Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Riaan

The History of the Queen of Sheba

152 posts in this topic

Ah... I see after re-reading. You are saying Bathsheba (wife of Uriah the Hittite) was the daughter of Sheba son of Bikri (2nd Samuael 20). And that Bathsheba had at least one daughter who escaped to Egypt to live with Joseph. But how would Sheba, or Bathsheba have known Joseph to send this girl there?

Are you talking about the Joseph, son of Jacob (12th son), from Genesis? If so then he, Joseph would have to be monsterously old, since he would have been Moses's great, great Uncle. And David, having been decended from Judah (Jacob's 4th son) would have been his great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grand uncle (8 "greats"). I don't think he would still be around after 11 generations...

If Joseph had indeed risen to a position of power in Egypt, in fact, the most powerful man in Egypt second only to the king himself, everyone in Israel would have known about it.

Yes, exactly that Joseph. The Genesis account claims that there were many generations between Joseph and Moses. However, according to Justin in his Epitoma Historiarum Philippcarum 36.2, Moses was the son of Joseph, while Cheremon makes Joseph and Moses contemporaries (Josephus,Against Apion 1.32 (290-291). Both of these are correct - Moses as Prince Tuthmosis was the (grand)son of Joseph (Yuya) and Moses as a boy would have known his grandfather. The Genesis account must be incorrect in this respect and could very well have been doctored to hide Moses' true identity.

Edited by Riaan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably, but we always have to bear in mind that "Israel" was in fact two distinct nations until about the 7th century, Judah in the South (Egyptian protectorate)and Samaria (first pretty independent, later an Assyrian protectorate, short times also colonized by Egypt) in the North. It was not until a large part of the Samaritan population was displaced by the Babylonian occupation (most ending up in Judah) that we suddenly have an "Israeli tribe". Before that they hated each others guts (and if we are to believe the Bible were not on the best speaking terms once reunified under the Persian empire either).

In fact I was sort of agreeing with you about Jerusalem by redirecting you to that post in the "Are Jews Egyptians?" thread:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=241786&st=30#entry4649953

I just didn't want to post that post in 2 threads.

The Egyptian "Urušalimum" could indeed be the Jewish Jerusalem... only not the one we all know of in present day Israel.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting stuff but joseph and david arnt alive at the same time i thought

See my response to DieChecker. According to Justin and Cheremon Joseph and Moses were contemporaries, and with Rohl's identification of David as the Amarna Dadua, David and Joseph would have been alive at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact I was sort of agreeing with you about Jerusalem by redirecting you to that post in the "Are Jews Egyptians?" thread.

I just didn't want to post that post in 2 threads.

The Egyptian "Urušalimum" could indeed be the Jewish Jerusalem... only not the one we all know of in present day Israel.

I think that if you want to find the place where things attributed to the house of David really happened you have to dig in Samaria. And yes, the pre 5th century Jerusalem could be in a completely different place than where we expect it to be.

Edited by questionmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you care to cite that reference as it's not in Genesis Chapter 39, which is where the story is told. Also, what evidence do you have that Yuya was ever thrown in prison? As to the name Scharabel, it exists nowhere in the Bible so is rather meaningless.

cormac

Joseph's beauty or comeliness is described in Genesis 39:6.

There is no evidence that Yuya had been thrown in jail. The Arabic document merely confirms that this vizier had been alienated from his king, only to be reinstated and elevated at a later stage. This matches Joseph's fall from grace and his later appointment as a high profile figure in Egypt. Yuya must therefore have had a run-in with either Tuthmose IV or his son, Amenhotep III.

Edited by Riaan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joseph's beauty or comeliness is described in Genesis 39:6.

There is no evidence that Yuya had been thrown in jail. The Arabic document merely confirms that this vizier had been alienated from his king, only to be reinstated and elevated at a later stage. This matches Joseph's fall from grace and his later appointment as a high profile figure in Egypt. Yuya must therefore have had a run-in with either Tuthmose IV or his son, Amenhotep III.

Getting past the fact that I don't use the American Standardized Version but the King James Version, which doesn't say "comely", the word "comely" as in "attractive" isn't quite on par with "exceptional beauty".

With no evidence that Yuya had been thrown in Jail nor that he lost favor with the king or his son and was later reinstated there's nothing to support your contention. Because you want it to be true doesn't make it true.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting past the fact that I don't use the American Standardized Version but the King James Version, which doesn't say "comely", the word "comely" as in "attractive" isn't quite on par with "exceptional beauty".

With no evidence that Yuya had been thrown in Jail nor that he lost favor with the king or his son and was later reinstated there's nothing to support your contention. Because you want it to be true doesn't make it true.

cormac

This is not at all the case. In my book I build a complete case which includes the above historical records and my interpretation of it - I simply can't present all of it here. As I have stated in one of my replies above, absence of evidence (concerning Yuya as you claim) is not evidence of absence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it would be a good idea for you too, Riaan, if you read that pdf I linked to in my post in the "Are Jews Egyptians?" thread:

Queen of Sheba and Biblical Scholarship

©2005 by Bernard Leeman

All rights reserved

Queensland Academic Press

PO Box 227

Darling Heights

Queensland 4350

Australia

Readers have full permission to copy, distribute, and sell this book either in print or as a CD.

http://www.free-minds.org/sites/default/files/Sheba.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheba according to the archeological evidence uncovered in the past few years is proven to be in modern-day Yemen. The research of Kamal Salibi in his book 'The Bible came from Arabia' supports the same view of location, but is based on historic names in the Torah matched against existing names found in the land of Assir (which is in Southern Arabia).

http://www.deenresearchcenter.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Pxo3CPsjxOk%3D&tabid=97&mid=813&language=en-US

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheba according to the archeological evidence uncovered in the past few years is proven to be in modern-day Yemen. The research of Kamal Salibi in his book 'The Bible came from Arabia' supports the same view of location, but is based on historic names in the Torah matched against existing names found in the land of Assir (which is in Southern Arabia).

http://www.deenresea...&language=en-US

Yes, I am aware that this is the popular belief. Can you explain then why Josephus calls her the queen of Egypt and Ethiopia? Please read all the points I listed at the beginning of this post.

Thanks also for the references, I will read the book, but it will take some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it would be a good idea for you too, Riaan, if you read that pdf I linked to in my post in the "Are Jews Egyptians?" thread:

Queen of Sheba and Biblical Scholarship

©2005 by Bernard Leeman

All rights reserved

Queensland Academic Press

PO Box 227

Darling Heights

Queensland 4350

Australia

Readers have full permission to copy, distribute, and sell this book either in print or as a CD.

http://www.free-mind...files/Sheba.pdf

That is a pretty good account of all that I know and have heard, and a lot that I did not know yet. :tsu:
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Joseph had indeed risen to a position of power in Egypt, in fact, the most powerful man in Egypt second only to the king himself, everyone in Israel would have known about it.

Yes, exactly that Joseph. The Genesis account claims that there were many generations between Joseph and Moses. However, according to Justin in his Epitoma Historiarum Philippcarum 36.2, Moses was the son of Joseph, while Cheremon makes Joseph and Moses contemporaries (Josephus,Against Apion 1.32 (290-291). Both of these are correct - Moses as Prince Tuthmosis was the (grand)son of Joseph (Yuya) and Moses as a boy would have known his grandfather. The Genesis account must be incorrect in this respect and could very well have been doctored to hide Moses' true identity.

So it is all logical, but still is dependant on big time gaps being dismissed and principle characters' histories being re-written. Basing a theory on names alone is always a tricky proposition.

How many people named Joseph, David and Jacob could there have been?? A: Lots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a pretty good account of all that I know and have heard, and a lot that I did not know yet. :tsu:

Thank you.

I am a true skeptic, but I won't hesitate to post about a controversial theory when that theory is substantiated.

The theory may be wrong, agreed, but it didn't come from some dork having a daydream/nightmare or by someone 'channeling' some 'entity'.

These quotation marks are getting tiresome.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not at all the case. In my book I build a complete case which includes the above historical records and my interpretation of it - I simply can't present all of it here. As I have stated in one of my replies above, absence of evidence (concerning Yuya as you claim) is not evidence of absence.

And as has been pointed out many, MANY times before when people misuse this saying it's the only evidence we have and one can't (or at least shouldn't) base their position on evidence they don't have.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it is all logical, but still is dependant on big time gaps being dismissed and principle characters' histories being re-written. Basing a theory on names alone is always a tricky proposition.

How many people named Joseph, David and Jacob could there have been?? A: Lots.

Sure, but how many of them can be put together in the same setting? In my book I discuss the nature of Sheba's visit to Solomon in Jerusalem and also show that other aspects of the Megiddo ivory match Nefertiti/the Queen of Sheba. Of key importance is whether she went purely because of her curiosity about Solomon (the biblical explanation) or for some other reason. Manetho claims that Moses sent messengers to the Shepherd Kings in Jerusalem, inviting them to join him in his fight against Amenhotep. In the El Arish Shrine text it is recorded (in hieroglyphs) the Geb, the son of King Shu, sent messengers to the Asiatics and foreigners, summoning them to him. Shu and Geb can be shown to refer to Amehotep III and Prince Tuthmosis. This deed is so unique that it must be regarded as a fingerprint - it cannot be denied. The messengers Moses sent were not a small group of insignificant servants, but a high level delegation led by Nefertiti herself. The Shepherd Kings/Asiatics in Jerusalem would have needed some convincing before daring to enter Egyptian territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And not all theorys are equal. Every idea is NOT as good as every other idea.

Making a claim that alters the generally accepted timeline and requires basically a re-writting of history just to make some obscure esoteric idea work, is just not going to taken as seriously as something that operates within the timeline using accepted evidence.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, but how many of them can be put together in the same setting? In my book I discuss the nature of Sheba's visit to Solomon in Jerusalem and also show that other aspects of the Megiddo ivory match Nefertiti/the Queen of Sheba. Of key importance is whether she went purely because of her curiosity about Solomon (the biblical explanation) or for some other reason. Manetho claims that Moses sent messengers to the Shepherd Kings in Jerusalem, inviting them to join him in his fight against Amenhotep. In the El Arish Shrine text it is recorded (in hieroglyphs) the Geb, the son of King Shu, sent messengers to the Asiatics and foreigners, summoning them to him. Shu and Geb can be shown to refer to Amehotep III and Prince Tuthmosis. This deed is so unique that it must be regarded as a fingerprint - it cannot be denied. The messengers Moses sent were not a small group of insignificant servants, but a high level delegation led by Nefertiti herself. The Shepherd Kings/Asiatics in Jerusalem would have needed some convincing before daring to enter Egyptian territory.

Then you would have to show that her headdress was SO distinctive that it could only be her.

Anyway, unless you take the Bible as a firm piece of History, the point is Mute, because Moses, Joseph, Jacob and The Queen of Sheba are basically mythic figures. And arguements have raged unfinished about if any of these people even ever existed.

You've built a good case, and probably a good book, but personnally, I just am not sold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you would have to show that her headdress was SO distinctive that it could only be her.

Anyway, unless you take the Bible as a firm piece of History, the point is Mute, because Moses, Joseph, Jacob and The Queen of Sheba are basically mythic figures. And arguements have raged unfinished about if any of these people even ever existed.

You've built a good case, and probably a good book, but personnally, I just am not sold.

Considering your stance on the issue there probably is not much point in continuing with the argument. However, could you please explain away the incident (the sending of the messengers) described in the same detail by Manetho and the El Arish text? Is this merely a coincidence? Did Manetho read the EL Arish text?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Joseph had indeed risen to a position of power in Egypt, in fact, the most powerful man in Egypt second only to the king himself, everyone in Israel would have known about it.

Yes, exactly that Joseph. The Genesis account claims that there were many generations between Joseph and Moses. However, according to Justin in his Epitoma Historiarum Philippcarum 36.2, Moses was the son of Joseph, while Cheremon makes Joseph and Moses contemporaries (Josephus,Against Apion 1.32 (290-291). Both of these are correct - Moses as Prince Tuthmosis was the (grand)son of Joseph (Yuya) and Moses as a boy would have known his grandfather. The Genesis account must be incorrect in this respect and could very well have been doctored to hide Moses' true identity.

I went back and looked some of this up. Not being familiar with Justin, or Cheremon, I ran some internet searches on these fellow.

Cheremon appears to have been a 1st century Egyptian historian, who is quoted by Josephus (also a 1st century historian) as saying that Moses and Joseph were sacred scribes. But what does this really tell us? After reading part of the Life of Josephus, I can say that it is very likely that he got a good deal wrong, and Moses and Joseph being both scribes at the same time could very well be one of them. By the time he was writing the Life of Josephus, it appears that he was overly interested in politics and that he was no longer impartial as far as History was concerned and that he probably was taking great liberties to try to make political credit with the Romans.

Justim would appear from internet sources to have been a 2nd or 3rd century Roman historian. Who appears to have written about anything and everything. But his Historiarum Philippicarum apparently says in the introduction that it was taken in the main from Trogus's works of history. Trogus was a Roman historian of the 1st century and generally it is believed that he did not gather all his own facts, but that his work was based on earlier works.

So we have much passing of facts about 1000-1400 years after the fact, about King David. This is hardly conclusive.

Still it is a good story.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, but how many of them can be put together in the same setting? In my book I discuss the nature of Sheba's visit to Solomon in Jerusalem and also show that other aspects of the Megiddo ivory match Nefertiti/the Queen of Sheba. Of key importance is whether she went purely because of her curiosity about Solomon (the biblical explanation) or for some other reason. Manetho claims that Moses sent messengers to the Shepherd Kings in Jerusalem, inviting them to join him in his fight against Amenhotep. In the El Arish Shrine text it is recorded (in hieroglyphs) the Geb, the son of King Shu, sent messengers to the Asiatics and foreigners, summoning them to him. Shu and Geb can be shown to refer to Amehotep III and Prince Tuthmosis. This deed is so unique that it must be regarded as a fingerprint - it cannot be denied. The messengers Moses sent were not a small group of insignificant servants, but a high level delegation led by Nefertiti herself. The Shepherd Kings/Asiatics in Jerusalem would have needed some convincing before daring to enter Egyptian territory.

According to what I have dug up online. The Shepherd Kings were the Hyksos people of the 15th and 16th century BCE, 3500 years ago. So this would have been even before Jacob and Joseph by at least a couple hundred years. And the term Hyksos was actually misused by Josephus to mean "Shepherd Kings" when it meant "Rulers of Foreign Lands". And I already stated (previous post) how Josephus was political toward the end of his life and his last works should be regarded as such.

It is also suggested that the part of the Osarseph story where he changes his name to Moses was added later. That it was done as late as the 1st century.

Some modern scholars have suggested that the Osarseph story, or at least the point at which Osarseph changes his name to Moses, is a later alteration to Manetho's original history made in the 1st century BC, a time when anti-Jewish sentiment was running high in Egypt; without this, Manetho's history has no mention of the Jews at all. If the story is an original part of Manetho's history of Egypt, as many other scholars believe, the question arises of where he would have heard it, as the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Torah (i.e., the Exodus narrative) had not been made when he was writing. It is therefore supposed that he had an oral (Jewish) informant, or possibly an otherwise unknown pre-Septuagint translation.

I don't think that an Egyptian sending for aid from the Levant for military aid is a Unique occurance. History, legend and myth from both areas are full of accounts of wars between these regions and pacts and alliances.

Plus Osarseph was supposed to be a Rebel against Pharoah, while Geb & Shu would have been Egyptian Kings. So, not sure how those mesh together.

I'm far from an expert in history, but even with just a quick read of results from Google, I can see the issues you probably had to address in your book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a thread a little while back contemplating weither or not this queen was possibly a goddess reference when described in matthew 12:42

My theory didn't go over to well but brought up interesting points in my opinion. I havent read this thread yet but im sure it too will be intetesting...

Here is the link:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=238429&hl=

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And not all theorys are equal. Every idea is NOT as good as every other idea.

Making a claim that alters the generally accepted timeline and requires basically a re-writting of history just to make some obscure esoteric idea work, is just not going to taken as seriously as something that operates within the timeline using accepted evidence.

You remember how Wegener's theory about continental drift was received?

And I actually read Salibi's book.

I will bet I am the only one here who did, lol.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to what I have dug up online. The Shepherd Kings were the Hyksos people of the 15th and 16th century BCE, 3500 years ago. So this would have been even before Jacob and Joseph by at least a couple hundred years. And the term Hyksos was actually misused by Josephus to mean "Shepherd Kings" when it meant "Rulers of Foreign Lands". And I already stated (previous post) how Josephus was political toward the end of his life and his last works should be regarded as such.

It is also suggested that the part of the Osarseph story where he changes his name to Moses was added later. That it was done as late as the 1st century.

I don't think that an Egyptian sending for aid from the Levant for military aid is a Unique occurance. History, legend and myth from both areas are full of accounts of wars between these regions and pacts and alliances.

Plus Osarseph was supposed to be a Rebel against Pharoah, while Geb & Shu would have been Egyptian Kings. So, not sure how those mesh together.

I'm far from an expert in history, but even with just a quick read of results from Google, I can see the issues you probably had to address in your book.

Yes, I do address many of these issues in my book. Josephus had access to many antique sources, as would Justin and Cheremon have had. It is easy to brush aside their accounts by claiming that they were politically motivated and therefore inaccurate. The other side of the coin is that as historians they may have tried their very best to present the most accurate account possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I do address many of these issues in my book. Josephus had access to many antique sources, as would Justin and Cheremon have had. It is easy to brush aside their accounts by claiming that they were politically motivated and therefore inaccurate. The other side of the coin is that as historians they may have tried their very best to present the most accurate account possible.

Which I understand, and is why I didn't just come out saying "Fake", "Stupid", "Wrong", as so many other posters here will.

Good luck with the book. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which I understand, and is why I didn't just come out saying "Fake", "Stupid", "Wrong", as so many other posters here will.

Good luck with the book. :tu:

Thanks! I suspect it's going to be somewhat of an uphill battle, though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.