تويت
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
نقرا من سفر الملوك الاول الاصحاح 14 :
25 وَفِي السَّنَةِ الْخَامِسَةِ لِلْمَلِكِ رَحُبْعَامَ، صَعِدَ شِيشَقُ مَلِكُ مِصْرَ إِلَى أُورُشَلِيمَ،
26 وَأَخَذَ خَزَائِنَ بَيْتِ الرَّبِّ وَخَزَائِنَ بَيْتِ الْمَلِكِ، وَأَخَذَ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ. وَأَخَذَ جَمِيعَ أَتْرَاسِ الذَّهَبِ الَّتِي عَمِلَهَا سُلَيْمَانُ.
27 فَعَمِلَ الْمَلِكُ رَحُبْعَامُ عِوَضًا عَنْهَا أَتْرَاسَ نُحَاسٍ وَسَلَّمَهَا لِيَدِ رُؤَسَاءِ السُّعَاةِ الْحَافِظِينَ بَابَ بَيْتِ الْمَلِكِ.
28 وَكَانَ إِذَا دَخَلَ الْمَلِكُ بَيْتَ الرَّبِّ يَحْمِلُهَا السُّعَاةُ، ثُمَّ يُرْجِعُونَهَا إِلَى غُرْفَةِ السُّعَاةِ.
اقول : هذه الحملة المذكورة في العددين 25 -26 لا تدعمها الاثار التاريخية بل لا وجود لمثل هذه الحملة كواقع تاريخي اذ ان السجلات المصرية و بالاخص تلك التي سجلت حملة شيشق الاول على ارض كنعان وذكرت لائحة بالمدن التي اغار عليها لم تذكر ان اورشليم كانت منها .
نقرا ما يقوله الدكتور اسرائيل فنكلشتاين في بحثه The Last Labayu: King Saul and the Expansion of the First North Israelite Territorial Entity الصفحة 174
(( The only reasonable location is Ras et-Tahune in el-Bireh (Kallai 1971), an Iron Age site located on a commanding hill overlooking the entire region (Finkelstein, Le- derman, and Bunimovitz 1997: 512–13). The three sites mentioned in the Shoshenq I list are located, therefore, in one restricted area of the highlands, to the north of Jerusalem. It is noteworthy that the Shoshenq I list also men- tions a group of sites along the Jabbok River to the east of the Jordan: Adamah (no. 56), Succoth (no. 55), Penuel (no. 53), and Mahanaim (no. 22). It is equally important to point out that other parts of the highlands—Jerusalem, all of the Judean highlands, and (except for one possible place) northern Sa- maria—are missing from the list. ))
و نقرا من الموسوعة البريطانية :
((According to the Bible, “Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem” (1 Kings 14:25–26) about 930 BCE in support of Jeroboam, the pretender who challenged the right of Solomon’s son Rehoboam to succeed to the Israelite throne. Sheshonk’s victories in Palestine were celebrated by reliefs and inscriptions at Karnak. Although the biblical account reported the looting of the palace and temple, the name Jerusalem did not survive in the Egyptian record. A fragment bearing Sheshonk’s name was found at Megiddo. ))
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Sheshonk-I
الرد علي ترقيعات المرقعين :
قالوا بان السبب في عدم ذكر اورشليم في لائحة شيشق الاول هو احد اثنين :
1. ان الزمن لعب دوره فمسحت كلمة اورشليم من لائحة شيشق !
2. ان اسم اورشليم لم تذكر في اللائحة بسبب الجزية التي اعطاها رحبعام الى شيشق الاول !!!
نقرا ما يقوله موقع Biblical Archeaology:
Why was Jerusalem not mentioned on the Bubastite Portal, and why does the passage in Kings mention Jerusalem but not Sheshonq’s other campaigns in Judah? Some scholars believe that Jerusalem’s toponym was erased by time. Others believe that Rehoboam’s tribute to Sheshonq saved the city from destruction and therefore from the Bubastite Portal’s lists. Still others suggest that Sheshonq claimed conquest that he did not enact (Egyptian Pharaohs made false claims about their conquests frequently) and copied the list of conquered territories from an old Pharaoh’s conquest list. Finally, as Kings is a religious text, it focuses on Jerusalem without including full details on the military, history and politics of the surrounding region, though Chronicles tells a fuller account of the Egyptian invasion.
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...ack-jerusalem/
و اقول : هذان النوعان من الترقيع لا قيمة لهما وقد رد الدكتور فنكلشتاين على كليهما :
1. انه لا يوجد اي دليل على تاكل في المواضع التي تذكر اسماء المدن في اعالي الضفة .
2. لا توجد اسماء اخري لمدن تنتمي لمملكة يهوذا (فيما بعد )
3. من غير المعقول ان لا يذكر شيشق الاول في لائحته انتصاره على اورشليم التي من المفترض ان تكون حينها عاصمة يهوذا !!
4. لماذا يقبل شيشق اخذ الاعطية (و هي اتراس سليمان و خزائن بيت الرب و بيت الملك ) من حصاره لجبعون و لا يذهب لاورشليم لياخذ اعطية اخرى مقابلها و هي العاصمة التي لا تبعد عن جبعون اكثر من 10 كليومترات ؟؟؟؟!!!!
5. الاكتشافات الاركيولوجية - حسب تحليل الدكتور فنكلشتاين للاثار في العصر البرونزي - تميل الى جعل اورشليم في القرن العاشر قبل الميلاد مجرد قرية صغيرة و ليست تلك المدينة الضخمة الماهولة بالسكان و ان الامر بقي كذلك حتى القرن التاسع قبل الميلاد بداية من عائلة الملك عمري .
نقرا ما قاله الدكتور فنكلشتاين من نفس المصدر الصفحة 175 :
(( One may argue that the name Jerusalem had originally been included but was not preserved (Niemann 1997: 297).This is possible but not likely, be- cause rows II and V of the list, which mention places in the highlands to the north of Jerusalem, do not have many damaged toponyms. Moreover, no other Judahite town (in the highlands or in the Shephelah) appears on the list. Most scholars explain the absence of Judah by adapting the biblical story in 1 Kings 14 to the reality of the Shoshenq I list: Jerusalem was subdued but was saved from destruction by a heavy ransom—the temple treasures that were handed over to the pharaoh at Gibeon (for example, Herrmann 1964; Kitchen 1986: 447). This interpretation of the events is hardly acceptable. First, why would Shoshenq I receive the surrender tribute at Gibeon and not in the cap- ital of Judah, located only 10 km to the south? Second, had Shoshenq subdued the capital of a great United Monarchy, even without conquering it, he would certainly have included it in his list (Knauf 1991: 182 n. 60).Indeed, new analyses of the archaeological data from Jerusalem have shown that the settlement of the 10th century b.c.e. was no more than a small, poor highland village without monumental construction (Finkelstein 2001; Ussish- kin 2003) Furthermore, archaeological surveys have revealed that at that time the hill country of Judah to the south of Jerusalem was sparsely inhabited by a few relatively small settlements, with no larger, fortified towns (Ofer 1994). No less important, apparently the expansion of Judah to include the territories of the Shephelah and Beer-sheba Valley did not take place before the 9th cen- tury b.c.e. (Finkelstein 2001). This means that the first signs of statehood in Judah appeared only in the 9th century b.c.e., probably in its later stage. At the time of the Shoshenq I campaign, Judah was a marginal, bilateral chief- dom in the southern highlands and was ruled from a small village. All of these details render the biblical description of the events “in the fifth year of Reho- boam” highly unlikely. First and foremost, the poor material culture of Judah in the 10th century leaves no room to imagine great wealth in the temple— certainly not wealth great enough to appease an Egyptian pharaoh. Indeed, at least some of the repeated references to the looting of the treasures of the temple in the Deuteronomistic History (Mullen 1992) should probably be seen as a theological construct rather than as historical references. ))
هذا وصلى الله على سيدنا محمد و على اله وصحبه وسلم
نقرا من سفر الملوك الاول الاصحاح 14 :
25 وَفِي السَّنَةِ الْخَامِسَةِ لِلْمَلِكِ رَحُبْعَامَ، صَعِدَ شِيشَقُ مَلِكُ مِصْرَ إِلَى أُورُشَلِيمَ،
26 وَأَخَذَ خَزَائِنَ بَيْتِ الرَّبِّ وَخَزَائِنَ بَيْتِ الْمَلِكِ، وَأَخَذَ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ. وَأَخَذَ جَمِيعَ أَتْرَاسِ الذَّهَبِ الَّتِي عَمِلَهَا سُلَيْمَانُ.
27 فَعَمِلَ الْمَلِكُ رَحُبْعَامُ عِوَضًا عَنْهَا أَتْرَاسَ نُحَاسٍ وَسَلَّمَهَا لِيَدِ رُؤَسَاءِ السُّعَاةِ الْحَافِظِينَ بَابَ بَيْتِ الْمَلِكِ.
28 وَكَانَ إِذَا دَخَلَ الْمَلِكُ بَيْتَ الرَّبِّ يَحْمِلُهَا السُّعَاةُ، ثُمَّ يُرْجِعُونَهَا إِلَى غُرْفَةِ السُّعَاةِ.
اقول : هذه الحملة المذكورة في العددين 25 -26 لا تدعمها الاثار التاريخية بل لا وجود لمثل هذه الحملة كواقع تاريخي اذ ان السجلات المصرية و بالاخص تلك التي سجلت حملة شيشق الاول على ارض كنعان وذكرت لائحة بالمدن التي اغار عليها لم تذكر ان اورشليم كانت منها .
نقرا ما يقوله الدكتور اسرائيل فنكلشتاين في بحثه The Last Labayu: King Saul and the Expansion of the First North Israelite Territorial Entity الصفحة 174
(( The only reasonable location is Ras et-Tahune in el-Bireh (Kallai 1971), an Iron Age site located on a commanding hill overlooking the entire region (Finkelstein, Le- derman, and Bunimovitz 1997: 512–13). The three sites mentioned in the Shoshenq I list are located, therefore, in one restricted area of the highlands, to the north of Jerusalem. It is noteworthy that the Shoshenq I list also men- tions a group of sites along the Jabbok River to the east of the Jordan: Adamah (no. 56), Succoth (no. 55), Penuel (no. 53), and Mahanaim (no. 22). It is equally important to point out that other parts of the highlands—Jerusalem, all of the Judean highlands, and (except for one possible place) northern Sa- maria—are missing from the list. ))
و نقرا من الموسوعة البريطانية :
((According to the Bible, “Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem” (1 Kings 14:25–26) about 930 BCE in support of Jeroboam, the pretender who challenged the right of Solomon’s son Rehoboam to succeed to the Israelite throne. Sheshonk’s victories in Palestine were celebrated by reliefs and inscriptions at Karnak. Although the biblical account reported the looting of the palace and temple, the name Jerusalem did not survive in the Egyptian record. A fragment bearing Sheshonk’s name was found at Megiddo. ))
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Sheshonk-I
الرد علي ترقيعات المرقعين :
قالوا بان السبب في عدم ذكر اورشليم في لائحة شيشق الاول هو احد اثنين :
1. ان الزمن لعب دوره فمسحت كلمة اورشليم من لائحة شيشق !
2. ان اسم اورشليم لم تذكر في اللائحة بسبب الجزية التي اعطاها رحبعام الى شيشق الاول !!!
نقرا ما يقوله موقع Biblical Archeaology:
Why was Jerusalem not mentioned on the Bubastite Portal, and why does the passage in Kings mention Jerusalem but not Sheshonq’s other campaigns in Judah? Some scholars believe that Jerusalem’s toponym was erased by time. Others believe that Rehoboam’s tribute to Sheshonq saved the city from destruction and therefore from the Bubastite Portal’s lists. Still others suggest that Sheshonq claimed conquest that he did not enact (Egyptian Pharaohs made false claims about their conquests frequently) and copied the list of conquered territories from an old Pharaoh’s conquest list. Finally, as Kings is a religious text, it focuses on Jerusalem without including full details on the military, history and politics of the surrounding region, though Chronicles tells a fuller account of the Egyptian invasion.
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...ack-jerusalem/
و اقول : هذان النوعان من الترقيع لا قيمة لهما وقد رد الدكتور فنكلشتاين على كليهما :
1. انه لا يوجد اي دليل على تاكل في المواضع التي تذكر اسماء المدن في اعالي الضفة .
2. لا توجد اسماء اخري لمدن تنتمي لمملكة يهوذا (فيما بعد )
3. من غير المعقول ان لا يذكر شيشق الاول في لائحته انتصاره على اورشليم التي من المفترض ان تكون حينها عاصمة يهوذا !!
4. لماذا يقبل شيشق اخذ الاعطية (و هي اتراس سليمان و خزائن بيت الرب و بيت الملك ) من حصاره لجبعون و لا يذهب لاورشليم لياخذ اعطية اخرى مقابلها و هي العاصمة التي لا تبعد عن جبعون اكثر من 10 كليومترات ؟؟؟؟!!!!
5. الاكتشافات الاركيولوجية - حسب تحليل الدكتور فنكلشتاين للاثار في العصر البرونزي - تميل الى جعل اورشليم في القرن العاشر قبل الميلاد مجرد قرية صغيرة و ليست تلك المدينة الضخمة الماهولة بالسكان و ان الامر بقي كذلك حتى القرن التاسع قبل الميلاد بداية من عائلة الملك عمري .
نقرا ما قاله الدكتور فنكلشتاين من نفس المصدر الصفحة 175 :
(( One may argue that the name Jerusalem had originally been included but was not preserved (Niemann 1997: 297).This is possible but not likely, be- cause rows II and V of the list, which mention places in the highlands to the north of Jerusalem, do not have many damaged toponyms. Moreover, no other Judahite town (in the highlands or in the Shephelah) appears on the list. Most scholars explain the absence of Judah by adapting the biblical story in 1 Kings 14 to the reality of the Shoshenq I list: Jerusalem was subdued but was saved from destruction by a heavy ransom—the temple treasures that were handed over to the pharaoh at Gibeon (for example, Herrmann 1964; Kitchen 1986: 447). This interpretation of the events is hardly acceptable. First, why would Shoshenq I receive the surrender tribute at Gibeon and not in the cap- ital of Judah, located only 10 km to the south? Second, had Shoshenq subdued the capital of a great United Monarchy, even without conquering it, he would certainly have included it in his list (Knauf 1991: 182 n. 60).Indeed, new analyses of the archaeological data from Jerusalem have shown that the settlement of the 10th century b.c.e. was no more than a small, poor highland village without monumental construction (Finkelstein 2001; Ussish- kin 2003) Furthermore, archaeological surveys have revealed that at that time the hill country of Judah to the south of Jerusalem was sparsely inhabited by a few relatively small settlements, with no larger, fortified towns (Ofer 1994). No less important, apparently the expansion of Judah to include the territories of the Shephelah and Beer-sheba Valley did not take place before the 9th cen- tury b.c.e. (Finkelstein 2001). This means that the first signs of statehood in Judah appeared only in the 9th century b.c.e., probably in its later stage. At the time of the Shoshenq I campaign, Judah was a marginal, bilateral chief- dom in the southern highlands and was ruled from a small village. All of these details render the biblical description of the events “in the fifth year of Reho- boam” highly unlikely. First and foremost, the poor material culture of Judah in the 10th century leaves no room to imagine great wealth in the temple— certainly not wealth great enough to appease an Egyptian pharaoh. Indeed, at least some of the repeated references to the looting of the treasures of the temple in the Deuteronomistic History (Mullen 1992) should probably be seen as a theological construct rather than as historical references. ))
هذا وصلى الله على سيدنا محمد و على اله وصحبه وسلم
