Letters

9. Humphreys, ref. 3, table 1, p. 29. However, and on the identification of the Queen 10. Crank, J., The Mathematics of Diffusion, Christ were a lot closer in time to of with Queen Hatshepsut. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, these events than we are. The former Chronologically it matches, and it p. 104, 1979. Ignore helium production in wrote, would be nice if it is valid, but the past 1 Ma as small compared to previous 1.5 Ga. Then use Crank’s eq. (7.3) to show that “There was then a woman, queen crucial issue is not the identification for time-varying diffusion coefficients D(t), of and Ethiopia. When this of Hatshepsut with the one can replace D t in solutions with the time queen heard of the virtue and but whether the Third Intermediate integral of D. Doing that in eqs. (12) and (13) prudence of , she had a Period (TIP) dynasties were successive of Humphreys 2005, p. 50, assuming D = 0 before 1 Ma ago, and using values of D from great mind to see him. Accordingly or contemporary with other dynasties. figure 5, gives a retention less than 0.002%. she came to with great If Hatshepsut went to East Africa rather 2 11. Humphreys, ref 3, pp. 34–36. I got the 87°C splendour and rich furniture. ” than to Jerusalem it makes no difference diffusivity, about 2 × 10–18 cm2/sec, by simply Ethiopia is here translated to the validity of the revision. extrapolating the “defect” line (often seen from the word Cush and refers to Nubia Clarke’s criticism is mostly in diffusion data for natural minerals) in directly south of Egypt, a nation the negative, citing lack of evidence rather figure 5 here a little down from our lowest point of 100°C. The line is established by Egyptians frequently invaded and ruled than evidence that would contradict the experimental data, and confirmed by over. Jesus called her “the queen of the the revision. Arguments from silence diffusivities predicted using observed retention south” Matthew 12:42, a term which can never be regarded as conclusive. data in our creation model. Erratum: the second applies to Egypt. He himself wrote, “absence does not exponential in eq. (3) should have a minus I never met Velikovsky himself prove anything”. sign, as does the first exponential. though I did spend time talking to Clarke wrote “ indicates 12. Humphreys, ref. 3, p. 53. Use the 87°C his daughter Shulamit. Velikovsky that her principal motive was to test diffusivity for D and a t of 1.5 Ga (4.7 × 1016 sec) in eq. (16). was a brilliant scholar and is to be Solomon ‘with hard questions’, and not 13. Humphreys, ref. 3, p. 50. The -100°C congratulated for being the first to to obtain goods through an oracle of temperature, though ridiculously low to any ring the alarm bells on the traditional her , as the Egyptian text recounts.” geoscientist, would effectively stop diffusion chronology, but I do not agree with all True, but it is unthinkable that the (pp. 61–62), allowing helium to accumulate for he wrote. He frequently tried to make Queen of Sheba would arrive empty nearly the entire 1.5 Ga. Use the 87°C value a play on names which I consider to be handed, and oriental custom would for D and a t of 1 Ma (3.1 × 1013 sec) in eqs. (12) and (13). unnecessary and sometimes confusing. require an exchange of costly gifts. But to discredit Velikovsky does not Clarke says “Velikovsky’s ‘revised discredit the reduced chronology he chronology’ has been rejected by advocated. nearly all mainstream historians and Is Hatshepsut the I would also point out that a Egyptologists”, but it would not be biblical Queen of reduced chronology is not dependent correct to claim that no reputable ‘ scholars support the Sheba’? reduced chronology. C l a r k e r e f e r s t o I read with interest what Patrick Peter James and his Clarke has written in his attempt book, Centuries of EGYPT to discredit the identification of Darkness. Professor Hatshepsut with the Queen of Sheba.1 Colin Renfrew of Most of what he has written is devoted Cambridge University to discrediting Velikovsky. I would NUBIA ARABIA wrote an introduction agree with him that Velikovsky was to that book in which stretching things in trying to identify he said, the name Sheba with part of the name CUSH “The revolutionary SHEBA Hatshepsut. But he has a point in suggestion is made observing that the Hebrew text does ETHIOPIA here that the existing not say ‘Queen of Sheba’ but ‘Queen chronologies for that Sheba’. If it is ‘Queen Sheba’ it is not crucial phase in human apparent what is meant. If Sheba was history are in error by a place it is true that most scholars several centuries, and identify it with Yemen in Arabia, but that, in consequence, according to Genesis 10:7 Sheba was a history will have to be grandson of Cush and the land of Cush rewritten … I feel that was directly south of Egypt. Figure 1. Location of Cush during pharonic times their critical analysis

JOURNAL OF CREATION 24(3) 2010 39 Letters

is right, and that a chronological Patrick Clarke replies: was extremely fertile, being watered by revolution is on its way” (pp. ingenious irrigation systems controlled xiv–xvi). The article was not an attempt to by a great dam that once spanned the discredit anyone; it is a step-by-step Professor Renfrew would river Adhanat.”1 Yet Down wrote: rebuttal of the idea that the two names have to be regarded as England’s “Sheba is usually identified with refer to one and the same person. It is top authority on archaeology. He is in Yemen, but for this there is only very not about discrediting Velikovsky the so highly regarded that he has been flimsy circumstantial evidence.”2 man, but his works. If these are shown promoted to the House of Lords and Down seeks to dismiss all this sort is now Lord Colin Renfrew. In 2004 to be wrong, and of consistently poor of evidence by citing Genesis 10:7, Lord Renfrew graciously granted scholarship, then that is important, since while overlooking 10:28 which shows me the privilege of meeting him in Velikovsky was the agent provocateur that another Sheba was also a son of the House of Lords for an interview in this matter. Joktan, long regarded by conservative which I published in my magazine Furthermore, as I clearly stated, scholarship as a progenitor of tribes in Archaeological Diggings. I asked him exposing the bankruptcy of the the . if he still holds the same view about Velikovsky-inspired chronologies Josephus was a child of his time. a reduced chronology as he wrote in does not discredit the credibility of, He was influenced by the Greco- Centuries of Darkness. He assured or the need for, a revised chronology Roman world view of the day. I believe me that he did and that some other in general, which I support, although scholars in Cambridge University held this was inadvertently omitted from this matter regarding Josephus is the same view. the article (see Errata on p. 43). This adequately covered in the article. Clarke cites the quotation, “the may be the reason Down’s letter comes An atlas will clarify any confusion ways to Punt should be searched as to where the Lord Jesus was indicating out, that the high-ways to the myrrh- across as if he is erecting a straw man in the reader’s mind, that to demonstrate Sheba lay; Arabia, not Egypt, lies south terraces should be penetrated. I will of Jerusalem. The Lord called her lead the army on water and on land, to the bankruptcy of Velikovsky-inspired chronologies (which include his own) ‘Queen of the South’ precisely because bring marvels from God’s land for this the land of Sheba, her homeland, lies god.” God’s land, myrrh terraces—that must mean one is attacking the very due south of Jerusalem, and it is the sounds more like , and notion of a revised chronology. ‘ends of the earth’ metaphorically Engedi, where myrrh terraces were Down’s letter cites authorities in to be found, rather than some obscure support of a reduced chronology, as speaking. territory in Africa. if they are supporting a Velikovskian Velikovsky can only be deemed Clarke claims that Egyptian revision as does Down, when this ‘a brilliant scholar’ after his works sources never refer to Pharoah as ruler is not the case. In fact, as my article have been properly assessed. His of Egypt and Ethiopia. Maybe, but showed, one of these (Peter James) was Mesopotamian credentials were, to Josephus was a Jew and he would be part of the group that concluded that put it bluntly, exposed for the sham quite entitled to refer to her as ruler of Velikovsky’s revised chronology was that they were; and that is not simply a Egypt and Ethiopia, referring to Egypt ‘untenable’. There is also no evidence, matter of my opinion. Despite repeated and Cush which bordered Egypt’s and Down cites none, that Professor requests to do so, Velikovsky never southern border. Renfrew would support Velikovsky’s refuted Sachs. And he created more So the Queen of Sheba is a side revisions, so offering citations by than a play on names; he created alter- issue. The revision’s main virtue is the James and Renfrew as if they did offer egos for earlier kings as he tried to deal identification of and the events a defence against the matters raised in with the clumsy mathematics of his of the Exodus in Dynasty 12. This not the article misses the mark. chronology. only illuminates history but provides The Third Intermediate Period exciting evidence for the historical Sheba was a place of considerable (TIP) is a small part of the overall reliability of the Bible. substance and fame. Creationist author Cooper correctly pointed out that: problem; it doesn’t address the problems encountered prior to the Exodus. Why Down “Minaean inscriptions from north th does Velikovsky keep pressing the Mount Colah, NSW Yemen, and which date to the 9 point in his works, that it does matter AUSTRALIA century b c , tell us that Sheba was that kingdom’s southern neighbour … that the Hatshepsut/Sheba synchronism References Sheba was famous as the Land of Spices is valid, if in fact it’s a minor issue? The (there were four ‘spice kingdoms’— supporters of Velikovsky’s revision 1. Clarke, P., Why Hatshepsut is not to be equated to the Queen of Sheba, J. Creation Minaea, Kataban, and Hadraumaut … need to be careful: the TIP is the 24(2):62–68, 2010. the vast archaeological ruins, some of tip of the chronological iceberg. 2. Josephus, Antiquities of the , Book VIII, whose walls still stand some 60 feet For a start, if Jerusalem was not the chapter VI, p. 180, par. 5. above the desert sands, that the land destination, then those relying on

40 JOURNAL OF CREATION 24(3) 2010 Letters

Velikovskian notions would have Word of God is commendable, and I (ii) “Herod … determined from them to concede that the Bible would be share it. But unless we do so with a what time the star appeared” wrong for a start. The chronological high regard for truth and scholarship, (Matt. 2:7), revision proposed by Velikovsky, or we risk discrediting the very thing we (iii) “When they heard the king, they its many mutations, strongly depends seek to uphold. departed; and behold the star on Jerusalem being the object of the which they had seen in the east Queen of Sheba’s journey. Thus in Patrick Clarke went before them, till it came and trying to equate Hatshepsut with the Éréac, Bretagne stood over where the young child Sabaean queen, Velikovsky makes this FRANCE was. When they saw the star, they an essential pillar of the revision. If rejoiced with exceedingly great this equation fails, then Thutmose III References joy” (Matt. 2:9–10). cannot be Shishak. Of course it makes a 1. Cooper, B., After the Flood, New Wine Press, So we have some explaining difference, and I think Down probably 1997. to do if this is really a star doing these knows this. Suddenly, according to 2. Down, D., Unwrapping the , Master things. Why does it matter what the him, it is a side issue after 38 pages Books, AR, p. 121, 2006. star did? It does because although God from Velikovsky, and eight pages in 3. Schott, S., Les chants d’amour de l’Égypte can do anything he wants, there are Down’s Unwrapping the Pharaohs. Ancienne, p. 97, 1956. practical problems with a star here. This argument is no sideshow; if arguments for her identity collapse, The problems it sets off a chain-reaction pulling the in the stars I had accepted, like many people, revision down. that God moved a star about in the sky I can read Egyptian well and thus The response by Jonathan F. Henry as indeed he could do. But this raises I can read the Punt text for myself, to Ross S. Olson’s letter about his certain problems. The first is how did so I know what the passage says. article on the Gospel in the Stars the kings know the appearance of a The writer may think that the Punt (J. Creation 23(3):50, 2009) brought star meant anything? I had assumed known to Egyptian scholars was some back to mind something about the star that being Magi, they used some form obscure territory in Africa, but the and Magi I had thought about a few of astrology in order to know the star scholarly evidence for its existence is years ago. As a physics teacher the was different from any other and had there. Pharaohs were sending trading movements of the star of Bethlehem some significance. I also knew that expeditions to the ‘obscure territory’ had often bothered me. It wasn’t that astrologers in the east had access to from at least the 6th Dynasty. I didn’t believe that God could do Jewish scripture and prophecy but Others cite the Hymn to Hathor absolutely anything he wanted to with would they recognise the birth of a as proof of the northern location a star, because I did. What bothered me major ‘king’ and decide to visit him of Punt. This poem demonstrates was the almost casual manner such a based on this? How did they know that Velikovsky did not understand large mass ‘bobbed’ about the universe they should do this? I have not heard the way Egyptian poetry works, without any apparent effect on the earth anything to really convince me that as future articles will show, if this and how it achieved what it was meant this was the case. So how did the kings journal chooses to publish the others to without some very strange tricks of get the information to go and follow mentioned. perspective or violating scientific laws, a star? This was a major undertaking Down’s final statement highlights though this is always possible for God of trust for such a big journey and one of the main problems of the of course. A previous article1 considers one seemingly so clearly specified to them. Lots of deities existed and were Velikovsky Inspired Chronology three possibilities for the star: a comet, worshipped, why would this new one (VIC). VIC supporters started ‘reading’ planet or supernova. I don’t believe any be so different and so important that this ‘whodunit’ in the middle of the of these were involved because of how the star behaved. Arnold Fruchtenbaum they have to go and worship? Henry story. The Exodus is not the beginning touches on this in saying “They would of the story; to understand the true also suggests that the star may have 2 recognise his star as a special or unique course of history it is necessary to been the Shekinah Glory. I suggest a third alternative. object”. This I agree with—maybe it start at the beginning. The articles was an . to come on the other pillars of the What did the star do? There is the problem of following VIC will serve to strengthen the a star; how did the kings do it until case against it still further; in the The four mentions of the star are it was overhead as in verse 9? Stars meantime I can only urge readers to all in Matthew; they are are normally so far away that it is stick to the Bible, rather than to these (i) “We have seen his star in the East impossible to follow one to a fixed particular manmade constructions. and have come to worship him” point on the earth unless it moves in David Down’s passion to defend the (Matt. 2:2), the process. This is because for the

JOURNAL OF CREATION 24(3) 2010 41