Prophet Job a flesh and blood reality

by Damien F. Mackey Introduction There is no doubt that the person of the prophet Job, as well as the Book of Job itself, its language, and its authorship, present huge challenges for the biblical commentator. Whilst there are available many useful commentaries to expound for us various of the intricacies of the Book of Job, sadly their usefulness does not carry over, I have found, to any satisfactory elucidation of the book’s historical locus – presuming that it is, indeed, of an historical nature. That this important aspect of the Book of Job still remains rather poorly understood can be gauged from the following statement about the book’s authorship, by F. Knight (Nile and Jordan, James Clarke and Co., Ltd., London, 1921, p. 379): The authorship, date, and place of composition of the Book of Job constitute some of the most keenly contested and most uncertain problems in Biblical Criticism. There is perhaps no book in the Canon of Scripture to which more diverse dates have been assigned. Every period of Jewish history, from BC 1400 to BC 150, has had its advocates as that to which this mysterious and magnificent poem must be relegated, and this criticism ranges over 1200 years of uncertainty. The problem of the historicity of the life of Job appears to be an age-old consideration; for we find that at least as far back as the C13th AD (by conventional reckoning) the question was being hotly debated in the Schools. St. Thomas Aquinas (In “Expositio super Job ad litteram”) was one who had insisted that Job, and those who engaged in debate with him, were genuine historical persons. In this he was opposing himself to the likes of Moses Maimonides (In “Guide of the Perplexed”, III. 22), who had expressed a contrary view. Aquinas had written in the Prologue to his “Expositio”: “Now there have been some men to whom it seemed that the Job in question was not something in the nature of things but that he was a kind of parable made up to serve as a theme for a debate over providence, the way men often invent hypothetical cases to debate over them”. Against such a view Aquinas, however, opposed the clear references to Job in the Old and New testaments, namely: Ezekiel 14:14, 20, in which God states that Jerusalem had at that time (just prior to the Babylonian Captivity) become so corrupt that even if such holy men as Noah, Daniel and Job had been living in it - though these three would have escaped with their lives - they would not have been able to have saved any others in the city from imminent destruction. James 5:11, in which the Apostle praises Job’s steadfastness. Thomas Aquinas had, in the course of his commentary, pointed to certain details of an historical nature in the text of Job itself that he believed to confirm this view; for example that very first verse of the Book of Job: “There was a man in the land of Uz by the name of Job ...” (1:1), in which Job is described with respect to his native land, and with respect to his name. These two items of information, he believed, had been provided to show that this story is not a parable but a real occurrence. (“Expositio”, Ch. 1). We encounter the same situation again later on in the Book of Job, where the young Elihu is introduced into the story as “Elihu, the son of Barachiel the Buzite, of the line of Ram” (Job 32:2). From this information we learn about the young man’s name, his origin, his native land, and his race. Elihu is in fact the only character in the Book of Job who is accorded a patronymic; for nowhere in this book are we supplied with the name of Job’s father, nor of the father(s) of his three friends. Thomas Aquinas, though his purposes were purely interpretative, had nevertheless listed the historical problems of the book as: “The time Job lived”, “his parentage” and “the authorship” of the book. As it happens, these are the very kinds of problems that concern us here. Language of the Book of Job With regard to the authorship of the Book of Job, one would need to include an explanation for what the following piece by Edward L. Greenstein has entitled: The Strange Language of the Book of Job https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-strange-language-of-the-book-of-job/ The ideas of the Book of Job have always been challenging. How can a just God not only permit but orchestrate the terrible suffering of a truly righteous person? It is hard to get one’s head around that question. But no less challenging is the language of the book. The grammar and vocabulary go far beyond what might be excused as poetic license. The language is strange — so strange that the earliest translators, into Aramaic and Greek, frequently stumbled over it, and the great medieval Bible commentator, Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra, suggested that the book, which is basically Hebrew, must have been translated from another language. Some scholars in modern times too have proposed that the book’s difficulties must result from having been translated from another language, such as Edomite — a barely known Canaanite language akin to Hebrew — or an early dialect of Arabic. In fact, however, in spite of its occasional foreign elements, the Book of Job is essentially a Hebrew composition. The narrative in prose that frames the book is good biblical Hebrew, albeit of the later (post-Babylonian exile) variety; and the large majority of verses in the poetic core of the book, the dialogues, are entirely Hebrew. Its language is so difficult because the author of Job was a skilled poet who knew how to employ dialect, allusion, wordplay and more to lend sophistication and flavor to his work. …. A recent denial of the historicity of Job A friend of mine, who well knows of my interest in the historicity of the Scriptures, complained to me last year (7th October, 2024) that his parish priest had denied that Job was a real person, the priest claiming that his view on this would generally be supported by Jewish scholars. I took up the matter on my friend’s behalf even though I did not know this particular priest, not had I personally heard what he had said. Here is a modified version of what I wrote about this in a newsletter: “My friend came to me with sadness in his eyes. Told me that he wanted help before his [faith expires]”. (Bangladesh, George Harrison, modified) Dear Father, You don’t know me and I don’t know you. I am writing this on behalf of a distressed person, a believer that the Scriptures are the inspired Word of God, who had the misfortune to hear two homilies from you in which you allegedly (I was not there) stated that the prophet Job did not exist as an historical entity, and that the multiplication of the loaves was likely symbolic. Apparently you claim to have been educated by Jesuits. …. Apparently you claimed to be right in step with the majority of Rabbis in your view that Job was not historical. The Jewish Encyclopedia tells me otherwise: https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8692-job “Apart from these utterances all of the rabbis took it for granted that Job existed …”. Wise men have noted that the fact that young Elihu in the Book of Job has been provided with biographical details, patronymic, geography and race (Job 32:2): “… Elihu son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram …”, is an indication that he was a real person. …. The Book of Job clearly sets the narrative in the Chaldean era, which followed the neo- Assyrian era. The marauders were militarily organised. ‘The Chaldeans formed three raiding parties and swept down on your camels and made off with them’ (Job 1:17). …. I think that those Jesuits educators may have left you up the creek without a paddle. You not only have to cast doubt on the Old Testament by denying Job, but you must also contend with the New Testament, with Jesus’s loyal servant the Apostle James (5:11): “As you know, we count as blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job’s perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy”. According to your minimalising view there can be no “what the Lord finally brought about” resolution for the long-suffering prophet Job, because Job did not exist. Everything that Jesus Christ said and did had great meaning, often lost upon we Western schooled thinkers. With the loaves, I do not want to go into the details of how the 12 basketsful correspond to the 12 baskets of loaves that the Pharisees traditionally brought to an ordination ceremony, nor the 7 baskets of loaves that the even more strict Scribes (= Essenes) brought. It suffices to say that, even apart from the miraculous element - which you appear to question - something quite out of the ordinary was involved here. Where, Father, will your diminishing of the Scriptures end? It is a very slippery slope. Will it turn out to be like the US Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, re-writing the Bible by erasing supernatural or miraculous bits in the hope of making Jesus Christ more reasonable, but, thereby, completely losing the power of His story? …. Even after having scrutinised the Book of Job, one will end up with virtually nothing by way of biographical details for the holy man. Chaldean Era One possible clue may come early, in Job 1:17, where the Chaldeans are mentioned: “While this one was still speaking, another also came and said, ‘The Chaldeans set up three companies and made a raid on the camels and took them and struck down the young men with the edge of the sword, and I alone have escaped to tell you’.” Although the Chaldeans were an ancient people, this incident, “three companies”, sheloshah rashim (שְׁלֹשָׁה רָאשִׁים). may perhaps bespeak of a time when the Chaldeans were militarily organised. While that is admittedly very thin evidence, (i) it, coupled with (ii) the fact that the Book of Job probably most of all resembles the Book of Jeremiah, of the Chaldean era, and also, as some have suggested (iii) young Elihu’s likenesses to the prophet Ezekiel, also of the Chaldean era, may point us to - for the later phase of Job’s life - the Chaldean kingdom following that of the neo-Assyrians. Fortunately for us the prophet Job appears in the Bible under four different names (guises), the first of which will – as we are now going to find – greatly enrich our understanding about who Job was; who were his parents and ancestors; when did he live; and where did he live? Here follows the full story of the prophet Job Outline history of Job (i) As Tobias, son of Tobit Forget about Job’s being some Arabian sheikh, or Edomite king – e.g., the Jobab of Genesis 36:13. No, Job was not a Gentile, but was an Israelite of the tribe of Naphtali. He was Tobias, the son of Tobit and Anna (Tobit 1:1-9). Apparently born in Naphtali, the young Tobias was taken into captivity with his parents, to Nineveh in Assyria (cf. v. 10) – taken captive there by Shalmaneser (v. 2). A note: Here, biographically, we have the very origins of the fictitious composite Mohammed, supposedly of the C7th AD, whose various associations with the city of Nineveh, which disappeared in c. 612 BC (conventional dating), are horribly anachronistic. Mohammed is clearly based upon the holy Tobias inasmuch as the names of his parents closely equate to the names of the parents of Tobias, TOBIT and ANNA. Tobit and Tobias are actually the same Hebrew name (variously spelled to avoid confusion), Obadiah (עֹבַדְיָה), with the Hebrew ayin (ע) rendered in the Greek with a Tau (𝜏). This common Hebrew name means “Servant of the Lord”. Now, Mohammed’s parents are said to have been ABDULLAH and AMNA, the former being basically the Arabic equivalent of Obadiah, with the latter, Amna, being almost identical to Anna. The long life of Tobias, 99 years according to one version (Douay-Rheims), 117 years according to another (NRSV), would have spanned the latter part of the reign of Shalmaneser; the full reign of Sennacherib; the reign of Esarhaddon; and right down until the Medo-Persian era, because, as the Book of Tobit concludes (14:15): Before [Tobias] died he saw and heard of the destruction of Nineveh, and he saw its prisoners being led into Media, those whom King Cyaxares of Media had taken captive. Tobias blessed God for all he had done to the people of Nineveh and Assyria; before he died he rejoiced over Nineveh, and he blessed the Lord God forever and ever. Amen. This takes us right past the Chaldean era, for which we suspect we might have found some hints in the Book of Job. In conventional historical terms, the life of Tobias, long as it might have been, would impossibly have had to have spanned about two centuries. But my revised chronology greatly shortens this historical period, getting rid of duplicates of kings, thereby enabling for Tobias to have lived during the latter neo-Assyrian period; the entire Chaldean period; and on into the Medo-Persian period. (ii) As Job If Tobias grew from childhood to marriage from the reign of Shalmaneser (who is also Tiglath-pileser) to the reign of Sennacherib (who is also Sargon II), both Assyrian kings, then his later life (his worst trials, at least) could indeed have coincided with the long reign of the Chaldean king, Esarhaddon (who is also my Nebuchednezzar, amongst others). It is not impossible, then, that Elihu the Buzite who counselled Job was none other than the prophet Ezekiel son of Buzi (the Buzite?) (Ezekiel 1:3) of the Chaldean era. That would explain why the young Elihu was so far wiser than Job’s three friends. It would also make sense for Ezekiel twice to refer to Job (Ezekiel 14:14, 20), as already noted. He well knew Job. Hence, I think, the prophet Ezekiel may be a potential author of the Book of Job. Their Transjordanian location might also explain why the language of the Book of Job, while being Hebrew, is somewhat challenging (recall the “Shibboleth” factor: Judges 12:6). There are many parallels between Job and Tobias, not least the commonality of having seven sons, rare in the Bible. I have discussed these fascinating parallels in my article: Job’s Life and Times https://www.academia.edu/123131569/Job_s_Life_and_Times If Job was Tobias, son of Tobit, as I firmly believe him to have been, then we are now faced with three different ages for him at death: 99 and 117 from two versions of Tobit, and 140 from the Book of Job (42:18). Without wanting to be definitive here, I would simply estimate the historical span covered for him in the Book of Tobit, from birth to death, to be about 80 years. (iii) As Habakkuk Apart from Jeremiah, Job is often likened to the prophet Habakkuk. To give just one excellent example of this: https://www.amazon.com.au/Prophet-Sage-Intertextual-Connections-Habakkuk/dp/1666765813 The Prophet and the Sage: Intertextual Connections between Habakkuk and Job Paperback – 29 March 2023 by Brian M. Koning (Author) ________________________________________ …. Job and Habakkuk represent the Bible’s most focused interlocutors on the concepts of justice and theodicy. Both works center upon men chosen by God who see and suffer evil (Job 1:8, cf. Hab 1:1). Both books record the cries of these men as they wrestled to make sense of the world in which they lived (Job 3, cf. Hab 1:2–4). While they have a passing similarity, what if there is something more fundamental to their connection? What if these books are not merely two unconnected discourses on suffering, but linked in a significant way? By examining the texts themselves, this study explores the possibility that a textual relationship exists between portions of Habakkuk and Job and how the underlying transformation of Job’s theodicy shapes Habakkuk’s dialogue with God. [End of quote] Habakkuk is, I believe, simply another version of Job. The peculiar name, “Habakkuk”, is likely not Hebrew, but Akkadian: https://jbqnew.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/391/Habakkuk.pdf “The name may be rooted in the Akkadian hambakuku (a type of plant) …”. Now, where would Job have picked up an Akkadian name? In Assyrian Nineveh, of course, where he had lived the major part of his life. Just as Daniel and his three young friends had been given foreign names, so, presumably, would Tobias-Job have been in Nineveh. In the Book of Daniel (14:33-36), Habakkuk is miraculously transported by an angel to Babylon to feed Daniel in the den of lions. Was it the same angel, Raphael, who had once guided young Tobias to Ecbatana (Bashan), a place he did not know, who now carried him by the hair to Babylon, a place he did not know? And, to complete the trifecta, was the angel Raphael who accompanied Tobias, who air-lifted Habakkuk (?), the same being as Job’s ‘advocate’ in heaven (Job 16:19)?: ‘Even now my witness is in heaven; my advocate is on high’. The angel Raphael may be as a golden thread linking the three manifestations of Job. (iv) As Haggai Our prophet, who, we found, lived to see the dawn of the Medo-Persian era, would also live to see the building of the second Temple, about which his father Tobit had testified (Tobit ch. 13). As the prophet Haggai, he would, in the 2nd year of Darius the Persian, urge on the Jews to complete the work (Haggai 1:1). No doubt the Jews, who loved to use (hypocoristicon) nick-names, would have sought to shorten the awkward foreign name of Habakkuk to, just, Ha..kku (Haggai).

Qadesh doubly problematical for Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky

Part One: Qadesh of the Annals of Thutmose III by Damien F. Mackey “The north side of my town faced east / And the east was facing south”. The Who In somewhat similar fashion, with geography all askew, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky once had Qadesh (Kadesh) facing southwards, when it should have been facing northwards, and once had Qadesh facing northwards, when it should have been facing southwards. The first instance concerned Kadesh in the records of Thutmose III, the warrior-pharaoh whom Dr. Velikovsky would re-locate from his conventional placement in the mid-C15th BC to the C10th BC era of King Solomon and his son, Rehoboam. (Ages in Chaos, I, 1952). Despite this radical downwards time-shift, I fully accept the correctness of it, as well as accepting Dr. Velikovsky’s identification of Thutmose III, ‘the Napoleon of Egypt’ (professor Henry Breasted), as the biblical “Shishak king of Egypt” (I Kings 14:25-26): “In the fifth year of King Rehoboam, Shishak king of Egypt attacked Jerusalem. He carried off the treasures of the Temple of the Lord and the treasures of the royal palace. He took everything, including all the gold shields Solomon had made”. Thirdly, I am likewise convinced with Dr. Velikovsky (though by no means in harmony with his details) that this, the First Campaign of Thutmose III, his Year 22-23 (c. 1460 BC, conventional dating; c. 922 BC, revised), was the same as the biblical episode as narrated above in the First Book of Kings. It is commonly agreed that Kd-šw/Qd-šw in the Egyptian Annals refers to Kadesh/ Qadesh, though not all agree as to which geographical location was intended. Ironically, in this singular instance, Dr. Velikovsky’s reconstruction would rigidly follow the conventional path, northwards from Gaza (Egyptian G3-d3-tw], to Yemma? (Egyptian Y-hm), via a narrow defile, Aruna (Egyptian '3-rw-n3), to Megiddo (Egyptian My-k-ty). Megiddo’s close association with Taanach (Egyptian T3-'3-n3-k3) in the Egyptian Annals, appears positively to secure the identification of My-k-ty with Megiddo - as both professor James Henry Breasted and Dr. Velikovsky had accepted. Whilst I, also, shall be embracing their identifications of Gaza, Megiddo and Taanach, I shall be vehemently rejecting those of the in-between locations of Yehem (Y-hm) and Aruna. A conventional path was never going to hold Dr. Velikovsky too long in its embrace. For, while the conventionalists had the Egyptian army continuing its push northwards, to Syrian Qadesh - which progression I think is correct - Dr. Velikovsky, in order to make this campaign fit his brilliant “Shishak” identification, will have the Egyptian army suddenly lurch back southwards from Megiddo, to attack Jerusalem, the “Holy” - Dr. Velikovsky here attempting to draw a connection between the Kd-šw/Qd-šw of the Egyptian Annals and the Hebrew word for “Holy”, qodesh (קֹ֔דֶשׁ). Consequently, Egypt’s “wretched foe”, the king of Qadesh, Dr. Velikovsky will now identify as King Rehoboam of Jerusalem, in full southward flight from the Egyptians, only managing to have himself hauled into Jerusalem before the Egyptians can seize him. A similar narrow type of escape is narrated in the Egyptian Annals in the case of the real King of Kd-šw. Those ever hoping to find evidence for the Bible in historical records can be thrilled by such excitingly reconstructed scenarios as this. Now, though Dr. Velikovsky’s reconstruction (and also its conventional counterpart) of the right biblical campaign, is wrong, those thrilled by the prospect of having a biblical event confirmed in the historical records need not cease being thrilled. The First Campaign of Thutmose III, in his Year 22-23 (c. 922 BC, revised), was, indeed the same as the biblical episode as narrated above in I Kings 14:25-26. But it needs to be properly re-presented. This was typical Dr. Velikovsky, intuiting the correct conclusion - namely, here, that Thutmose III was the biblical “Shishak”, whose assault on Jerusalem occurred during the pharaoh’s First Campaign - but erecting his thesis in a most unconvincing fashion. Glaringly wrong is the conventional identification (accepted by Dr. Velikovsky) of the Aruna ('3-rw-n3) road with some obscure Wadi 'Ara near Megiddo. Thankfully, Dr. Eva Danelius came to the rescue here with her most important article, “Did Thutmose III Despoil the Temple in Jerusalem?” (1977/78): https://saturniancosmology.org/files/egypt/thutmos.htm Breasted identified this defile, the road called "Aruna" in Egyptian records, with the Wadi 'Ara which connects the Palestine maritime plain with the Valley of Esdraelon (4). It was this identification which aroused my curiosity, and my doubt. …. As an afterthought, Nelson warns not to be deceived by the Arabic name (wadi) 'Ara: "Etymologically, it seems hardly possible to equate (Egyptian) 'Aruna with (Arab) 'Ar'arah." (51). …. Not only etymologically, but, far more importantly, topographically - the major contribution made by Dr. Danelius - does the Wadi 'Ara not at all fit the Egyptian description of the dread Aruna road, whose Egyptian rendering, '3-rw-n3, however, transliterates perfectly into the Hebrew Araunah. This road was connected, via the name of Araunah the Jebusite (2 Samuel 24:15-16), directly to Jerusalem and its Temple. To conclude, without repeating all the details of what I have already written by way of correction of Dr. Velikovsky, and modification of Dr. Danelius, in: The Shishak Redemption (1) The Shishak Redemption and: Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III’s march on Jerusalem (2) Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III's march on Jerusalem - with Yehem (Y-hm) newly identified as Jerusalem itself - here is the brief summing up of my “Yehem near Aruna …” article: The Aruna road, the most difficult, but most direct, was the one that the brilliant pharaoh chose, for a surprise assault upon Megiddo. Jimmy Dunn writes regarding pharaoh’s tactic …: … the Aruna road was through a narrow and difficult pass over a ridge that was presumed (particularly for the enemy coalition) to be too difficult for any army to use. Taking that route meant that ‘horse must follow horse, and man after man’…. Also, many modern commentators, and perhaps the Canaanite coalition as well, seem to forget the major virtues of the Egyptian Chariots. They were light vehicles, and it was certainly conceivable that many could be carried through the pass, while the horses were led separately …. The pass was named from its beginning at Araunah, near king Rehoboam’s capital, Jerusalem, “Yehem near Aruna”. Dr. Danelius had got the name right, but she had the Egyptian military negotiating it the wrong way around, with Araunah as its destination point, rather than its being … [the] starting point. This road is variously known to us today as the Way of the Patriarchs, the Hill Road, or the Ridge Route, since it included, as we read, “a narrow and difficult pass over a ridge”. It was not a proper road, even as late as the time of Jesus, not one of the international highways then to be found in Palestine. This would have been a most tricky road, indeed, to negotiate, especially for an army that greatly relied upon its chariots. From Gaza (as all agree), pharaoh marched to Jerusalem (Dr. Danelius got the sequence right, but mis-identified Jerusalem), and then by the narrow Aruna road (Dr. Danelius got the name right only, not the direction) on to Megiddo (as per the conventional view and Velikovsky), and then on to Syrian Kadesh (as per the conventional view ….). For Dr. Velikovsky, this one was a case of: Qadesh facing southwards, when it should have been facing northwards. Part Two: Battle of Pharaoh Ramses II near Qadesh “The north side of my town faced east / And the east was facing south”. The Who In somewhat similar fashion, with geography all askew, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky once had Qadesh (Kadesh) facing southwards, when it should have been facing northwards, and once had Qadesh facing northwards, when it should have been facing southwards. The second instance concerned Kadesh in the inscriptions of Ramses II ‘the Great’ and in those of his mighty foe, the Hittites. Dr. Velikovsky would re-locate Ramses II from his conventional placement in c. 1300 BC to c. 600 BC, identifying him as pharaoh Necho II of Egypt’s Twenty-Sixth Dynasty. And the Hittite king, Hattusilis, known to have made a treaty with Ramses II, Dr. Velikovsky would shockingly (by conventional estimates) identify with the Chaldean king, Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’. (Ramses II and His Time, 1978). Despite this radical downwards time-shift, I believe that Dr. Velikovsky was very much on the right track here. However, rather than Ramses II being Necho II, and Egypt’s Nineteenth Dynasty being the same as the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty, my preference would be for Ramses II being, instead, Tirhakah (Taharqa) of the (Ethiopian) Twenty-Fifth Dynasty. For my comprehensive treatment of this subject, see my article: The Complete Ramses II (3) The Complete Ramses II which is no less shocking than Dr. Velikovsky’s thesis. In fact, it is more so, considering that I claim here that textbook ancient history has scattered the bits and pieces of Ramses II ‘the Great’ over almost a whole millennium, from c. 1300 BC to c. 350 BC (Tachos = Taharqa). Importantly, Ramses II was the same as Ramses Psibkhanno (Twenty-First Dynasty), leading me to conclude that: Sargon II’s Šilkanni of Egypt was Psibkhenno, not Osorkon (3) Sargon II’s Šilkanni of Egypt was Psibkhenno, not Osorkon This conclusion of mine, that Ramses II was a contemporary of Sargon II, would probably strain (even with my radically truncated chronology) Dr. Velikovsky’s identification of Nebuchednezzar with Hattusilis. It was considered in Part One that Dr. Velikovsky had been compelled - to keep alive his “Shishak” thesis - to re-identify Thutmose III’s Qadesh as Jerusalem. Now, similarly, to keep alive his thesis that Ramses II was the same as Necho II, who is known to have marched towards Carchemish (Jeremiah 46:2; 2 Chronicles 35:20), Dr. Velikovsky will geographically force Qadesh in this case - no longer as the “Holy” city of Jerusalem - into becoming what he called “the Sacred City” of Carchemish. (Ramses II and His Time, Chapter. 1: THE BATTLE OF KADESH-CARCHEMISH …. Carchemish, the Sacred City). Given that Necho II had fought “on the plain of Megiddo”, where King Josiah of Judah was slain (2 Chronicles 35:22-24), and given that pharaoh Shoshenq so-called I campaigned against Megiddo, I would rather suggest that (along with Ramses II as Tirhakah) Necho II was the same pharaoh as Shoshenq. https://cojs.org/shoshenq_megiddo_fragment/ A fragment of Pharaoh Shoshenq’s commemorative stele found at Megiddo. The fragment is not well-preserved and only the name of the king and some phrases glorifying him can be read. Although the fragment does not prove that Shoshenq conquered Megiddo, it does imply that he had some control over the city. Taking an Occam’s Razor approach, the whole thing can be simplified by identifying Qadesh (Kadesh) in the records both of Thutmose III and of Ramses II as Syrian Qadesh on the Orontes. This is the usual interpretation in each case. AI Overview The ancient city of Kadesh is believed to have been located near the Orontes River in modern-day Syria, while Carchemish was situated on the west bank of the Euphrates River, also in modern-day Syria. The distance between the two locations is approximately 150-200 kilometers (93-124 miles). For Dr. Velikovsky, this one was a case of: Qadesh facing northwards, when it should have been facing southwards.

Peoples with no viable emergence in the Bible

by Damien F. Mackey “The Bible does not directly mention the Kassites. They were an ancient Near Eastern people who conquered and ruled Babylonia from the 16th to 12th centuries BC. While the Kassites are not found in biblical texts, the term "Chaldeans" (Kashdim in Hebrew) is sometimes associated with them, particularly in relation to the city of Ur. However, scholarly interpretations differ on whether this connection is accurate”. AI Overview Introduction One will have to search very hard throughout the Bible to find any mention of the Minoans and the Phoenicians, for instance – under those precise names, at least. The complete lack of mention of the “Minoans” gets ‘explained’ something like this: https://greekreporter.com/2025/03/18/what-was-the-origin-of-the-minoans-according-to-the-bible/ “Firstly, we need to establish how the Bible refers to the Minoans, as a different name is actually used for them. The name “Minoans” is a modern term invented by modern scholars, derived from the legend of King Minos, and no ancient source actually refers to them as such. The Bible actually calls the Minoans the “Caphtorim.” How do we know? For one thing, “Caphtor” was the Hebrew word for Crete”. That spells out one possible solution to the problem of missing nations. A nation may appear in the Bible under some other, different name. The Phoenicians, for their part (presuming that they have a part), pose such a problem that historian, Josephine Quinn, has claimed that there was, in fact, no such people. On this (and the Minoans), see my article: Of Cretans and Phoenicians (6) Of Cretans and Phoenicians Phoenicia was a later appellative for the Mediterranean coastal peoples, and hence the lonely mention of the Syro-Phoenician woman in the New Testament is geographical, rather than ethnic. Mark the Evangelist tells, in fact, that she was Greek (Mark 7:26): “The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia”. The situation of the Romans and Rome came as a big shock to me. I, having made a careful search, was unable to find throughout the Old Testament a single mention of this celebrated people, or, of their capital city. See e.g. my article: Rome surprisingly minimal in [the] Bible https://www.academia.edu/55241975/Rome_surprisingly_minimal_in_Bible I began this article as follows: Checking through my well-worn Cruden’s Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments (1969 reprint) - which, whilst it is a handy tool of reference, is far from being comprehensive - I cannot find one, single OT entry for either Roman, Romans, or Rome. All references to these names are found in the New Testament: Acts; John; Romans; 2 Timothy. Some commentators think that Balaam’s assertion that ‘ships will come from Chittim [Kittim]’ (Numbers 24:24) may be a long-range reference to the Romans. That is to draw a very long bow, indeed! And it is almost certainly wrong. In Daniel 11:29, “ships of Kittim” could, perhaps, be taken as a reference to the Romans inimical to the Greek Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’. However, according to the Jewish praises of “the Romans” at the time of Judas Maccabeus, “Kittim” was opposed to Rome (I Maccabees 8:5): “Philip, Perseus king of the Kittim, and others who had dared to make war on [the Romans], had been defeated and reduced to subjection …”. The Romans do figure quite prominently in I and II Maccabees, in the Catholic Bible, which books would traditionally be considered as belonging to the Old Testament era. However, I, in my Appendix to this article, and also in other articles, have advanced reasons why I consider the Maccabean wars to have occurred during the approximate time of - and beyond - the Nativity of Jesus Christ. The Romans (Rome) is, as it seems to me, a subject in need of major clarification – perhaps requiring a huge overhaul of what we have traditionally been told. But even certain famous people are missing their full persona, or lacking an appropriate archaeological representation. Just to give one incredible example, to whet the reader’s appetite, regarding my revised King Herod, and who he was, and his relationship to Caesar, and who he was, read: Herod, the emperor’s signet right-hand man (6) Herod, the emperor's signet right-hand man Neither King Herod, nor Augustus Caesar, was quite who we think he was. Further regarding King Herod, I was stunned to find: What, no statuary of Herod ‘the Great’? (6) What, no statuary of Herod ‘the Great’? This fact has led me to the conclusion that this King Herod, an attested biblical figure (e.g. Matthew 2:1), must also be someone (or some others) else. This surprise situation (if I am correct) serves as a parallel with the lack of (or non-) mention of peoples (nations), and the almost total lack of evidence, in some cases, for certain great potentates, suggesting the need, in both instances, for alter ego/populi. In some cases (e.g. the Phoenicians), it might indicate outright non-existence. Now, leaving what we might call the Western world, let us turn our attention to the Ancient Near East, its peoples being the primary subject of interest for this article. Kassites and Hittites Just a quick note here firstly on Egypt. One of its truly great pharaohs (amongst various others of these, I might add) has also managed to perform a magician’s vanishing act. See my article on this: The Disappearing Piankhi https://www.academia.edu/108993830/The_Disappearing_Piankhi And, regarding the Medo-Persians, we find, sadly, that: Medo-Persian history has no adequate archaeology (3) Medo-Persian history has no adequate archaeology As we are going to learn in the next section, though, the underlying problem may be geographical. If this be the case, then, hopefully, an adequate archaeology will come to the surface once one has begun to excavate for it in the right place. Kassites As we have read, there is no mention of this people at all, under this particular name, throughout the entire Bible. But, even apart from the Bible, the poorly attested Kassites constitute a formidable problem for ancient historians. This I observed starkly in my article: Horrible Histories: Casualty Kassites (2) Horrible Histories: Casualty Kassites …. The Kassites are generally considered to have been an Indo-European people. Thus Georges Roux wrote (in Ancient Iraq): Hittites, Mitannians and the ruling class of the Kassites belonged to a very large ethno-linguistic group called ‘Indo-European’, and their migrations were but part of wider ethnic movements which affected Europe and India as well as Western Asia. But is this, the standard view of the Kassites, really accurate? It is not, I think, too much to say that the Kassites are an enigma for the over-extended conventional scheme. But, nor do I think that revisionist scholars so far have properly accounted for them. Georges Roux gave the standard estimate for the duration of Kassite rule of Babylonia: … “… a long line of Kassite monarchs was to govern Mesopotamia or, as they called it, Kar-Duniash for no less than four hundred and thirty-eight years (1595-1157 B.C.)”. This is a substantial period of time; yet archaeology has surprisingly little to show for it. Roux again: …. Unfortunately, we are not much better off as regards the period of Kassite domination in Iraq … all we have at present is about two hundred royal inscriptions – most of them short and of little historical value – sixty kudurru … and approximately 12,000 tablets (letters and economic texts), less than 10 per cent of which has been published. This is very little indeed for four hundred years – the length of time separating us from Elizabeth 1. [Seton] Lloyd, in his book dedicated to the study of Mesopotamian archaeology, can offer only a mere 4 pages (including pictures) to the Kassites, without even bothering to list them in the book’s Index at the back. …. Incredibly, though the names of the Kassites “reveal a clearly distinct language from the other inhabitants in the region”, as van de Mieroop writes, “and Babylonian texts indicate the existence of a Kassite vocabulary, no single text or sentence is known in the Kassite language”. …. Obviously, new interpretations are required. …. Indeed, they are. One of the major obstacles militating against the proper identification, or situating, of peoples such as the Kassites, Hittites, Chaldeans and Elamites – and related peoples such as the Mitannians, Subarians, Urartians, Lullubi, Guti – is the shambles of a geography that has been presented to us by historians and geographers alike. I had concluded the above article on this very note: Obviously, new interpretations are required. …. Perhaps a different and more appropriate geography is required for the Kassites along the lines of what Royce (Richard) Erickson has proposed for the Chaldeans and the Elamites: A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY (5) A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY | Royce Erickson - Academia.edu Royce Erickson has shifted the Chaldeans and the Elamites right out of the regions of southern Mesopotamian Iraq and Iran, and has transported them, holus bolus, to, respectively, NW Syria and Cilicia (Asia Minor). And I fully support his revolutionary ‘tectonic’ shift. He has correspondingly shunted the Medes and the Persians to Anatolia. Obviously, if Royce Erickson is correct, then the historical interpretation of these nations, and of any others closely associated with them, will need to be vastly re-cast. I am rather drawn to the suggestion above that the Kassites may be Chaldeans - but not the accompanying close association of them with the southern Mesopotamian Ur: While the Kassites are not found in biblical texts, the term "Chaldeans" (Kashdim in Hebrew) is sometimes associated with them, particularly in relation to the city of Ur. Indeed, I had hinted at such a connection in my postgraduate thesis (2007, Volume One, p. 178): …. Though it is thought to have been the Greeks who had put the letter lambda  (= l) in the name Chaldeans (χαλδαιοι), whom the Hebrews knew as Kasdim (כַּשְׂדִּים), I would favour this suggestion by Boutflower that the letter change was instead one quite natural to the Assyrian language: The Chaldeans or Kasdim of the Hebrew Old Testament appear in the Assyrian cuneiform as the Kaldi. The original form of Kaldi was probably Kasdi, since according to a rule very common in the Assyrian language a sibilant before a dental is frequently changed into l. Note that the Semitic root Kas- (Kash-) is common to both the name Kassites (known in Akkadian as kashshû) and the Kasdim (Chaldeans). The form Kaldu for the land of the Chaldeans is thought to have been first used by Ashurnasirpal II himself: “The fear of my sovereignty”, he boasted, “prevailed as far as the country of Karduniash; the might of my weapons overwhelmed the country of Kaldu”. This linguistic alteration, from kas- to kal-, has made it even less easy for historians to connect the Chaldeans with the Kassites, who, in Akkadian were known as kashshû. The Kassites were not actually native Chaldeans, though, but were ‘Indo-European’ rulers of the land known as Kasse (Babylonia), which they called Kar-Duniash. We recall Rib-Addi’s reference to “Kasse” in EA letter 76. …. Kar-Duniash is, I believe, just a variant of Kar-kemish (Carchemish), which is my revised Babylon: Correction for Babylon (Babel). Carchemish preferable to Byblos (3) Correction for Babylon (Babel). Carchemish preferable to Byblos An ‘Indo-European’ aspect is commonly associated with the likes of the Kassites, the Hittites and the Mitannians. But we find that, even the King of Urusalim (Jerusalem) at the time of the El Amarna (EA) letters, Jehoram of Judah, had, apparently, a Hurrian goddess (Hiba) element in his EA name, Abdi-Hiba. Yet he certainly was not Indo-European, but Jewish. Hittites While the Hittites are mentioned multiple times in the Old Testament, one needs carefully to distinguish between the biblical Hittites, descendants of Canaan (Genesis 10:15), who dwelt in the Promised Land, and the so-called ‘Indo-European’ imperial Hittites of the text books. Regarding the latter, Johannes Lehmann tells (in The Hittites: people of a thousand gods, 1977) that: “Meyers Neues Konversationslexikon (1871) summarized all that was known about the Hittites in a scant seven lines”. Abraham bought the Cave of Machpelah from the Hittites (Genesis 23). And Esau married two Hittite women (Genesis 26:34-35). There is an isolated mention of “the Hittites” (הַחִתִּ֛ים) ha-ḥit-tîm as, seemingly, a military power in 2 Kings 7:6: “Look, the king of Israel has hired the Hittite and Egyptian kings to attack us!” So, the matter is a complicated one. A ray of light may have shone through, however, in my revised context, owing to the apparent identification, in the Assyrian records, of a Kassite king as a Hittite. On this, see my recent article: Merging a Kassite and a Hittite King (3) Merging a Kassite and a Hittite king Who Tukuti-Ninurta, so-called I, called a Kassite, ruling in Babylon, the Assyrian king’s alter ego, Sargon II (Sennacherib) called that same king a Hittite, ruling in Carchemish. My conclusion would be, therefore, that the Kassites and the Hittites were interchangeable. And, if the Kassites were likewise the Chaldeans, as proposed above, then that would tie up all together: KASSITES = CHALDEANS = HITTITES Complicating matters, Brock Heathcotte has argued most convincingly for the Hittite king, Mursilis, to have been the same as the Cimmerian king, Tugdamme: A supposed ‘Hittite’ ruler newly identified (3) A supposed 'Hittite' ruler newly identified Running with our new-found ‘revelations’ (a) that the Hittites were the Kassites/ Chaldeans, now re-located by Royce Erickson to NW Syria (where we do find the Hittites), and (b) that, with the Elamites now re-located by Erickson to Cilicia where lay the hub of the Hittite empire, Hattusa (Boğazköy), then the Hittites need also to undergo a geographical overhaul. Boğazköy would now be, instead, the Elamite capital of Susa - the Hittites requiring to be lifted right out of Cilicia. An attractive candidate for the Hittite capital, Hattusa, would be Kadesh (Hattush?) on the Orontes, over which the Hittites and Egyptians fought fierce battles. Note that this Kadesh is very close, indeed, to where Richard (Royce) Erickson has re-located the Chaldean capital city of Dur Yakin (his Figure 5).