You are on page 1of 33


Why Pharaoh Hatshepsut is not to be

equated to the Queen of Sheba
Patrick Clarke
This article looks at the linguistic, textual and other problems of equating the
Pharaoh Hatshepsut with the Queen of Sheba. This is one of the central pillars of
the revised chronology of the Ancient Near East, particularly Egypt, first mooted
by Immanuel Velikovsky in the middle of the last century, and taken up by other
writers since, including works that are very popular in creationist circles. The
conclusion is that this Hatshepsut/Sheba identification is not tenable in the light
of the available evidence.
Many Christians today are greatly in uenced by the revisionist claims of four
people in particular. Firstly, Immanuel Velikovsky, a Russian-born psychoanalyst,
who authored a number of books in which he proposed numerous radical
interpretations of history. In Ages in Chaos (1952),1 Velikovsky, who would not
have called himself a Bible- believer, described what he thought were parallels
between Egyptian history and the biblical accounts covering the period from the
Exodus to the early years of the Divided Monarchy. This ignited a erce debate on
the chronologies of the Ancient Near East (ANE) that continues to this day.
Secondly, Donovan Courville2 had much to say about Egyptian chronology in The
Exodus and Its Rami cations. Thirdly, Emmet J. Sweeney introduced further
controversy to this area in his book Empire of Thebes: Ages in Chaos Revisited.3
And nally, archaeologist David Down, principal author of Unwrapping the Pharaohs.4
Courville, Sweeney, and Down have to a greater or lesser degree been in uenced by
and built on Velikovskys ideas. The above-mentioned authors ideas will be
referred to as the Velikovsky-Inspired Chronology (VIC).
The chronology debate is a serious issue. There is always the risk that believers
may base their thinking more on secular history rather than the Bible. They may
have problems believing Bible history because the ndings of archaeology can give a
very different interpretation of the evidence, and some Bible commentaries are also
unhelpful.5 Believers seeking for solutions to apparent con icts with the biblical
chronology may unwittingly be beginning their thinking, not with the solid
foundation of Scripture, but with the ideas of various revisionists. If these rest
on a foundation of sand, the Bibles credibility is further harmed.
The author presupposes (in general agreement with many other creationist writers)
The Bible is authoritative and its chronology totally accurate.
The Conventional Egyptian (Manethian) chronology, as it presently
stands, is erroneous and in need of signi cant revision. However, any scheme of
revision proposed must be based on sound scholarship, and be consistent with the
available historical (including biblical) evidence. Whilst having every sympathy
for the motivations of these authors who have proposed revising ANE chronologies
so that they line up with the Bible, their interpretation of the evidence raises
serious questions about their methodology and often their expertise in the area.
For example, Velikovskys lack of competence as a historian was brutally exposed in
1965, by the expert cuneiformist, Abraham Sachs, in a forum at Brown University,
Rhode Island.6 Sachs had much to say about Velikovskys claims on Mesopotamian
history. This is part of what Sachs had to say:
In 1896, an excellent dictionary of Akkadian contained 790 pages; today [1961],
the latest torso of an Akkadian dictionarywith only one-third of the dictionary
published in 8 volumes already runs to more than 2500 pages. I mention all this
only to underline the sad fact that anyone who, like Dr. Velikovsky, is not a
student of cuneiform, runs the very high risk of nding non-existent facts, false
translations, and abandoned theories that have foundered on the rocks of new
textual material when he relies, as Dr. Velikovsky does, on books and articles that
are 80, 50, 40, and in some cases, even 20 years old.
And in reference to an earlier work by Velikovsky, Sachs said:
On pp. 274275 of Worlds in Collision,Dr. Velikovsky says, [and I quote him]:
Reports concerning earthquakes in Mesopotamia in the eighth and seventh centuries
are very numerous and they are dated. Go to the source referred to in the
footnote, and you will nd that it is not the 8th7th centuries butthe fourththird
centuries. On page 315 of the same opus, Dr. Velikovsky reports a value for the
length of daylight from what he calls [quote] the Babylonian astronomical tablets
of the eighth century [unquote] b.c. When one goes to the source, one nds thatthe
date of the texts is 3rd century b.c., not eighth.At various places, Dr. Velikovsky
talks about Babylonian calendars and length of year and lengthof month. Not being a
cuneiformist, Dr. Velikovskyis not aware that tens of thousands of economic texts
dated in the civil calendars of ancient Mesopotamia contradict every one of his
statements.Velikovsky was never able to refute Sachss criticisms.
VIC theory rests upon a number of mutually supportive pillars. The two most
important of these are the
identi cation of the Pharaoh Hatshepsut with the Queen of Sheba, and the identi
cation of the Pharaoh Thutmose III with the biblical Shishak.7 A third pillar,
related to the first, concerns the location of the ancient Egyptian land known as
The authors contention from a study of the evidence
is that all these pillars
are constructed from a poor grasp of the ancient Egyptian language, history and
literary devices. But for space considerations, this article will focus on just the
Sheba/Hatshepsut connection. This will necessitate some reference to the land of
Punt, but a proper discussion of the other two VIC pillars (Punts location, and
the Thutmose/Shishak identi cation) must wait.
Erecting the pillars
Velikovsky, in Ages in Chaos, developed the revolutionary idea that the early years
of the 18th Dynasty corresponded to the beginning of the Monarchy period in
Israel.8 This involved lowering the conventional dates of the 18th Dynasty by
almost six centuries. In Chapter III of Ages in Chaos, Velikovsky erected the rst
main supporting pillar of his thesis by equating the Egyptian Pharaoh Hatshepsuts
famous expedition to the land of Punt with that of the Queen of Sheba to the court
of King Solomon. He achieved this by comparing information from the Punt
Colonnade at Deir el Medina9 (also known as the Punt reliefs, the Deir el Bahari
texts, or simply the Punt texts) with events in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles in the
Bible. To this he added carefully selected fragments from the Ethiopic Kebra
Negast, and Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus. Velikovsky attracted a
devoted following who have continued to press for these revisions to be accepted.
This investigation begins where Velikovsky wrote:
If Solomon was really a renowned king, as the Hebrew sources describe him, then
the absence of any contact between this queen and this king is dif cult to explain.
It would, indeed, be very singular, for these two rulers were no ordinary occupants
of throne halls, but very excellent suzerains. Nor would it t our notion of the
adventure-loving character of Queen Hatshepsut, or the words of praise: Thy name
reaches as far as the circuit of heaven, the fame of Maakare (Hatshepsut) encircles
the sea,10 and her fame has encompassed the Great Circle11 (ocean). Neither
would it accord with our idea of King
Solomon, whose capital was visited by ambassadors from many countries12 and who had
personal contact with many sovereigns: And all the kings of the earth sought the
presence of Solomon (II Chronicles 9:23), and all the earth sought to
Solomon ... (I Kings 10:24). Was the queen of Egypt excluded from all the
Velikovsky succeeds in planting in the average readers mind (by simply
presupposing it) the notion that Solomon and the Pharaoh Hatshepsut were
contemporaneous. In the same book, he claims that Hatshepsuts visit to Punt was in
fact the Queen of Shebas visit to Solomon (as in the well-known biblical
account14). In support, he quotes extensively from the Punt texts. His citations
(all taken directly from Breasted15) include these three:1. Sailing ... to the
land of Punt ... according to the
command of the Lord of gods, Amon, Lord of Thebes, Presider over Karnak, in order
to bring for him the marvels of every country, for he so much loves the King of
Upper and Lower Egypt ...16,17
2. ... a command was heard from the great throne, an oracle of the god himself,
that the ways to Punt should be searched out, that the high-ways to the Myrrh-
terraces should be penetrated: I will lead the army on water and on land, to bring
marvels from Gods-Land for this god, for the fashioner of her beauty.18,19
3. I have hearkened to my father ... commanding me to establish for him a Punt in
his house, to plant the trees of Gods land beside his temple, in his garden.20,21
Velikovskys summary at the end of that chapter
states:The complete agreement in the details of the
voyage and in many accompanying data makes it evident that the Queen [of] Sheba and
Queen Hatshepsut was one and the same person.22
However, the surviving Punt texts,23 including the above citations 13, actually
demonstrate the very opposite. The texts indicate the main reason for this
expedition; to nd the route to Punt in order to bring pleasing things by direct
trade, as had been the norm in previous centuries.24 Hatshepsut refers to [a
decree of] my majesty commanding to send to the Myrrh-terraces, to explore his ways
[for him,] to learn his circuit, to open his highways, according to the command of
my father, Amon.25
Then there was the ambitious concept of constructing a terraced garden using Punts
ora in Amuns temple; the god gave his reasons for doing this during Hatshepsuts
reign as being his special love for her. None of this corresponds to the biblical
account. The Punt texts make no mention of any king (i.e. Solomon), nor of a desire
to test him with hard questions.26
The Bible mentions that the Queen of Sheba brought gifts for Solomon.27 Velikovsky
claims that she intended to get gifts from Solomon.28
Figure 1. Immanuel Velikovsky (1895 1979), author of Ages in Chaos.
Photo taken by Donna Foster Roizen
Figure 2. Location of Cush during pharonic times.
The Bible indicates that her principal motive was to test Solomon with hard
questions,29 and not to obtain goods through an oracle of her god, as the Egyptian
text recounts.
Further, the Punt texts explicitly mention the searching out of the highways to the
Myrrh-terraces (of Punt). If Jerusalem was the Punt of Velikovskys theory, there
would be no need to search for highways, because these were established and known
to the Egyptians long before the days of Hatshepsut.
The Ethiopian problem
The VIC authors seek to bolster their case with the works of Flavius Josephus.
Velikovsky cites Josephus account of the Queen of Shebas journey: Now the woman
who at that time ruled as queen of Egypt and Ethiopia ...30 Again quoting
Josephus: And the queen of Egypt and Ethiopia ... returned to her own country.31
And VIC author Down, popular in creationist circles, stated on a DVD program:
He [Christ] calls her The Queen of the South. Well, in Daniel, chapter 11, we
have the King of the North and the King of the South, and there the King of the
South is identi ed as the King of Egypt. And so, if the King of the South is the
King of Egypt, well, then surely the Queen of the South must be the Queen of Egypt.
And that is what Josephus, the ancient historian, says; he identi es her as the
Queen of Egypt and Ethiopia.32
Although the presenter provides a rationale for his deduction that the Queen of the
South was the Queen of Egypt, no attempt is made to explain Josephus use of
Ethiopia in the title he gives herbut it is this which actually weakens the case
for VIC authors, as will be shown.
Josephusa child of his time
It is well known to most scholars of antiquity that much of what authors during the
Classical Period, such as Josephus, had to say about Egypt and the Ancient Near
East in general, when they covered events not in their own time or their recent
past, carries errors, both great and small. Scholars do not ignore these classical
sources, but they are studied with considerable caution, and conclusions are
primarily based on the more ancient sources. So, the general rule among scholars is
that acceptance of any such details from the later classical sources must be
deferred unless they are con rmed by the more ancient evidence. Thus Josephus
reference to the queen of Egypt and Ethiopia may be considered a reasonable
substitution for the biblical Queen of Sheba only when a contemporary record
covering this matter supports it. For supporters of the VIC, this is bad news;
there is no such record.
But there is more. The region now known as Ethiopia was the probable location for
Punt, a land with which Egypt eventually had trading interests. But the VIC needs
to have Punt be, instead, Israelto the north. So for Josephus to mention Ethiopia
as already existing in Hatshepsuts time generally suits the supporters of the VIC.
However, there was in fact no such thing as Ethiopia at the times of Hatshepsut/
Solomon. So for Josephus to use this term actually highlights that his title for
the Queen was in error here.
Some might point to various Bible translations which mention Ethiopia existing in
ANE times. But the original Hebrew Masoretic text only ever says Cush, not
Ethiopia, simply employing the Hebrew word Cush. This is variously rendered in
Bible translations as Ethiopia, Nubia, Sudan and even Somalia. However, it is well-
known to scholars that the real, biblical Cush was an ancient African state
centered on the con uences of the Blue Nile, White Nile and River Atbara in a part
of what is now modern Sudan (see map gure 2). Greco-Roman records render Cush
incorrectly as either Nubia or Ethiopia, but earlier sources, whether biblical or
Egyptian, always referred to this geographical location as Cush.33 The Septuagint
(the 3rd Century bc translation of the OT into Greek, possibly one of the sources
relied on by Josephus) also misleadingly translates Cush as Aethiopia.
Importantly, also, no Egyptian records, nor any other records contemporaneous with
them, ever show a Pharaoh being called the ruler of Egypt and Cush, let alone of
Egypt and the then non-existent Ethiopia. In short, Josephus use of the word
Ethiopia shows him to have been recycling the Greco-Roman misconceptions of his
The fact is that at the time of the Bibles description of the queens visit to
Solomon there was a real country called Sheba, well attested as a kingdom in the
Old Testament.34 This makes it dif cult to see why the plain, face-value statements
of Scripture about the lady who was its queen are sidelined in favour of Josephus
much later description,
which has been shown to be misleading by invoking a land non-existent at the times
being described.
No less an authority on Josephus than William Whiston, the 19th century translator
of The Works of Flavius Josephus, observed:
That this queen of Sheba was a queen of Sabea in South Arabia, and not of Egypt
and Ethiopia, as Josephus here asserts, is, I suppose, now generally agreed; and
since Sabea is well known to be a country near the sea, in the south of Arabia
Felix, which lay south from Judea also; and since our Saviour calls this queen the
queen of the south, and says, she came from the utmost parts of the earth (Matt.
xii, 42; Luke xi, 31); which descriptions agree better to this Arabia than to Egypt
and Ethiopia, there is little occasion for doubting in this matter.35
Velikovsky, however, evades this by claiming that Sheba was not the name of any
region, but the name of the queen herself. He wrote in 1973:
Neither of the two Talmuds contains any clear historical reference to the
mysterious adventurous queen. However the opinion is expressed in the Talmud that
Sheba in the name Queen of Sheba is not a geographical designation but a personal
And in a footnote nearly 30 pages later: Shwa (the Hebrew for Sheba) might be the
last part of the name Hatshepsut.37 Not all Egyptian names are found with a
hypocoristic form,38 and no such form of Hatshepsut is known, therefore, no one has
the faintest idea as to what the shortened form of her name might be, even if such
were to exist. This suggestionthat there is not only a short form of the name
Hatshepsut, but that it just so happens to be the same name as the real kingdom of
Shebais simply an ad hoc proposal to support a preferred hypothesis. But in any
case, it fails on other grounds. The last part of Hatshepsuts name is represented
by the Egyptian ps, (which may be pronounced shepsu or shepsi, if it was ever
pronounced).39 It is impossible to squeeze either shwa or shba from the Egyptian
ps. Another problem for this idea is that in the ancient world, people had names
which meant something tangible. Isaac meant Laughter, Djoser of Step Pyramid fame
meant Sacred; Velikovsky and his followers have never been able to show any
meaning of the alleged name Sheba. Velikovskys proposal concerning the last part
of Hatshepsuts name is simply untenable.
The Hebrew Bible: Sheba is a region
But then, the whole notion that Sheba is the name of the queen, rather than the
region she ruled, is untenable. In 1982, Velikovsky added this:
... the Septuagint (translation of the seventy) that dates from the third
century before the present era and similarly the Vulgate (the earliest Latin
translation) see in Shwa (Seba) the personal name of the Queen (Regina Seba), not
the name of a region.40
Once again, we see Velikovsky quoting from later trans- lations of the original
biblical text rather than the earlier text. It is not dif cult to see why; the
original biblical text clearly intends the reader to understand that Sheba is the
name of a region, not a personal name, which is inconvenient to his thesis. The
Masoretic text designates the Queen of Sheba as malkat shba, where malkat
in grammatical terms is known as the status constructus,41 that is, a form which
indicates that the word following it is in a genitival relationship, thus Queen of
Sheba. If the Masoretic text wanted to say Queen Sheba, with Sheba being the
personal name of the queen, the rst word would have been written as malkah shba.
In any case, in the Bible, the usual epithet for an Egyptian monarch was the title
Pharaoh.42 Until around the 10th century bc in the biblical timeframe, the term
Pharaoh stood alone, without any personal name. In subsequent periods, the name of
the Egyptian king was often attached.43 Following the standard practice of the day
in ancient Egypt, Moses, who was trained in his early years as an Egyptian, omitted
the pharaohs throne name, opting instead for the title, Pharaoh. He even omitted
the name of the Pharaoh whom Jacob blessed and Joseph served (Gen 47:7). This is
further evidence of the faithfulness of the biblical accounts in Genesis to the
historical events described. Moses wrote centuries after both that particular
Pharaoh and his Dynasty had vanished into the mists of history, showing that a
Pharaohs name was not recorded in Genesis and Exodus for one reason: Moses,
familiar with the customs of the Royal Court of Egypt (Acts 7:22), was following
the established customs of his time. The Bibles record of events and customs of
this period is absolutely correct and consistent with the archaeological evidence.
This custom was not known by later biblical writers, who gave the name of the
Pharaoh.42 Or by many modern translators, who did not have Moses Egyptian
In the Hebrew, King of Egypt is melek mitsraim. The term Queen of Egypt is not
found in the Old Testament; but were it to have appeared, it would have been
rendered malkat mitsraim. The reverse, King or Queen followed by a personal
name does occur, but always by a peculiarity of Hebrew, with the de nite article
the attached. In 1 Kings 1:1, David is called ha-melek dawid, translated
correctly as King David. However, a de nite noun loses its de nite article in the
status constructus, so that, for example, ha- malkah ashta translates as Queen
Vashti though it seems to say the Queen Vashti, while malkat shba translates as
the Queen of Sheba though it seems to say Queen Sheba. Thus Velikovskys
interpretation, Queen Sheba, is incorrect since, to agree, it must be expressed
as shba ha-malkah Sheba the Queen but it isnt.44
In short, the Hebrew grammar of the Bible makes it plain that the queen who visited
Solomon was not called Sheba, but was the ruler of a land called by that name.
She was the Queen of Sheba, not of Egypt. Sheba is a region that is repeatedly
mentioned by name in the Bible, and also known from other historical texts. It was
somewhere around
modern-day Yemen. Contradicting the Bible is not exactly the best way to defend it,
yet that is a necessary (if unintentional) consequence of the perceived need to
uphold VIC theory.
Another notion fails
Some VIC writers try to uphold the Sheba/Hatshepsut connection with even more
ingenious ideas. Emmett Sweeney, for instance, claims the biblical King of the
South was a Ptolemaic Pharaoh.45 He derives this from the liberal Christian belief
that the Book of Daniel should be dated to around the rst century bc.46 The secret
to Sweeneys unusual method of demonstrating that Hatshepsut was a Queen of
Sheba44 is in knowing how to turn the name Waset, the Egyptian name for Thebes,
into Sheba.
Sweeney claims that the native name of Thebes was represented by a sceptre glyph
wa-se or wa-she (written as uas-t by Budge) and another sign of a plant and an arm
shema or sh-a.47 Thus the citys name morphs into uas-sha or was-sha. He then
appeals to a Lisa Lael, claiming her to be an authority on both cuneiform and
hieroglyphic scripts. Since I know of no scholar who would claim competence in
both, I emailed Lael, who con rmed in her reply that Im much more well versed in
cuneiform texts and semitic languages than I am in hieroglyphics.48 Sweeney
announces that, in Laels opinion, the word should read as se-wa or she-wa and
states: ... if Thebes Egyptian name is really Shewa (Sheba) then a whole host of
hitherto mysterious facts become comprehensible. The only fact he is interested in
is that: ... we now know where the Greeks got the word Thebes (Theba). He invokes
linguistic mutation (lisping) where, apparently, an s or sh turns into th. Budge,
whom Sweeney quoted as an authority for this, was an advocate of liberal
Christianity49 and devoted to comparative religions.
However, here is how a competent modern Egyptologist would understand the matter:
the sceptre glyph is w3st and the plant/arm sign is m (shema), which is just a
variant of m (variant signs are not an unusual occurrence). What does shema mean?
Upper (South) Egypt; this was always the case. Even if the glyph waset was
coupled with shema, it simply reads in modern parlance as Thebes in Upper Egypt.
When the Hittite scribes were, as an example, preparing the treaty text between
Ramesses II and Hattusilis III, they readily transcribed the hieroglyph s (sin)
with the cuneiform sh (shin). Semitic scripts of the Ancient Near East, in fact,
often substituted the Egyptian s with sh and vice versa.50,51 Thebes, however, is a
Greek designation, Thebai , from the Egyptian word Opet (from the Coptic ta-
pe, Ta-opet became Thebai). The Opet Festival was the highlight of the Theban
religious calendar. There is no simply no mandate to adopt Sweeneys bizarre
Rumours of fame
Another of Velikovskys points concerns the biblical text in 2 Chronicles 9:1 which
gives as the motivation for the Queen of Shebas journey the reputation of Solomon:
when the Queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon she came to Jerusalem .... 1
Kings 10:1 uses almost the same words: Now when the Queen of Sheba heard of the
fame of Solomon concerning the name of the Lord, she came. ... [to Jerusalemv.2].
And in 1 Kings 10:67, the queen exclaims how his prior reputation was amply con
rmed by her visit. Josephus, as quoted by Velikovsky, makes the same point: ...
when she heard of Solomons virtue and understanding, [she] was led to him by a
strong desire to see him which arose from the things told daily about his
Hatshepsut and Sheshat, Red Chapel, Karnak.
The pictureand the real story
One more bizarre interpreta on of Egyp an texts used in a empts at forcing a
Pharaonic link with Sheba in the Bible concerns the Muslim author Dr. Ossama
Alsaadawi. A photograph on his website like the one here bears the cap on: Queen
of Sheba in a celebrated visit to the Prophet King Solomon.61 This is actually a
well-known relief on a wall block of Hatshepsuts restored Red Chapel at Karnak.
In the relief, Hatshepsut is standing on the le wearing the Atef Crown along with
the strap-on beard, and the goddess Seshat stands on the right: both are driving in
the measuring poles for a temple building.62 Those responsible for crea ng this
block in the chapel never meant there to be any doubt as to who was who, or what
was being celebrated. Hatshepsuts praenomen, m33t-ka-re appears twice, once above
and to the le of her crown, and again between the measuring poles, and the symbol
above the goddess declares her iden ty: there is no Solomon and no Queen of Sheba
to be found here.
To seek support for his thesis that the queen was Hatshepsut, Velikovsky chose only
one passage from the Punt reliefs, which makes a rather oblique reference about
reputations of any sort: It was heard of from mouth to mouth by hearsay of the
ancestors...54 This is a tiny part of a very long speech of Amun-Re, and in
context is clearly part of his emphasis on the long period when Egypt and Punt had
no trading relations.55 But in any case, this passage actually undermines
Velikovskys argumentbecause if this reputation came to the queen by hearsay of
the ancestors it goes without saying that Solomon would have long been dead.
Obviously, no queen would desire to journey long distances, to see and test with
hard questions, someone who had died long before she was born.
Wrapping up
Velikovskys revised chronology has been rejected by nearly all mainstream
historians and Egyptologists. As this article has sought to show, this cannot be
lightly brushed aside as simply due to establishment bias or anti-biblical agendas.
Focusing on only one of the main pillars of the chronology at this stage, it is
clear that Velikovskys use of proof material was, to put it mildly, very selective
and erroneous. This is not surprising to those who have carefully studied the
issuesas the eminent Abraham Sachs stated: Wherever one turns in Dr. Velikovskys
works, one nds a wasteland strewn with uncritically accepted evidence that turns to
dust at the slightest probe.56
This has very much been the authors experience, too. Not surprisingly, then, the
same sort of thing is repeatedly experienced in examining the works of those who
rely so heavily on Velikovskys premises. One would hope all believers would agree
that twisting the data in an attempt to prove a hypothesis is not the manner in
which scholarly research should be conductednor the way in which to honour the
Word of God, no matter how worthy ones motivations.
Further volumes of Ages in Chaos appeared in 1978. That year, a conference of
scholars was held in Glasgow, Scotland, under the auspices of the Society for
Interdisciplinary Studies, to review the whole matter of the ANE chronology in the
light of the controversy surrounding Velikovskys ideas. These scholars were in the
main sympathetic to a need for revision. They included such as James (who co-
authored Centuries of Darkness, which highlighted the need for revision),57 Bimson
(a biblical archaeologist who co-authored a paper proposing a revised chronology to
match the archaeological data with the biblical timeline),58 Gammon,59 and Rohl (an
Egyptologist who later authored A Test of Time which also proposed a dramatic
shortening of the Egyptian chronology).60 The nal conclusion on Velikovskys work:
that his revised chronology was simply untenable.
1. Velikovsky, I., Ages in Chaos, vol. I, Doubleday & Company, Garden City, New
York, 1952.
2. Courville, D., The Exodus Problem and Its Rami cations: A Critical Examination
of the Chronological Relationships Between Israel and the Contemporary Peoples of
Antiquity, Challenge Books, Loma Linda, CA, 1971. Though also inspired by
Velikovsky, Courvilles work will not be speci cally scrutinized here.
3. Sweeney, E.J., Empire of Thebes or Ages in Chaos Revisited, Algora, New York,
4. Ashton, J. and Down, D., Unwrapping the Pharaohs, Master Books, Green Forest,
AR, 2006.
th5. Taken from the NIV Bible, 6 impression, Hodder & Stoughton, 1997. The
Land of the People of the Bible, G10: Sumeria. This probably forms the background
culture to Genesis 111. It is the oldest culture of which we know, and dates to at
least 4,500 bc... and Egypt. Egyptian civilization is very old and reaches back
at least to 3,000 bc. Bible-believers nd problems accepting these dates.
6. Address of Abraham Sachs at Brown University, 15 March 1965. Full text of
address can be accessed at:
7. The debate as to whether Thutmose III is a candidate for the biblical Shishak is
the intended subject for a subsequent article. This will cover the following ve
compelling questions:
The Annals of Thutmose at Karnak, do they speak of the conquest of Jerusalem by
this king?
The Annals of Thutmose at Karnak, do they show the treasures of Solomons Temple?
Could there be other more likely candidates for the person of Shishak?
If the Thutmose/Shishak synchronism fails, what then for the revised
chronology of the VIC?
If the Hatshepsut/Queen of Sheba synchronism fails (as the current
article demonstrates is indeed the case), can Thutmose indeed be Shishak? 8.
Velikovsky, I., Ages in Chaos, vol. I, Abacus ed., Sphere Books, 1973; p. 103. 9.
Hatshepsuts mortuary temple on the West Bank, Luxor, Egypt. 10. Breasted, J.H.,
Ancient Records of Egypt, vol. II, sec. 269, Russell and Russell, New York, 1906;
reprinted 1962. See Naville, E., The Temple of Deir el Bahari, Memoirs of the
Egyptian Exploration Fund, vols. 1214, 16, 19, 27 and 29, London, 18941908. 11.
Breasted, ref. 10, sec. 325. 12. 1 Kings 10:1 and 2 Chronicles 9:23. 13.
Velikovsky, ref. 8, pp. 100101. 14. 1 Kings 10:113 and 2 Chronicles 9:112. 15.
James Henry Breasted, (18651935) was an American archaeologist and historian, and
the rst US citizen to obtain a PhD in Egyptology. 16. Breasted, ref. 10, sec. 253.
17. Velikovsky, ref. 8, p. 109.18. Velikovsky, ref. 8, p. 110.19. Breasted, ref.
10, sec. 285.20. Velikovsky, ref. 8, p. 120.21. Breasted, ref. 10, sec. 295; again
Hatshepsut is the one speaking. 22. Velikovsky thought that Shwa (the Hebrew for
Sheba) could be the nal part of the name Hatshepsut. However, Engelbach, R., (1888
1946), in The Problem of the Obelisks, George H. Doran & Company, New York, 1923),
considered her name to be Hatshepsowet, where the nal t is not vocalised. Naville
considered it to be Hatshepsu. 23. Only 30% of the original Punt texts are
available to us today.
24. 24. Breasted, ref. 10, sec. 287; these are undoubtedly part of the god
Amuns words: No one trod the Myrrh-terraces which the people (Egy. rmt) knew not;
it was heard of from mouth to mouth by hearsay of the ancestors... The marvels
brought thence under thy fathers, the Kings of Upper and Lower Egypt, were brought
from one to another, and since the time of the ancestors of the Kings of Upper
Egypt, who were of old, as a return for many payments; none reaching them except
thy carriers.
25. 25. Ref. 10, sec. 294; in saying my majesty she is referring to
26. 26. 1 Kings 10:1 and 2 Chronicles 9:23.
27. 27. 1 Kings 10:10.
28. 28. Velikovsky, ref. 8, pp. 101, 115119.
29. 29. 1 Kings 10:1.
30. 30. Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, book VIII, ch. VI, sec.
5, Thomas Nelson & Peter Brown, Edinburgh, 1831, quoted in Velikovsky, ref. 8, p.
31. 31. Josephus, ref. 30, quoted in Velikovsky, ref. 8, p. 118.
32. 32. Digging up the past: by David Down; DVD Disc 1: Pyramids of Egypt
and Temples and Tombs, Part 2: Tombs and Temples, Adventist Media, 2006 (although
originally copyrighted in 1987, as stated in the end titles of the DVD).
33. 33. CushbeganjustsouthofEgyptsSemnaandKumnafortressesatthe2nd
cataract. Nubia (Egyptian Wawat) lay to the north of the forts and extended
northwards to ancient Abu (Elephantine) at modern-day Aswan.
34. 34. See:Job6:19;Psalm72:10,15;Jeremiah6:20,Ezekiel27:22,23and38:13.
35. 35. See note on the Queen of Sheba in: The Works of Flavius Josephus,
Antiquities of the Jews, Nelson & Brown, London, p. 226, 1831.
36. 36. Velikovsky, ref. 8, p. 102, and notes 9 and 10 on p. 131.
37. 37. Velikovsky, ref. 8, p. 130 and note 103 on p. 136.
38. 38. Hypocoristic: adj. endearing, as a pet name, diminutive, or
39. 39. The Egyptian sign ps, also psy, can be used as either an ideogram
psy meaning digni ed, or as a determinative meaning deceased of cial. In Collier,
M. and Manley, B., How to read Egyptian hieroglyphs, British Museum Press, London,
1998; p. 30, the same sign is written as pswt with the designated meaning
distinguished women. This demonstrates the point that there is no certainty in the
translation or the pronouncing of this sign. Velikovskys efforts are little more
than guesses.
40. 40. Velikovsky, I., New Evidence for Ages in Chaos; in: Collected
Essays of Immanuel Velikovsky,, accessed 15 April
41. 41. ThestatusconstructusorconstructstateisanounformoccurringinAfro-
Asiatic languages. It is particularly common in Semitic languages such as Hebrew,
and in the extinct Egyptian language. In Hebrew, it occurs when a semantically de
nite noun is succeeded by another noun in a genitive relation to the rst.
42. 42. ThetitlePharaohcomesfromtheEgyptianwordmeaningGreatHouse (Egy.
pr-3). During Egypts earlier periods the word was used for the royal palace, and
not until around the beginning of the 18th Dynasty was it commonly used as an
epithet for the Egyptian monarch.
43. 43. See: 2 Kings 23:29, 33, 34 (Pharaoh Neco: Heb. ;) Jeremiah
44:30 (Pharaoh Hophra: Heb. ) . By this time, Pharaoh had become an
epithet for the king of Egypt.
44. 44. Throughout Ages in Chaos, Velikovsky continually refers to the
Egyptian Shwa as being the Hebrew for Sheba. But the Hebrew beth is never
pronounced like the English w. However, it is pronounced like the German w, which
is pronounced like v in English. Thus a possible explanation for Velikovskys
repeated error (which his devotees, sadly, seem unaware of) may be that he was,
though Russian-born, immersed in Germanic language/culture during some 20 years in
Austria. (There is apparently a Jewish tradition of using the v sound for beth in
reading the Hebrew Old Testament, a pronunciation that also appears in Modern
Hebrew. Originally beth exclusively represented the sound b. At some
point in Hebrew history, the b sound was modi ed and explains why it is pronounced
two different ways in the Masoretic text. Sometimes it is pronounced as a b and
sometimes as a fricative, i.e. more like English v or German w); the Masoretic text
differentiates the two by placing a dot inside the letter beth when it is to be
pronounced b and omitting the dot ).for the fricative sound
45. Collier and Manley, ref. 39.
46. The book of Daniel has become a modern battleground between liberal scholarship
which believes the book was written in the middle of the 2nd century bc, and the
conservative view that it was written by Daniel in the 6th century bc.
47. An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary, With an Index of English Words, King List
and Geographical List with Index, List of Hieroglyphic Characters, Coptic and
Semitic Alphabets, etc., John Murray, London, 1920; reprinted, Dover Publications,
New York, 1978.
48. Email from Lisa Lael to the author 10 March 2010, in response to the authors
email of 3 March 2010. Oddly, in another forum, www. (accessed 9 May 2010) Sweeneys alleged authority
on the topic morphs seamlessly from Lisa Lael of Israel to Brad Aaronson of
Israel, with a near-identical description, including the claim of competence in
both scripts.
49. LiberalChristianity,isageneraltermthatcoversdiverse,philosophically informed
religious movements and ideas within Christianity from the late 18th century and
onwards. The word liberal in this context refers to the manner of thought and
belief associated with the philosophical and religious paradigms developed during
the Age of Enlightenment.
50. Thecorrecttermisnotlisping,rathermetathesis:thetranspositionwithin a word of
letters, sounds or syllables, as in the change from Old English bridd to modern
English bird.
51. For further details see: Rohl, D., A Test of Time: The BibleFrom Myth to
History, Century, London, 1995; pp. 156157.
52. Velikovsky, ref. 8, p. 102.
53. Flavius Josephus, ref. 30.
54. Velikovsky, Ref. 8, p. 113.
55. Breasted, ref. 10, sec. 287.
56. Address of Abraham Sachs at Brown University, 15 March 1965. Full text of
address can be accessed at:
57. James, P.J., Ages in Chaos? Proceedings of the Glasgow Conference, 1978,
Society for Interdisciplinary Studies, pp. 3452, 1982.
58. Bimson, J.J., Can there be a revised chronology without a revised stratigraphy?
Proceedings of the Glasgow Conference, 1978, Society for Interdisciplinary Studies,
pp. 1626, 1982.
59. Gammon, G.J., Proceedings of the Glasgow Conference, 1978, Society for
Interdisciplinary Studies, pp. 1215, 1982.
60. Rohl, ref. 51.
62. ThissymbolicceremonyforlayingfoundationswasknownasStretching of the rope
(Egy. pdj-s heb). Seshat was the goddess of measurement and writing.
Patrick Clarke has developed a deep interest in ancient Egypt since early
childhood. His speciality is the pharaonic tombs in the Valley of the Kings; their
architecture, artwork and afterlife texts. He presently resides with his family in
The Queen of Sheba and the Ethiopian problemPatrick Clarke
A study of ancient literature, cartography, and the Bible Old Testament narrative
shows that the peoples of the Ancient Near East (ANE) viewed their world very
differently from our 21st-century eyes. The thiopia (Ethiopia) described by many
Greek and Roman writers, and relied upon by a number of chronological revisionists,
bears no resemblance to the modern State of Ethiopia, its location, or extent. The
idea that the biblical Queen of Sheba ruled ancient Egypt and a land equating to
modern Ethiopia is based on a faulty understanding of the Greco-Roman thiopia.
Aquarter of a century ago, creationist Dr Charles V. Taylor made this observation:
I hold no brief for Velikovskys theology, or lack
of it, but one must admit that his chronologies have never seriously been
disproved, but rather slandered and libelled without proper examination.1
What was true 25 years ago is no longer the case todayTaylors observation was
justified back then, but now a new generation of scholars is emerging who, while
often not holding any brief for conventional chronologies, are challenging
Velikovskys chronology and theology using multi-disciplinary skills.
When I read Velikovskys Ages in Chaos I was surprised by the manner in which he
took other peoples statements out of their original context, and blended them into
novel arguments for chronological revision of the ANE (note that I support the need
for revision, but this needs to be on a sound footing). Some of these contextomies
were discussed in my 2010 paper Why Pharaoh Hatshepsut is not to be equated to the
Queen of Sheba (hereafter PHQS).2 The central argument of David Austins 2012
Viewpoint in this Journal, The Queen of the South is the Queen of Egypt3
(hereafter QSQE) is that the Queen of Sheba was a queen of both Egypt and Ethiopia.
QSQE bases its biblical proof that the Queen of the South refers to a Queen of
Ethiopia on a very small part of the Book of Daniel (11:5, 6, 811). This is
supplemented with comments from three authorsYoung,4 Calvin,5 and Mauro6all from
works that discussed the end-times Great Tribulation.
The core of the QSQE case is this: if Jesus Queen of the South can be linked to
Daniels King of the North (Syria), and King of the South (Egypt), the Queen of
the South must be Egyptian also. It all sounds very straightforward, but as we
shall see, linking this idea to the notion of this queen being monarch of Egypt and
of a land or region called thiopia by Greek and Roman historians is not as simple
as followers of Velikovskys revision would have us believe.
Fallacies in the QSQE abstract
Before discussing the Ethiopian question in depth, let us examine the QSQE
abstract. It begins with a bold assertion:
Biblical and geographical arguments support the idea that The Queen of Sheba ...
was The Queen of Egypt, not Arabia.
Nowhere in the Bible is mention made of any Queen of Egyptthis was covered in my
original paper, PHQS.7
The region today called Arabia was not known by that name in the period in
question. The first written record of the name Arabia seems to be Herodotus The
Histories, Book III, c. 430 BC:
There is a great river in Arabia, called the Corys, which empties itself into the
Erythraean Sea.8
The name Arabia comes from the Old Persian where it is pronounced Arabya, and
does not appear in the crucial period of Solomon in the 10th century BC timeframe
required by the QSQE proposal. QSQEs reliance on a modern map (figure 1) to
explain things, with its modern names and geo- political boundaries, is pointless
the modern and ancient worlds were, and are, quite different places.
The next sentence of the abstract reads:The reigns of the Queen of Sheba and Queen
Hatshepsut were also contemporaneous.
The reigns of Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain (1953present) and that of Queen
Juliana of the Netherlands (19481980) were also contemporaneous. No-one would
claim that they are one and the same monarch as a result of any contemporaneity.
That someone was a contemporary of someone else proves nothing, other than that
they were living (in this case reigning) at the same time. It does not indicate
that the Queen of Sheba and Pharaoh Hatshepsut, mentioned in the abstract, were the
same person. The QSQE argument seems to be some sort of analogical inference that
involves noting the shared properties of two or more things (in this case Queen),
and from this basis inferring that they also share some further property (a ruler
of Egypt). In short, contemporaneous is not identical.
The final sentence of the abstract reads:This fact and others vindicate Immanuel
kys chronology, which was basically correct, although in error in some areas.
The fact referred to is the contemporaneous is not identical fallacy shown
above. It is hard to see how one can claim at the same time that Velikovskys
chronology is basically correct while admitting that it is in error in some
areasan admission which would seem to contradict the claim that Velikovskys
chronology has been vindicated. A chronology is like a chain that links to
(correlates with) a whole host of historical points. And like a chain, it is only
as strong as its weakest link. If it is admitted to be flatly wrong in one area,
the correlations in the rest of the chain are obvi- ously worthless.
Geographical proof?
The major theme of the QSQE paper is based on the presumed geographical location of
a nation bearing the toponym Ethiopia (written by Greek and Roman Historians as
thiopiaboth names are used interchangeably in this paper) and its presumed link
to the biblical Queen of Sheba. The QSQE begins the section Geographical proof by
claim- ing that Whiston (translator of the works of Josephus) had written that
this Queen of Sheba was a Queen of Sabea in South Arabia.
This was used by the QSQEs author to dispute a com- ment I made concerning the
location of the land of Sheba.9 By using selective quote editing, Whistons
original words were taken out of context to suit the QSQE case. His original
statement was:
That this queen of Sheba was a queen of Sabea in South Arabia, and not of Egypt
and Ethiopia, as Josephus here asserts, is, I suppose, now generally agreed; and
since Sabea is well known to be a country near the sea, in the south of Arabia
Felix, which lay south from Judea also; and since our Saviour calls this queen the
queen of the south, and says, she came from the utmost parts of the earth (Matt.
xii, 42; Luke xi, 31); which descriptions agree better to this Arabia than to Egypt
and Ethiopia, there is little occasion for doubting in this matter [QSQE contextomy
When Whistons words are placed back in their original context it is absolutely
clear that Whiston was certain that the Queen of Sheba came from what is now
Arabia, and Ethiopia is ruled out.
Understanding the map
The QSQE choice of map (figure 1) can be used to show that modern nation-states in
the Middle-eastern region do not correspond to the world of Solomon and the Queen
of Sheba 3,000 years ago. The nations featured are recent creations with modern
internationally recognized borders.
Iraqs borders were demarcated in 1920 by the Treaty of Svres. Formerly this
region was called Mesopotamia.
Modern Syria was established after WWI as a French mandate, extending from the
Turkish border to Sinai, and became independent in 1946, occupying its present
The establishment of the modern State of Israel occurred in 1948.
The Hashemite Emirate was founded in 1921. In 1946, it became the Hashemite
Kingdom of Transjordan.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was founded by Abdul- Aziz bin Saud in 1932.
Sudan was formerly the Kingdom of Cush. The modern Sudan of the QSQE map was
established in 1956.
Ancient Egypt was established on different borders to the modern state. Egypt
began 40 centuries before the above states were formed, and was centred on the Nile
These states, with the exception of Egypt, were created in the 20th century,
between 60 and 100 years ago. My papers discuss events that happened 30 centuries
ago. I have deliberately omitted Ethiopia from this list as this will be discussed
How map reading ought to work
The QSQE author, a little further into his paper, states that in order to find
south on a map, someone must drop a plumbline, or that one should follow in a
parallel line the edge of the atlas page ....
However, the world has a curved surface, and longitudinal lines grow wider apart
the nearer to the equator one travels. Does the QSQE author understand how using
longitudinal references affects his case?
Figure 1. Modern map of the Middle-East used in QSQE.
A longitudinal line running through Jerusalem at 3513E will pass through modern
Egypt in its south-eastern corner (placing 1.5% of Egyptian territory to the east
of the line). The Jerusalem line does not pass through Syria as claimed: the
westernmost point of Syria, close to Latakia, is at 3547E. The QSQE claim that
Syria sits on top of Israel is misleadinga difference of 35 minutes longitude
at that latitude is significantthe westernmost point of modern Syria lies east of
The easternmost border of ancient Egypt was demar- cated by a line of
fortifications that lay along the length of the Bitter Lakes, a body of water that
was more extensive then than today, stretching in an almost unbroken line from the
Mediterranean to modern-day Suez. The QSQE claim that Egypt was south of Syria and
Israel is nonsense since the Sinai Peninsula (Egy. bi3w ) was where ancient
Egyptians considered Asia began. Suez (the furthest point east) lies at 3233E,
some three degrees west of both Latakia in Syria 3547E, and Jerusalem 3513E.
The QSQE margin of error at this latitude is approximately 240 km (150 miles).
The QSQE author wrote:Geographically, taking the countries between
the longitudinal 35 and 40 lines, starting from the northern position of Israel
and Syria (Syria sits on top of Israel), we find, moving latitudinally south,
that the countries that lie directly south in our current maps are not Yemen or
Southern Arabia, but part of Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Sudan. These last four
countries are all in Africa. Yemen lies between the 40 and the 55 longitudinal
lines. Considering that Jerusalem is almost on the 35 line of longitude, it is
impossible to find Southern Arabia as directly south of Jerusalem whichever way
we look at a map [emphasis in original].3
My original point was to use Jerusalem (3513E) as the fixed position of Jesus
statement in Matthew 12:42. Jesus was speaking figuratively of something familiar
to people of the timeSouth was used to indicate, in the general sense, a
location south of Jerusalem rather than to the north; and ends of the Earth was a
common metaphor indicating the end of terra firma and the beginning of the sea. We
will come across the phrase ends of the Earth later.
There is no justification for using the toponym Southern ArabiaI did not use this
namethis is a straw man. Mod- ern nation names such as Yemen, Eritrea, or Sudan
were not used in my paper either. By misusing longitude and latitude, the QSQE
author again erects a strawman by inserting names of nations to prove that they
were not where I claimed them to be. This sort of fallacy is practised often in the
QSQE paper.
In some quarters, the classical name Syria is thought to be a modification of
Assyria and to date from the period of the Assyrian subjugation of ancient Aram.
The toponym Syria
does not occur in Homer (a source much relied upon in the QSQE), who refers to the
region under a different toponym, Arimi (hence Aram): By angry Jove in Arimi (
) descend.11
Strabo12 also informs us that the people of that region were called Arimi
(Geographica). The Arimi or Arameans were a Northwest Semitic semi-nomadic and
pastoralist people whose origins are still hotly debated. Aram their eponymous
founder, was the fifth son of Shem and thus cannot be confused with Asshur, the
eponymous founder of Assyria, the second son of Shem.13
Why Bible translators chose Syria rather than the original Aram in Judges 10:6, and
onwards after that point, remains as much a mystery as the replacing of Cush
with the later misleading Ethiopia (Isaiah 45:14). Using modern names to explain
ancient ones is unhelpful from a historical perspective.
The Ethiopian problem
The QSQE author asks: Did such a region as (Ethiopia) exist in the
times of Solomon, Rehoboam, Queen Hatshepsut, The Queen of Sheba, Thutmosis III,
Sheshonk, or Shishak?,14 and then seeks to discredit my assertion that it did not.
Sheshonk (Sheshonk I) is viewed by some scholars to be the biblical Shishak, but
that only works if the Conventional Egyptian Chronology (CEC) is correctand it
isnt. Later in the QSQE, Thutmose III is claimed to be Shishak. So why in- troduce
Sheshonk to the argument? Thutmose and Sheshonk are separated by around 480 years:
surely the QSQE is not suggesting they are the same person, which is implied in the
question? The QSQE case needs the reader to accept the idea of contemporaneous
characters which is essential to the success of the ideayet the difficulty of
bridging the gulf between contemporary and identical characters remains.
From the section of my (PHQS) paper headed Josephusa child of his time, Austin
cites a small portion:
So for Josephus to mention Ethiopia as already existing in Hatshepsuts time
generally suits the supporters of the VIC. However, there was in fact no such thing
as Ethiopia at the times of Hatshepsut/ Solomon.
A look at the larger context is helpful. I made the point that:
The region now known as Ethiopia was the probable location for Punt, a land with
which Egypt eventually had trading interests. But the VIC needs to have Punt be,
instead, Israelto the north. So for Josephus to mention Ethiopia as already
existing in Hatshepsuts time generally suits the supporters of the VIC. However,
there was in fact no such thing as Ethiopia at the times of Hatshepsut/Solomon.
So for Josephus to use this term actually highlights that his title for the Queen
was in error here [emphasis added].15
Perhaps I should have made my point clearer in my paper by indicating that there
was no such nation state as modern Ethiopia in the timeframe required. This does
not let the author of the QSQE off the hookhis claim that he could not find any
proof of this indicates one of two things: he either did not read my paper with
care or simply chose to ignore inconvenient truths. The 1,128 words in the section
Josephusa child of his time explain clearly enough.
By discussing Josephus as being a child of his times, I pointed out that:
Greco-Roman records render Cush incorrectly as either Nubia or Ethiopia, but
earlier sources, whether biblical or Egyptian, always referred to this geographical
location as Cush. The Septuagint (the 3rd Century BC translation of the OT into
Greek, possibly one of the sources relied on by Josephus) also unhelpfully
translates Cush as Aethiopia.
Multi-century Homer error
The QSQE stated:In fact I found it quite possible that Ethiopia did
exist in the times of Hatshepsut/Solomon. In checking Homers two poems, Iliad and
Odyssey which were apparently16 written or authored about the 8th century BC or
before, it was found that (Greek) is written as such about five times and
is seen in the poems, already as an established country ready for war, etc. Even if
these poems were legendary or mythical, I do not believe that Homer would write
concerning a non-existent region.
Herodotus estimated that Homer lived 400 years before his own time, which would
place Homer at around 850 BC. The consensus is that the Iliad and the Odyssey date
from around the 8th century BC. Over the past few decades, some scholars have
argued for a 7th century BC date. Taplin believes that the conclusion of modern
researchers is that Homer dates to 750 to 650 BC.17 Solomon, by comparison, is
securely dated to the 10th century BC, along with the Queen of Sheba. With the
consensus ruling that Homer is 8th century or later, the mathematics of Homer being
a near contemporary of Solomon are wrong. The QSQE assumed that Herodotus was
correct about Homers placement in the historical timeline, but Herodotus has been
shown wrong on many accounts due to the sources he used sometimes being corrupted.
The claim that only 19 years existed between Solomon and Homer is incorrect, the
consensus claims around two centuriesthe earliest recording of did not
appear in Homers text until at least 23 centuries after the time of Solomon and
Sheba. As I am about to discuss, the country was in fact a far larger region.
Let ancient witnesses speak
appears twice in Homers Iliad and three times in the Odyssey. Herodotus
specifically used the name for all the lands south of Egypt.18 Previously, Homer
made an interesting observation regarding :
Howbeit Poseidon had now departed for the distant Ethiopians, the Ethiopians that
are sundered in twain, the uttermost of men, abiding some where Hyperion [one of
the 12 Titans of Greek mythology] sinks and some where he rises.19
In the surviving accounts of that time, in the Greek view of things was
situated in a vast region covering much of Africa and a large part of the ANE. The
phrase sundered in twain points to these Ethiopians as being so widespread that
they were even separated into two groups; a fact noted by Herodotus, who
distinguishes between straight-haired (Asian) and curly-haired (African)
The eastern Ethiopiansfor two nations of this name served in the armywere
marshalled with the Indians. They differed in nothing from the other Ethiopians,
except in their language, and the nature of their hair. For the eastern Ethiopians
have straight hair, while they of Libya [here he is talking about all of Africa]
are more woolly-haired than any other people in the world.20
Both Homer and Herodotus, though separated by centuries, agreed that this
Ethiopia was a vast region split into two parts by something. The question of
what that something was is answered from the above accounts and by looking at a
map of the general region. The western Ethiopians occupied much of Africa and a
body of water, known today as the Red Sea, separated them from the eastern
Ethiopians. Herodotus adds still more problems to the country of Ethiopia concept.
He writes of:
... the long-lived Ethiopians, who dwell in that
part of Libya [Africa] which is by the Southern sea ....21
Maps made in antiquity (see figure 2) up to the 1800s reveal a consensus as to how
widespread the African Ethiopians were, even to naming the Southern sea (the modern
South Atlantic/Indian Ocean as the thiopian (Ethiopian) Sea. The thiopian Sea
(Mare thiopicum in Latin) was the name given to the southern part of the Atlantic
Ocean in classical geographical works from ancient times up to the 19th century.
This name has nothing to do with modern Ethiopia and is now obsolete. Several 16th-
century maps show the name of the Northern Atlantic Ocean as Sinus Occidentalis,
while the central Atlantic, southwest of present-day Liberia, appears as Sinus
Atlanticus and the Southern Atlantic as Mare Aethiopicum. John Seller in his
Figure 2. Map of Pomponius Mela, c. ad 40.
Atlas Maritimus22 divided the Atlantic Ocean into two parts by means of the
equator. He called the northern portion of the Atlantic Mar del Nort and the
southern part Oceanus thiopicus. These ancient geographer sources further
confirm that the author of QSQE is completely wrong about his Ethiopia.
Rather unwittingly the QSQE author has conceded my
point:I do not believe that Homer would write concerning
a non-existent region [emphasis added].As I have already indicated, Ethiopia, the
nation state,
did not exist in the days of Solomona gigantic region spanning most of the African
continent, and a significant part of the Levant, did.
Ethiopia is the width of Africa and extends into Southern Africa
Continuing the theme of this Ethiopia being split in two, we find misuse of
Matthew 12:42 rebounds on the author of QSQE, again from the pen of Homer:
Now Neptune had gone off to the Ethiopians, who are at the worlds end, and lie in
two halves [here is mention of the separation of the Ethiopians again], the one
looking west and the other east.23
Homer uses the term worlds end / ends of the earth in this pas- sage. Matthew
12:42written in Greekrenders Jesus words as (lit. the
limits/ ends of the earth). Jesus, in refer- ring to the Queen of the South (aka
the Queen of Sheba), used the same term as Homer. The evidence I have presented
here indicates that the Hel- lenist Greek concept of Ethiopia was a region that
encompassed almost all of Africa, a significant portion of the Arabian Peninsula,
and even had a huge oceanic region named after it. If the central claim of the
QSQE, that the Queen of Sheba ruled over (the then) Ethiopia is true, the extent of
her kingdom was the largest known in the history of mankind. There should be
evidence from all over the African and ANE continents that this queen, whatever her
epithets, ruled there as a contemporary of Solomon. Apart from the present-day
Yemen, noth- ing has been discovered that suggests a Sheba kingdom of the magnitude
noted above.
Sailing to Punt
The final discussion centres on the QSQEs statement: Concerning the Sailing to
the land of Punt from Ethiopia by Queen Hatshepsut ... [emphasis in origi-
nal] (p. 81.)Most of the statement is italicized, which makes it ap-
pear this is a direct quote from a reliable source. No source is mentioned.
If, as Clarke states, The region now known as Ethiopia was the probable location
for Punt, and Queen Hatshepsut lived somewhere close to, or in, the Upper or Lower
Egypt region, why does Clarke seem to agree with Breasted that there was a sailing
to the land of Punt? It is reasonable to question whether the Punt was in Africa
because of the need of ships and particularly the trouble Hatshepsut took with her
sailing arrangements.
What I actually wrote was:
It is well known to most scholars of antiquity that much of what authors during
the Classical Period, such as Josephus, had to say about Egypt and the Ancient Near
East in general, when they covered events not in their own time or their recent
past, carries errors, both great and small. Scholars do not ignore these classical
Figure 3. Map of Africa, 1669, by Richard Blome.
sources, but they are studied with considerable caution, and conclusions are
primarily based on the more ancient sources. So, the general rule among scholars is
that acceptance of any such details from the later classical sources must be
deferred unless they are confirmed by the more ancient evidence. Thus Josephus
reference to the queen of Egypt and Ethiopia may be considered a reasonable
substitution for the biblical Queen of Sheba only when a contemporary record
covering this matter supports it. For supporters of the VIC, this is bad news;
there is no such record. But there is more. The region now known as Ethiopia was
the probable location for Punt, a land with which Egypt eventually had trading
interests. But the VIC needs to have Punt be, instead, Israelto the north.2
At no time, in any of my papers, do I indicate that the Queen of Sheba sailed
anywhere. All evidences point to the Sabeans using land-based caravan routes from
the earliest times. It is Austin and all Velikovskians who think that she
was queen of a state called Ethiopia, and, by extension, Egypt. The reason I agree
with Breasted? Like all Egyptologists, it is recognized that Egyptians sailed
southwards to Punt many times throughout Egypts long history. However, in PHQS, I
mention sailing just once. It is not my thoughts that were presented, rather
those of Velikovsky who cites Breasted:
Sailing ... to the land of Punt ... according to the command of the Lord of gods,
Amon, Lord of Thebes, Presider over Karnak, in order to bring for him the marvels
of every country, for he so much loves the King of Upper and Lower
Egypt ... .24,25
On the same page (p. 81) in QSQE we read:
All Queen Hatshepsut would have had to do if the probable location for Punt was
in Ethiopia was to get from somewhere close to Ethiopia to Ethiopia. Even if
Sheba/Hatshepsut lived in Southern Arabia, and Punt was in Ethiopia, all the
queen had to do was cross a narrow channel [emphasis in original].
Sounds so simple, and that is the problem. Listen to another ancient hostile
Now the early writers gave the name gypt to only the part of the country that was
inhabited and watered by the Nile, beginning at the region of Syen [modern Aswan]
and extending to the sea; but the later writers down to the present time have added
on the eastern side approximately all the parts between the Arabian Gulf [the
modern Red Sea] and the Nile (the thiopians do not use the Red Sea at all) ...
[emphasis added].26
According to a witness of the time, it seems that the Ethiopians, which must
include the QSQEs Sheba/ Hatshepsut, didnt do sea travel, which makes the QSQE
claim that all the queen had to do was cross a narrow channel invalid, and
Velikovskys Sheba/Hatshepsut journey by sea to Ezion Geber even more so.
It is clear that the author of The Queen of the South is the Queen of Egypt
is mistaken in regard to the loca- tion and extent of the region known as
thiopia/Ethiopia. Subsequently, any attempted creation of alter egos between
Hatshepsut and the Queen of Sheba fails also. Unfortunately, the author
demonstrates substantial lack of competency in this complex subject throughout the
remainder of the QSQE.
His invocation of the text of the famous Merneptah Stele in support of his thesis
also falls embarrassingly flat; for a correct understanding of the text, I refer
him to my recent paper The Stele of Merneptahassessment of the final Israel
strophe and its implications for chronology.27
Audi alteram partem28
If Velikovskians are as secure in their beliefs as they claim to be, they should
easily be able to see off counter views such as mine without resorting to the sorts
of fallacious and, at times, quite inappropriate tactics that, I have to say, have
been rampant within the QSQE. That the other side demands a hearing is in itself
not the problem, but the debate needs to take place on a fair and scholarly playing
field, minus out-of- context citations, strawman fallacies and the like.
The fact that many historians, archaeologists and Egyptolo- gists question
Velikovskys ideas (including several who, like me, share the goal of a downwards
revised chronology) is in itself an interesting fact, which any inquisitive mind
ought to be informed about. Yet some Velikovskians still continue to react to my
relatively modest challenge (which is ultimately intended to be in the interests of
a solid synchronism with the truth of the Bible, as I hope to show through
continuing papers), in a manner smacking somewhat of panic.
It might be a good idea if, rather than attacking anyone who appears to denigrate
their idol, Velikovskians spend time looking at their chronological model and ask
the honest ques- tion, Could Velikovsky in fact have been wrong all along?
VIEWPOINT || JOURNAL OF CREATION 27(2) 2013 References
1. Taylor, C.V., The Times of the Great Kings of Persia, J. Creation (formerly Ex
Nihilo Technical Journal) 3(1):129, 1988.
2. Clarke, P., Why Pharaoh Hatshepsut is not to be equated to the Queen of Sheba,
J. Creation 24(2):6268, 2010;
3. Austin, D., The Queen of the South is the Queen of Egypt, J. Creation
26(3):79, 2012.
4. Young, E.J., The Prophecies of Daniel, Eerdmans Publishing, 1949.
5. Calvin, J., A Commentary on Daniel, Banner of Truth Trust, London, 1966.
6. Mauro, P., The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation, Bible Truth Depot,
Swengel, PA, 1944.
7. Clarke, ref. 2, p. 62.
8. Herodotus, The Histories, book III, section 9. The Erythraean Sea (
; Erythra Thalassa; Erythra actually means red) mentioned here by
Herodotus was comprised of three bodies of water; what is nowadays called the Red
Sea, the western half of the Indian Ocean, and, crucially, the modern
Persian/Arabian Gulf. It was into this latter body of water that the Corys flowed
(see Rose, J.I., New Light on Human Prehistory in the Arabo-Persian Gulf Oasis,
Current Anthropology, vol. 51(6), The University of Chicago Press, p. 852, December
2010); the Gulf was a fertile plain until marine ingression occurred as the ice-
sheets retreated at the end of the Glacial Maximum of the post-Flood Ice Age. All
three modern bodies of water have undergone many name changes since the days of
9. Clarke, P., Reply to David Downs: Is Hatshepsut the biblical Queen of Sheba?
J. Creation 24(3):39, 2010.
10. See note in: Whiston, W., The Works of Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the
Jews, Nelson & Brown, p. 226, 1831.
11. Cowper, W., The Iliad and Odyssey of Homer (4 vols.), Joseph Buckingham, Iliad,
Book II, line 913, 1814.
12. Strabo (64 bc ad 24) was a Greek geographer, philosopher, and historian.
13. See the genealogical chart of Shem in: Cooper, B., After the Flood, New Wine
Press, 1995, p. 171.
14. Austin, ref. 3, p. 80.
15. Clarke, ref. 2, p. 64.
16. apparently; adverb (sentence modifier); it appears that; as far as one knows;
seemingly. Collins English DictionaryComplete and Unabridged, Harper Collins,
17. Taplin,O.,(thechapteronHomer),TheOxfordHistoryoftheClassicalWorld, Oxford
University Press, p. 50, 1993.
18. Herodotus, Histories, Book II, lines 2930; Book III, 114; Book IV, 197.19.
Benedicton Classics, 2001.
20. Herodotus, Histories, Book VII, line 70.
21. Herodotus, Histories, Book III, line 17.
22. Allaby, M., Oceans: A Scientific History of Oceans and Marine Life, Facts on
File, New York, p. 5, 2009.
23. Homer, ref. 19, Book I, lines 3032.
24. Velikovsky, I., Ages in Chaos, Abacus ed., Sphere Books, p. 103, 1973.
25. Breasted, A.H., Ancient Records of Egypt, vol. II, Russell and Russell, New
York, sec. 269, 1906, reprinted 1962. See also Naville, E., The Temple of Deir el
Bahari, Memoirs of the Egyptian Exploration Fund, London, vols. 1214, 16, 19, 27
and 29, 18941908.
26. Strabo, Geographica, Book XVII, pp. 2223, sections 790791; in: Loeb Classical
Library, 8 vols., Greek texts with facing English translation by Jones, H.L.:
Harvard University Press, 1917 through 1932.
27. Clarke, P., The Stele of Merneptahassessment of the final Israel strophe and
its implications for chronology, J. Creation 27(1):6976, 2013.
28. Latin maxim meaning let the other side be heard.
Patrick Clarke has developed a deep interest in ancient Egypt since early
childhood. His speciality is the pharaonic tombs in the Valley of the Kings; their
architecture, artwork and afterlife texts. He presently resides with his family in
Pharaoh Thutmose III as the Biblical Shishak King of Egypt
June 24, 2016
Why Hatshepsut can be the Queen of Sheba

Damien F. Mackey

Hatshepsut: Whose name means foremost of noble women.

Damien Mackey BPhil (1985), MA (1994), MA (2007) has two Master of Arts Degrees,
from the University of Sydney (Australia). His first thesis The Sothic Star Theory
of the Egyptian Calendar (preceded by the study of Hieroglyphics at Macquarie
University), scrutinized the documentary and astronomical basis of the conventional
Egyptian dating. Mackeys second thesis, A Revised History of the Era of King
Hezekiah of Judah and its Background (preceded by a year of ancient Hebrew study),
was his attempt to develop a more acceptable alternative to the conventional

Patrick Clarke has recently written for the Journal of Creation two articles
claiming that, contrary to Drs. Immanuel Velikovsky, Donovan Courville and David
Down, and also Emmet Sweeney, the 18th dynasty pharaohs, Hatshepsut and Thutmose
III, could not have been, respectively, the biblical Queen of Sheba, and King
Shishak of Egypt.

Clarke has devoted a fair space in his Hatshepsut article to pointing out
Velikovskys apparent deficiencies, his lack of belief in the Scriptures (who
would not call himself a Bible-believer), and his shortcomings in regard to
ancient languages. But more suitably qualified scholars since (e.g. J. Bimson, P.
James, D. Rohl) have also, basing themselves on Velikovskys

(i) rejection of Sothic theory, and

(ii) his lowering of the secular dates by several centuries,

arrived at revised systems more akin to Velikovskys original than to the

conventional structure. Along the way, though, some of them, seemingly embarrassed
by any suggestion of having been influenced by Velikovsky, will drop terms like
maverick and wayward polymath with regard to him. Some will even claim their
revision as a New Chronology.

Two points here. Firstly, give credit where credit is due; and, secondly, no need
today to waste precious article space pointing out Velikovskys well-known

However, to dispose satisfactorily of Velikovskys 18th Egyptian dynasty

reconstruction, complemented by that of Courville and others all looming as a
vast elabo-structure by now it does not suffice for one simply to take pot-shots
at three supposed pillars (Clarkes all these pillars ) supporting this
combination (namely, Hatshesput/Sheba and the sub-set of Punt, and Thutmose
III/Shishak). There is to be considered a significant whole (some 200 years
revised), with an underlying methodology. Thus:

(a) the significant Sothic theory, with resultant Dark Ages, that all leading
revisionists reject these, coupled with the collection of rags and tatters
admission of honest conventional Egyptology. And

(b) the correlations between the early 18th Egyptian dynasty and early Monarchy of
Israel. Then, after

(c) the detailed theses of Hatshepsut, and

(d) Thutmose III, we arrive at

(e) the El-Amarna [EA] period with all of its many correlations with the Divided
Monarchy (e.g. Bit ulman, House of Solomon; son of Zuchru and son of
Zichri; captain Ianhamu as Syrian captain Naaman, the succession of Syrian kings,
etc., etc).

Before some of the sharpest minds of the Glasgow School to which Clarke refers
went their own ways, some teaming up but then separating, they had, by modifying
Velikovsky, brought the revision of the 18th dynasty to an impressive peak. Peter
James showed that an excellent fit could be achieved by newly identifying EAs
idolatrous king of Jerusalem, Abdi-hiba, with King Jehoram of Judah, rather than
with his pious father, Jehoshaphat, as according to Velikovsky. And Bimson, who had
written impressively on the need for a revised stratigraphy, would later add a
third Syrian king to Velikovskys EA succession of

(i) Abdi-ashirta = biblical Ben-Hadad I, and

(ii) Aziru = biblical Hazael; namely,

(iii) Du-Teshub, the post-EA son of Aziru, as Ben-Hadad II, thus further
consolidating Velikovskys Syrian sequence for both EA and the mid-C9th BC.

And I still fully concur with Jamess 1977/78 view re Abdi-ashirta and Aziru, that:

With [these] two identifications [Velikovsky] seems to be on the firmest ground,

in that we have a succession of two rulers, both of whom are characterised in the
letters and the Scriptures as powerful rulers who made frequent armed excursions
and conquests in the territories to the south of their own kingdom. In the
letters their domain is described as Amurru a term used, as Velikovsky has
pointed out by Shalmaneser III for Syria in general, the whole area being
dominated by the two successive kings in both the el-Amarna period and the mid-
9th century .

so much so that these two kings became the very foundation of my thesis on the
Background section of the era of King Hezekiah of Judah.

Dr. Eva Danelius would also correct Velikovskys unconvincing geographical

reconstruction of Thutmose IIIs first campaign, which Velikovsky though
identifying it as the biblical foray, Shishaks, nonetheless had it ending up at
Megiddo in the north by her showing that it was actually directed right at
Jerusalem itself.

This (a-e above) is by now already a formidable package (and I have only just
touched upon it). Some very solid pillars indeed to be found here with a modified

By contrast, the conventional chronology with its underlying stratigraphy has led
to archaeologists systematically deleting ancient Israel (Moses; Exodus; Conquest;
David, Solomon, the Queen of Sheba, etc.) from the history books the leading
Israeli archaeologist, Israel Finkelstein, was quoted as saying: Now Solomon. I
think I destroyed Solomon, so to speak. Sorry for that! Not only Solomon, but all
the others as well. That is because the likes of professor Finkelstein and his
colleagues are always constrained by the erroneous Sothic chronology to look at the
wrong strata for the Conquest, David and Solomon (Iron Age instead of Late Bronze
Age in the latter case). Thanks to the conventional scheme, it is biblical history
that is currently losing just about every battle.

And to set the 18th Egyptian dynasty back to somewhere near where the text books
have it, in the c. C16th-C15ths BC, then one is forced also to return to the
standard view that it was Egyptian thought that had influenced the c. C10th BC
biblical writings, instead of the other way around.
Clarke refers to Liberal Christianity in connection with Egyptologist Budge. Is
it not this liberalism that always gives precedence to the pagan nations (e.g. the
Mesopotamians and the Egyptians), by claiming that their myths and literature
supposedly influenced the biblical texts? Thus we are told, for instance, that King
David drew his inspiration for Psalm 104 from the Sun Hymn of the heretic
pharaoh, Akhnaton. All agree that these two texts are very similar in places. That
is the wrong conclusion, however, if David preceded Akhnaton by more than a century
as according to a Velikovskian context. Or they say that the Bible-like and
sapiential writings of Hatshepsut, and the love poems of the 18th Egyptian dynasty,
had influenced King Solomons writings. Some of Hatshepsuts own inscriptions are
clearly like those of Israels especially Genesis, the Psalms and, most
interestingly, the writings generally attributed to Solomon (Proverbs, Wisdom, Song
of Songs). But that is just a further argument, I would suggest, in favour of the
view that this great woman had visited him and had drunk in Solomons wisdom
Israel influencing Egypt, and not the other way around.
Here are just a few examples of:

Scriptural Influences on Hatshepsut

(i) An Image from Genesis

After Hatshepsut had completed her Punt expedition, she gathered her nobles and
proclaimed the great things she had done. Hatshepsut reminded them of Amons oracle
commanding her to establish for him a Punt in his house, to plant the trees of
Gods Land beside his temple in his garden, according as he commanded. At the
conclusion of her speech there is further scriptural image I have made for [Amon-
Ra] a Punt in his garden at Thebes it is big enough for him to walk about in. J.
Baikie noted that this is a phrase which seems to take one back to the Book of
Genesis and its picture of God walking in the Garden of Eden in the cool of the
evening. This inscription speaks of Amon-Ras love for Hatshepsut in terms almost
identical to those used by the Queen of Sheba about the God of Israels love for
Solomon and his nation.

Compare the italicised parts of Hatshepsuts

according to the command of Amon in order to bring for him the marvels of
every country, because he so much loves the King of Egypt, Maatkara [i.e.
Hatshepsut], for his father Amen-Ra, Lord of Heaven, Lord of Earth, more than the
other kings who have been in this land for ever .

with the italicised words in a song of praise spoken to Solomon by the Queen of
Sheba Blessed be the Lord your God, who has delighted in you and set you on the
throne as king for the Lord your God! Because your God loved Israel and would
establish them for ever (II Chronicles 98).

(ii) An Image from the Psalms

When Hatshepsuts commemorative obelisks were completed, she had the usual formal
words inscribed on them. However, Baikie states that, in language that might have
come straight out of the Book Psalms, the queen continues:

I did it under [Amon-Ras] command; it was he who led me. I conceived no works
without his doing . I slept not because of his temple; I erred not from that which
he commanded. I entered into the affairs of his heart. I turned not my back on
the City of the All-Lord; but turned to it the face. I know that Karnak is Gods
dwelling upon earth; the Place of his Heart; Which wears his beauty .

Baikie goes on, unaware that it really was the Psalms and the sapiential words of
David and Solomon, that had influenced Hatshepsuts prayer:

The sleepless eagerness of the queen for the glory of the temple of her god, and
her assurance of the unspeakable sanctity of Karnak as the divine dwelling-place,
find expression in almost the very words which the Psalmist used to express his
duty towards the habitation of the God of Israel, and his certainty of Zions
sanctity as the abiding-place of Jehovah.

Surely I will not come into the tabernacle of my house, nor go up into my bed; I
will not give sleep to mine eyes, or slumber to mine eyelids. Until I find out a
place for the Lord, an habitation for the mighty God of Jacob.

For the Lord hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation. This is my
rest for ever; here will I dwell; for I have desired it.

(iii) An Image from Proverbs

In another related verse of the Punt reliefs about Amon-Ra leading the expedition
to the Myrrh-terraces a glorious region of Gods Land, the god speaks of
creating the fabled Land of Punt in playful terms reminiscent of Solomons words
about Wisdoms playful rle in the work of Creation (Proverbs 8:12, 30-31). In the
Egyptian version there is also reference to Hathor, the personification of wisdom:
it is indeed a place of delight. I have made it for myself, in order to divert
my heart, together with Hathor mistress of Punt .

(iv) Images from the Song of Songs

In the weighing scene of the goods acquired from Punt (i.e. Lebanon, see below),
Hatshepsut boasts:

[Her] Majesty [herself] is acting with her two hands, the best of myrrh is upon
all her limbs, her fragrance is divine dew, her odour is mingled with that of Punt,
her skin is gilded with electrum, shining as do the stars in the midst of the
festival-hall, before the whole land.

Compare this with verses from King Solomons love poem, Song of Songs (also called
the Song of Solomon), e.g. My hands dripped with myrrh, my fingers with liquid
myrrh; Sweeter your love than wine, the scent of your perfume than any spice; Your
lips drip honey, and the scent of your robes is like the scent of Lebanon (4:10-
11; 55). (cf. 4:6, 14; 5:1, 5).

This Hatshepsuts saturation with Davidic and Solomonic scriptural imagery is

further strong support for the Egyptian queens visit to Jerusalem.

About the Woman Herself

. from Josephus Flavius we learn that she was the ruler of Egypt and Ethiopia, as
Queen Hatshepsut was, who is the only woman to have remained on the throne of Egypt
for an extended period of time. .
And Metzler adds that (as Velikovsky had already noted): In Ethiopian tradition,
her name is Makeda, which is derived from Hatshepsuts prenomen Maatkare [Makera].

Bimson had argued, though and Clarke would affirm this that the biblical
description had an Arabian, not Egyptian, flavour, with camels, gold, spices and
precious stones. But, again, all the monarchs who came to hear Solomons wisdom
brought silver and gold myrrh, spices (cf. I Kings 10:25 & II Chronicles
10:24). Ever since the time of Joseph, an Arabian camel train had operated between
Egypt and northern Palestine, carrying similar types of gifts (Genesis 37:25).
Still, Bimson had suggested that the biblical queen was from Yemen in Arabia.
Likewise, Clarke has her from somewhere around modern-day Yemen. G. van Beek,
however, has described the geographical isolation of Yemen and the severe hazards
of a journey from there to Palestine. And none of the numerous inscriptions from
this southern part of Arabia refers to the famous queen. Civilisation in southern
Arabia may not really have begun to flourish until some two to three centuries
after Solomons era, as Bimson himself had noted and no 10th century BC Arabian
queen has ever been named or proposed as the Queen of Sheba. If she hailed from
Yemen, who was she?

Creating a Vacuum

Clarke is certainly right that: The chronology debate is a serious issue. But he
is also mindful that: There is always the risk that believers may base their
thinking more on secular history rather than the Bible. He is very sympathetic
towards revisionists. And in his Shishak article, Clarke tells: I support the need
for chronological revision . It will be very interesting, though, to see for whom
Clarke opts in the future as Shishak, now that he has rejected Thutmose III as a
candidate. And with what secular history will he align the Monarchy of Israel? And,
with what biblical era, EA?

Critics who only take pot-shots at Velikovskys pillars, but who do not offer any
sort of substitute system, are creating the sort of vacuum which allows free rein
to the conventionalists and which must bewilder readers. Neither Bimson, nor Rohl
with Ramesses II as his Shishak and I suspect that Clarke will run into the very
same problem can propose any appropriately situated woman to take Hatshepsuts
place as the Queen of Sheba, who, surely, must have been a woman of some
significance. Alasdair Beal, editor of SIS in 1997, wrote of the effect that
Bimsons 1986 critique had had on readers:

Probably few articles caused more disappointment in SIS circles than John Bimsons
1986 Hatshepsut and the Queen of Sheba, which presented strong evidence and
argument against Velikovskys proposal that the mysterious and exotic queen who
visited King Solomon was none other than the famous Egyptian female pharaoh. This
removed one of the key identifications in Velikovskys Ages in Chaos historical
reconstruction and was a key factor in the rejection of his proposed chronology by
Bimson and others in favour of the more moderate New Chronology. It also took
away what had seemed a romantic and satisfactory solution to the mystery of the
identity and origins of Solomons visitor, leaving her once more as an historical
enigma. .

Such efforts that offer no replacements cause disappointment amongst readers who
at least know enough to mistrust the conventional system. It is not even sufficient
to do as some have done after having tossed aside certain pillars, and pick in
isolation a few historical characters as biblical candidates (e.g. for Shishak).
One needs at least to replace any set of discarded pillars with a revised system,
complete with a basic stratigraphy, that can accommodate major biblical events and
persons most notably, the Conquest (and Jericho), but also David and Solomon, the
Queen of Sheba and King Shishak, and later So King of Egypt (2 Kings 17:4). And
definitely one must be able to find a suitable place for the very long-reigning
(66-67 years) Ramesses II of Egypts 19th dynasty.

In 1997, about a decade after Bimsons critique, I wrote an article for SIS, in
which I acknowledged the excellent points that Bimson had made, but I also
endeavoured to answer them. I fully concurred with Bimson that the Punt expedition
could not have been the same as the biblical visit. Whereas the latter was made by
a queen, Hatshepsut was then no longer a queen. She was now in her 9th year as
Pharaoh. The title of Clarkes article is thus suggestive by its juxtaposing of
Pharaoh Hatshepsut and the biblical Queen.

The Punt Expedition

Bimson, from an in situ study of Pharaoh Hatshepsuts Punt inscriptions at Deir el-
Bahri, concluded for various reasons and rightly so that these texts could not
be referring to the celebrated visit by the Queen of Sheba to King Solomon in
Jerusalem. Clarke has again raised some of these objections. Bimsons analysis of
the Punt expedition constituted his most formidable argument against Velikovskys
thesis. However, on the basis of P. Dormans chronology of Hatshepsuts era, I
suggested that the Punt expedition was a venture entirely separate from the Queen
of Shebas visit to Jerusalem, undertaken years later, after Hatshepsut had made
herself Pharaoh. Its chief purpose was to obtain myrrh trees for the garden (or
park) surrounding the temple of Amon-Ra at Deir el-Bahri, to provide a continuous
supply of this rare plant in Thebes. Hatshepsut, recalling the magnificent parks
and gardens she had seen in Jerusalem, wanted to create the same for her capital
city. Hatshepsut would also have noticed Solomons magnificent fleet (I Kings
10:11), and the parks and gardens in Jerusalem with their exotic myrrh trees (Song
of Songs 5:1; 6:2). Presumably these were what later inspired her Punt expedition.
Furthermore, Bimson had noted most significantly that Hatshepsut herself did not
accompany this trip, as the Queen of Sheba obviously had hers. The purpose of the
Punt venture was not to partake of the wisdom of the King of Jerusalem we have
found above that she had already done that years before.

And the miserable gifts given by the Egyptian party to the reception committee at
Punt, an axe, a poignard in its sheath, two leg bangles, eleven necklaces and five
large rings, obviously bore no comparison with the lavish gifts brought by the
Queen of Sheba: The poverty and meanness of the Egyptian gifts, wrote Mariette,
are in striking contrast to the value of those which they receive.

The Egyptian inscriptions show Punt as a land of trees e.g. the c-s tree that A.
Nibbi equates with the pine. This is consistent with the view that Punt was
Phoenicia/Lebanon; Lebanon being the most noteworthy place for trees in the ancient
Near East. Solomon had a free hand building in Lebanon (I Kings (9:19, 20), where
he used forced labour. The Song of Songs refers to a mountain of myrrh,
apparently in Lebanon (cf. 4:6 & 4:8). Solomons palace was actually called The
House of the Forest of Lebanon, because it was built upon three rows of cedar
pillars, with cedar beams upon the pillars (1 Kings 7:2). All this priceless
timber could have been obtained from the Phoenicians.

Accordingly, Velikovsky had referred to Mariettes view that Hatshepsuts fine

building betrayed a foreign influence, possibly from the land of [Punt]. If the
Puntites were the Phoenicians and (according to the Bible) Phoenician craftsmen
had assisted Solomon in his building of Yahwehs Temple then it is most
interesting that Mariette had observed that Hatshepsuts temple probably
represents a Phoenician influence. From this, Velikovsky had concluded that the
design of the latter was based on the Jerusalem model.

According to the Bible, the Queen of Sheba made at least the latter part of her
journey to Jerusalem by camel train . The gifts she brought were of enormous value
but Solomon allowed her to take them all back with her (II Chronicles 9:12).

Bimson whilst favouring Velikovskys chronological view that Hatshepsuts Punt

expedition dated to about the time of King Solomon had argued that the expedition
had travelled southwards on the Red Sea, to NE Africa (modern Eritrea). Clarke
gives Ethiopia [as] the probable location of Punt. Bimson claimed that myrrh
trees were to be found there, and he explained how the fauna and flora of the Punt
reliefs reflected a NE African location. Interestingly, in Solomons own naval
expeditions to Ophir (which certainly were southward bound voyages on the Red Sea)
his servants brought back mainly gold (1 Kings 10: 11), and there is no mention at
all of myrrh trees.

I would consider the logistics of the Punt expedition in the light of points raised
by Nibbi, especially her insistence that the Egyptians did not travel on the open
seas. This helps solve a problem with which both Velikovsky and Bimson had
grappled: namely, that the Punt reliefs provide no evidence that the Egyptian fleet
had at any stage been transported overland, from the Nile to the Red Sea. And this
affects Clarke also, of course, with his Punt as Ethiopia. This led Bimson to
assume that something must have been left out of the reliefs. In my scenario this
would no longer be a problem, as the Red Sea was not involved at all. If
Hatshepsuts fleet had never left the Nile, there would have been no need for
overland transportation of boats. I suggest that Hatshepsuts expedition was
northward bound, for Lebanon, but it was an expedition on water and on land. The
fleet simply sailed northwards to the Nile Delta. There, Nehesi and his small army
disembarked and marched northward through friendly territory to Lebanon. Sailing
in the sea, beginning the goodly way towards Gods Land, journeying in peace to the
land of Punt ; the naval leg being only the beginning of the trip to Punt.

Early Egyptian expeditions to Punt were generally connected with a place they
called kpn; commonly thought to be Byblos on the Phoenician coast. Nibbi has
disputed this and has identified this kpn with a port in northern Egypt. She first
mentions Canopus but prefers El Gibali in Sinai. Canopus, though, would have been
an ideal place for the Egyptian fleet to have dropped anchor, close to the

Hatshepsut stressed that the travelling was peaceful.

Any maritime venture would have needed the co-operation of the Phoenicians, making
King Hiram of Tyre a third important power. And Velikovsky had claimed that King
Hirams men had figured in Hatshepsuts Punt inscriptions as the chiefs of Irem
[Hiram]. The Phoenician ports were international marts where all sorts of exotic
merchandise could be acquired all that Hatshepsut did in fact acquire from Punt.
I suggest that Hatshepsuts fleet would have laid anchor at the mouth of the Nile,
awaiting the outcome of Nehesis negotiations with the Puntite/ Phoenicians, who
then transported the goods via barges or rafts to Egypt, to be loaded on to
Hatshepsuts ships. It is clear from Hirams own words to Solomon (I Kings 5:8-9)
that the Phoenicians did transport cedar and cypress timber in this fashion to
southern ports.

It seems that, today, everyone wants to create his own New Chronology. This
article urges those who at least take the Bible seriously to pause and consider all
that has gone before, to modify by all means wherever the evidence demands, but to
be extremely wary about barging off in a completely new direction that means
abandoning some by now very well established biblical and historical connections.

This thesis can be accessed at:

This thesis can be accessed at:

Why Pharaoh Hatshepsut is not to be equated to the Queen of Sheba, Journal of

Creation, 24/2, August 2010, pp. 62-68.
Was Thutmose III the biblical Shishak? Claims of the Jerusalem bas-relief at
Karnak investigated, Journal of Creation, 25/1, April 2011, pp. 48-56.

Hatshepsut the biblical Queen of Sheba?

I read with interest what Patrick Clarke has written in his attempt to discredit
the identification of Hatshepsut with the Queen of Sheba.

Most of what he has written is devotedto discrediting Velikovsky. I wouldagree with

him that Velikovsky wasstretching things in trying to identifythe name Sheba with
part of the nameHatshepsut. But he has a point inobserving that the Hebrew text
doesnot say Queen of Sheba but QueenSheba. If it is Queen Sheba it is
notapparent what is meant. If Sheba wasa place it is true that most
scholarsidentify it with Yemen in Arabia, butaccording to Genesis 10:7 Sheba was
agrandson of Cush and the land of Cushwas directly south of Egypt.However, Josephus
and JesusChrist were a lot closer in time tothese events than we are. The
formerwrote,There was then a woman, queenof Egypt and Ethiopia. When thisqueen
heard of the virtue andprudence of Solomon, she had agreat mind to see him.
Accordinglyshe came to Jerusalem with greatsplendour and rich furniture.2Ethiopia
is here translatedfrom the word Cush and refers to Nubiadirectly south of Egypt, a
nation theEgyptians frequently invaded and ruledover. Jesus called her the queen
of thesouth Matthew 12:42, a term whichapplies to Egypt.I never met Velikovsky
himselfthough I did spend time talking tohis daughter Shulamit. Velikovskywas a
brilliant scholar and is to becongratulated for being the first toring the alarm
bells on the traditionalchronology, but I do not agree with allhe wrote. He
frequently tried to makea play on names which I consider to beunnecessary and
sometimes confusing.But to discredit Velikovsky does notdiscredit the reduced
chronology headvocated.I would also point out that areduced chronology is not
dependenton the identification of the Queenof Sheba with Queen
Hatshepsut.Chronologically it matches, and itwould be nice if it is valid, but
thecrucial issue is not the identificationof Hatshepsut with the Queen of Shebabut
whether the Third IntermediatePeriod (TIP) dynasties were successiveor contemporary
with other dynasties.If Hatshepsut went to East Africa ratherthan to Jerusalem it
makes no differenceto the validity of the revision.Clarkes criticism is
mostlynegative, citing lack of evidence ratherthan evidence that would
contradictthe revision. Arguments from silencecan never be regarded as
conclusive.He himself wrote, absence does notprove anything.Clarke wrote The
Bible indicatesthat her principal motive was to testSolomon with hard questions,
and notto obtain goods through an oracle ofher god, as the Egyptian text
recounts.True, but it is unthinkable that theQueen of Sheba would arrive
emptyhanded, and oriental custom wouldrequire an exchange of costly gifts.Clarke
says Velikovskys revisedchronology has been rejected bynearly all mainstream
historians andEgyptologists, but it would not becorrect to claim that no
reputablescholars support thereduced chronology.Clarke refers toPeter James and
hisbook, Centuries ofDarkness. ProfessorColin Renfrew ofCambridge Universitywrote
an introductionto that book in whichhe said,The revolutionarysuggestion is
madehere that the existingchronologies for thatcrucial phase in humanhistory are in
error byseveral centuries, andthat, in consequence,history will have to berewritten
I feel thattheir critical analysisFigure 1. Location of Cush during pharonic


Page 2

LEttERS40JOURNAL OF CREATION 24(3) 2010is right, and that a chronologicalrevolution

is on its way (pp.xivxvi).Professor Renfrew wouldhave to be regarded as
Englandstop authority on archaeology. He isso highly regarded that he has
beenpromoted to the House of Lords andis now Lord Colin Renfrew. In 2004Lord
Renfrew graciously grantedme the privilege of meeting him inthe House of Lords for
an interviewwhich I published in my magazineArchaeological Diggings. I asked himif
he still holds the same view abouta reduced chronology as he wrote inCenturies of
Darkness. He assuredme that he did and that some otherscholars in Cambridge
University heldthe same view.Clarke cites the quotation, theways to Punt should be
searchedout, that the high-ways to the myrrh-terraces should be penetrated. I
willlead the army on water and on land, tobring marvels from Gods land for
thisgod. Gods land, myrrh terracesthatsounds more like Israel, Jericho
andEngedi, where myrrh terraces wereto be found, rather than some obscureterritory
in Africa.Clarke claims that Egyptiansources never refer to Pharoah as rulerof
Egypt and Ethiopia. Maybe, butJosephus was a Jew and he would bequite entitled to
refer to her as ruler ofEgypt and Ethiopia, referring to Egyptand Cush which
bordered Egyptssouthern border.So the Queen of Sheba is a sideissue. The
revisions main virtue is theidentification of Moses and the eventsof the Exodus in
Dynasty 12. This notonly illuminates history but providesexciting evidence for the
historicalreliability of the Bible.David DownMount Colah, NSWAUSTRALIAReferences1.
Clarke, P., Why Pharaoh Hatshepsut is not tobe equated to the Queen of Sheba, J.
Creation24(2):6268, 2010.2. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book VIII,chapter
VI, p. 180, par. 5.

Patrick Clarke replies:The article was not an attempt todiscredit anyone; it is a

step-by-steprebuttal of the idea that the two namesrefer to one and the same
person. It isnot about discrediting Velikovsky theman, but his works. If these are
shownto be wrong, and of consistently poorscholarship, then that is important,
sinceVelikovsky was the agent provocateurin this matter.Furthermore, as I clearly
stated,exposing the bankruptcy of theVelikovsky-inspired chronologiesdoes not
discredit the credibility of,or the need for, a revised chronologyin general, which
I support, althoughthis was inadvertently omitted fromthe article (see Errata on p.
43). Thismay be the reason Downs letter comesacross as if he is erecting a straw
man inthe readers mind, that to demonstratethe bankruptcy of Velikovsky-
inspiredchronologies (which include his own)must mean one is attacking the
verynotion of a revised chronology.Downs letter cites authorities insupport of a
reduced chronology, asif they are supporting a Velikovskianrevision as does Down,
when thisis not the case. In fact, as my articleshowed, one of these (Peter James)
waspart of the group that concluded thatVelikovskys revised chronology
wasuntenable. There is also no evidence,and Down cites none, that
ProfessorRenfrew would support Velikovskysrevisions, so offering citations byJames
and Renfrew as if they did offera defence against the matters raised inthe article
misses the mark.Sheba was a place of considerablesubstance and fame. Creationist
authorCooper correctly pointed out that:Minaean inscriptions from northYemen, and
which date to the 9thcentury BC, tell us that Sheba was thatkingdoms southern
neighbour Sheba was famous as the Land of Spices(there were four spice kingdoms
Minaea, Kataban, and Hadraumaut the vast archaeological ruins, some ofwhose walls
still stand some 60 feetabove the desert sands, that the landwas extremely fertile,
being watered byingenious irrigation systems controlledby a great dam that once
spanned theriver Adhanat.1 Yet Down wrote:Sheba is usually identified with
Maribin Yemen, but for this there is only veryflimsy circumstantial evidence.2Down
seeks to dismiss all this sortof evidence by citing Genesis 10:7,while overlooking
10:28 which showsthat another Sheba was also a son ofJoktan, long regarded by
conservativescholarship as a progenitor of tribes inthe Arabian Peninsula.Josephus
was a child of his time.He was influenced by the Greco-Roman world view of the day.
I believethis matter regarding Josephus isadequately covered in the article.An
atlas will clarify any confusionas to where the Lord Jesus was indicatingSheba lay;
Arabia, not Egypt, lies southof Jerusalem. The Lord called herQueen of the South
precisely becausethe land of Sheba, her homeland, liesdue south of Jerusalem, and
it is theends of the earth metaphoricallyspeaking.Velikovsky can only be deemeda
brilliant scholar after his workshave been properly assessed. HisMesopotamian
credentials were, toput it bluntly, exposed for the shamthat they were; and that is
not simply amatter of my opinion. Despite repeatedrequests to do so, Velikovsky
neverrefuted Sachs. And he created morethan a play on names; he created alter-egos
for earlier kings as he tried to dealwith the clumsy mathematics of
hischronology.The Third Intermediate Period(TIP) is a small part of the
overallproblem; it doesnt address the problemsencountered prior to the Exodus.
Whydoes Velikovsky keep pressing thepoint in his works, that it does matterthat the
Hatshepsut/Sheba synchronismis valid, if in fact its a minor issue? Thesupporters
of Velikovskys revisionneed to be careful: the TIP is thetip of the chronological
iceberg.For a start, if Jerusalem was not thedestination, then those relying on


Page 3

LEttERS41JOURNAL OF CREATION 24(3) 2010Velikovskian notions would haveto concede

that the Bible would bewrong for a start. The chronologicalrevision proposed by
Velikovsky, orits many mutations, strongly dependson Jerusalem being the object of
theQueen of Shebas journey. Thus intrying to equate Hatshepsut with theSabaean
queen, Velikovsky makes thisan essential pillar of the revision. Ifthis equation
fails, then Thutmose IIIcannot be Shishak. Of course it makes adifference, and I
think Down probablyknows this. Suddenly, according tohim, it is a side issue after
38 pagesfrom Velikovsky, and eight pages inDowns Unwrapping the Pharaohs.This
argument is no sideshow; ifarguments for her identity collapse,it sets off a chain-
reaction pulling therevision down.I can read Egyptian well and thusI can read the
Punt text for myself,so I know what the passage says.The writer may think that the
Puntknown to Egyptian scholars was someobscure territory in Africa, but
thescholarly evidence for its existence isthere. Pharaohs were sending
tradingexpeditions to the obscure territoryfrom at least the 6th Dynasty.Others
cite the Hymn to Hathoras proof of the northern locationof Punt. This poem
demonstratesthat Velikovsky did not understandthe way Egyptian poetry works,as
future articles will show, if thisjournal chooses to publish the
othersmentioned.Downs final statement highlightsone of the main problems of
theVelikovsky Inspired Chronology(VIC). VIC supporters started readingthis
whodunit in the middle of thestory. The Exodus is not the beginningof the story;
to understand the truecourse of history it is necessary tostart at the beginning.
The articlesto come on the other pillars of theVIC will serve to strengthen thecase
against it still further; in themeantime I can only urge readers tostick to the
Bible, rather than to theseparticular manmade constructions.David Downs passion to
defend theGospel in the starsThe response by Jonathan F. Henryto Ross S. Olsons
letter about hisarticle on the Gospel in the Stars(J. Creation 23(3):50, 2009)
broughtback to mind something about the starand Magi I had thought about a fewyears
ago. As a physics teacher themovements of the star of Bethlehemhad often bothered
me. It wasnt thatI didnt believe that God could doabsolutely anything he wanted
to witha star, because I did. What bothered mewas the almost casual manner such
alarge mass bobbed about the universewithout any apparent effect on the earthand
how it achieved what it was meantto without some very strange tricks ofperspective
or violating scientific laws,though this is always possible for Godof course. A
previous article1 considersthree possibilities for the star: a comet,planet or
supernova. I dont believe anyof these were involved because of howthe star
behaved. Arnold Fruchtenbaumalso suggests that the star may havebeen the Shekinah
Glory.2 I suggest athird alternative.What did the star do?The four mentions of the
star areall in Matthew; they are(i) We have seen his star in the Eastand have come
to worship him(Matt. 2:2),(ii) Herod determined from themwhat time the star
appeared(Matt. 2:7),(iii) When they heard the king, theydeparted; and behold the
starwhich they had seen in the eastwent before them, till it came andstood over
where the young childwas. When they saw the star, theyrejoiced with exceedingly
greatjoy (Matt. 2:910).So we have some explainingto do if this is really a star
doing thesethings. Why does it matter what thestar did? It does because although
Godcan do anything he wants, there arepractical problems with a star here.The
problemsI had accepted, like many people,that God moved a star about in the skyas
indeed he could do. But this raisescertain problems. The first is how didthe kings
know the appearance of astar meant anything? I had assumedthat being Magi, they
used some formof astrology in order to know the starwas different from any other
and hadsome significance. I also knew thatastrologers in the east had access
toJewish scripture and prophecy butwould they recognise the birth of amajor king
and decide to visit himbased on this? How did they knowthey should do this? I have
not heardanything to really convince me thatthis was the case. So how did the
kingsget the information to go and followa star? This was a major undertakingof
trust for such a big journey andone seemingly so clearly specified tothem. Lots of
deities existed and wereworshipped, why would this new onebe so different and so
important thatthey have to go and worship? Henrytouches on this in saying They
wouldrecognise his star as a special or uniqueobject. This I agree withmaybe
itwas an angel.There is the problem of followinga star; how did the kings do it
untilit was overhead as in verse 9? Starsare normally so far away that it
isimpossible to follow one to a fixedpoint on the earth unless it moves inthe
process. This is because for theWord of God is commendable, and Ishare it. But
unless we do so with ahigh regard for truth and scholarship,we risk discrediting
the very thing weseek to uphold.Patrick Clarkerac, BretagneFRANCEReferences1.
Cooper, B., After the Flood, New Wine Press,1997.2. Down, D., Unwrapping the
Pharaohs, MasterBooks, AR, p. 121, 2006.3. Schott, S., Les chants damour de
lgypteAncienne, p. 97, 1956.

A Reader from France has written:

Dear Damien, I thought this might be of interest to you. God bless! ( it comes from
Creation Ministries)


Resolving alleged conflicts between the Bible and other accounts of Egyptian

Published: 11 August 2013 (GMT+10)

Is the subject of synchronizing the history timelines of the Bible and ancient
Egypt important? Does a revised chronology even matter in the creationevolution
J.M. wrote in with a very pertinent question after reading a CMI web article on
chronology revision: Egyptian history and the biblical record: a perfect match?
Having just read this article, it ends by saying research is being done and
building up on the subject but this was 6 years ago. Is there no update on all this
Creationist Egyptology expert Patrick Clarke responds:
Dear J.M.,
Thank you for raising the question regarding work taking place on the subject of
research into the disparity between ancient Egyptian and Bible chronologies. I can
sympathize with your frustrations that no updates appear to be forthcoming. This is
in part due to the complete absence of any progress on revising the defective
Egyptian chronology by most of the six people (seven if Anderson, the articles
author, is included) mentioned in the opening sectionAdvocates of chronological
revisionof the article you have recently read. In fact the article in general is
largely a recapitulation of Ashton and Downs book, Unwrapping the Pharaohs, and
offers no new information to add to the then already established ideas of the
psychiatrist Immanuel Velikovsky.
This subject matters a great deal, as the contradictions between secular Egyptian
chronology and the very straightforward chronology derivable from the Bible are
often used to discredit Scripture.
The article you refer to was published in 2007. At that time, I had already spent
almost two decades investigating the concept of a revision of ancient Egypts
chronology. The subject matters a great deal, as the contradictions between this
and the very straightforward chronology derivable from the Bible are often used to
discredit Scripture. However, though sympathetic to the need for revision, I was
not convinced by Velikovskys arguments and felt that any reconstruction of the
chronological synchronism between Bible and ancient Egypt should be conducted in a
scholarly manner. There were several other scholars who, like myself, agreed that
the Egyptian chronology is a shambles and needs revision downwards (and some of
them are, like Velikovsky, not Bible-believers) but who had come to similar
conclusions about Velikovskys attempts in this regard.
Around this time some well-meaning creationists, enamoured by Velikovskys claims,
began to publish articles, papers and books. What finally convinced me that a
measured response was needed came with the publication of the abovementioned book
by Ashton and Down. I discovered many problems with their attempt at synchronizing
the Bibles historical time-line with that of ancient Egypt. I regularly point out
in my writings that, in order to produce a credible revised chronology, expertise
from an Egyptological perspective, particularly in regard to the language, is an
absolute must.1
Andersons article, published a few months later, was little more than an
endorsement of Ashton and Downs book and none of these three writers, as far as I
am aware, have or even claim to have the requisite expertise in Egyptology.
Unfortunately, because of the penetration of a lot of erroneous Velikovskian
concepts into some creationist thinking, the process of establishing a biblically
and historically credible chronology revision necessarily involves first
painstakingly dismantling some of these notions.
I am confident that what will in due course emerge is a chronology that confirms
the Bibles credibility without contradicting the historical data revealed by sound
Egyptological scholarship.
In the course of this, it is understandable that some who have pinned hopes onto
this have felt as if exposing the errors in the Velikovsky-inspired chronology
(VIC) is undermining support for the Bible. I assure you that is not the case, and
that it will emerge that following the VIC to its logical conclusion ends up
undermining the Bibles credibility. My starting point is the absolute reliability
of Gods Word in all matters, including chronological, and thus that the
conventional Egyptian chronology needs serious downwards revision. It should
therefore not be a surprise to hear that I am confident that what will in due
course emerge is a chronology that confirms the Bibles credibility without
contradicting the historical data revealed by sound Egyptological scholarship.
Since August 2010 I have had a series of papers and letters published in CMIs
Journal of Creation. I dont know if you are a subscriber to this journal, but this
is where you can find much on this issue. I cannot promise any instant answers as
it will take the publication of several more papers, thus likely a number of years,
to fully develop the chronology. At the end of this reply is the current list of
Journal of Creation issues containing up-to-date papers on this subject. It would
not be appropriate to write a laymans article on this yet (e.g. in Creation
magazine) until the technical papers have proceeded to the appropriate point. Such
progressive publication also permits people to see how the points made can
withstand post-publication criticism, which also adds to the overall timeframe till
Several of my earlier papers are now available as pdfs:
Why Pharaoh Hatshepsut is not to be equated to the Queen of Sheba.
Is Hatshepsut the biblical Queen of Sheba? Letter to the Editor by
David Down. Reply: Patrick Clarke.
Why Pharaoh Hatshepsut is not to be equated to the Queen of Sheba.
Letter to the Editor by Anne Habermehl. Reply: Patrick Clarke.
Was Thutmose III the biblical Shishak?Claims for the Jerusalem bas-
relief at Karnak investigated.
Was Jerusalem the Kadesh of Thutmose IIIs 1st Asiatic campaign?
topographic and petrographic evidence.
Thutmose III was not the Shishak of 1 Kings 14:2526. Letter to the
Editor from Drew Worthen. Reply: Patrick Clarke.
Wisdom literature and the question of prioritySolomons Proverbs or
Amenemopes Instruction.
The following more recent papers and letters can be obtained as back issues from
CMI as they are not yet available as PDF:
Volume 26, Issue 3, December 2012Egyptian coins in the time of Joseph,
pp. 8591.
Volume 27, Issue 1, April 2013The Stele of Merneptahassessment of the
final Israel strophe and its implications for chronology, pp. 5764.
There are also other papers that will hopefully appear in future issues of Journal
of Creation that will further build towards a credible revised chronology. If you
dont already subscribe to the journal, may I encourage you to perhaps consider
taking out a subscription and keep abreast not only with developments in
chronology, but also in other cutting-edge research across the creation science
spectrum. In short, stay tuned.
Kind regards,

Related Articles
Why Pharaoh Hatshepsut is not to be equated to the Queen of Sheba
Letters to the Editor: Is Hatshepsut the biblical Queen of Sheba?
Letters to the Editor: Why Pharaoh Hatshepsut is not to be equated to
the Queen of Sheba
Was Thutmose III the biblical Shishak? Claims for the Jerusalem bas-
relief at Karnak investigated

Damien Mackey replies:


Much appreciated.
Actually I am well aware of Patrick Clarke and have answered his theses twofold in:

Why Hatshepsut can be the 'Queen of Sheba'


Why Thutmose III can be King Shishak of Egypt

The thing is that if you make bold as to dismantle a revised system, as Clarke does
(and is of course quite entitled to try), then you need to be able to provide a
better substitute, e.g. a more fitting historical Queen of Sheba; a more fitting
historical pharaoh Shishak.

Clarke has not managed to do this, nor (I believe) will he.

Nor have any of the others e.g. David Rohl, who have abandoned Velikovsky's ID's
here (even though Velikovsky's reconstructions of these biblical characters need
some major modifications) and have failed woefully (at least in the case of Sheba)
to come up with an alternative.

Hatshepsut as biblical Sheba and Thutmose III as biblical Shishak are now, in my
opinion, two most solid and permanent pillars of a new revised, biblically-
compatible history.

God bless

Posted by AMAIC at 5:13 PM

Labels: Hatshepsut Sheba Thutmose III Shishak Patrick Clarke Journal
of Creation, AMAIC, Australian Marian Academy of the Immaculate Conception

No comments:
Post a Comment