Is Hatshepsut the Biblical 'Queen of Sheba'?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Letters 9. Humphreys, ref. 3, table 1, p. 29. However, Josephus and Jesus on the identification of the Queen 10. Crank, J., The Mathematics of Diffusion, Christ were a lot closer in time to of Sheba 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 Egypt and Ethiopia. When this of Hatshepsut with the Queen of Sheba 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 Solomon, 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 Jerusalem 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 “The Bible 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 god, 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. CANAAN 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 Marib 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 Arabian Peninsula. 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 Israel, Jericho 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.