
of the original temple.
