by
Damien F. Mackey
To
Martin Sieff: Let’s begin
with Abram (or Abraham) for whom we now appear to have a credible archaeology
and some noteworthy historical contemporaries, Egyptian and Akkadian.
Setting
the Scene
(i)
The Archaeology
According to what will be set down here, Abram belongs to Late Chalcolithic
En-geddi, which was synchronous with Ghassul IV in Palestine’s southern Jordan
Valley; Stratum V at Arad; and the Gerzean period in Egypt.
To this approximate stratigraphical phase belongs the enigmatic Narmer.
(ii)
Biblical Setting
It was the time of the four kings of Genesis 14, who raided
Syro-Palestine and who successfully made war upon the kings of Pentapolis.
The eastern coalition was eventually defeated by Abram and his band and
sent packing.
The great priest Melchizedek then makes an appearance before the
victorious Abram.
(iii)
Dynastic Egypt
Tradition has Egypt’s first dynastic king, Menes, as the Egyptian
contemporary of Abraham – a view that I fully support.
And we can know who was Menes’ Akkadian contemporary.
(iv)
Akkadian Dynasty
Menes’ Akkadian contemporary was apparently Naram-Sin who boasted of
having subdued Mannu (Dannu = the Great) of Magan, which is
Egypt. Mannu the Great was pharaoh
Menes.
And, given the archaeological presence in Canaan at this time of Narmer -
he showing certain eastern (non-Egyptian) characteristics - then this Narmer
now, I think, becomes a prize candidate for Naram-Sin.
The names Narmer and Naram-Sin are a better fit together than are Nimrod-for-Narmer
as has been suggested.
Narmer, or Naram-Sin (my view), would likely, then, be the “Amraphel king
of Shinar” of Genesis 14:1.
So, Abram lived at a time of some extremely great and significant biblico-historical
characters, namely:
Pharaoh Menes;
Naram-Sin of Akkad;
Melchizedek
Some Explanations
of the Above
For the archaeology of Abram, I am indebted to Dr (Medical) John Osgood,
a Creationist, and his vital research in “The Times of
Abraham”, Ex Nihilo TJ, Vol. 2, 1986,
pp. 77-87: https://creation.com/the-times-of-abraham
Regarding
the location of Narmer, Osgood explains as follows:
1.
We have placed the end
of the Chalcolithic of the Negev, En-gedi, Trans Jordan and Taleilat Ghassul at
approximately 1870 B.C., being approximately at Abraham’ 80th year. Early
Bronze I Palestine (EB I) would follow this, significantly for our discussions.
Stratum V therefore at early Arad (Chalcolithic) ends at 1870 B.C., and the
next stratum, Stratum IV (EB I), would begin after this.
Stratum IV begins
therefore some time after 1870 B.C.. This is a new culture significantly
different from Stratum V.112
Belonging to Stratum
IV, Amiram found a sherd with the name of Narmer (First Dynasty of Egypt),10, 13 and she dates Stratum IV to the early part of the
Egyptian Dynasty I and the later part of Canaan EB I. Amiram feels forced to
conclude a chronological gap between Stratum V (Chalcolithic) at Arad and
Stratum IV EB I at Arad.12:116
However, this is based on the assumption of time periods on the accepted scale
of Canaan’ history, long time periods which are here rejected.
The chronological
conclusion is strong that Abraham’ life-time corresponds to the Chalcolithic in
Egypt, through at least a portion of Dynasty I of Egypt, which equals Ghassul
IV through to EB I in Palestine. The possibilites for the Egyptian king of the
Abrahamic narrative are therefore:-
1.
A late northern
Chalcolithic king of Egypt, or
The beginnings of Egyptian dynastic history, once Sothically dated to
4240 BC, but now to 3100 BC, need to be lowered even further to c. 1900 BC
based on the synchronism of the first dynastic king, Menes, with Abram. Dr. (as
he then was) Albright, leaving convention right behind him for a moment, made
Menes a contemporary of Naram-Sin of Akkad. See my:
Dr. W.F. Albright’s Game-Changing Chronological Shift
Naram-Sin will correspondingly need to be lowered to c. 1900 BC, but not
as far down as Menes (3100 BC, conventional), because Naram-Sin is
conventionally dated to c. 2250 BC.
Regarding the kingdom of Akkad, Anne Habermehl, also a Creationist,
dropped a bombshell similar to the one Dr. Albright had dropped when she, in
her article:
Where in the
World Is the Tower of Babel?
showed that the biblical “land of Shinar” was not Sumer, as has long been
thought, but the Sinjar region of NE Syria (Sinjar = Shinar).
The great capital city of Akkad, not discovered to this day, Habermehl
tentatively suggest was the important site of Tel Brak.
I have also tried to find a stratigraphy for the archaeologically virtually
non-attested Akkadians:
Akkadian and Elamite Impact on Early Egypt. Part Two:
Lost Culture of the Akkadians
No comments:
Post a Comment