King Solomon in AD “history”
by Damien F. Mackey
Emperor Charlemagne’s life bears some uncanny likenesses to that of the ancient King Solomon of Israel and his family.
Charlemagne (/ˈʃɑːrləmeɪn/ SHAR-lə-mayn; 2 April 748 – 28 January 814) was King of the Franks from 768, King of the Lombards from 774, and Emperor of what is now known as the Carolingian Empire from 800, holding these titles until his death in 814. He united most of Western and Central Europe, and was the first recognised emperor to rule from the west after the fall of the Western Roman Empire approximately three centuries earlier. Charlemagne’s reign was marked by political and social changes that had lasting influence on Europe throughout the Middle Ages.
The Last Crusade – Library of Rickandria
Henri Jules Charles Petiot (19 January 1901 – 27 July 1965), known by the pen name Henri Daniel-Rops, was a French Catholic writer and historian.
Emperor Charlemagne has indeed been likened to King Solomon of old, e.g. by historian H. Daniel-Rops (The Church in the Dark Ages, 1959, p. 395), who calls him
“a witness of God, after the style of Solomon …”
and he has been spoken of in terms of the ancient kings of Israel; whilst Charlemagne’s father, Pepin the Short, was hailed as “the new king David”.
Pepin the Short (Latin: Pipinus; French: Pépin le Bref; German: Pippin der Kurze; c. 714 – 24 September 768), was King of the Franks from 751 until his death in 768. He was the first Carolingian to become king.
The church in the Dark Ages – Anna’s Archive
Charlemagne, too, appears sometimes as a larger-than-life king, almost too good to be true.
European Royal Bloodline of the American Presidents – CHARLEMAGNE – Library of Rickandria
His coronation on Christmas Day of 800 AD can seem to be just too neat and perfect.
He was, according to Daniel-Rops (ibid., p. 390),
“… the heaven-sent man, for whom Europe was waiting …”.
And (p. 401):
“Who in the world fitted this role more than this glamorous personage, who set every man’s imagination afire and who seemed so much larger than life?”
Charlemagne is assigned to the period known as the Dark Ages (c. 600-900 AD); a period somewhat lacking in archaeology – and there is precious little evidence for the many buildings that this famous king is supposed to have had erected.
Admittedly, the anomalies and contradictions associated with virtually every aspect of the life of Charlemagne, from his birth to his death, are evident for all to consider.
Other striking likenesses to the persons of the Old Testament, apart from that of Charlemagne’s father king Pepin’s being like king David; are his mother, Bertha or Bertrada, reminding of Bathsheba; Charlemagne’s wife, “Desideria”, reminding of the “Queen of Sheba”; and Charlemagne’s colorful eastern friend and ally, Harun al-Raschid (already considered), most definitely like Solomon’s ally, King Hiram of Tyre.
Charlemagne’s Father, Pepin, “the new David”
D. Fraioli tells of Pepin at his peak (Joan of Arc and the Hundred Years War, p. 46):
“An aura of prestige now surrounded the king, whom the pope called the “new king David””
Gregory of Tours (born Georgius Florentius; 30 November c. 538 – 17 November 594 AD) was a Gallo-Roman historian and Bishop of Tours during the Merovingian period and is known as the “father of French history”. He was a prelate in the Merovingian kingdom, encompassing Gaul‘s historic region.
Gregory of Tours had, as we shall read below, spoken similarly of king Clovis I, of the Merovingian dynasty.
Clovis (Latin: Chlodovechus; reconstructed Frankish: *Hlōdowig; c. 466 – 27 November 511) was the first king of the Franks to unite all of the Franks under one ruler, changing the form of leadership from a group of petty kings to rule by a single king, and ensuring that the kingship was passed down to his heirs. He is considered to have been the founder of the Merovingian dynasty, which ruled the Frankish kingdom for the next two centuries. Clovis is important in the historiography of France as “the first king of what would become France.”
This traditional likening of Frankish kings to the ancient Davidic kings immediately raises the important point to be considered in this article concerning a sacred attitude held in regard to French kings, and this might go a long way towards accounting for the phenomenon of Charlemagne.
Let us take a relevant section on this from Fraioli’s book (pp. 43-45):
THE FRENCH TRADITION
France developed by far the most sacred mythology around its kingship of all the kingdoms in western Europe, although the earliest known coronations occurred in Visigothic Spain and Ireland.
The sacred mythology of French kingship, which became known as
“the religion of the monarchy”
first emerged during the Merovingian dynasty, in the context of a baptismal anointing rather than a sacred coronation, when Clovis, king of the Franks, converted to Christianity. ….
Fraioli will however, in a later section on Hincmar (d. 882), suggest that this whole notion of sacred kingship was a late tradition, both mythical and “fabricated”.
Here is what she has to say about it there (pp. 47-48):
Hincmar, archbishop of Reims from 845 to 882, was a learned theologian and nimble politician, whose fame in the development of sacred kingship rests on his introduction of the legend of the Holy Ampulla into the history of Clovis, four centuries after the fact.
Hincmar (/ˈhɪŋkmɑːr/; French: [ɛ̃kmaʁ]; Latin: Hincmarus; 806 – 21 December 882), archbishop of Reims, was a Frankish jurist and theologian, as well as the friend, advisor and propagandist of Charles the Bald. He belonged to a noble family of northern Francia.
In an effort to prove the continuity of Frankish kingship and, it is commonly believed, to challenge the influence of the abbey of Saint Denis – then successfully fusing its own history with that of the monarchy – Hincmar authorized a new myth.
He is often believed to have fabricated the story himself in an attempt to expand the importance of the see of Reims.
In all likelihood, he did not invent it, although he had confessed to forging other documents.
The myth made the astonishing assertion that the liquid used to consecrate Frankish kings was of divine origin.
A dove, the Christian symbol of the Holy Spirit, had allegedly delivered the Ampulla, or vial, of sacred liquid in its beak, when the bustling crowd at Clovis’ baptism had prevented the bearer of the baptismal oil from a timely arrival at the ceremony.
Through this myth the election of French kings was seen as the will of God.
Furthermore, the continuity of their rule was guaranteed by an inexhaustible supply of anointing balm in the Holy Ampulla, which could anoint French kings to the end of time.
This charming story may have Old Testament origins in the miraculous preservation, in liquid form, of the sacred fire as recorded in 2 Maccabees 1:18-36, for the time of the biblical Nehemiah, whom we have found apparently making an anachronistic ‘return visit’ at the time of the Prophet Mohammed, BC dragged into AD time:
Two Supposed Nehemiahs: BC time and AD time
The legend of Hincmar may perhaps have arisen out of a confused transmission of the original true historical account relating to the governor Nehemiah.
I continue now with Fraioli’s earlier section on The French Tradition, where she briefly considers Clovis I (pp. 44-45), and then proceeds on to Pepin (p. 46):
Clovis I (d. 511) and the Franks
…. At his baptism, King Clovis was anointed with a holy balm, or salve … in a ceremony blending kingship and religion.
According to the contemporary chronicle of Gregory of Tours, the anointing of Clovis occurred by the grace of God, prompting Gregory to draw an analogy between Clovis and the sacred kingship of David in the Old Testament. ….
Pepin the Short (d. 768)
…. Pepin the Short … receives the credit for introducing the ritual of sacred anointing, or consecration, into the installation ceremony for French kings. ….
As Patrick Simon has stated, Pepin’s innovation consisted of:
“legitimizing through a religious ceremony a power obtained by force …”
….
The union of king and clergy provided mutual benefit ….
An aura of prestige now surrounded the king, whom the pope called the “new David” ….
Again, we recall the famous anointing with “the horn of oil” of David the shepherd, the youngest son of Jesse, by Samuel the high priest and prophet, after Samuel had rejected one by one David’s seven older brothers (1 Samuel 16:1-13).
Samuel is a figure who, in the narratives of the Hebrew Bible, plays a key role in the transition from the biblical judges to the United Kingdom of Israel under Saul, and again in the monarchy‘s transition from Saul to David. He is venerated as a prophet in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In addition to his role in the Bible, Samuel is mentioned in Jewish rabbinical literature, in the Christian New Testament, and in the second chapter of the Quran (although the text does not mention him by name). He is also treated in the fifth through seventh books of Antiquities of the Jews, written by the Jewish scholar Josephus in the first century. He is first called “the Seer” in 1 Samuel 9:9.
After the death of Saul (Samuel was also dead by now) David was anointed again, at Hebron, as king of all Israel (2 Samuel 5:3).
Now Pepin, likewise, was twice crowned (Fraioli, p. 46):
“The second coronation, celebrated at Saint-Denis in 754 [AD], cleverly reconnected Pepin’s reign to the Merovingians through his wife, big-foot Bertha, a descendant of Clovis, which provided fictional continuity to French kingship.”
King David is sometimes found going so far, it seems, as to act out the priest’s rôle, as for example when he had triumphantly returned the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem, and he subsequently offered:
“burnt offerings and the offering of well-being before the Lord” (2 Samuel 6:17).
Both David and Pepin were warrior-kings and men of great personal courage.
Pepin is famous, in his youthful days, like David, for his courage against wild animals, including lions.
Daniel-Rops (op. cit., p. 387) tells of it:
“A well-known picture, which was already very popular in the Middle Ages, has impressed on our minds the features of this thickset, broad-shouldered little man who, for a wager, amused himself by separating a lion and a bull who were in the middle of a fight in the circus arena.”
In the case of David, this courage is manifest, not “in the circus arena”, but in the field.
More serious, and we might say less frivolous, was David’s situation, when the giant, Goliath, was challenging the armies of Israel.
Then David said to Saul (1 Samuel 17:34-36):
‘Your servant used to keep sheep for his father; and whenever a lion or a bear came, and took a lamb from the flock, I went after it and struck it down, rescuing the lamb from its mouth; and if it turned against me, I would catch it by the jaw, strike it down and kill it.
Your servant has killed both lions and bears; and this uncircumcised Philistine shall be like one of them, since he has defied the armies of the living God.’
Pepin was nicknamed “the Short”.
Was David also short?
He probably was not of very tall stature.
When the prophet Samuel came to Jesse’s boys, to anoint the one amongst them whom God had chosen, Samuel had been most impressed by Eliab, who was apparently of a good height (1 Samuel 16:6-7).
So, we could probably draw the conclusion that, when the Lord advised Samuel not to look on:
“the height of [the candidate’s] stature”
in making his choice, that David, the youngest of the boys, who eventually was chosen, was not that very tall.
But David was of fine appearance, nonetheless:
“Now he was ruddy, and had beautiful eyes, and was handsome” (v. 12).
Charlemagne, “after the style of Solomon”
His Beginnings
Like Solomon, the young son, Charlemagne (said to be 26 at the time), succeeded his father.
But some hazy legend seems to surround Charlemagne’s mother and the king’s own early years.
Thus Daniel-Rops (op. cit., p. 391):
What had he done, this boy who was promised to such a lofty destiny, between that day in 742 when Bertha, the daughter of the Count of Laon – the ‘Bertha of the big feet’ of the chansons de gestes – brought him into the world in some royal villa or other in Austrasia, and the premature hour of his succession?
No one really knows, and Einhard of all people, who faithfully chronicled his reign, is strangely discreet about his hero’s early years.
In the case of Solomon, he was not born out of wedlock, as it is thought of Charlemagne.
Rather it was Bathsheba’s child who had died as a result of king David’s sin of adultery with her (2 Samuel 12:16-23).
Solomon himself was the child of ‘consolation’ for the pair after the sad death of this un-named child (v. 24).
Now were, perhaps, the French ‘Songs’ (or Chansons), the Song of Roland (La Chanson de Roland) and the “Songs of heroic deeds [or lineages]” (Chansons de gestes), inspired by, or even in part based upon, the biblical “Song of Songs” or “Canticle of Canticles” (also known as the “Song of Solomon”); a love poem that could well have inspired some of the famous French chivalric notions?
Was the ‘wisdom of Oliver’ in the Song of Roland inspired by the Wisdom of Solomon?
“Oliver urges caution; wisdom and restraint are part of what makes him a good knight”
Song of Roland Section 2, Laisses 39-87 or Lines 512-1109 Summary and Analysis | GradeSaver
Did the “giants” in these Chansons perhaps arise from the encounter between David and the giant Goliath?
Wikipedia tells (article “Chanson de geste”):
Charles Martel (/mɑːrˈtɛl/; c. 688 – 22 October 741), Martel being a sobriquet in Old French for “The Hammer”, was a Frankish political and military leader who, as Duke and Prince of the Franks and Mayor of the Palace, was the de facto ruler of the Franks from 718 until his death. He was a son of the Frankish statesman Pepin of Herstal and a noblewoman named Alpaida.
Composed in Old French and apparently intended for oral performance by jongleurs, the chansons de geste narrate legendary incidents (sometimes based on real events) in the history of France during the eighth and ninth centuries, the age of Charles Martel, Charlemagne and Louis the Pious, with emphasis on their conflicts with the Moors and Saracens.
Louis the Pious (Latin: Hludowicus Pius; French: Louis le Pieux; German: Ludwig der Fromme; 16 April 778 – 20 June 840), also called the Fair and the Debonaire, was King of the Franks and co-emperor with his father, Charlemagne, from 813. He was also King of Aquitaine from 781. As the only surviving son of Charlemagne and Hildegard, he became the sole ruler of the Franks after his father’s death in 814, a position that he held until his death except from November 833 to March 834, when he was deposed.
To these historical legends, fantasy is gradually added; giants, magic, and monsters increasingly appear among the foes along with Muslims. ….
Charlemagne’s Birthplace
More than a dozen places are claiming the honour to be the birthplace of Charles.
The year of birth varies between 742 and 747 AD.
Bertrada, the mother of Charles, was said to be a Bretonian princess, a Hungarian noble woman, or a member of the imperial family of Byzantium.
The competition for the throne between Charles and his brother, Carloman, is also very much like what we find in the biblical account of the challenge to the throne by Solomon’s brother, Adonijah (1 Kings 1:5-10).
The mother may perhaps have been complicit in this.
According to Daniel-Rops (op. cit., p. 395):
“At the time of [Charles’] accession this question [of Italy, Rome and the Lombards] had been considerably confused owing to the political mistakes of Queen Bertha, his mother.”
Solomon, like Carloman, seems to have been twice elected king (accession and coronation), and in the first case, in both instances, the mother appears to have played an ambiguous part.
Again, when Adonijah’s bid for the throne had failed, he cunningly approached Bathsheba to ask Solomon to give him the beautiful Abishag for his wife (2:13-18).
When Bathsheba did approach Solomon, the latter acted out the pretense of complying with his mother’s request (I Kings 2:22):
“King Solomon answered his mother, ‘And why do you ask Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? Ask for him the kingdom as well!
For he is my elder brother; ask not only for him but also for the priest Abiathar and for Joab the son of Zeruiah!’ [both of whom had supported Adonijah in his revolt against David and Solomon].”
This situation can perhaps be likened to the case of what Daniel-Rops (op. cit., ibid.) has referred to as
“these maneuvers when Queen Bertha had married her elder son … to Desiderius’s [King of Pavia’s] daughter, Desideria.”
Though, in the biblical story, Adonijah apparently was not actually a son of Bathsheba’s (1 Kings 1:5), nor of course did he manage to fulfil his wish of marrying Abishag, despite his desire for her.
“Desideria” is certainly a most appropriate appellation for the much-desired Abishag.
And soon I shall be showing, from another parallel situation between Solomon and Charlemagne, that Desideria well equates with this Abishag.
Of course, Solomon was being completely sarcastic in his reply to Adonijah’s request via Bathsheba.
The wise king fully appreciated the implications of the scheming Adonijah’s attaining the hand of David’s favourite, Abishag.
Thus he added, chillingly (vv. 23-25):
‘So may God do to me, and more also [a typical idiom of the time], for Adonijah has devised this scheme at the risk of his life! Now therefore as the Lord lives, who has established me and placed me on the throne of my father David, and who has made me a house as he promised, today Adonijah shall be put to death.’
So, King Solomon sent Benaiah son of Jehoiada; he struck him down, and he died.
Conveniently, likewise, Charlemagne’s brother died suddenly (Daniel-Rops, p. 391):
“But scarcely three years had elapsed when an unexpected death completely broke these shackles …. Charles claimed his brother’s heritage and thus rebuilt the unity of the paternal realm under his leadership.”
Solomon’s sarcasm in the face of Bathsheba’s request may even have its faint glimmer in the case of the chaffing compliance of the young Charles towards his own mother (ibid., pp. 394-395):
“Despite his twenty-five years Charles had appeared to defer to his energetic mother’s wishes.
But he fretted under the restraint.”
His Natural Qualities
Like Solomon, Charlemagne was a most gifted individual, and the perfect king material (Daniel-Rops, p. 392):
Charles was … throughout his life – quick, far-sighted, and energetic. In these instinctive qualities lies the secret of his incomparably fruitful labour, and, to their service, a never-failing vigour lent an activity which was truly prodigious.
…. And he had other complementary qualities, which decisively defined his grandeur:
prudence, moderation, a realistic appreciation of the possible, a mistrust of unconsidered actions.
It is the Emperor Augustus whom Charlemagne recalls, rather than Caesar or Alexander.
Or is it rather king Solomon
“whom Charlemagne [most closely] recalls”?
As for “prudence” and his other cardinal virtues, as mentioned in the quote above, well, was not Solomon the first person to list these virtues (Wisdom of Solomon 8:7)?
His Appearance
What did Charlemagne look like?
“Truth to tell, nothing very detailed can be put forward on this point” (Daniel-Rops, ibid.)
What is certain is that Charlemagne was not in fact the giant ‘with the flowing beard’ whom Chanson de Roland has immortalized; the mighty build is a poetic exaggeration, and the beard is an anachronism which owes its origin to the Byzantine-Arab fashion which, in the tenth century, considered that all distinguished Western Europeans should be excessively hairy.
The beard was of course de rigueur in Solomon’s era.
For an idealized (and even mighty) physical description of king Solomon and his Shunammite bride, from which Chanson de Roland may perhaps have gained some epic inspiration, see “Song of Songs” 5:10-16.
His Intelligence and Discernment
“Was he intelligent?”, asks Daniel-Rops (op. cit., p. 393), who then answers his question:
Most certainly, and when we think of his profound knowledge of men, of his ease at grasping situations, of the immensity of the tasks which he conceived and of the undertakings which he managed, we realize that his intelligence was far above the average”
And:
“He unquestionably had a supreme appreciation of the overriding need of the moment – the foundation of a new culture – and this is one of the aspects of his character in which his genius shines forth most brilliantly.”
Solomon was of course the wisest of the wise; his name being a byword for wisdom.
We read, for instance, in the Book of Ecclesiastes of king Solomon (12:9-14):
Epilogue
Besides being wise, the Teacher [Qoheleth] also taught the people knowledge, weighing and studying and arranging many proverbs.
The Teacher sought to find pleasing words, and he wrote words of truth plainly.
The sayings of the wise are like goads, and like nails firmly fixed are the collected sayings that are given by one shepherd.
Of anything beyond these, my child, beware.
Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
The end of the matter:
all has been heard.
Fear God and keep his commandments; for that is the whole duty of everyone.
For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every secret thing, whether good or evil.
Most of this could be applied to Charlemagne, we shall find, for we shall see unfurl the traditional multi-facetted concept of him as a pious, wise and culturally restructuring (even Renaissance-like) king.
His Repudiated Wife
Charlemagne, according to Daniel-Rops (op. cit., p. 396):
“… repudiated Desideria, his Lombard wife, and sent her back to Pavia post-haste.
Solomon also divorced “the Queen of Sheba”, Hatshepsut, and sent her back to Egypt.
This, as I have previously explained following the insightful research of Dr. Ed Metzler ), is the full meaning of the Hebrew of 1 Kings 10:13, that now translates weakly as:
“Then she returned to her own land, with her servants.”
Metzler has suggested that the biblical phrase “she [Sheba] turned” (to go back home) indicates ‘divorce’ (Latin divortium, from divertere, “to turn away”) ….
The Europeans of the Middle Ages would have known of Solomon only from the Bible.
They did not have the advantages that we have today of archaeology and other knowledges – and even today this era can still be so poorly known.
Solomon’s divorce of ‘the Queen of Sheba’ was all purely political.
Despite King David’s having made absolutely clear his wish regarding the succession in favor of his son, Solomon, there arose ‘the Abishag incident’, in relation to which Queen Bathsheba was involved in an intrigue with Solomon’s brother for the throne.
And, just as Solomon went counter to his mother, Queen Bathsheba, on behalf of David, so, we find from Daniel-Rops (op. cit., ibid.) that:
“Bertha’s policy was abruptly abandoned, and Charlemagne was returning to that pursued by Pepin.”
Charlemagne’s triumph is recounted by Daniel-Rops as follows (ibid., p. 397):
At Easter 774, in a grandiose ceremony, the victorious Frank was to be received at St. Peter’s like a hero; the three doors of the basilica were opened in his honour.
As he ascended the steps he kissed them piously, one by one, and prostrated himself upon the apostle’s ‘confession’, whilst the choir sang:
‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!’
Cf. The Accession of King Solomon: 1 Kings 1:28-48.
And the proclamation here:
‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!’
is of course straight out of David’s Psalm 118:26.
His Morality and His Piety
“As for his personal morals, they too remained typical of his epoch:
this virile man, who married four times certainly followed Old rather than New Testament practices in his private life”
(Daniel-Rops, ibid. Emphasis added).
Solomon was of course a serial polygamist.
Charlemagne was most definitely a religious man, too (ibid., p. 394):
Charles was personally devout, rigorously observant in his prayers and his fasting (and the latter cut into his fine appetite), and he was indeed the man as portrayed by the chroniclers, the man who attended interminable religious services entirely of his own free will, his own strong voice mingling with those of the choir.
We could expect that Solomon might have inherited some of David’s musicianship.
Charlemagne was a wise and religious ruler, and here is where Daniel-Rops does actually liken him to King Solomon (ibid., 394-395. Emphasis added):
To make his subjects live in perfect harmony, to establish the concordia pacis between men, above all to fight against all the evils which ravaged the world:
- famine
- cruelty
- injustice
– such was the ideal of this mighty and awe-inspiring monarch ….
And the certainty which this man held at the bottom of his heart, of ‘taking the place of God on earth, of having, as his task, the exaltation of His Law [the Torah?]’
…. Charles is, on the historical plane, a witness of God, after the style of Solomon….
Cf. King Solomon’s Prayer of Dedication of the Temple:
Solomon also acted like a priest on this important and triumphal occasion (vv. 62-64).
Solomon and Suleiman
Suleiman the Magnificent, King of the Ottoman Turks
“Suleiman … is therefore called the second Solomon by many Islamic scholars …”
King Suleiman ‘the Magnificent’, C16th AD Ottoman emperor, was, according to this source “a new Solomon”.
Suleiman the Magnificent – Everything2.com
And, similarly, Suleiman was “the second Solomon”.
A new Solomon is risen
Süleyman I was everything a magnificent ruler should be.
He was just, making the right decisions in cases set before him. [Cf. I Kings 3:16-28]
He was brave, leading his armies in battle until he had greatly expanded his sultanate.
He was wealthy, living in luxury and turning his capital Istanbul into a splendid city.
And he was cultured, his court teeming with philosophers and artists, and the Sultan himself mastering several arts, especially that of poetry…
Süleyman ascended to the throne in 1520 and stayed there for all of 46 years.
During his reign he furthered the work of his forefathers until he had made the empire of the Ottomans into one of the world’s greatest.
The Sultan was named after Solomon, who was described as the perfect ruler in the Quran.
Like the legendary king of the Jews, Süleyman was seen as just and wise, and a worthy follower of his namesake.
He is therefore called the second Solomon by many Islamic scholars, although he was the first of that name among the Ottomans.
Like the Solomon of old, this ruler was surrounded by splendor and mystery, and his time is remembered as the zenith of his people.
Problems with Islamic History
In some cases, Islam and its scholars have shown a complete disregard for historical perspective.
I had cause to discuss this in my review of Islamic scholar Ahmed Osman’s book, Out of Egypt. The Roots of Christianity Revealed, in:
Osman’s ‘Osmosis’ of Moses. Part One: The Chosen People
this book being a diabolical historical mishmash in which the author, Osman, sadly attempts to herd a millennium or more of history into the single Eighteenth Dynasty of ancient Egypt.
But getting right to the heart of the situation, the historical problems pertaining to the Prophet Mohammed himself are legendary.
My own contribution, amongst many, to this subject, is, for example:
Suleiman the Magnificent – Everything2.com
Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History
Scholars have long pointed out the historical problems associated with the life of the Prophet Mohammed and the history of Islam, with some going even so far as to cast doubt upon Mohammed’s actual existence.
Biblico-historical events, normally separated the one from the other by many centuries, are re-cast as contemporaneous in the Islamic texts.
Muslim author, Ahmed Osman, has waxed so bold as to squeeze, into the one Egyptian dynasty, the Eighteenth, persons supposed to span more than one and a half millennia.
Now, as I intend to demonstrate in this article, biblico-historical events that occurred during the neo-Assyrian era of the C8th BC, and then later on, in the Persian era, have found their way into the biography of Mohammed supposedly of the C7th AD. ….
Added to all this is the highly suspicious factor of a ‘second’ Nehemiah, as already referred to, sacrificing at the site of the Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem during a ‘second’ Persian period, all contemporaneous with the Prophet of Islam himself.
The whole scenario is most reminiscent of the time of the original (and, I believe, of the only) Nehemiah of Israel.
Two Supposed Nehemiah’s: BC time & AD time – Library of Rickandria
And so, I wrote in an article:
This … later Nehemiah:
“offers a sacrifice on the site of the Temple”
according to Étienne Couvert (La Vérité sur les Manuscripts de la Mer Morte, 2nd ed, Éditions de Chiré, p. 98. My translation).
“He even seems to have attempted to restore the Jewish cult of sacrifice”
says Maxine Lenôtre (Mahomet Fondateur de L’Islam, Publications MC, p.111, quoting from S.W. Baron’s, Histoire d’Israël, T. III, p. 187. My translation),
who then adds (quoting from the same source):
“Without any doubt, a number of Jews saw in these events a repetition of the re-establishment of the Jewish State by Cyrus and Darius [C6th BC kings of ancient Persia] and behaved as the rulers of the city and of the country”
So, conceivably, the whole concept of a Persian (or Sassanian) empire at this time, with rulers named Chosroes, again reminiscent of the ancient Cyrus ‘the Great’, may need to be seriously questioned.
Coins and Archaeology
And how to
“explain inscriptions on early Islamic coins – the ones that showed Muhammed meeting with a Persian emperor [Chosroes II] who supposedly died a century before”?
Emmet Scott, who asks:
“Were the Arab Conquests a Myth?”
also points out major anomalies relating to the coinage of this period, and regarding the archaeology of Islam in general, though Scott does not go so far as to suggest that the Sassanian era duplicated the ancient Persian one:
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/160197/sec_id/160197
Note the remark [in Encyclopdaedia Iranica]:
“The Arab-Sasanian coinages are not imitations,”
but were
“designed and manufactured by the same people as the late Sasanian issues.”
We note also that the date provided on these artefacts is written in Persian script, and it would appear that those who minted the coins, native Persians, did not understand Arabic.
We hear that under the Arabs the mints were
“evidently allowed to go on as before,”
and that there are:
“a small number of coins indistinguishable from the drahms of the last emperor, Yazdegerd III, dated during his reign but after the Arab capture of the cities of issue.
It was only when Yazdegerd died (A.D. 651) [in the time of the Ummayad Caliph Mu’awiya] that some mark of Arab authority was added to the coinage.” (Ibid.)
Even more puzzling is the fact that the most common coins during the first decades of Islamic rule were those of Yazdegerd’s predecessor Chosroes II, and many of these to bear the Arabic inscription (written however, as we saw, in the Syriac script) besm Allah.
Now, it is just conceivable that invading Arabs might have issued slightly amended coins of the last Sassanian monarch, Yazdegerd III, but why continue to issue money in the name of a previous Sassanian king (Chosroes II), one who, supposedly, had died ten years earlier?
This surely stretches credulity.
The Persian-looking Islamic coins are of course believed to date from the time of Umar (d. 664), one of the “Rightly guided Caliphs” who succeeded Muhammad and supposedly conquered what became the Islamic Empire.
Yet it has to be stated that there is no direct archaeological evidence for the existence either of Umar or any of the other “Rightly guided” Caliphs Abu Bakr, Uthman or Ali.
Not a brick, coin, or artifact of any kind bears the name of these men.
Archaeologically, their existence is as unattested as Muhammad himself. ….
But surely what Scott alleges about these early Caliphs, that:
“Not a brick, coin, or artifact of any kind bears the name of these men”, cannot be applied to Suleiman the Magnificent himself, evidence of whose building works in, say, Jerusalem, are considered to abound and to be easily identifiable.
A typical comment would be this:
Jerusalem’s current walls were built under the orders of Suleiman the Magnificent between the years 1537 and 1541.
Some portions were built over the ancient walls from 2,000 years ago.
The walls were built to prevent invasions from local tribes and to discourage another crusade by Christians from Europe”
Walls of Jerusalem – Jerusalem 101
Previously, I have discussed Greek appropriations of earlier ancient Near Eastern culture and civilization.
But might Arabic Islam have, in turn, appropriated the earlier Byzantine Greek architecture, and perhaps some of its archaeology?
There appears to be plenty written on this subject, e.g.:
“The appropriation of Byzantine elements into Islamic architecture”, by Patricia Blessing,
“art and architecture of the Muslim World, focusing on trans-cultural interactions in the Middle Ages, the appropriation of Byzantine elements into Islamic architecture, the transfer and authentication of relics in East and West, historical photographs of architecture and urban spaces.”
And, again:
BYZANTINE ORIGIN OF MOTIFS CLAIMED TO BE ‘ZOROASTRIAN’
“This page is related to the Byzantine origins of what are claimed to be “Islamic” ideas.
This page is limited to showing the Byzantine/Greek basis of Sassanian ideas which were absorbed by the even less original Arabs who replaced the faith of Zoroaster with one more brutal; that of Mohammed.”
A rock relief of Chosroes II at Taq-I Bustan:
“clearly shows the symbol which was to be appropriated by Islam, the crescent moon …”
As for the archaeology of the walls of the city of Jerusalem itself, relevant to Sultan Suleiman the supposed wall builder there, the exact identification of these various wall levels is highly problematical, as attested by Hershel Shanks,
“The Jerusalem Wall That Shouldn’t Be There.
Three major excavations fail to explain controversial remains”
The Jerusalem Wall That Shouldn’t Be There – The BAS Library
So perhaps art and architecture attributed to the direction of Suleiman the Magnificent might need to be seriously re-assessed for the purposes of authentication.
Words are put into the mouth of a supposed Venetian visitor to the glorious kingdom of Suleiman the Magnificent that immediately remind me of the remarks made by the biblical Queen of Sheba upon her visit to the court of the truly magnificent King Solomon.
Compare:
Suleiman the Magnificent – Everything2.com
The Venetian ambassador reports from Istanbul in 1525:
“I know no State which is happier than this one.
Utopia – Everything2.com
It is furnished with all God’s gifts.
It controls war and peace; it is rich in gold, in people, in ships, and in obedience; no State can be compared with it.
War and Peace – Everything2.com
May God long preserve the most just of all Emperors.”
Just – Everything2.com
with (I Kings 10:6-9):
Then [Sheba] said to the king [Solomon]:
‘It was a true report which I heard in my own land about your words and your wisdom.
However, I did not believe the words until I came and saw with my own eyes; and indeed, the half was not told me.
Your wisdom and prosperity exceed the fame of which I heard.
Happy are your men and happy are these your servants, who stand continually before you and hear your wisdom!
Blessed be the Lord your God, who delighted in you, setting you on the throne of Israel!
Because the Lord has loved Israel forever, therefore He made you king, to do justice and righteousness’.
And in the article, “How Sultan Süleyman became ‘Kanuni [Lawgiver]’”, we find Suleiman likened to, not only King Solomon, again, but also to King Solomon’s law-giving alter ego, Solon, and to Solomon’s contemporary (revised) Hammurabi:
How Sultan Süleyman became ‘Kanuni’
The first written, complete code of laws is nearly 4,000 years old, from the time of Hammurabi, the king of Babylon (r. 1792 B.C. to 1750 B.C.), although fragments of legal codes from other cities in the Mesopotamian area have been discovered.
Hammurabi is still honored today as a lawgiver.
In the Bible, it was Moses whom the Jews singled out as a lawgiver and among the ancient:
- Greeks
- Draco
- Solon
….
Süleyman oversaw the codification of a new general code of laws.
Not only were previous codes of law taken into account, new cases and analogies were added.
Fines and punishments were regularized and some of the more severe punishments were mitigated. ….
The kanunnames are collections of kanuns or statutes that are basically short summaries of decrees issued by the sultan.
The decrees in turn were made on the basis of a particular individual, place or event but when issued, these particular details were not included.
The publication of such a general kanunname throughout the empire was the responsibility of the nişancı, an official whose duty it was to attach the sultan’s imperial signature on the decrees issued in his name.
….
The sultan held the judicial power and judges had to follow what he decreed. ….
What Kanuni Sultan Süleyman did to earn his sobriquet as ‘lawgiver’ has often been compared to the just ruler King Solomon, from the Old Testament.
SAUCE
Damien Mackey – The University of Sydney