Our Choice For King So of Egypt: Pharaoh Tirhakah



 

 

Taken from university thesis: http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/5973

....

 

Hoshea’s Call to ‘King So of Egypt’

The Syro-Palestinian resistance to Assyria - a resistance now to be supported by Egypt -

will be a consistent factor throughout the reign of Hezekiah, who, unlike his father, Ahaz,

would choose to be politically ‘pro-Egyptian’, as would Hezekiah’s contemporary,

Hoshea of Israel. Hoshea’s decision to throw off the Assyrian yoke and to court pharaoh

‘So’ was simply the next link - and by no means the last - in the chain of Syro-Palestinian

rejections of Assyrian overlordship. The invitation to ‘So’ was apparently the first

Egyptian-related incident that occurred during the reign of king Hezekiah of Judah,

having taken place in approximately the latter’s first year (c. 727 BC). According to the

account of it in 2 Kings 17:4:

“Hoshea … sent messengers to King So of Egypt, and

offered no tribute to the king of Assyria, as he had done year by year; therefore the king

of Assyria confined him and imprisoned him”.

The king of Assyria was then

“Shalmaneser” (v. 3), who, in my scheme, was none other than Tiglath-pileser III.

1058

Op. cit., p. 17.

1059

See e.g. Wikipedia’s Harsiese B.

1060

Op. cit, p. 299.

366

And Irvine has, as we shall read on pp. 371-372 below, considered serious conflict by

this same Tiglath-pileser against Samaria. Commentators have had the greatest of

difficulty once again in determining the true historical identity of the biblical pharaoh at

this time, ‘King So of Egypt’. And so have I. ‘So’ has been variously identified as (a)

from a

conventional point of view, Egypt’s Turtan, Si’be, of Sargon II’s records;1061

Osorkon IV,

1062 if not a reference to a place (Saïs), rather than to an actual person;1063 or,

(b) by

revisionists, as, for instance, Ramses II1064; or Shoshenq III.1065 My own general

opinion until recently has been, consonant with my ‘alternative’ chronology, that of

Velikovsky, that ‘So’ was

a Shoshenq.1066 Were this to be the case, then it might have

been appropriate that the Palestinians, in referring to ‘So’, had used an abbreviation,

more technically ‘hypocoristicon’, for the name ‘Shoshenq’, which name - as we saw in

reference to Shoshenq I (p. 191) - was in fact sometimes abbreviated in Egyptian writings

as ‘Shosh’. But I have now moved away from this view.

Anyway Rohl, whose placement of Shoshenq III is about two decades later than mine,

has offered the following brief account of his choice of this Shoshenq III for ‘So’:

1067

For a while the new king of Israel [Hoshea], established on the throne by his

Mesopotamian masters, continued to pay the annual tribute to Assyria, now under

the rule of S

HALMANESER V. But Hoshea was also writing to Pharaoh So, asking

for his help to throw off the Assyrian yoke. According to the New Chronology,

the senior monarch in Egypt at this time was the long-reigned U

SERMAATRE

S

HOSHENK III. The biblical name ‘So’ is thus a hypocoristicon of Sho[shenk]

(Assyrian

Su[sinku]). The reality was that Shoshenk III was in no position to

campaign in Canaan because of the growing threat of his southern border from a

Kushite line of pharaohs which would soon rule Egypt as the 25

th Dynasty.

Certainly ‘So’ as related to the name, Shoshenq (

So-senk), would be far preferable I think

to Courville’s obscure

So element in the unwieldy Suten Bat name of Ramses II, as well

as being preferable also to Sieff’s and others’ O

sorkon for ‘So’.

According to Boutflower, whose identification of ‘So’ with Shabaka I shall actually be

accepting:

1068 “The Hebrew characters read “So” should probably be read “Seve”.”

Rohl names Shoshenq III ‘the senior monarch’ then in the land of Egypt, implying that

there was now more than one ruler there. And indeed he has, in line with convention,

22nd and 23

rd dynasty rulers side by side, with the 20th dynasty no longer in existence.

1061

Cf. Boutflower, The Book of Isaiah, p. 126; Gardiner, op. cit, p. 342.

1062

Cf. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period …, p. 551; Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt, p. 342.

1063

Thus Grimal, ibid.

1064

Courville, The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, vol. I, p. 297. I have discussed this in Chapter

11,

pp. 266, 286-287.

1065

Rohl, The Lost Testament, p. 448.

1066

‘From the end of the 18th Dynasty to the time of Ramses II’, p. 8; cf. Ages in Chaos, I, p. 174.

According to Clapham, ‘A Solution for the Third Intermediate Period of Egypt’, p. 2: “It is a central

synchronism of Velikovsky’s revision that Pharaoh So of the Biblical narrative should be identified with

Shoshenq of the 22

nd Dynasty …”.

1067

Lost Testament, ibid.

1068

Op. cit, p. 126.

367

But I still have in contention that very last Ramesside, Ramses XI, who, I have suggested,

may have been Hezekiah himself. In fact Hezekiah may have been Ramesside on two

counts: a 20

th dynasty Ramesside on his paternal side (tracing back to Seti-nakht/Joash of

Judah), and a 19

th dynasty Ramesside from his mother, Abi, a daughter of Zechariah (see

pp. 372-373), and possibly, then, the daughter of the last 19

th dynasty king, Merenptah.

But, with the rise of Shoshenq III, the power of the 20

th dynasty was seriously weakened.

However, though I have biblically extended Shoshenq III, by tentatively identifying him

with Rezin, I do not think that he is the best candidate for ‘So’, as according to Rohl.

First of all, his reign seems to fall short - albeit only just - of the time of Hoshea’s call to

‘So’. And, even if a few more years could be squeezed out of him, he would by now have

been a very old pharaoh; something akin to Ramses II at the advanced stage that

Courville had identified him as So’. There is that other Shoshenq, I(B) - now generally

designated IV - closely following III, and IB’s approximately decade-long reign would

equip him nicely, chronologically, to be ‘So’. If this were the case, then Velikovsky

would have been right in a sense, though quite fortuitously, in his naming of Shoshenq IV

as ‘So’. However, this Shoshenq appears to have been a fairly ephemeral character, about

whom we know little. ‘So’, on the other hand, ought to be a character of real substance.

In attempting to ascertain, and explain, who I think ‘So’ actually was, I need to resort to a

further biblical principle; one that has stood me in good stead so far. It is this:

The Bible

does not generally introduce a person of note (in connection with Israel) in one isolated

case, but tends to identify, or round out, this person somewhere else.

We have just been

considering the case of the “son of Tabeel”, who seems to appear out of the blue, without

any specific identification - but I have looked to link him with the biblical Rezin. And in

Chapter 4

(p. 98), I had connected Jehu’s unknown officer, Bidkar, with Obadiah of the

same period.

1069 Can this principle offer us a clue also for the unqualified ‘King So’?

The clues at this time are scarce indeed. Apparently Egypt was of no vital interest at all to

the biblical scribes. The only scriptural character of note south of Judah who I think can

possibly complement ‘So’ at this time was Tirhakah, king Hezekiah of Judah’s ally;

though admittedly 2 Kings 19:9 specifically labels him “King Tirhakah of Ethiopia” -

‘So’, on the other hand, being a king of Egypt. But this Tirhakah will turn out to be a

figure of the greatest complexity, and significance, striding a very large stage indeed; he

being for instance, as we shall find, both a ruler of Egypt and Ethiopia. Tirhakah will in

fact be my primary key for unlocking the mysteries of this most complex period of

history and especially for the 25

th dynasty. He will of necessity be multi-identified,

beginning with Tirhakah = Shabaka, to be properly explained as this chapter develops.

As I briefly mentioned above, I shall be favouring Boutflower’s view that Shabaka (my

Tirhakah) was ‘So’. I shall also be favouring Boutflower’s rendering of ‘So’ as

Seve:1070

“S

eve” … is to be identified with Shabaka [Shabako] the son of Kashta, who succeeded

his father in 715” [sic].

The name ‘So’, it seems, can be variously rendered: e.g. Seve;

Sua; Soan

(Josephus1071); Soa, Soba, Segor (LXX).

1069

In my Job’s Life and Times, I connected Job of no genealogy or patronymic with Tobias of Tobit’s

substantial genealogy.

1070

Op. cit, p. 126.

1071

Antiquities, 9:14:1.

368

Most interestingly, in my new context, the Lucianic recension of the LXX has ‘So’ as an

“Ethiopian, living in Egypt”

(one Adrammelech). Presuming for the present, then, that

Tirhakah is Shabaka (i.e. ‘

Soba an Ethiopian in Egypt’), then this composite king of ours

has some attributes that might well qualify him for ‘So’: e.g. (i) his name

Soba-Shabaka

(cf.

So-Seve) – though ‘So’ is spelt with a samek and Shebna with the equivalent of a

shin,

the ‘Shibboleth’ factor (as discussed in Chapter 8, p. 191) might explain this

difference; (ii) his approximate chronological era; (iii) he was at least pro-Egyptian,

certainly anti-Assyrian; (v) he was of renowned military and strategic ability, as we are

going to find out. None of the pharaohs Shoshenq of this era, on the other hand, appears

to have ‘So’-like attributes, with only Shoshenq I, of an earlier era, having at least,

appropriately, campaigned in Palestine. I shall be developing this vital biblical character,

‘King So of Egypt’, further, especially in 7, in relation to Egypt’s TIP.


....

Archangel Raphael 'Medicine of God' to Tobit (Father of Tobias/Job)

 

 



Taken from: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kathyschiffer/2012/09/st-raphael-an-angel-with-many-hats/

....

St. Raphael: An Angel with Many Hats?

September 25, 2012 By Kathy Schiffer 8 Comments
 

On September 29, the Catholic Church celebrates the Feast of the three Archangels who have been venerated throughout the history of the Church:

• Michael (from the Hebrew Who Is Like God?), who defends the friends of God against Satan and all his evil angels;
• Gabriel (the Power of God), chosen by the Creator to announce to Mary the mystery of the Incarnation; and
• Raphael (the Medicine of God or God Heals), the archangel who, in the book of Tobit, takes care of Tobias on his journey.

These archangels, all of whom play cameo roles in the Scriptures, have been venerated since the early days of the Church–but it’s Raphael I want to talk about today. Raphael has been called the Patron of Healing. Raphael is also the patron of the blind, of happy meetings, of nurses, of physicians, and of travelers.

ST. RAPHAEL IN THE SCRIPTURES

The Old Testament book of Tobit tells the story of how Tobit, a devout Jew in exile in Assyria, and his son Tobias (sometimes called Tobiah) were rewarded for their piety and good deeds.
Two fervent prayers for help
Against the orders of the evil king Sennaherib, Tobit—who respected the Jewish burial customs—buried the bodies of Jews who had been executed by Sennaherib in Nineveh. Because of this, the king ordered Tobit to be captured and killed. Tobit fled and hid among his kinsmen. One day, Tobit was looking toward the sky when some bird droppings landed in his eyes and blinded him. No longer able to work because of his blindness, Tobit did not curse God, but instead prayed for God to end his life.
As Tobit was praying for release from this life, a young widow named Sarah also prayed to God to end her misery. Sarah had had seven husbands, but each of them had been killed by a demon on their wedding night. Sarah feared that she was cursed and could never have a husband and family of her own.
In answer to these prayers, God sent the Archangel Raphael to Earth to help them.
Tobias embarks on his mission
Tobit, unable to work because of his blindness, sent his son to the town of Media to request repayment on a loan. Tobit instructed Tobias to hire a guide to accompany him on the journey; so Tobias enlisted the assistance of Azariah, who was really the archangel Raphael in disguise.
But why is he portrayed with a fish?
When the two companions reached the Tigris River, Tobias stopped to wash. As he knelt on the bank, a great fish leapt out of the water and frightened him. Raphael instructed Tobias to seize the fish by the fins, kill it, and remove its heart, liver and gallbladder. He revealed to Tobias that burning the heart and liver would drive away evil spirits, and that the gallbladder could cure blindness. So Tobias salted the organs to preserve them, and wrapped them safely for their journey.
Azariah (Raphael) and Tobias then traveled together toward Media. Along the way, Raphael told Tobias about Sarah and encouraged him to take her as his bride, since he was her only eligible kinsman. Tobias was afraid to marry her, fearing that he would die like Sarah’s seven other husbands; but Raphael assured him that the fish’s heart and liver would protect him.
Tobias agreed, and he and Sarah were married. After the ceremony Sarah’s father—saddened because he believed Tobias would suffer the same fate as Sarah’s seven other husbands—dug a new grave beside their house, beside the seven other graves. But when Tobias and his new wife Sarah went to their bedroom that night, Tobias unwrapped the fish’s heart and liver and laid them upon the hot coals in the fireplace. The evil spirit appeared, as he had seven times before; but Tobias fanned the bitter smoke toward him and the spirit ran shrieking from the room.
The next morning, the newly married couple emerged whole and smiling from their room. Sarah’s parents, filled with joy, celebrated with them for fourteen days. Sarah’s father gave the newlyweds half of his property, with a promise that they would inherit the other half upon his death. Then the couple started home toward Nineveh.
A joyful homecoming
As they approached Tobit’s house, Tobias saw his blind old father stumbling toward them in the road. Tobias ran forward and anointed his father’s eyes with the fish’s gall, and Tobit regained his sight. He embraced his son and his new bride and welcomed them joyously into his home.
When Tobias told his father how Azariah (Raphael) had helped him on his journey and had cured Tobit’s blindness, Tobit sent for the guide to reward him. But when Raphael stood before Tobit, Raphael revealed to them who he really was and then suddenly vanished from sight.

Prayer to St. Raphael, the Archangel

Blessed Saint Raphael, Archangel,
we beseech you to help us in all our needs and trials of this life,
as you, through the power of God, restored Tobit’s sight
and gave guidance to young Tobiah.

We humbly seek your aid and intercession,
that our souls may be healed,
our bodies protected from all ills,
and that through divine grace we may become fit to dwell
in the eternal Glory of God in Heaven.
Amen.

Bible Critics Can Overstate Idea Of ‘Enlightened Pagan’



 

by

Damien F. Mackey

“Salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22)

“I will arouse your sons, O Zion, against your sons, O Greece” (Zechariah 9:13)

PART ONE

Here it will be argued that - contrary to what is often believed about the following biblical characters - none of these can really accurately be designated as an‘enlightened pagan’:

1.MELCHIZEDEK

2.RAHAB (in genealogy of David and Jesus)

3.RUTH

4.ACHIOR (in my Catholic Bible, Book of Judith)

5.JOB

6.(Probably also) the Magi.

Let us consider why.

1.MELCHIZEDEK was not an enlightened Canaanite priest-king. Melchizedek was the great Shem, son of Noah. This is apparently a Jewish tradition and I have long accepted it. Now, this is all explained very well in a recent article that I have posted at: http://amaic-abraham.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/melchizedek-was-shem-son-of-noah.html

Regarding 2, 3 and 4, for Rahab (as specified above), Ruth and Achior to have been former Gentile pagans, Canaanite in the first case (2.) and Moabites in the other two instances (3. and 4.), then this would have meant a serious flouting of Mosaic law and prohibitions: Deuteronomy 7 in the case of Rahab (see article posted at: http://amaic-kingdavid.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/the-genealogical-rachab-was-not.html), and Deuteronomy 23:3 for the presumed Moabites (see article posted at: http://amaic-kingdavid.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/ruth-was-israelite.html).

2.RAHAB. The Canaanite harlot, Rahab, whose ‘faith’both Paul (Hebrews 11:31) and James (2:25) praised incidentally (like Jesus with the Roman centurion, Luke 7:1-10), was not she who became the ancestress of David and Jesus, despite what is universally taught. The true situation, as well explained in the above-mentioned “Rachab” article, is that Rahab the harlot is to be distinguished from the Israelite woman, Rachab (note different spelling), whose name is to be found in the Davidic genealogical list.

3.RUTH. I have long believed, too, that Ruth of the Judges era could not plausibly have been a Moabitess for reasons already explained (Deuteronomy 23:3), but considered especially in my extensive research on the identity of Achior, presumably a Moabite, in the Book of Judith (see 4. next). I discussed Achior at length in Volume Two of my university thesis, A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background (accessible at: http://hdl.handle.net/2123/5973). Whilst Ruth, a woman, apparently gets away with it, Achior, a male, does not (see 4. next). Then necessity of Ruth’s being an Israelite is well argued in the above-mentioned “Ruth” article.

4.ACHIOR. I argued at length in the above-mentioned university thesis that Achior was not a Moabite at all but a Naphtalian Israelite. He was Ahikar (var. Achior, Vulgate), the nephew of Tobit (Book of Tobit 1:22). The mistaken notion that Achior was a Moabite leader is perhaps the primary reason why the Jews have not accepted the Book of Judith as part of the scriptural canon. I live in the hope that this can one day be rectified.

5.JOB I have firmly identified as Tobit’s very son, Tobias. See our site, “Holy Job Was An Israelite”, http://bookofjob-amaic.blogspot.com.au/ Thus the righteous Job was, not an enlightened Edomite (and not an Arabian sheikh), but a sage of Israel.

6.THE MAGI. There is some tradition that has them descending from the family of Job. I would suspect that the “east” in which the Magi dwelt was, not Persia by any means, but the same approximate “east”wherein Job dwelt, in the land of Uz, in Transjordanian Bashan. See our Jobian articles at site, “Holy Job Was An Israelite”.

PART TWO

Our {AMAIC} appreciation of the cultural, sapiential and spiritual supremacy of the holy people of Israel (the sincere Yahwists) has led to further important Israelitic identifications of certain famous historical characters (even dynasties), such as:

-the gifted Senenmut (Senmut) of 18^th dynasty Egyptian history, consort of Hatshepsut, with King Solomon. See our site: http://amaic-kingdavid.blogspot.com.au/ Hatshepsut herself rightly being identified by Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky (Ages in Chaos, I) with the biblical Queen [of] Sheba. See our site: http://hatshepsut-amaic.blogspot.com.au/

-King Hammurabi the Lawgiver as King Solomon again, this time in his guise as ruler of Babylon. See our site: http://amaic-kingdavid.blogspot.com.au/

And, selectively following Dr. E. Metzler, “Conflict of Laws in the Israelite Dynasty of Egypt” (http://moziani.tripod.com/dynasty/ammm_2_1.htm), I have accepted his identification of Egypt’s 18^th dynasty as Israelite, with the mighty Thutmoside pharaohs as Davidide.

The El Amarna dynasty was, I believe, a Baalistic Israelite resurgence under King Ahab (Akhnaton) and his wicked Phoenician wife, Queen Nefertiti (Jezebel). See e.g. our: http://queennefertiti-amaic.blogspot.com.au/

General Jehu is the ambiguous Horemheb, making the 19^th dynasty that he (Horemheb) initiated, as Syro-(Israelite?).

And I further suspect that Egypt’s 20^th dynasty was Judaean again, with pharaoh Ramses III as the mighty King Amaziah of Judah. See our: http://ramsesiii-amaic.blogspot.com.au/

To conclude

Whilst there are indeed to be found in the Scriptures some highly ‘enlightened pagans’or Gentiles of ‘faith’, such as Rahab the harlot and the Roman centurion, the Old Testament ones at least would not have been allowed into the Yahwistic fold according to the very strict Laws of Moses.

Did Jair, Samson and Jephthah Judge Together?



Yes, according to http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-exodus-route-date-chronology-of-judges.htm

....

1. Samson and Jephthah were two judges that arose in different parts of the country at the same time. We can place Jephthah at 1100 BC (Judges 11:26) but we are unsure exactly where to place Samson.
2. Judges 10:6-8 is a transitional text in the book of Judges that acts as an introduction to the next two Judges: Jephthah who defeated the Ammonites, and Samson who defeated the Philistines: "The anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and He sold them into the hands of the Philistines and into the hands of the sons of Ammon." Judges 10:7. This also proves that Jephthah and Samson judged at the same time because God sold them into the hands of two nations during a single period of his anger. Nothing could be clearer than this.
3. Remember that Samson did not stop the 40 year oppression of the Philistines until the day he died. This means we include his 20 year judgeship inside the 40 years of Philistine oppression. The oppression and judgeship ended at the same time. Samson judged for 20 years, but the Philistine oppression of 40 years ran concurrently with his judgeship, because the Philistines were not routed until Samson died! This means that adding 20 years of judgeship time to 40 years of oppression time for a total time span of 60 is wrong. In fact from Samson, we can see that there were 20 years of oppression before Samson started judging. Then Samson judged 20 years during the final 20 years of Philistine oppression. Most make the mistake of viewing a period of 40 years of oppression that ended when Samson started judging and that the land had peace for the next 20 years.
4. Also take note that Saul and David fought the Philistine Goliath in 1021 BC. So the battles with the Philistines was an ongoing matter.
5. Since we are told that Jephthah lived in 1100 BC, we will use "Indivisible unit 3": Jephthah - Abdon (48 years), from 1100 BC forward and basically ignore Samson. Samson should be placed directly on top of the Jephthah - Abdon chronology, although we cannot be sure exactly what dates are involved.
6. We need to also remember that when Jephthah said it had been 300 years, this was after the Ammonites had already crushed Israel for 18 years from 1118 - 1100 BC. (10:8). So we know that the "300 years" dates from the first year he was judge and the last year of the Ammonite oppression when he defeated them. This also means that Jair judged during the entire time of the Ammonite oppression and died in the fourth year that Jephthah was judge in 1096 BC.
7. It is clear that the oppression of the Ammonites was isolated to the transjordan region of Gilead alone. Samson's judgeship centered around the Philistines at the modern Gaza strip area in the far south west. So Jair was judge in the central and northern sections of Canaan. These three distinct geographic areas make it clear how Jair, Samson and Jephthah could be judges at the same time.

....

Did Deborah and Gideon Judge Together?



 

 

Yes, according to http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-exodus-route-date-chronology-of-judges.htm

 

....

We can prove that Deborah and Gideon judged at the same time. After each Judge the narrative tells us there were two periods of 40 years where the land had rest. Most view these as two different sets of 40 years which they add up to 80 chronological years. However, these two periods of 40 years of rest are in fact the same period and amount to a total of only 40 chronological years. Therefore we match the 40 years of rest of Gideon (8:28) with the 40 years of rest of Deborah (5:31) and it creates a close harmony with the 300 years of Jephthah in Judges 11:26.

By lining up the two 40 years of peace, we very nicely splice the end of "indivisible unit 1", with the beginning of "indivisible unit 2".

This shows us that Israel was being oppressed in the north by the Canaanites at the same time the Midianites were crossing the Jordan and raiding the crops of central Israel, then returning transjordan.

Deborah's battle was at Mt. Tabor and involved 10,000 men from the tribes of Naphtali and Zebulun: "the God of Israel, has commanded, 'Go and march to Mount Tabor, and take with you ten thousand men from the sons of Naphtali and from the sons of Zebulun." Judges 4:6.

Gideon's battle started in the valley of Jezreel, then moved transjordan far east of the Jordan and involved a specialized army of 300 from Manasseh, Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali: "the Midianites and Amalekites and the sons of the east ... camped in the valley of Jezreel. ... Gideon ... called together to follow him: Manasseh, Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali, and they came up to meet them." Judges 6:33-35.

The critical link between Deborah and Gideon is in the tribes who fought and the tribes who refused to fight. Deborah started judging 13 years before Gideon and chastised the region of Gilead, and the tribes of Dan and Asher because they would not join in the battle: "Gilead remained across the Jordan; And why did Dan stay in ships? Asher sat at the seashore, And remained by its landings." Judges 5:17. She praises Zebulun and Naphtali for joining the battle: ""Zebulun was a people who despised their lives even to death, And Naphtali also, on the high places of the field." Judges 5:18

When Gideon (from the tribe of Manasseh) started judging 13 years later, the same tribes fight and the same tribes refused! Gideon comes to two towns in Gilead (‍Succoth and Penuel) and asks the leaders for food to feed his army of 300 and they both refuse. (8:5-8) Gilead had previously refused Deborah's request for help at Mt. Tabor: "Gilead remained across the Jordan" Judges 5:17. So this was the second time Gilead had refused to fight for their brethren. After Gideon destroys Midian, he returns and destroys the town leaders of Gilead (‍Succoth and Penuel). A kind of "two strikes and you're out" policy with God. Later Gilead would redeem themselves under Jephthah, who himself was a Gileadite who saved themselves from the Ammonite oppression. Perhaps still not that noble, since they were merely defending their own home turf from the invasion of the king of Ammon. Good thing the Gileadites had no French genes in them, or else they would have just surrounded to the Ammonites and expected the other tribes to liberate an fight for them!

So we can prove that Deborah and Gideon Judged at the same time because they same two tribes (Zebulun and Naphtali) willingly supplied valiant warriors and the Gilead refused both of them to fight. This is an enormous key to unlocking the chronology of Judges!

Since Deborah and Gideon judged at the same time, then the 40 years of peace that followed both are identical and should be laid upon one another in chronological terms.

....

Ecclesiastes. A Testament of King Solomon's Repentance

 

 

Taken from: http://www.studylight.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=ec&chapter=009

....


ECCLESIASTES 9

This chapter actually concludes the part of Ecclesiastes which is the most difficult to understand and interpret. Up to this point Solomon has written a lot of things which, to a Christian, do not make any sense at all. What is the explanation of this? Scholars vary in their explanations; but the conclusion must be; (1) that Solomon is rehearsing the allegations of materialistic unbelievers with a view to refuting them in his conclusion (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14), (2) that he was writing of what he saw `under the sun,' and not of what he believed, or (3) that, "Solomon, for the time being, had abandoned his faith in God, altogether,"^F1 and that his words throughout Ecclesiastes thus far indicate that, "Man would not know that there was any fundamental difference between a man and a beast."^F2 This writer has been unable to find a convincing answer as to which of these explanations should be adopted.

Part of the reason for this uncertainty lies in the enigma of Solomon's life. He was a man greatly loved by the Lord, endowed with great wisdom, who prayed a magnificent prayer at the dedication of the Temple, and who was the most honored and glorified person (from the human standpoint) in the whole history of Israel. In spite of this, however, any careful student of God's Word must conclude that the magnitude of Solomon's wickedness was immeasurable. It is this fact that suggests the possibility that Ecclesiastes is generally a statement of Solomon's unbelief; but if that is true, it would mean that the conclusion in Eccl. 12 was later added by an inspired writer, as some scholars affirm (although without any proof whatever). Another explanation of the magnificent "conclusion of the whole matter" (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14) is that Solomon finally came to his senses and returned to the love and service of God. This is the interpretation that seems most logical to this writer.

"The Jews generally, and also St. Jerome, hold the book to have been written by Solomon following his repentance and restoration from the idolatry into which he had fallen through the influence of the heathen women he had married."^F3

We find it impossible to believe that "all is vanity," a declaration that occurs dozens of times in the book. Nor can it be true that men and animals have the same fate. Who can believe that, "Eat, drink, and be joyful," is, in any sense whatever, the ultimate meaning and employment of life? It is impossible to believe that the "dead know nothing," except in a limited sense. Moses and Elijah stood on the mountain of transfiguration and carried on a conversation with Jesus Christ. Of course, Solomon lived before the magnificent revelation of life and immortality that were brought to mankind in the life and teachings of the Christ; but Solomon's father David certainly would never have said a lot of things that one finds in Ecclesiastes.

Also, the idea of the hopelessness and futility of life, stressed throughout Ecclesiastes, was by no means accepted by the patriarchs. They most certainly believed in the possibility, if not the certainty, of life after death. Abraham was willing to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice, because, "He believed that God was able to raise Isaac from the dead" (Hebrews 11:19).

From all these considerations, this writer favors the view that Solomon indeed repented (even as did Manasseh), and that after his return to God, he was inspired to write this book, and that many of the things written in Ecclesiastes represent views which Solomon once had erroneously received, and which, when he wrote Ecclesiastes, he would reject and outlaw altogether in his conclusion (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14).

We have previously mentioned Paul's description of his life under the Mosaic Law (Rom. 7), which is analogous to what was probably Solomon's life (and beliefs) prior to his repentance. In all of Ecclesiastes, we should never forget that it was written long ages before the glorious revelation of the New Testament was delivered to mankind, certified and sealed by the death, burial and resurrection of the Son of God.

---

ALL IS IN THE HAND OF GOD

Verse 1

For all this I laid to my heart, even to explore all this: that the righteous, and the wise, and their works, are in the hand of God; whether it be love or hatred, man knoweth it not; all is before them. The grand truth stated here is that God is in control. Everything that occurs, in the final analysis, happens under the permissive will of God. The meaning of the latter part of this verse is that, "We are unable to discern from that which we may observe taking place in life, which men are living under God's displeasure, and which ones are those whom he loves."^F4

---

THE SAME FATE COMES TO ALL

Verses 2-6

All things come alike to all: there is one event to the righteous and to the wicked; to the good and to the clean and to the unclean; to him that sacrificeth and to him that sacrificeth not; as is the good, so is the sinner; [and] he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath. This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea also, the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that [they go] to the dead. For to him that is joined with all the living there is hope; for a living dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. As well their love, as their hatred and their envy, is perished long ago; neither have they any more a portion for ever in anything that is done under the sun. We should preface this paragraph with imaginary words from Solomon: "This is the way I viewed things while in rebellion against God." If this should not be considered a valid understanding of the paragraph, then we should limit what is said here as a declaration of the way things appear when they are viewed purely from an earthly and materialistic viewpoint, as characteristic of what is done "under the sun." All things come alike to all(Ecclesiastes 9:2). There is no way that this can be strictly true. True, the event of death comes to all; but this says, all things come alike to all men! They go to the dead(Ecclesiastes 9:3). This, as it stands in the passage, is cited as the end of everything. And, in the earthly sense, of course it is. This is an obstinate fact; but God has placed in man's heart some equally obstinate intuitions that contradict it. He has set eternity in their heart (Ecclesiastes 3:11). And this pushes us toward an answer that lies beyond the pages of Ecclesiastes; and that is, The prospect (even the certainty) of reward and punishment in the world to come.^F5 Loader interpreted what is written here as saying that, "Religious and moral qualities of man do not have the weight of a feather in affecting his fate."^F6 This might not be the correct understanding of what is written here; but the passage surely allows that as one understanding of it. One thing is sure, "If that is what the text says, it is a lie," and must be understood as the false teaching Ecclesiastes was designed to refute and deny. For the living know that they shall die(Ecclesiastes 9:5). This knowledge on the part of the living is here cited as the one and only reason given in the text that living is any better than being dead. This cannot be true, because the living may still turn to God, obey the holy gospel and attain unto eternal life, whereas that opportunity does not belong to the dead. The incredible pessimism of this passage staggers one's imagination. "Such an alleged `advantage' of living as compared with death only serves to strengthen the emphatic finality of death."^F7 But death is not final! "It is appointed unto man once to die, and after this cometh judgment" (Hebrews 9:27). Solomon's conclusion (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14) refutes what is written here. The dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward(Ecclesiastes 9:5). The Seventh Day Adventists have taken this verse as the proof of their false doctrine that, Resurrection is a restoration to life of the non-existent dead. No soul is conscious after death.^F8 But is not this in the Word of God? Certainly, just like the word of Satan is found in the Word of God (Genesis 3:4). It is not written that God said, The dead do not know anything, but that Solomon, one of the wickedest men who ever lived, said it. Even if Solomon believed it, which is questionable, because he might have been recounting his religious philosophy during the times of his apostasy, -- but even if he believed it, it could not possibly be true. The glorious one who is Greater than Solomon gave us the story of the rich man and Lazarus; and the rich man is represented as being, not merely conscious after death, but in terrible pain and anxiety regarding his brethren who had not yet died, but who were living wickedly as he had lived. (See Luke 16:19-31). Oh yes, this is a parable, but it is not a fable; and one of the characteristics of a parable is that it is based upon an event which either happened or could have happened. Jesus never used parables to teach lies to his followers. Also, in Revelation we have this, "I saw underneath the altar the souls of them that had been slain for the Word of God, and for the testimony which they held; and they cried with a great voice, saying, How long, O Master, the holy and true, dost not thou judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth"?^F9 In the light of what the Christ has said, one may safely set aside what the wicked Solomon is here reported in God's Word to have said. The Seventh Day Adventist notion that the resurrection is the creation of the non-existent dead is also an outright contradiction of Christ's declaration that "God is the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, and that he is the God of the living, not of the dead." (Matthew 22:32). This clearly states that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are living (even in the state of death) and that they are not non-existent.

---

EAT, DRINK, ETC, FOR TOMORROW YOU DIE

Verses 7-10

Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God hath already accepted thy works. Let thy garments be always white; and let not thy head lack oil. Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of thy life of vanity, which he hath given thee under the sun, all thy days of vanity: for that is thy portion in life, and in thy labor wherein thou laborest under the sun. Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do [it] with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in Sheol, whither thou goest. This, of course, is Epicureanism. "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die." This philosophy is absolutely worthless, unless death is the end of everything. As Paul stated it, "If the dead are not raised up, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die" (1 Corinthians 15:32). Solomon has repeatedly advocated this doctrine, not only here, but in Eccl. 1:9; 1:15; 3:1-9; and in Eccl. 3:14-15. This was evidently the position that he accepted during the days of his apostasy. One question that arises from this interpretation is that of whether or not Solomon ever repented and turned to God as the Jews allege that he did. We find no Biblical support of that idea anywhere. Nevertheless, that is a necessary corollary of our interpretation of Ecclesiastes. God hath already accepted thy works(Ecclesiastes 9:7) ... Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest. which he (God) hath given thee (Ecclesiastes 9:9). Here we have a glimpse of the penitent and restored Solomon honoring God for his marvelous gifts and praising him for the blessings given to the sons of men, even while he is still relating the stubborn and rebellious things that he had once believed. Note that he referred twice in these few verses to life as vanity. There is also here a favorable mention of marriage and the loving of one wife all the days of thy vanity (Ecclesiastes 9:9), which is surprising enough from an author like Solomon. The great value of Ecclesiastes is that it elaborates fully the absolute worthlessness and vanity of life on earth by any man who lives without the fear of God and submission to the divine authority of our Creator.

---

THE RACE IS NOT TO THE SWIFT, NOR THE BATTLE TO THE STRONG

Verses 11, 12

I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare, even so are the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them. This passage, one of the most famous in Ecclesiastes, should be understood as dealing with unexpected exceptions to what may be generally expected. The swift usually win the race, and the battle usually goes to the strong, but not always! It was an untimely rain that defeated Napoleon at Waterloo, and a purposeless bow-shot that slew Ahab. All kinds of happenings may intervene to make:

The best laid schemes of mice and men
Gang aft a-gley!
An' lea'e us naught but grief and pain
For promised joy.^F10

In the recent Olympic races, the swiftest runner, unanimously favored to win, suffered a fall; and another took the prize.

In his rebellious days, Solomon looked upon all such disappointments as more proof that, "all is vanity." Incidentally, we have often cited Eccl. 9:11 here as another reason why the righteous sometimes suffer, whereas the wicked sometimes prosper and are honored. This is only one among half a dozen other reasons. Time and chance happeneth to them all(Ecclesiastes 9:11). All kinds of unpredictable and uncontrollable events may, and frequently do, change good fortune into bad fortune, or vice versa. Kidner thought that there was a bare possibility that Paul had this verse in mind when he wrote, So it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy (Romans 9:16); but he pointed out that, Paul's concept is far different from that here. Paul noted that God has mercy upon all mankind, but there is not a trace of any thought of God's compassion here.^F11

---

THE POOR WISE MAN WHO DELIVERED A CITY

Verses 13-15

I have also seen wisdom under the sun on this wise, and it seemed great unto me: There was a little city, and few men within it; and there came a great king against it, and besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it. Now there was found in it a poor wise man, and he by his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered that same poor man. This incident was evidently included in the book here as another example of the `vanity' which the author found in everything that he saw `under the sun.' Indeed, there is something distressing in this. Look at the monuments men have built all over the world. Whom do they honor? Generally, they honor those who butchered their thousands and tens of thousands on bloody battlefields, but not the wise statesmen who negotiated peace. "How warped are our human value systems! Jesus said, `Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God'" (Matthew 5:9)."<sup>F12</sup> The sad fact of this little city's true benefactor having been forgotten is only one of a million other similar situations in which there have been gross miscarriages of human justice and even intelligence. Why? The status of our human race is the only explanation that is needed. Our race, which is in rebellion against God, is divinely condemned to death. "Thou shalt surely die" (Genesis 2:17). If one leaves God and his merciful provision for man's redemption out of consideration, our wretched race, wallowing in the miseries, disease and violence which are the fruit of its own wickedness, is indeed `vanity of vanities.' Solomon's analysis of what he saw `under the sun' was profoundly correct, if the observer leaves God out of his analysis, as Solomon was obviously doing in this part of Ecclesiastes.

....

 

 

See also the excellent PDF article:

Did Solomon write Ecclesiastes in repentance?

http://www.testimony-magazine.org/back/mar2003/elliott1.pdf