LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY PRINCETON, N. J. Division. ■^^.. ' ' I / Section !..l.' K S*i~ ifrrB- ■'ft PHILISTINES AND ISRAELITES A XEiV LiariT ox THE WORLDS IIISTOKY V , "y\ ZZ 192L PHILISTINES AND ISRAELITES A NEW LIGHT ON THE WORLD S HISTORY H. iMARTYN KENNARD LONDON : CHAPMAN c\- HALL, L' Copyright reserved. WESTMINSTER : I'RINTED BY MCIIOI.S AXI) SONS, 25, TARLIAMENT STREET. PHILISTINES & ISRAELITES A Nciu Lig'Jit on tJic WorhV s History CHAPTER L "Errors, to be dangerous, must have a great deal of truth mhigled with them ; it is only from this alliance that they can ever obtain an extensive circulation : from pure extravagance, and genuine, unmingled falsehood, the world never has and never can sustain any mischief." Svdnev Smith. The Philistines and the Israelites have been stamped on our thoughts from earliest infancy ; few have cared to investigate their origin ; thus any new light thrown on their historv will be interesting: to man v. We learn from the Biblical records that the three races of Shem, Ham, and Japheth dominated the world ; it follows that the Philistines and the Israelites must have be- longed to one or the other of these three Philisti7ies and Israelites. Ernest Kenan, ^^ History of the People of Israel " Prc- faec, xi., Seeond Division. families. I shall endeavour to point out that, in the Biblical narratives, the Philis- tines represent the Hamitic race, and the Israelites personate the race of Shem. The reader must be warned that the problem requires to be followed as closelv as a proposition in Euclid, for my task is a very perplexing one. M. Renan pointedly observes: — "It has never been established by observation that a superior being troubles himself, for a moral or immoral purpose, with the things of nature or the affairs of mankind." I need not point out that such a conception shatters the very foundation stone of the Biblical narratives. We raav, therefore, dismiss from our minds all supernatural agencies as factors in the guidance of mankind and follow the dictates of reason in our historical research. I approach my subject with profound diffidence, for the views I shall advance will clash with those of our greatest scholars. I can only hope that my very startling sug- gestions may receive fair consideration. Professor Sayce, in his very interesting Philistines a?id ls?^aelites. little work on "A Forgotten Empire," gives us a map illustrating the extent of this ancient empire. It covers a country from the Euxine in the north to Egypt in the south, from the Tigris in the east to the Mediterranean in the west. Although this Hittite Empire probably existed in remote times, I venture to sug- gest that it cannot be the Hittite Empire of the Old Testament ; Biblical historians ap- parently knew nothing of it ; it had become lost to view through conquests, and we may reasonably conjecture that long before the time of Chedorlaomer, the Elamites had subjugated these Hittites and secured do- minion from Elam to Thebes. We must first understand that the fella- heen, whom we may regard as the indigenou:, population of Egypt, have always been a subject race ; this goes to the root of the whole argument, for it is manifest that the priestly writers would have us believe that the fellaheen have represented, through all Egyptian history, the power of Egypt ; whereas, in reality, they never had a voice in any Egyptian Government which has Genesis xiz \l 2 Philistines and Israelites. existed since the time of the Elamite Pharaoh Menes. I shall point out that the Hamitic and Semitic races alternately dominated the entire eastern Empire ; hence the indi- genous populations in every province must have ranked themselves under the two dominant flags. Before I proceed I must beg the reader to bear in mind that peoples have acquired their names from the territorial divisions they occupy ; unless this is understood we shall lose sight of racial distinctions ; for instance, when the Normans conquered and occupied England they soon became known as Englishmen ; consequently the Norman race has become almost lost to view ; and so it was when the Elamites conquered and occupied the Hittite country, their race be- came obscured through acquiring the names of the various territorial divisions in which they settled. It stands to reason that when the Elamites occupied the Hittite country they became known as Hittites, thus there were two dis- tinct Hittite races on the scene, viz., the PlulistiJtes mid Isj^aelites. subjugated Hittites and their conquerors, who acquired the name of Hittites. The monuments and inscriptions clearly point this out, and Professor Sayce tells us that the ancient Hittites were of a totally different race from the Hittites of the Old Testament. I need not point out that this view has a general application. Races, then, can only be traced by their flags ; during revo- lutions these flags became conspicuous, so we can readily follow them. It is true we have heard very little about the Elamites ; their history has been adroitly obscured by the priestly WTiters, It is however well known, that the so- called Chaldeans exercised supreme influ- ence in the P'ast ; and, as we may be certain, that the Elamites occupied Chaldea before the invasion of Abraham, ^ve can onlv^ conclude that the people kno^vn at this period as Chaldeans were Elamites. The reader will detect, as we proceed, that the method adopted by historians in alluding to races by the name of the The Ilillilcs, 2iid E. /j . Philistines and Israelites, Genesis x/'z See Nile G/eaniiii^s, I 'illiers Stuart, 323. territorial division they happen at the moment to occupy leads to great confusion, and has almost obscured true history. It has been palpably the aim of the priestly writers to obscure races ; for a God-protected people termed Hebrews are placed dimly on the scene, and upon them is centred their historical review. I shall, however, point out that they were only a combination in the priestly plot, and serve, in the Biblical design, as a link to confuse and blend together the t^vo great rival races. We shall find that Abraham the Cushite and Joseph the Elamite are both alluded to as Hebrews. The object is obvious ; for it was necessary, in order to frame a claim of Divine Right to universal dominion, that the two paramount races should be blended into one. The celebrated list of the Pharaoh Seti's ancestors discloses that all the Pharaohs down to the fall of the XHth Egvptian dynasty were of one race ; and as Seti passes over all the Pharaohs of the XIHth to the close of the XVHth dynasty, we can onlv conclude that these Pharaohs were of Philistines and Israelites, a different race. The inscriptions unmis- takably confirm this. A mighty revolution then must have occurred on the close of the Xlltli dvnasty, and as Seti claims as his ancestors the Pharaohs of tlie XVIIIth dynasty, it be- comes apparent that his family was kept out of power, owing to this revolution, for some seven centuries. We have, then, one single race in power for some two or three thousand vears, displaced by another race which holds dominion for seven hundred years ; con- sequently we have only two races before us competing for supremacv; I must contend that every possible device has been adopted to obscure these two races; but, as we may assure ourselves that the Biblical narratives, although garbled and distorted to further the interests of priestcraft, are based upon authentic records, we have only to read between the lines and the two great races are distinctly exposed. When we turn to Genesis we find it recorded that Abraham, advancing from the East, defeated the Great Elamite King Cenrsis xi'v. Philistines and Israelites. Genesis xi'. i8. Chedorlaomer, which secured him a domi- nion extending from the Euphrates to Egypt. This is the territory known as the Pro- mised land. The reader will notice that if the Almighty presented this territory to the Cushites it was at the expense of the Elam- ites, which would account for the deadlv hatred existing between the two races ; and, as the promise was only given to the race of Abraham, the motive for blending the two races together is very distinctly indicated. Dates are certainly problematical in such remote times, for the simple reason that historv has been distorted. There cannot, however, arise any confusion in our minds as to the identity of a revolution which supplanted a dynasty which had ruled for thousands of years, and left them in subjec- tion for seven centuries ; thus when we find it recorded that Abraham invaded Western Asia and conquered the Elamites under their Great King Chedorlaomer, we may be morally certain that this revolution synchro- nizes with the fall of the Xllth Egyptian dynasty; and further, that the Xllth dynasty represented the Elamite power. PhilisttJjes aiid Israelites, Here then, we have the Semitic race dis- Cenesisx.ss. closed; for we have it recorded that Elam was the eldest son of Shem. The race led by Abraham has certainly been very carefully obscured ; it was vital to the priestly design that it should be con- cealed, but now that we have discovered the great race which must have exercised sovereignty over the Eastern Empire ex- tending from Elam to Thebes for thousands of years, does it not glaringly reveal the ingenuity of historians in concealing the race which vanquished them ; but as the priestly narratives are based upon authentic records, we can, by the aid of inscriptions which have escaped destruction, still fathom the mystery. Let us turn to their early revelation of the world's history and we find it recorded that there were three great families represented by Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Abraham certainly recalls Father Gencs!s x. 6. Ham, and as we learn that his eldest son was Cush, may we not conclude that Abra- ham represented the Cushite or Hamitic race. It is no rash conjecture, for I shall j point out that the descendants of the royal lO Philistines arid Israelites, Genesis xiv. family of Abraham all styled themselves kings, or kings sons of Ciish. Here, then, we have the other great com- peting race very clearly defined. Now that we have discovered the two great races, I shall follow their fortunes under their racial designations of Elamites and Cushites. They are designedly pre- sented to us in the Biblical narratives under many territorial and fanciful appel- lations ; consequently their racial distinc- tions have been almost lost to view. The reader must understand, if he wishes to follow me, that the two races became blended together and permeated every pro- vince within the Eastern Empire ; they cannot, therefore, be localised as separate nations ; and, as the two royal families became united by marriage in blood rela- tionship, we can only hope to follow them by their respective flags. We gather from the records that the Cushite Abraham overthrew the power of Elam and acquired dominion over the entire Eastern Empire ; for, if we read between the lines, he is distinctly disclosed in Eg}^pt. P/iilisti7US and Israelites. 1 1 The priestly historian Flavins Josephus (jives us some remarkable information, said to be extracted from Manetho, a learned Egyptian priest, who is supposed to have written a history of his country about 280 B.C. He informs us that a wild and rude people of inglorious origin, from the region of the East, suddenly swooped down on Egypt, conquered the native kings who dwelt there, and took possession of the whole country, without meeting any great opposition on the part of the Egyptians. This singular notice of such a mighty revo- lution is abruptlv capped by the statement, " The whole people bore the name of Hyksos," and, as we might anticipate, this has been reiterated bv all historians ; but as it is well known that these would-be " un- known people of inglorious origin " con- tinued to occupy Egvpt for some seven centuries ; such a statement is palpably absurd and repugnant to reason. I must submit it is absolutelv impossible that an undisciplined horde, coming from no one knew where, could have wrested the power of Egypt out of the hands of the 12 Philistines a^id Israelites. greatest nation in the world, and have held it for seven hundred years, without their history being very well known to every early historian. It is glaringly apparent that no power could have crossed the Euphrates and occupied Egypt before crushing the power of Elam, therefore such a conquest is inconsistent with common sense. But if we understand that it was vital to a priestly design, that Abraham should be stripped of his worldly power, and appear before us as a simple shepherd under the personal guidance and protection of the Almighty, then we shall recognise that this version of the Hyksos occupation of Egypt is a tale, adroitly distorted, for the purpose of obscuring true history. It is based upon a substratum of truth which makes it so dangerous ; for inscriptions tell us that a change of dynasty did occur in Egypt at this period ; we may, therefore, be absolutely certain that the Hyksos must represent the Cushites, who succeeded in subduing the Elamites, and acquired do- minion over the whole Empire, Abraham beyond a doubt was not a wandering shep- PJiilisti7tes a77d Is?^aelites, herd, but the chief of the mighty Cu shite nation. I must leave it to students to say under which name Ave mav recosfnise him in the royal lists. I am well aware it is conjectured that these so-called Hyksos did not invade Egypt for some centuries after the fall of the Xllth dynasty — but as we know that the Xllth dynasty did fall about 2,200 B.C., we have to find the race which could have overthrown the greatest power in the world ; and when we have it recorded that Abraham did overthrow the Elamites under Chedorlaomer about 2,200 B.C., we are actually forced to the conclusion that Abraham, that is father Ham, who certainly represents the Hamitic race, did subjugate the race of Shem (Ela- mites) represented by Chedorlaomer. We mav also reasonably conjecture that the Hamitic race may have effected their conquest of Egypt through Nubia. We certainly find the symbol Nub associated with the Hvksos kins^s, which recalls Nubia. We also learn from the inscriptions that the Pharaoh Hirhor styled himself as King's Son of Cush, and Cush again recalls Nubia. 14 Bnigsch, vol. i. 262. Traiislalioii by rhillip S til i til. 2nd edition. Genesis x. 2:. Philisti?ies mid Israelites. This is strongly confirmed, for we find that nearly all the expeditions of the Xllth dynasty were directed against the Ethi- opians who clearly represent the Nubians or Ciishites ; hence we might suppose that the so-called Hyksos' conquest of Nubia preceded their conquest of Egypt and Western Asia. Thus the Xlllth and XlVth dynasties would represent an un- settled government as indicated in the inscriptions. Again we find it recorded by Manetho that the so-called Hyksos occupied Memphis and especially fortified the Eastern frontiers, for they foresaw that the Assyrians, who were then the most powerful people, would endeavour to make an attack on their kin2:dom. This is very important, for we find it recorded that Asshur, who undoubtedly personates the Assyrians, was the son of Elam, the son of Shem. We are therefore irresistibly led to the conclusion that the so-called Hyksos were the Hamitic Cushites, and their rivals were the Semitic Elamites. We must now understand that the P/]ilisti?ies a?id Israelites, Cushites had subjugated the Elamites, and gained possession of Egypt. This occupa- tion is shadowed in the Bibhcal narratives. As this great revohition has been ascribed by historians to the Hyksos, and the term so pervades all Egyptian history of this period, I must, for the sake of avoid- ing confusion, occasionally refer to the Cushites as the Hyksos. It has been ascertained that they acquired dominion in Egypt about 2200 b.c, and continued to occupy it for some seven centuries, their rule is a very obscure one and I need not dwell upon it ; but we find them dislodged from power about 1500 b.c. I must contend that there is no other race known to us which could have effected such a momentous revolution but the Elamites. During the seven hundred years of Hvksos rule they had graduallv crept into power. This may be traced in the Biblical narra- tives in Joseph's accession to high distinc- tion ; and we may be certain that Aahmes, the Pharaoh who deposed Apepi the last Pharaoh of the Hvksos dvnastv, was none other than Joseph. 15 Genesis xi: 10. Rai^oziii, Story of the A'atioiis, Chaldea, 22^. i6 Philistines and Israelites, We learn from the inscriptions that Aahmes, who founded the XVIIIth dy- nasty, expelled the Hyksos from Thebes ; they however still continued their hold on the Delta during forty years, to which we mav dimlv trace the fortv vears wanderino- and were finally driven from Egypt about 1500 B.C., under their Pharaoh Apepi. I have pointed out that no other race but the Elamites could have effected such a revolution ; this is abundantly confirmed, for Aahmes, who secured the throne of Egypt, is claimed by Seti as his ancestor. This must convince us that the Pharaohs of the Xllth dynasty were of the same race as the Pharaohs of the XVIIIth dynasty. During their long rule the Cushites in Egypt would certainly have acquired the territorial name of Egvptians ; they may also have been termed Hyksos and were probably known under many other appella- tions ; but I must impress on the reader that none of these names give us any indication of their nationalitv. If we are to believe the tale, handed down by Josephus, that they were a race Philistiiies a?id Israelites, 1/ of inglorious origin coming from no one knows where, then we must understand, when they were expelled from Egypt, they retreated, no one knows whither, for they appear to vanish from the scene ; and not alone Egypt but the world knows them no more; and yet previous to their retreat, for a space of some seven hundred years, they were the greatest nation in the world. He who runs may read, provided he can read ; and, the records plainly tell us, that they were still a mighty people ; but as we know there were onlv two i^reat J o nations struggling for supremacy in the Eastern Empire, these two rival powers stand out prominently on the scene as the Elamites and the Cushites. When, there- fore, the Cushite forces were expelled from Egypt, may we not be certain that they onlv retreated to their dominions in Asia, where, as the inscriptions inform us, they were verv shortlv after attacked bv the Elamites forces under Joshua. (/.^. Joseph.) {i.e. Aahmes.) In the great catalogue of the towns of Philistines and Israelites, BnigscVs Egypt, vol. !. 26g. Western Asia conquered by Thotmes III., whose inhabitants submitted to the Egyptian rule after the battle of Megiddo, they are described as all the population of the upper land of Rutennu ; and Brugsch adds : " This proves in the most positive manner that the name of Upper Rutennu must have coincided almost exactly with the country included later within the boundaries of the twelve tribes of Israel." But does it not also indicate that neither the territorial division of Israel, or the Israelities, were known at this period ; it therefore becomes apparent that the revolution we are discussing was a conflict for supremacy in the empire between the Cushites and the Elamites ; so wx must understand that the Elamites are now again supreme from Elam to Thebes, and the Cushites are in the cold shade of opposition under the house of Apepi the deposed Cushite Pharaoh of the XVI Ith Egyptian dynasty. We may, however, be morally certain that they still held dominion in Ethiopia. We will now turn to the retreat of the Philistines and Israelites, 19 Hyksos from Egypt. It has been ascer- tained, from the monuments and other authentic sources, that they were dislodged from Thebes during the XVIIth Egyptian dynasty, and Joseph (/.r., Aahmes) their conqueror founded the XVIIIth dynasty. It has also been discovered that Apepi was their king at the time of their retreat, and their forces were finally expelled from the Delta about i500b.c> We 2:ather from Bunsen that durinsf the i ^^"'iscits ° ^ E,i,n'pf, vol. i. first century a.d. a controversy took place | ^9j, 1S4S. between two celebrated scholars as to the origin of the Jews. Apion contended that the exodus under Moses was nothing else but a revolt of leprous outcasts, who, at a much later period, established themselves under an apostate priest, Osarsiph, of Helio- polis, in the ancient Hyksos city (of Tanis), which had been made over to them, and then called to their aid the old enemies of the Empire. Josephus, in answer, asserts that "the Jews are the old lords of Egypt, who, after many centuries of glorious dominion, at length quitted it under an honourable convention and the guidance of c 2 20 Philistines ajtd Israelites. Moses, long before the supposed date of that fabulous story." This view of the great scholar, Josephus, respecting the origin of the Jews, must convince us that he was not the Jewish historian known as Flavins Josephus. It would also indicate that these great scholars were unacquainted with the Books of Moses in their present form. The late Cardinal Newman tells us that Sec Eihvin fohnsoii's Rise of Christen- do/ii, Intro- duction, J J. " all knowledge of the Latin classics comes to us from the mediaeval copies of them, and they who transcribed them had an opportunity of forging or garbling them. We are simply at their mercy. . . . The existing copies, whenever made, are to us the autographic originals." Can it be doubted that the priestly writers would forge, garble or destroy everv shred of evidence inconsistent with their design ? We have the forgers' den graphically described by one behind the scenes, for Father Hardouin presents us to the rogues sitting down in their scriptoria^ with sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth or tenth century ink and parchments, with corresponding alpha- bets, to write works in the names of Philistijtes aitd Israelites, 21 imaginary authors. He designates the pro- ducers of the first Church literature as " a wicked and impious crew of Atheists, whose virus had infected the Missal even, and the Breviarv." It is apparent that pure romance could never have been accepted as trustworthy history, we must therefore understand that the Biblical narratives are invariably based upon authentic records, but they have been so adroitly distorted that the truth abso- lutely conceals the truth ; if, however, we follow them carefully the distortions may easily be detected, and if we eliminate them true historv will be revealed. I must again impress upon the reader that the people inhabiting territorial divisions, whether great or small, acquire their name from the division in which they reside ; and unless we recognise that these territorial names give no indication of race we shall lose touch of the political situation. I have pointed out that the forces of the so-called Hvksos were expelled from Egypt under their Pharaoh Apepi by Aahmes, who founded the XVIIIth Egyptian dynasty ; Father Hardottin, Ad Censiirani Vcienim Scriptoruni J'i-oh\'-o/i/ciia (,766). Philistines and Israelites. we may be absolutely certain that these Hyksos, through their occupation of Egypt during a period of seven centuries, had acquired the name of Egyptians ; and we may be equally sure that when they quitted Egypt they would become known bv another name ; and, as we apparently lose sight of them in the Biblical records, let us endeavour to trace them ; and we must bear in mind that during their dominion in Egypt, and probably Western Asia, they were the greatest nation in the world. Dates may be problematical, but we may assure ourselves that the fall of this mighty power occurred some time about 1500 b.c. It will be admitted such a revolution was a singular and momentous one, and it is not at all probable that any other similar event of such magnitude could have clashed with it, so as to create confusion in our minds in identifying it ; when, therefore, we gather from the Biblical records that a great exodus took place from Egypt about this period,we should be forced to conclude that this exodus must refer to the retreat of the Hyksos ; but, if this is denied, dates Philistines a7id Israelites. become ail important. I presume it will be admitted that the Biblical exodus refers to the retreat of a special and single race from Egypt into Palestine. It has been ascertained that the Temple in Jerusalem was founded by the Jews in 1017 b.c, and, as it is recorded that this event took place 480 years after their retreat from Egvpt, we can date their retreat to 1497 b.c. ; so here we have a fixed date for the retreat of the Jews from Egypt ; and, as I have pointed out that the retreat of the Hyksos is supposed to have taken place about this period, may we not with certainty conclude that the Biblical Jewish exodus is identical with the Hyksos retreat ? I must beg the reader to understand that this is no new theorv ; for the learned scholar Josephus (not the spurious Flavins Josephus) asserts : " that the Jews are the old lords of Egypt, who, after many centuries of glorious dominion, at length quitted it under an honourable convention, and the guidance of Moses ; " and Bunsen himself adds : " In our judgment there is no better grounded hypothesis than that of the affinity 23 /. Ki Buitscn Egypt, -t 0!. '9J- Ihid ^4 Philisti?7es a?id Israelites. I. Kings h of race between the Hyksos and the Jews." Hence, when we find that Apepi, the last king of the Egyptian XVIIth dynasty, did lead the Hyksos out of Egypt at the precise date given by the Biblical writers as the date of the Jewish exodus, we are forced to the conclusion that Moses and Apepi are identical personages. Again we learn from Strabo, speaking of Judea : " Most of the country is said to be inhabited by mixed tribes of Egyptians, Arabians, and Phoenicians, there being such a mixture of population, the prevailing report of those connected with the Temple in Jerusalem, say that : ' The ancestors of those now called Jews were Egyptians.' " Here, then, again we have massive evidence that the Jews were formerly known as Egyptians, and were the descendants of the Hyksos. I have suggested that the so-called Hyksos would undoubtedly have acquired the name of Egyptians, owing to their resi- dence in the territorial division of Egypt, and soon after they had retreated from Egypt they would certainly have acquired PhiUsti72es a?td Israelites, 25 the territorial name of the divisions they settled in ; but I must again remind the reader that the so-called Hyksos were Cushites, and the race which had expelled them from Egypt were Elamites, and we must understand that these two races were the greatest powers in the world. I will therefore venture to assert that the forces led by Apepi {i.e. Moses), when they evacuated Egvpt, may not have been greatly exaggerated in the Biblical narra- tives. It is true that the Cushites had been defeated in Egypt, but it is more than probable that they were still masters of all the fortresses in Western Asia ; and I must again repeat, if the reader wishes to follow me, he must understand this, and recognise that Moses represents Apepi, the deposed Pharaoh of the XVIIth Egyptian dynasty. It may appear a very startling demand, but, as I proceed, it will very soon become apparent that confidence is justified. If, then, we understand that Moses was Apepi, we have in the distorted books of Exodus, Joshua, and Judges a garbled account of the retreat of the Cushites from Egypt. 26 Philistines and Israelites, I will now proceed to give my reasons why I conjecture that Moses was the Ciishite Pharaoh. I rely on no less an authority than Professor Sayce, and give his letter to the Academv in full : " The Name of Moses in the Cuneiform Tablets of Tel-El-Armana. "Queen's College, Oxford : June 3, 1888. " The cuneiform tablets discovered last winter at Tel-el-Amarna in Upper Egypt turn out to be even more interesting and important than I supposed. About 160 of them have been procured for the museum at Vienna, and have been examined there bv Doctors Winchler and Lehmann. The result of their examination shows that the Amasis, whose name is found on one of M. Bouriant's tablets, does not belong to the XXVIth dvnastv, as I had imacjined, but to the XVIIIth, and that the tablets themselves formed part of the archives of Amenophis III. and IV. They consist, for the most part, of letters and despatches sent to these monarchs bv the kings and governors of Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Philistines a72d Israelites, 27 and Babvlonia; and, as some of them were written by Burna-bnryas, King of Babylon, their age is about 1430 B.C. I will not say anything here upon the new vistas in Oriental history which such an extraordinary discovery opens up, since my copies and translations of the tablets belonging to M. Bouriant will appear before long in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology. But there is one fact brought to light by them which is so curious that I connot refrain from laving^ it before the readers of the Academy. In my Hibbert Lectures last year I pointed out that the Hebrew Mosheh or Moses is letter for letter the Assyrian Masu, and I gave reasons for believing that Masu would prove to have originally been a name of the Sun-god- One of the tablets from Tel-el-Amarna has confirmed my conclusions sooner than I expected. It contains a reference to the Sun-god rising from the divine dav, whose -. name is Masi, or Masu. Masu was, there- fore, a name ali"eadv known in Egvpt a hundred years before the date assigned by Egyptologists to the Exodus, and it is 28 Philistines and Israelites, further proved that it was the name of the Babylonian Sun-god before it was the name of a man." I will now refer the reader to Professor Hommel's views relating to the connection between Egvpt and Babylon as reported in the Times of Wednesday, 7th September, 1892. " Semitic Section. " In the Babvlonian and Assvrian sub- division of this section, of which Professor Sayce is president. Professor F. Hommel of Munich read a paper on ' The Babylonian Origin of Egyptian Culture.' After analys- ing the ancient Pantheon of Babylonia, and especially that of its oldest city, Eridhu, the author showed that the names of the gods corresponded in many cases with the names of deities mentioned in the oldest Egyptian pyramid texts. These identifications were not merely confined to names, for they fre- quently found that these names were represented by exactly the same signs in both Babylonian and Egvptian antiquities. He mentioned as the most remarkable Philistines and Israelites, instance the name and signs of Osiris, the Babylonian Asari, which in both Babylon and Egypt was represented by an eye and a seat. He contended that there had been a direct communication between the two civilisations, and that the Babylonian was the older of the two. He raised strong objections to the theories that had been put forward as to the Semitic origin of the Egyptian language, maintaining that the older texts clearly indicated an affinity with the Sumerian dialect of Babylonia." We may, therefore, rest assured that the Egyptian fellaheen have ever been a sub- jected race ; and, as there were only tw^o great powers struggling together for supre- macy in the Empire, it follows that the Egyptian Pharaohs were either Cushites or Elamites. And the Abvdus tablet, record- ing the ancestors of the Pharaoh Seti, will enable us to classify them. Professor Sayce again tells us : " The letters from Palestine (Tel-el-Amarna tab- lets) establish the fact that reading and wTiting w^ere widely known and practised in the countrv at the close of the fifteenth 29 Records of the rast(N. S.), vol. V. 64. 30 Philisti?tes aitd Israelites. century before our era. But the writing was that of Babylonia, thus proving the deep impression which had been made by Babylonian culture upon Western Asia. It is difficult to account for the impression except upon the hypothesis of Babylonian conquest. The hypothesis is confirmed by the number of places in Palestine \vhich took their name from Babylonian deities. Rimmon, the Babylonian Ramman, Anah and Anath, the Babylonian Anu and Anat, Nebo and eyen Sin are all found in Pales- tine or the countries immediately adjoining." A foreign conquest of the country is therefore clearly indicated. But when we recognise that the Babylonians represented the Hamitic and Semitic dominant races, we may be morally certain that their two cults permeated through the length and breadth of the entire Empire, and they haye been designedly obscured to further the aims of priestcraft. When therefore the flag of Elam was dominant, the Elamite worship was the State religion, and when the Cushites were in power their religion was paramount. Philistines a?td Israelites, 31 We may be certain that there were only ' two great races and two prominent cults within the eastern Empire. This becomes confirmed by the Biblical writers when they disclose relimous reforms after every chanije of government in the small provinces of Judea and Israel. I shall point out that Apepi, the last Pharaoh of the Cushite Hvksos XVIIth J dynasty, was a worshipper of the Sun God Masu, and as the Pharaohs were recognised as deities, Apepi became known as Moses, which Professor Sayce tells us is "letter for letter" the same as Masu. CHAPTER II. I HAVE ventured to assert that the so- called Hyksos represent the race of Abra- ham, consequently Apepi {i.e Moses), the last of the Hyksos Pharaohs of the XVIIth dynasty, was of the race of Abraham ; and, let us remember, that Seti claims none of the Hvksos Pharaohs as his ancestors, but he does claim Aahmes, who deposed Apepi. It stands to reason, then, that the Elamites had vanquished their rivals the Cushites. We can onlv conclude that when the Hyksos forces retreated from Egypt a section of them occupied Canaan, and acquired the name of Philistines ; and if we follow the Books of Joshua and Judges, we shall find that constant conflicts are recorded between the Philistines and Israelites. We can therefore only con- clude that the Philistines and the Israelites represent the two rival races, which the priestly writers are so anxious to obscure. Philistines and Israelites, It becomes evident that when Apepi (i.e. Moses) led the Hyksos forces from Egypt they were a defeated race. He had resisted a formidable attack from the Elamite Pharaoh on crossing the frontier ; his troops must have been sorely tried in crossing the desert, but we may conjecture he safely reached Judea, and intrenched his army in the fortresses on the sea coast. This enabled him to dominate all Canaan, which henceforth became known as Phi- listia, so we must understand that this section of the Hvksos became called Philis- tines ; and, if we read between the lines of the Biblical records, we can onlv con- elude that the Elamites under Joseph, Hoshea, or Joshua the son of Nun, suc- ceeded in defeating Apepi {i.e. Moses), and regained possession of the Empire ; the Philistines retiring to their strongholds on the sea coast. Hence if we recognise that the Philistines represent a section of the Hyksos, and that the Israelites repre- sent a section of the Elamite power, it be- comes vividly manifest that the struggle for supremacy in the Empire is as hotly 33 Exodus xiv, 9' Zcphaniah a. s. Dcutcrouoiiiy xxxii. 44. D 34 Philistiites a7icl Israelites. contested as ever between the two great rival races. We gather from the inscriptions that the Hyksos were not reduced to slavery, hence the retreat of the Hyksos could have had no connection with an exodus of slaves. It follows, then, that there must have been two exoduses, and probably many more ; but let us bear in mind that the retreat of the Hyksos under Apepi is known to have occurred about 1500 B.C. ; it has to be fitted in between the rule of the Hyksos, which occupied a period of some seven centuries, and the dynasty of Aahmes, which continued in power for two centuries. If, then, we can date the retreat of the Jews to 1500 B.C. — that is, 480 years before the building of the Temple in Jerusalem — we may be morally certain that the retreat of the Hyksos and the exodus of the Jews are identical events. It also further explains that the Jews were the descendants of the Hyksos, and this is confirmed by the scholars Josephus and Strabo. The reader must, however, understand that as the two great races permeated every Philistijies and Israelites, JO province in tlie empire, the inhabitants of Judea consisted of a section of both races, who would all be called Jews ; hence, we must not forget that there were two distinct races of Jews in Judea, viz., the Cushite jews and the Elamite Jews. The priestly writers have taken every advantage of this combination to confuse them together and blend them into one race. When, therefore, I refer to the retreat of the Jews from Egypt I allude only to the Cushite or Hyksos Jews. The Elamite Pharaoh Aahmes is suc- ceeded bv seven members of his familv when we come to the reign of Khuenaten. I have the good fortune to be associated with Professor Flinders Petrie in Egyptian research, and during the past season he has been engaged in exploring the ruins of Khuenaten's royal palace at Tel-el-Amarna. The relics brought to light not only disclose that a religious revolution had taken place, but a distinct stvle and an advance in art is J discernable. Professor Petrie tells us that " the origin of this new departure cannot have been any national movement, or it D 2 36 Palestine Exploration Fund, October, I Si) 2 293- Philistines and Israelites. would not have been annihilated so soon after." May we then not detect in Khiie- naten's reign a revolution which brought the Cushite Hyksos into power? This is confirmed ; for we find that Seti does not include Khuenaten and his dynasty in his list of ancestors, so we may be morally certain that Khuenaten was a Cushite Pharaoh. I shall point out that Khuenaten was the Pharaoh " which knew not Joseph." The monuments discovered by Professor Petrie disclose that Khuenaten was peace- fully succeeded by three members of his family, and that they were all ardent fol- lowers of the Sun God Aten, or Masu. We are therefore forced to the conclusion that Khuenaten was a lineal descendant of Abraham and Apepi, and as we find that the Tel-el-Amarna despatches to Khuenaten are entitled " To the King my Lord, my God, My Sun God who is from heaven," we may assure ourselves that Abraham and Apepi were also worshippers of the Sun God ; when, therefore, Apepi retreated from Egypt he would be styled as the Sun God. This will explain how Apepi became known as Philistines and Is?^aelites. 37 Moses, for Professor Sayce informs us that the Sun God Masii is, letter for letter, the same as Moses. Khiienaten is succeeded by three members of his family, when another revolution is disclosed. Horemhib, who is claimed bv Seti as his ancestor, now secures dominion, the royal palace of Khuenaten at Tel-el-Amarna is destroyed, and the worship of the Sun God sup- pressed. Horemhib is succeeded by Ram- ses I. and then by Seti himself, who is followed by the great warrior Ramses II. Clearly then we have the Elamite Pharaohs before us. I must submit this proves beyond a doubt that there were only two rival races struggling together for supremacy in the Empire ; their great conflicts, so clearly defined in the inscriptions, have been adroitly narrowed by the priestly writers into petty engagements between Philistines and Israelites. It therefore becomes evi- dent that the Biblical narratives not only obscure the two great races, but the Empire in vrhich Judea and Israel were merely ciphers. 38 Philistines a?id Isi^aelites. Bnigsch, vol. it. "JO. The Egyptian inscriptions here give us material assistance. Ramses II. is dis- closed as constantly invading Western Asia ; and, after a life-long struggle, a treaty of peace is concluded between the two rival powers. We may therefore be absolutely certain that the Cushite race at this period ruled over the ancient Hittite Empire from the Euphrates to Egypt, and consequently were designated as Khita or Hittites. " The then Lord of Khita (Western Asia) Khita-sir, was the first to make to his Egyptian friends the proposal, written on a tablet of silver, for an offensive and defensive alliance. Ramses II. was pru- dent enough not to refuse such a pro- posal, and a treaty was made which laid the foundation of the intimate friendship so often mentioned by the Chroniclers of the time, between the two great empires of Asia and Africa." All the details of this treaty are handed down to us. We are indebted to Dr. Brugsch for a com- plete translation, and he tells us "In such a form, were peace and friendship made at Philisti7ies and Israelites, 39 Ramses, the City of Lower Egypt, between the two most powerful nations of the world." Here then we have a treaty before us between the power of Egypt and the power of the Khita, the two most power- ful nations in the world. It will be noticed that the territorial designations of these people give us no indication of their race, and Dr. Brugsch has failed to detect who they were. But can there be a doubt ? Have we not prominently before us the two great Hamitic and Semitic races ? Will the reader reflect for one moment and consider what other possible powers could be repre- sented. Need I point out, that not only this great treaty, but the two greatest nations in the world are absolutely con- cealed in the Biblical narratives ? The solemn treaty concluded between Ramses H. and Khita-sir was cemented bv a royal marriage ; the Elamite Pharaoh, Ramses H., married a daughter of the Cushite King ; this is very important to remember, for it united the two roval families in blood relationship, and it points 40 Philistines a?id Israelites, out in a most convincing manner that only two races did exist in the empire, which is practically my sole contention. This is so important I will endeavour to strengthen my position. It must be understood I do not wash to assert that there were two distinct and separate races, one ruling over Egypt, and one ruling in Western Asia ; this was not at all the case ; for the two races, to all appearance, were blended together over the entire empire, and could hardly be separated by a casual observer ; neverthe- less when revolutions took place and power changed hands, the two races, or perhaps w^e might rather call them parties, became sharply accentuated ; this is no unusual development, it exists in our own country, and must always exist in every country where a foreign race has invaded and occupied it. Conquest has no great influence on the mass of the people, they change their land- lords, and pay their taxes to different collectors, that is about all ; their social position is unchanged, but still in times Philistines and Israerlites, 4^ of commotion the two parties separate under two distinct flags ; so we must under- stand that in Egypt, and all the other territorial divisions in the empire, the two races permeated society, and could hardly be distinguished ; just as the Normans and the Saxons can. hardly be distinguished in England. Henceforth we must notice that the Cushite and the Elamite kings will have a common ancestry ; it does not however appear to have united the two races ; but the reader will detect that it gives the Biblical writers a specious justification for claiming the reigning kings either as Jews or Israelities, that is Cushites or Elamites ; and I shall point out that they have not neglected the advantage. As it is not within the scope of my essay to develop history, I will not dwell upon details. Undoubtedly revolutions and stirring events took place soon after the iron hand of Ramses 11. was removed ; and it has been supposed that the exodus of slaves from Egypt took place about this period ; not that we have any single record 42 Philistines and Israelites, BnigscJi, vol. a. J43. referring to such an event, but simply because there are recorded many serious disturbances about the period when Meneptah II. was reigning. It has, how- ever, been convincingly proved that this Pharaoh was not drowned in the Red Sea, for his tomb has been discovered, and inscriptions have been found, which record that the Pharaoh was " blessed by Amen with a good old age, after a life-time of pleasure and a most prosperous reign." And the record ends by stating : " Thou hast gone before the Gods, the Victor, the Justified." The following record reveals the political situation of the country : " Thus says King Ramses III. Hearken ! I make you to know my glorious deeds, which I have performed as king of men. The people of Egypt lived in banishment abroad, so passed away long years ; the land of Egypt belonged to princes of foreign parts. Other times came on afterwards, during years of scarcity. Arisu, a Phoenician, had raised himself among them to be a prince, and he compelled all the people to pay him Philisti?ies a?id Israelites. 43 tribute." We have here the Khita, that is the Ciishitcs, dominating Egypt. I will now refer to another inscription of considerable interest, for it informs us that Ramses III. inflicted a severe defeat on the Khita (Cushites), and we find him as far north as Cilicia and Carchemish, which guarded the northern fords of the Euphrates ; so that at this period the Elamite PJiaraoh must have held sway over the wdiole western empire. Accordins: to a statement in the Harris papyrus, " Ramses III. erected in the land of Zahi (Philistia) a Ramesseum to Amen, in the city of Kanaan, a statue of the god was set up in its holy of holies in the name of the King." Here, then, we have an authentic record which proves beyond a doubt that the worship of Amen was followed in Palestine. It is very remarkable that, although we are aware the influence of Egypt was so decided, not once in the Biblical records is there any allusion to their central symbols of worship. The names of their great Triad never appear ; and yet, we may be Bnts^sch, vol. ii. 164. 44 Philistines a7td Israelites, Palestine Ex- ploration, Quarterly Statement, April, iSg2, Briigsclis Egypt, vol. J. 26g. Bnigsch, vol. ii. igi. certain, that the Osirian cult exercised a widespread influence ; and we learn from an inscription, only lately discovered, that the worship of Osiris, Horus, Isis and Bast flourished in Palestine down to the third century b.c. Again, although we know that some great race occupied Palestine during the XVIIIth, XlXth, and XXth Egyptian dynasties, and that Set or Sutekh was their chief deity, not once is there any allusion to their names. This is very significant, and must force us to conclude that it did not suit the design of the priestly historian to refer to them. Another inscription of the Elamite Pharaoh Ramses XII. leads us to infer that he ruled over the entire empire : — " When the Pharaoh was in the river land of Naharain, as his ciistom was every year., the Kinirs of all the nations came with humility and friendship to the person of the Pharaoh. From the extremest ends of their countries they brought the gifts of gold, silver, blue and green stones ; and all sorts of sweet smelling woods of the P/iilisti?tes a7td Israelites. 45 Holy Land were upon their shoulders ; and each one endeavoured to outdo his neigh- bour." A very remarkable record follows, which deserves careful attention. " Then the King of Bakhatana brought his tribute, and placed at the head of it his eldest daughter, to honor [the] Pharaoh and to beg for his friendship. And the woman was much more beautiful to please Pharaoh than all other things. Then was the King's name written upon her, as the King's wife, Noferu-Ra. When the Pharaoh had come to Egypt everything was done for her which a queen required to use." Then follows a long record which tells us that the king of Bakhatana sent an envoy to the Pharaoh begging him to send a learned doctor to cure his daughter, who was possessed with an evil spirit. The doctor goes to Bakhatana but fails to cure her ; so the King implores the Pharaoh to send Khonsu the oracular God of Thebes. Khonsu is carried to Bakhatana, a journey of seventeen months, with great pomp, and the King's daughter " becomes well on the spot." Briig:ch, vol. ii. igi. 46 P/itlistt)ies and Israelites. /h'lti^Si/i, vol. ii. 200. Does not this record let us behind the scenes ? Dr. Brugsch, as well as E. de Rouge, very naturally identify Bakhatana with Ecbatana ; but Dr. Brugsch adds, " this must be given up in the face of the fact that, in those times of the decay of the rule of the Ramesides, such distant towns and countries could not have been subject to the empire of the Pharaohs." But if the reader has followed me, it must be understood that the Ramessides represented the power of Elam ; so we are absolutely forced to the conclusion, that Ramses XII. was an Elamite Pharaoh and ruled over an Empire extending from Ecbatana to Thebes. I must submit that this no longer can admit of a doubt. We must therefore understand that the solemn treaty dividing the Egyptian and Asiatic empires, concluded between the Elamite Pharaoh Ramses II. and the Cush- ite King Khita-sir, has been broken, and the Cushites have recognised the Elamite rule over the entire Empire. The Elamites were now undoubtedly the greatest nation in the world. We are approaching a great revolution, Philistines and Israelites, 47 and the Egyptian inscriptions disclose that an hereditary prince of Ciis//, the High Priest of Amen, who bore the names of Smendes, Nisbindidi, and Hirhor, deposes the Ramessides, and founded the XXIst Egyptian dynasty. It becomes clear, then, that the Elamites have been overthrown, and the Cushites have succeeded to power ; consequently the Cushites are now the greatest nation in the world. I must beg the reader to bear in mind that this is authentic history gathered from inscriptions, and accepted by all scholars ; and as Hirhor is disclosed as a Prince of Cush, he must have flown the Cushite flag. We must remember that the Elamite Pha- raoh, Ramses XH., ruled from Ecbatana to Thebes ; but as Hirhor only styles him- self the Pharaoh of Egypt and Lord of the Ruthen (Western Asia), we must under- stand that the Elamite forces had been driven beyond the Euphrates, and Hirhor's Cushite flag was only paramount from the Euphrates to Ethiopia. The Elamites would still have been dominant on the east of the Euphrates. CHAPTER III. /. Sa//iittl xvii. We will now turn to the Biblical records of this period ; but let us first clearly grasp the poHtical situation. The Elamite Ramcssides had been in power over the entire empire from Ecbatana to Thebes for more than a century, consequently the Elamite fla Ethiopian is only a teriitorial designation, and gives no indication of race ; we can onlv admire tlie neatness of the combina- tion in the priestly plot, for it is practically true, and yet completely obscures true his- tory. The revolution, then, discloses another struggle for empire by the Cushite house of David {i.e. Hirhor). Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, and Asa, the petty kings of Judea of the house of Solomon, had clearly reigned under the Elamite flag ; they were, bevond a doubt, all vassals to the great Elamite king in Nineveh, and were forced to oppose the rising of the house of Cush from Ethiopia. It would, however, appear to have been a general rising, for Asa is disclosed in conflict with the Cushites in Judea, and he drove them into their strongholds on the sea coast. It becomes clear, then, that the Cushite rebellion was unsuccessful. The Elamite dynasty of Shishak still ruled in Egypt. The reader must, however, note that the Philistine Cushites still hold their strongholds on the sea coast. Zerah probably concluded a peace, be- Philisti7tes ajtd Israelites, 79 came tributary to the Pharaoh, and retired to Ethiopia. JM. Naville throws a glimmer of hght on Pcsiivaiiiaii 1 • r 1 • T\ -1 • II of Osorko/i, this part oi historv. JJescribino: the loiifr 'a., Edouani procession recorded on the ruined walls of page 2J. the temple of Bubastis (which I personally inspected under his able guidance), he tells us: — "Thus we see that Osorkon brought to his festival men from the Upper Nile. They are not the only specimens of African races They look like the genuine Egyptians, although they were of a foreign race ; we have here a proof of the dislike which the Egyptians felt towards the negro tribe, unless they had to represent captives or vassals paying tribute. Here the Nubians are like priests ; they are fulfilling a sacred office, therefore their strange type must not be indicated. It is quite possible that in many cases we go astray, not knowing that the representation which we see is merely conventional, and does not give us the real type of the person which would betray his origin. A striking instance of the errors which we are apt to commit was given by the discovery made in Syria, at Sendjerli, of 8o Philisti?2es a?id Israelites. the great tablet relating the conquests of Esarhaddon, where we see the king Tahraka pictured as a negro. It is clear that in this case it is Esarhaddon's sculpture which is reliable and true. The Assyrian king would not have represented Tahraka as a negro if he had not been so. But the hieroglyphical inscriptions of Tahraka, and his sculptures, not only leave us in absolute ignorance of this fact, but would lead us to consider him as an Egyptian of pure blood. Why did Osorkon wish that Ethiopians should be present at his festival in the Delta ? Had he any special connection with Ethiopia by birth or by conquest ? These are questions to which we can give no answer." The reader must notice that M. Naville's questions can now be answered. The in- digenous Ethiopians were undoubtedly negroes, but the people who held dominion over them were the Cushites ; and, we may surmise, that the strange man we see in the procession is a Cushite; and, as Osorkon II. may very well sychronise with Zerah, we mav have Zerah himself before us. He is clearly not a negro! Philistines ajtd Israelites. We may be almost certain that the Ciish- ites were much darker than the Elamites ; so we might account for Esarhaddon exaggerating Tahraka's complexion out of derision. We might also surmise that it was the dark work of the forger. Esarhaddon, in his cylinder, refers to Tahraka as " King of Cush." This un- questionably discloses that Tahraka of the house of David {^ix. Hirhor) was a Cushite and flying the Cushite flag. We may gather from the narratives that Asa had adopted the Elamite flag both politically and religiously ; but we must bear in mind he was half Elamite by birth owing to royal marriage alliances. It be- comes evident that he suppressed the Cushite cult: — "And he gathered all Judah and Benjamin, and the strangers with them out of Ephraim and Manasseh, and out of Simeon ; for they fell to him out of Israel in abundance, when thev saw that the Lord his God was with him" — {i.e. the Elamite Great King). I must submit that this record plainly indicates that there were two distinct George Smith, Assyrian Eponyin, 142. II. Chron. XV. g. 82 P hilt stifles aiid Israelites. parties ; and it is evident that Asa was considered a Cushite ; for, had he been recognised as an Elamite, it would not have needed recording that the Israelites (Elamites) " fell to him out of Israel in abundance " when the Cushite cult had been suppressed. The very fact that a cult was suppressed proves that two rival religions existed. It further leads us to conclude that the Cushite party were now in a hopeless minority. They had just rebelled and had suffered a severe defeat. But the truth plainly leaks out as we follow the records ; for we learn that Maachah, King Asa's mother, still followed her family worship, and was accordingly deposed as Queen. " But the high places were not taken away out of Israel ; nevertheless Asa was perfect all his days." He had gone over body and soul to the Elamites, " and the country rested in peace during twenty years," under the Elamite flag. War again breaks out. " In the six and thirtieth vear of the reio^n of Asa, Baasha King of Israel came up against Judah, and //. Chroii. XV. 1 6. II. Citron. XV i. I. Philistines a7id Israelites. built Ramah to the intent that he might let none go out or come in to Asa King of Judah." Here then, the two races are prominently before us and again in conflict. " Then Asa brought out silver and gold out of the treasures of the house, and sent to Ben-hadad King of Syria that dwelt at Damascus, saying, there is a league between me and thee, as there was between my father and thy father reak thy league with Baasha Kinc^ of , that he may depart from me." The records I have > amply prove that the Great Elamite .^ng in Nineveh held dominion over the united empire extending from Elam to Thebes ; it follows that the petty Kings of Judea and Israel and all the kings within the empire w^ere vassals to the Great King. Under these circumstances we can only conclude, that the war between Asa King of Judea and Baasha King of Israel, only discloses another Cushite rebellion. //. Chroii. xvi. G 2 CHAPTER VI. Briii^^Sih, vol. a. 211. Ibid. 234. As it is not my task to develop history, we may now pass over some two hundred years ; but let us carefully bear in mind that Naro- math or Nimrod, the great Elamite king, had soon after the death of David recovered possession of the empire. It stands to reason, then, that he must have deposed David's flag, forcing the Cushite troops to retire to their dominion in Ethiopia. The flag of Elam would have flown over every fortress within the empire from Nineveh to Thebes. Shishak, the son of the Great King, is placed on the throne of Egypt ; and we may be absolutely certain that Shishak, as well as every petty king throughout the length and breadth of the empire, were vassals of the Great King, and flew the Elamite flag ; and I will further contend that the name attributed to this Pharaoh, PhilisttJies and Israelites. ss as disclosed by his cartouches, is neither Shishak norSheshanq, but Sargon, as closely as hieroglyphics could express it. His name has been subtly distorted in order to obscure the Elamite dominion. We must then understand that all the petty kings of Judea and Israel, during the Elamite Assyrian rule, which lasted some two hundred and fifty years, were vassals to the Great Elamite King. Many rebel- lions are recorded in Western Asia, and the Great King has himself to head his forces in suppressing them. The Cushites under the house of David (/. e. Hirhor), had recovered from their signal defeat under Zerah ; and a Pharaoh of the name of Bochoris looms dimly on the horizon. He advanced from Ethiopia, and undoubtedly was a descendant of Zerah and a Cushite of the house of David {i. e. Hirhor.) As the inscriptions inform us he secured the throne of Egypt, we can only conclude that he deposed the Elamite Pharaoh. The records of this period are so confused I will not dwell upon them, but pass to the 86 Philistines and Israelites, 11. Kings XV a. 4 II. h'ivgs xviii. reign of the Pharaoh Sabakah, the So of the priestly writers. It must, however, be dis- tinctly remembered, that this Pharaoh was also a descendant of the Cushite house of David {i. e. Hirhor), and in no sense an Ethiopian negro as the writers would have us believe. At this period then the flag of Cush must have been paramount in Egypt and Ethiopia. The flag of Elam still floated over every fortress in the Asiatic empire. When Sabakah had deposed the Elamite Pharaoh Usargon and consolidated his king- dom, we may be sure he followed up his victory and carried his arms into Western Asia. This is solidly confirmed, for we find that Hoshea, the Elamite petty king of Israel, has become his tributarv. Hezekiah, of the House of Solomon, was ! petty king of Judea and vassal to the Great Elamite king ; this is most important to notice, for it proves, beyond a doubt, that the Assyrian Elamites had continued their rule over the empire since the time of Shishak, a period of some two hundred and fifty years ; but when we find it recorded Philistines a?id Israelites. 87 that on the rise of the Ciishite power, under Sabakah, Hezekiah " rebelled against the Great King and served him not," it becomes evident that the Cushites under Sabakah had become masters of Judea and Israel, which is now alluded to as Samaria ; they must, therefore, have defeated the Elamites, and the flag of Cush would have replaced the Elamite flag over Jerusalem and Samaria. But let us clearly understand, when the Elamite King Shalmaneser invades the country in order to recover his dominion, it undoubtedly represents a war between the Elamites and the Cushites. There cannot be a question of doubt that Sabakah of the house of David {^ix. Hirhor) had taken Samaria and Jerusalem, and that they were both garrisoned by Sabakah's troops. I must again remind the reader that the two great rival races permeated every province of the empire. The term Israelite is merely a territorial designation for the people residing within the province of Israel ; hence the term Israelite would apply equally to both Cushites and Elamites. 88 Philistines a72d Is?^aelites, IT. Kings xviii. g. Professor Sayce, Fresh Light from the Monii- i/ieiits, io6. The priestly writers, taking advantage of this, have confounded the two races to- gether ; it is one of the brilliant combina- tions in their plot, for it insensibly obscures the two races in conflict. It is recorded that Shalmaneser King of Assyria [the Elamite Great King] came up against Samaria and besieged it. There is no record that Shalmaneser succeeded in taking Samaria ; on the other hand, we are told, that at the end of three years they took it ; and we gather from the inscriptions that Shalmaneser did not take it, but that he was killed, or died, during the blockade ; and Sargon, who succeeded him as the Great King, conducted the successful as- sault. Professor Sayce tells us that Sargon was one of the Assyrian generals ; may we not surmise who this Sargon was ? We are aware that when the Elamite Assyrians secured possession of the Empire by depos- ing the Cushite house of David, Shishak the Great King's son, was placed on the throne of Egypt, and his dynasty had suc- ceeded him in unbroken succession. It Philistines and Israelites. 8q follows that these Pharaohs were all of the royal Elamite Assyrian family. The Pha- raoh deposed by Bochoris or Sabakah is known to us on the lists as Usargon ; and, as this deposed Pharaoh would cer- tainly be associated with Shalmaneser in the siege of Samaria, we may reasonably conjecture that Usargon succeeded Shal- maneser as the great Elamite King ; and, as we find that Isaiah w^as by far the most commanding character in the Biblical scene, at this period, we might be led to surmise that Isaiah and Sargon were identi- cal personages. The priestly wTiters, and all their com- mentators, would have us believe that the Israelites were taken away into captivity, on the fall of Samaria, and that they were the chosen people of the Almighty. It is a most subtle combination and calculated to deceive the very elect. We may, however, be abso- lutely certain that the Israelites were not a distinct nation ; they simply represented the people residing in the province of Israel, just as Yorkshiremen represent the people residing in Yorkshire, and when. we recog- 90 Philistines ajtd Israelites, nise that the Ciishites and Elamites per- meated through the province, it becomes obvious that there were Cushite Israelites and Elamite Israelites within the province ; precisely as Yorkshire Tories and Yorkshire Radicals are found in the county of York. Let us, however, carefully remember that the Elamite section of the Israehtes are supposed to be God's chosen people, and the Cushite section are Philistines under the ban of the Almighty. When, therefore, the Elamite king Sargon recaptured Samaria from the Cushite Pharaoh Sabakah, his prisoners certainly were Cushites ; and we are led to infer that he took into captivity or expelled all the Cushites in the province and brought in Elamites whom he could depend upon to take their place ; thus, instead of the chosen people of priestcraft being taken into captivity on the fall of Samaria they came into power ; and it was their enemies, the so-called Philistines, who suffered defeat. I must submit that this in itself exposes the priestly plot ; will the reader pause for a moment's reflection ? The Great Elamite King follows up his Philistines and Israelites, 91 victory, besieges Jerusalem, hauls down the Cushite flag, and places the country under tribute. The Elamites are now again masters of the Asiatic empire, and a peace is probably concluded. The Cushite Phi- listine forces retire to their strongholds on the sea-coast, and the main army, under the Pharaoh Sabakah, retreated to Egypt. As soon as the Elamite forces of the Great King retired to Assyria the Cushites under Sabakah recover possession of Jeru- salem, and again the Great Elamite King besieges the fortress. It stands to reason that Sabakah must have occupied it, or the Elamites would have had no cause to besiege it. I must leave it to scholars to unravel the ambiguous records ; but it is very apparent that the two rival races were in continual conflict ; and, as I have conclusively proved, that there were only two rival races within the empire, we may assure ourselves that Berodach-baladan, who is disclosed in conflict with the great Elamite King on the east of the Euphrates, was warring under the flag of Gush. His embassy to 12. 92 Isaiah xx. II. A \ lags The Assyria/! Epouyni Canon, 142. Philistijies a?id Israelites, Hezekicih certainly confirms this ; and when we learn that Hezekiah again threw off his allegiance to the Great King we can only conclude that the Cushite flag again waved over Jerusalem. This is also confirmed, for we find that Sargon again invades the country and captures the strong fortress of Ashdod, which was in the possession of the Philistines. A few years after this invasion Sargon dies, and is succeeded by Sennacherib. The records inform us that he also in- vaded Western Asia, and attacked Jeru- salem, which must have been still held by Hezekiah, so Hezekiah must at this period have flown the Cushite flag as vassal to the Pharaoh Tirhakah. The reader must remember that Tirhakah is referred to in the Assyrian inscription as the King of Cush. Jerusalem is closely blockaded, and Hezekiah sends to Isaiah, who certainly was a great Elamite potentate, and Isaiah tells Hezekiah that Sennacherib will raise the siege ; he had undoubtedly been in- formed that the Cushite forces under Philistines and Israelites. 93 Tirhakah were approaching. "And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the Lord went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred four score and five thousand : and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses." May we not venture a conjecture, that the Cushites under Tirhakah had engaged the Elamites and almost annihilated them ? '' So Sennacherib, kinc: of Assvria, de- parted, and went and returned and dwelt in Nineveh." This invasion of the great Elamite King Sennacherib is confirmed by the inscriptions. We are indebted to Professor Savce for a translation of Sennacherib's tablet : — " Zedekiah, king of Ashkelon (says Senna- cherib), who had not submitted to my yoke — himself, his daughters, and his brothers, the seed of the house of his fathers — I removed, and I sent him to Assyria. In the course of my campaign I approached and captured Beth-Dagon, Joppa, Bene- berak, and Azur, the cities of Zedekiah, which did not submit at once to my yoke, Fresh Lii^hts from /he Monuinaifs, 114. 94 Philisti?ies and Israelites, and I carried away their spoil. The priests, the chief men, and the common people of Ekron, who had thrown into chains their king Padi because he was faithful to his oaths to Assyria, and had given him up to Hezekiah the Jew, who imprisoned him like an enemy in a dark dungeon, feared in their hearts. The King of Egypt, the bowmen, the chariots, and the horses of the King of Ethiopia had gathered together innu- merable forces and gone to their assistance. In sight of the town of Eltekeh was their order of battle drawn up ; they called their troops (to the battle). Trusting to Assur, my Lord, I fought with them and overthrew them. My hands took the captains of the chariots and the sons of the King of Egypt, as well as the captains of the chariots of the King of Ethiopia. I approached and captured the towns of Eltekeh and Timnath, and I carried away their spoil. I marched against the city of Ekron, and put to death the chief men who had committed the sin (of rebellion), and I hung up their bodies on stakes all round the city. I had Padi, their king, brought out from the midst of Philistines mid Israelites, 95 Jerusalem. But as for Hezekiah of Judah, who had not submitted to my yoke, forty- six of his strong cities, together with innu- merable fortresses and small towns which depended on them, by overthrowing the walls and open attack, by battle-engines and battering rams I beseiged, I captured. I brought out from the midst of them and counted as spoil 200,150 persons, great and small, male and female, horses, mules, asses, camels, oxen, and sheep without number. Hezekiah himself I shut up like a bird in a cage in Jerusalem, his royal city. I cut off his cities which I had spoiled from the midst of his land, and gave them to Metinti, king of Ashdod, Padi, king of Ekron, and Zil-baal, king of Gaza, and I made his country small." We gather from this tablet that the great Elamite king was engaged in war with Tirhakah, the Cushite Pharaoh of Egypt. There can be no doubt that Tirhakah flew the Cushite flag, for he is styled, in Assyrian inscriptions, as King of Cush. The reader will notice that Sennacherib pointedly alludes to Hezekiah as the Jew. 96 Philisti?tes and Israelites, It is clear, then, that the Jews were defend- ing Jerusalem. These Jews must therefore represent a section of the Cushite power; and as it is apparent that the great Elamite king was attacking all the fortresses on the sea coast which were held by the Philistines, may we not be certain that the Philistines represent the Cushite Jews ? The Elamite Jews of the tribe of Judah, who also occupied Judea, were undoubtedly support- ing their great King. Hence we have the conflict clearly defined, between Sennac- herib, the great Elamite king, and the Cushite Pharaoh Tirhakah. The same races are contending for supremacy which met under the Cushite Abraham and the Elamite Chedorlaomer ; which met under the Cushite Moses and the Elamite Aahmes ; which met under the Cushite David and the Elamite Ramses. Clearly there were only two flags in the Empire. We certainly hear of a race called the Amorites in the Biblical records, and the inscriptions disclose such a race ; but they have long since passed out of ken, and Biblical historians, although they dwell Philistiites and Israelites, upon them very tenaciously, cannot define them. I submit, then, that there were only two paramount races engaged in conflict within the vast Eastern Empire, and let us under- stand that thev were each animated with a spirit of bitter hostility. This is deserving of careful attention, for the priestly writers would have us believe that the Jews and the Israelites were one and the same race, and distinct from any other. I refer to the Cushite Philistine Jews, and the Elamite Jews of the tribe of Judah, who represent the Hamitic and Semitic races. We now gather from the records that Sennacherib was murdered, and a war of succession takes place ; but we must bear in mind that there are only two parties in the Empire ; hence the fight for the crown would certainly be between the Cushites and the Elamites. This is amply confirmed, for we find that the Cushite Pharaoh, Tir- hakah, has been firmly seated on the throne of Egypt for over twenty years, and has withstood all the attacks made bv the Elamite kings against Jerusalem. The 97 H 98 Philistines and Israelites. Assyrian Eponynt, 20 1. Cushite flag probably flew over every fort- ress from Carchemish to Ethiopia. There can be no doubt that the Elamites were eventuallv victorious ; Esarhaddon secures the throne under the Elamite Eag, and very shortly after invades Western Asia, and plants his flag on the fortress of Jerusalem, under his vassal Manasseh. We must remember that the two royal families were united in blood relationship, which explains how Manasseh of the junior house of Solomon took service under the Elamite flag. It becomes clear that Tir- hakah still ruled over the fortresses on the sea coast of Judea, for the records inform us that Esarhaddon^ some seven years after, takes Askelon, and drives Tirhakah out of Egypt into Ethiopia ; so now the Elamite flag must have flown over every fortress from Elam to Thebes. In the following year Tirhakah invades Egvpt from Ethiopia, but is defeated, and twenty satraps are set up in Egypt under the Elamite flag. The records inform us that Esarhaddon had appointed Manasseh as King of Judea ; we may be certain, however, that Manasseh Philistijies and Israelites, 99 rebelled, and ran up the Cushite flag over Jerusalem : "Wherefore the Lord brought upon them the captains of the host of the King of Assyria, which took Manasseh among the thorns, and bound him with fetters and carried him to Babylon." This certainly indicates that Esarhaddon had crushed a Cushite rebellion. We can only conclude that when Esarhaddon had expelled Tirhakah from Egypt, a peace was concluded ; Manasseh is released and rein- stated on the throne of Judea under the Elamite flag. On the death of Esarhaddon war again breaks out, and Tirhakah reconquers Egypt. Assurbanipal succeeds Esarhaddon as the Great Elamite King, invades Egypt and expels the Cushite forces to Ethiopia. In the following year the Cushites again invade Egypt, but are repulsed, and the Cushite general, Necho, is taken captive. Tirhakah now dies ; and, as the inscrip- tions tell us that Urdamaneh succeeds to the throne of Egypt, it becomes clear that the Cushites were still in power in Egypt. This is confirmed ; for we gather from the //. C/iron. xxm'H. II. H 2 lOO Philistines and Israelites, inscriptions that they carried their arms into Western Asia, and even attacked the Great King in his roval city of Nineveh ; hence, at this period, the Cushite flag must liave floated over all the fortresses from Carchemish to Ethiopia. This is absolutely confirmed by the inscriptions. We are indebted to Dr. Brugsch for the informa- Bnigsch, vol. ii. 26y. tion. He gives us a translation of Assur- banipai's tablet : "In my first expedition I went against Egypt and Meroe. Tarquu, the King of Egypt and Ethiopia, whom Assarhaddon, the father who begat me, had subdued, returned out of his land, The kings, satraps, and generals, whom Assarhaddon, my father, had set over the Kingdom of Egvpt, were driven out by him. Thev betook themselves to Nineveh, Against such deed my heart was moved and my bile was stirred up.'' I must refer the reader to Dr. Brugsch's long translation, but it informs us that Assarhaddon, although generally successful, was engaged in con- stant hostilities with the Kings of Cush. I must submit that this conclusively proves my assertion that only two great Pliilistines a72(i Israelites. lOI dominant races existed within the empire. As I have illustrated this in Chapter IV., bv giving the Egyptian dynasties, I need not further enlarge upon it ; but the reader will notice that if only two races are con- tending for supremacv in the empire, it stands to reason that the two provinces of Judea and Israel were simply ciphers in the politicial organization of the vast empire ; hence, the priestlv narratives give us a false impression of eastern history. We may be absolutely certain that the worship practised in Judea and Israel was identical with that of their Great King ; the reader will notice that this is adroitlv concealed in the priestly narratives. Note. — We have been hoodwinked by priestcraft ; Judea and Israel were not isolated kingdoms, but small provinces in a vast empire, just as they are at the present moment, and just as they have been since the time of Abraham. It is inconsistent with reason to suppose an independent king could hold Judea, the gate of Asia and Africa. Such a position would enable him to tax all merchandise passing through his territory ; atid taxation is the symbol of supremacy, and can only Ije enforced by a vSovereign Power. A King of Judea could not have assumed such a position against the powers of Egyi)t, Carchemish, and Assyria. CHAPTER VII. Briigsrli, vol. a. 27s. Ibid. 2-j6. We learn from the inscriptions that Assur- bani-pal succeeded Esar-haddon as the Great Elamite King, and as we find him engaged in conflict with Urdamaneh, the Cushite Pharaoh of Egypt, we may assure ourselves that the struggle for supremacy between the two rival races is as hotlv contested as ever. Dr. Brugsch tells us that "A thick veil covers the ensuins: times in which the Ethiopians occupv the foreground of Egyptian history." But when we recognise that these so-called Ethiopians were the Cushites under the ancient house of Abraham, the veil is lifted and true history becomes revealed. The inscriptions inform us that Assur- bani-pal's campaign against the Cushite Pharaoh Urdamaneh was a successful one, and as we find that Assur-bani-pal styles himself "King of Upper and Lower Egypt and Nubia," we can only conclude that Philisti/tes and Israelites, 103 the flag of El am now waved over every fortress from Elam to Napata. The Semitic race is now clearly dominant over the whole eastern empire ; but their success is onlv short lived, for Psamethik I, sue- ceeds, by the aid of his kindred, the Lacedemonians, in securing supremacv in Egypt, and assumes the double crown, which might perhaps represent the crowns of the two rival races. Dr. Brugsch in- forms us that Psamethik's name belonged to the Ethiopic familv, to which he most probably owed his success ; so we mav certainlv follow hiui as a descendant of the Cushite house of David (/.r. Hirhor). His title, Son of the Sun, recalls his ancestors, Moses, Khuenaten, and David, who all bore a similar designation. Let me again remind the reader when the Elamite Assyrians overthrew the dynasty of David {i.e. Hirhor), and the elder branch of the roval familv with their forces retired to Ethiopia, Solomon, David's youngest son, elected to take service under the Elamite flag. It will be noticed that the priestly writers /. Maccabees Bnis^scJi, vol. J04 Philistijtes aj^d Israelites, Bntgsck, vol. a. 281. have ingeniously obscured the elder branch of David's family by alluding to them as Ethiopians when they again come into power. The inscriptions inform us that Hirhor {i.e. David), was a prince of Cush, and as Psamethik was one of his lineal de- scendants, he must have secured his acces- sion to the throne of Egypt under the Cushite flag. Whatever claims Psamethik might have had to the throne, he settled the dispute by marrying Shep-en-apet, the daughter and heiress of the Cushite Pharaoh Piankhi and his beautiful queen Amen- iritis, which restored peace and order in the distracted relations of the royal succession. We must therefore under- stand that the Cushites had expelled the Elamite forces from Egypt, and Psamethik now ruled in undisputed sovereignty as the Cushite Pharaoh of the house of David {i.e. Hirhor). I must leave it to students to reconcile conflicting dates, and will pass over Psamethik's undoubtedlv glorious reign. Philisti72es a7id Israelites. 105 He is succeeded by Necho ; and, as it would appear that Josiah was at this period petty king of Judea and vassal to the great Elamite king, it becomes evident that neither Psaniethik's nor Necho's rule, at this period, extended beyond Egvpt. The Pharaoh Necho carries his arms into Asia ; and, as we might anticipate, he comes into conflict with Josiah ; a battle is re- corded at Megiddo, where Josiah is slain, and the Elamite forces are completelv routed. The Pharaoh pushes on his victory; and, as we find him at Carchemish, which guarded the northern fords of the Euphrates, we may be certain that he had expelled the Elamite forces from Western Asia. A great battle takes place at Carchemish between the Pharaoh Necho and the jrreat Assyrian Elamite king. As this battle is recorded on the Egyptian monument we may assure ourselves that the victory rested with Necho ; and, we mav further surmise, that he not only took Carchemish, but Nineveh also, and planted his flag on the walls of Babylon. The reader will probably consider this xxi/i. 2g. io6 Philistines and Israelites, II. Chroii. xxxi'i. J. a very daring assertion ; but I still assert it with every confidence ; for, as there were only two parties struggling for supremacy in the empire, it follows that if Nabopolassar, the great Elamite king, had to reconquer his kingdom, it must have previously been wrested from him bv the Cushites. History, then, explains itself. We learn from the records, that when the Cushite Pharaoh Necho returned from his victorious campaign, he appointed Jehoiakim as his vassal king of Judea. It is recorded that he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem, which proves that the country was at peace during this period ; and, as we learn that Nebuchadnezzar, the son of the great Elamite king, recovered Nineveh from the Cushites, and then took the fortress of Carchemish, it stands to reason that the successful campaign of the Pharaoh Necho was previous to these events ; hence, we must conclude, that the fall of the Cushite power and the rise of Elam occurred during the reign of the Pharaoh Apries. I nm perfectly aware that this view dis- closes an entirely new historical phase, and P/iilisti7tes and Israelites, 107 receives no support from historians ; but let us remember that all our knowledge of history has been derived through the priestly class. As Cardinal Newman observed, "we have been simply at their mercy." May we not, however, shrewdly conjecture that the Cardinal only ventured this apparently genuine confession with a view of giving the Church a loophole of escape, when awk- ward facts became only too conspicuous. The Biblical narratives are, beyond a doubt, based upon authentic facts ; these facts have only been adroitly distorted for the purpose of conveying an entirely dif- ferent meaning. We have, therefore, only to eliminate the distortions, and the truth is revealed. This becomes comparativelv easy when we discover the design, and the truth becomes established when we find it confirmed by long concealed documents beyond priestly control. I have pointed out that the Cushite flag, under the Pharaoh Necho, nmst have been paramount from Babylon to Ethiopia ; and, as we learn from the inscriptions, that Nabopolassar recovered his dominion on io8 Philistines and Israelites, the east of the Euphrates, we may presume that this revolution occurred on the death of Necho. Nabopolassar follows up his conquest and recaptures Carchemish, which must have been garrisoned by Cushite troops under the Pharaoh Apries. This opened the high road into Western Asia. Nabopolassar dies, and is succeeded by his son Nebuchadnezzar as the great Elamite king ; and very shortly after we find Nebu- chadnezzar sacks the fortress of Jerusalem, deposes Jehoiakim, the Cushite petty king of Judea, and places Jehoiakin his son on the throne, under the Elamite flag. The reader will notice that we still have a member of the junior house of Solomon on the throne of Judea ; although of the Cushite house of David, they had gone over to the Elamites. We must remember that the two royal families were related in blood relationship owing to royal marriages ; pro- bably Jehoiakin was almost a pure Elamite. I must now beg the reader not to forget that both the Cushites and the Elamites permeated every division of the empire, Philistines and Israelites. 109 and may be regarded as two great parties, ranged under their respective flags. Pre- cisely the same combination exists in Eng- land. The two races have become so blended together that they are hardly dis- tinguishable ; but the Tory and Radical flags point them out, and the thoughtful mind can as clearly define them, as when they met in conflict at the battle of Hastings. In times of rebellion flags alone disclose the contending parties. I must submit there cannot be a shadow of doubt that Nebuchadnezzar marshalled his forces under the Elamite flag, and that Apries was con- tending with him under the Cushite flag. The two races are still in conflict which met at Siddim under the Cushite Abraham, and the Elamite Chedorlaomer, so there can be no question as to who were the contending powers. Priestly historians have, however, absolutelv obscured them. As the Elamite forces now garrisoned Jerusalem, the Cushites would retire to their strongholds on the sea coast ; and vre may be morally certain that the Pharaoh Genesis xiv. I 10 Philistines and Israelites, II. Cliron. x.xxvi. /,-. Josephus, vol. i. ^20. I. Kings xii. Apries regained possession of Jerusalem as soon as the main army of Nebuchadnezzar had retired, for we find the forces of Nebuchadnezzar again in the field ; Jehoiakin is deposed and Zedeldah his brother is placed on the throne: — " And he also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by God; but he stiffened his neck and har- dened his heart from turning unto the Lord God of Israel," which can only mean that he threw off his allegiance to the Elamite great king. The reader must notice that this glaringly exposes the two races ; for if Zedekiah pulled down one flag he must put up another ; and it is manifest that when he lowered the Elamite flag he adopted the colors of his chief, the Cushite Pharaoh Apries of the senior house of David. We must now not fail to remember that when the Cushites under Apepi {i.e. Moses) occupied Canaan, the country becam(3 known as Philistia, and the Cushites as Philistines ; but when, under the Elamite rule, the division of Philistia was broken up, and an Elamite petty king was appointed over the Philistines and Israelites. 1 1 1 province of Israel, the Philistine designation would drop out of use ; hence the Cushites living in Judea, instead of being termed Philistines, would naturallv be known as Jews. But as the two great races permeated Judea it becomes obvious that there were two races of Jews in Judea, viz.: the Philistine or Cushite Jews and the Elamite Jews of the tribe of Judah. It stands to reason then, when Zedekiah rebelled against the great Elamite king Nebuchadnezzar, he ran up the Philistine or Cushite flag over Jerusalem. CHAPTER VIII. //. Chron. xxxvi. 12. Jeremiah xx. We learn from the Biblical narratives that Zedekiah humbled not himself before Jere- miah ; it becomes then evident that Jere- miah was a representative of the Elamite Great King. Jeremiah was thundering his anathemas against the Jewish king ; and the priestly writers inform us that Zedekiah " put him in the stocks, that were in the high gate of Benjamin." We must view this as a subtle combination in their design to degrade Jeremiah, and obscure his high position. It is more than probable that Jeremiah was the general-in-chief of Nebuchadnezzar's forces, and certainly a prince of the house of Elam. We must bear in mind that the Pharaoh Apries of the Cushite house of David [i.e. Hirhor) was now supreme in Egypt ; it follows that the chief of the roval Ramesside Philisti?ies and Israelites, 113 Elamite family was out of power ; he would be a powerful and distinguished personage, and the conspicuous rival of the reigning Cushite Pharaoh. It has by no means been clearly defined who the prophets, of the priestly writers, represented ; but as we find them invariably associated with the party in opposition, might we not surmise that they were the leaders of the opposition party. I have ventured to conjecture that the prophet Isaiah was the deposed Elamite Pharaoh known to us as Usargon. He was clearly the leader of the opposition, and there are groundsfor supposing that he even- tually succeeded to the throne of Elam. We now find Jeremiah in a similar posi- tion, and I shall point out that he succeeded Apries as the Pharaoh of Egypt, This is practically confirmed, for we find that Zede- kiah opens negociations with him when Jerusalem is besieged, and inquires if Nebu- chadnezzar cannot be induced to raise the siege. Jeremiah tells him that the only pohcy he can adopt is to give up the town, and savs : " He that abideth in this citv Jeremiah xxi. g. IJ4 Philistines and Israelites, / ere /Ilia h xxxvii. II. shall die by the sword : but he that goetli out, and falleth to the Chaldeans that besiege you, he shall live." This is clearly the ultimatum of the Great Elamite King. We can conclude that when Zedekiah defied the power of Elam he placed himself under the protection of the Cushite Pharaoh Apries, his chief ; so that we are not sur- prised to find that the Pharaoh's forces appear on the scene and raise the siege : "And it came to pass, that when the army of the Chaldeans [Elamites] was broken up from Jerusalem for fear of the Pharaoh's army, then Jeremiah went forth out of Jeru- salem to go into the land of Benjamin.'' This skilfully leads us to infer that Jeremiah and Zedekiah were of the same race and party, and subtly obscures the two belli- gerents. Might we not, under the circum- stances, surmise that instead of Jeremiah going "into the land of Benjamin," he withdrew the Elamite forces "into the land of Babylon " ? It is more than probable that the Cushite Pharaoh i\pries followed up his victory, and expelled the Elamite troops from Western Asia ? Philisti?ies a?ul Israelites. 11^ The Elamite forces some few years after again appear on the scene, led by Jeremiah, which certainly indicates that the Ciishites were dominant. Jerusalem is closely be- seiged and fresh negotiations take place. "Then said Jeremiah unto Zedekiah ; if i /< thou wilt go forth unto the King of Babylon, thv soul shall live, but if thou wilt not go forth, then shall this city be given into the hands of the Chaldeans. And Zedekiah the king said unto Jeremiah, / am afraid of the Jews that are fallen to the Chaldeans, lest they deliver me into their hand, and they mock me. But Jeremiah said, they shall not deliver thee." I present this record as one of the finest combinations in the Biblical plot ; it is framed with a subtle alliance with truth, and still conveys an absolutely false im- pression. Let me remind the reader that it is the design of the writers to obscure the great Cushite and Elamite races which have been rivals for empire since we were first intro- duced to them. But when we find it re- corded that Zedekiah, the King of the rciniah xxxviii. // I 2 ii6 Philistines and Israelites. Jews, says he is afraid of the Jews, we be- come absolutely confounded. A moment's reflection will enable us to detect the craft of the record. Zedekiah had rebelled against the Great King, and was now flying the Cushite Jewish flag ; he was, therefore, naturally afraid of the Elamite Jews of the tribe of Judah ; this is abundantly manifest, for Jeremiah assures him that the Elamite Jews will not revolt. The two rival races are therefore vividly before us. Let us tear the ban- dages from our eyes, and calmly view the situation. We shall then detect who are the two rival powers ; and that it is not a conflict alone between Zedekiah, the petty king of Judea, and Jeremiah, the petty king of Israel, but the old, old struggle for supremacy in the empire between the Hamitic and Semitic races. The Pharaoh Apries, now reigning in Egypt, represents the ancient line of Cushite kings of the house of Abraham ; and Nebu- chadnezzar personates the ancient line of the house of Chedorlaomer, or perhaps Menes. The siege of Jerusalem only dis- Philistiiies cutd Is?^aelites, 117 closes the old conflict for empire between these two rival houses. The Elamites, it is true, occupied Chaldea, but that does not transform them into Chaldeans, except as a territorial designation. Let us then under- stand they were still Elamites, and it is a gross perversion of history to allude to them as Chaldeans. We must, therefore, recognise that it was the Elamites who were besieging Jerusalem, and the Cushites were defending it. The positions of the two belligerent forces are thus plainly indicated. The Cushite Philistine Jews held Jerusalem and their strongholds on the sea coast ; and as the Pharaoh Apries was still absolute master of Egypt, the flag of Cush would float over every fortress from Jerusalem to Ethiopia. The Elamites dominated all Asia, north of Jerusalem ; thus Judea and Israel were the two bufler provinces. Let us now turn to the Biblical narratives and ascertain if this view is confirmed. Jeremiah himself admits us behind the scenes, and explains who Nebuchadnezzar was warring against in no uncertain words, ii8 Philistines aiid Israelites. Itrcmiah xti'i. 2^. Ibid. .\hii. for I contend that all the records are based on authentic facts : " The Lord of hosts, the God of Israel \_t.c. Nebuchadnezzar], saith : Behold, I will punish the multitude of No, and Pharaoh, and Egypt, with their gods, and their kings, even Pharaoh, and all them that trust in him, and I will deliver them into the hand of Nebuchadezzar, king of Babylon." Here then the Cushite Pha- raoh Apries is distinctly pointed out as one of the antagonists of Nebuchadnezzar. " The word of the Lord that came to Jeremiah against the Philistines, thus saith the Lord : Behold waters rise up out of the north, and shall be an overflowing flood, and shall overflow the land, and all that is therein ; because of the day that cometh to spoil all the Philistines, for the Lord will spoil the Philistines. Baldness is come upon Gaza : Ashkelon is cut off with the remnant of their valley." Here, then, the Philistines are also clearly defined as antagonists of the Great King. I must submit that this conclusivelv proves that the Elamite forces under Nebuchad- nezzar were in conflict for supremacy in Philistines a7id Israelites, 119 the empire with the Ciishite forces of the Pharaoh Apries, and the Cushite forces only ; for the Philistine Jews were only a section of the Cushite power. " And in the ninth year of Zedekiah kingof Judah, came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and all his army against Jerusalem, and they besieged it.'' " And in the eleventh year of Zedekiah the city was broken up. And all the princes of the king of Babylon came in and sat in the middle gate. And when Zedekiah saw them, and all the men of war, then they fled. But the Chaldeans' army pursued after them and overtook Zedekiah in the plains of Jericho. And the King of Babylon slew the sons of Zede- kiah before his eyes. Moreover he put out Zedekiah's eyes, and bound him with chains to carry him to Babylon. And the Chal- deans burned the king's house, and the houses of the people, with fire, and brake down the walls of Jerusalem. Then Ne- buzar-adan the captain of the guard carried away captive into Babylon the remnant of the people that remained in the city, and Jeremiah xxxix. Jeremiah ■ xxxix. 2. I20 Philisti?tes and Israelites. those that fell away, that fell to him, with the rest of the people that remained. But Nebiizar-adan left the poor of the people, which had nothing, in the land of Judah, and gave them vineyards and fields at the same time. Now Nebuchadnezzar gave charge concerning Jeremiah, saying. Take him, and look well to him, and do him no harm ; but do unto him even as he shall say unto thee. So the captain of the guard eave him victuals and a reward and let him go." We are therefote led to infer that Jere- miah was a personage of very little conse- quence ; but the craft of the record will very soon appear ; it absolutely obscures true history. As I have pointed out that Jerusalem was defended by the Cushite Philistine Jews, it stands to reason that the Philistine Jews would be the prisoners taken into captivity. We are, however, adroitly led to believe that they were Israelites ; but as the term Israelite is only a territorial designation for the inhabitants of Israel, it becomes obvious that the Israelites had nothing whatever to P/nlJsti?tes and Israelites. do with the defence of Jerusalem ; and as they were to a man supporting Nebuchad- nezzar, it is clear thev were not taken awav as prisoners. The imposition of the priestly writers becomes then glaringly manifest. We must remember that before Zedekiah threw off his allegiance to the great Elamite King, he had served under the Elamite flag ; he would therefore control a consider- able following of Elamite Jews of the tribe of Judah. And we have it recorded that Nebuchadnezzar not only massacred every member of Zedekiah 's family he could lay his hands on, but he slew: " all the nobles of Judah," which unquestionably indicates that these Elamite Jews Avere supporting Zedekiah. It was only natural, when the Elamites came into power on the fall of Jerusalem, that all those who were banished bv Zede- kiah would flock into the country ; and we find it recorded that "all the Jews that were in Moab, and among the Ammonites, and in Edom, and that were in all countries, heard that the King of Babylon had left a remnant of Judah, and that he had set over 121 Jeremiah .xxxi.x. 6 Ibid. xi. II. 122 Philistines a?2d Israelites. them Gedaliah ; even all the Jews returned out of all places whither they had been driven and came to the land of Judah, to Gedaliah, unto Mispah, and gathered wine and summer fruits very much." Here we have a very subtle combination, for we are insensibly led to confound the Elamite Jews of the tribe of Judah with the Cushite Philistine Jews ; but let us reflect for one moment, and the imposi- tion becomes glaringly exposed. Beyond a shadow of doubt the Philistine Jews who were defending Jerusalem had been de- feated, and the Elamite Jews of the tribe of Judah were now paramount and gather- ing their rival's harvest. The prisoners taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar were therefore the Philistines, and those that escaped, retired to their strongholds on the sea coast. The combinations in the priestly plot are simply superb, they are strictly framed on authentic facts, and vet convev an absolutelv false impression ; for we are insidiously led to imagine that Nebuchadnezzar was a Chaldean, and the Egyptians and the Philis- Philisti?2es and Is?^aelites. tines were two other foreign powers. I contend, however, I have conclusively proved that Nebuchadnezzar was the great Elamite king, and that he was warring against Apries, the Cushite Pharaoh of Egvpt. I have also demonstrated that the Philistines were merely a section of the Cushite or Hyksos race, and it becomes obvious that the Israelites can only repre- sent a section of the Elamite race. I submit that the Hamitic and Semitic races are un- doubtedly disclosed. Let there be no mistake ; the records distinctly tell us that Nebuchadnezzar was at war with the Egyptians and the Philis- tines who held Jerusalem. This is a fact which does not admit of a doubt. It follows, then, that the prisoners taken away by Nebuchadnezzar from Jerusalem were Phi- listines and not Israelites. It therefore becomes obvious that the prisoners taken captive on the fall of Jerusalem, said to have been released by Cyrus, were not the chosen people of priestcraft, but their mortal enemies, the Philistines. It will be noticed that the Philistines are 12' 124 PhilisttJies a?2d Israelites, Herodotus xi. J 04. many times very pointedly alluded to as uncircumcised. I submit that this is one of the subtle distortions of priestcraft ; for I contend that the Philistines did adopt this Cushite rite, and that the Israelites (/>., Elamites) did not. The Philistine Jewish prisoners of war, who returned from cap- tivity under Zerubbabel, a prince of the Cushite house of David, were circumcised ; which conclusively proves they were not Israelites {i.e.^ Elamites). The writers clearly detected this, and they could only overcome the difficulty by insinuating that the Philistines were not circumcised; lead- ing us insensibly to infer that the Israelites did practice this rite. The reader will notice how skilfullv this transforms the Elamite Jews, of the tribe of Judah, into the Cushite Jews who were taken prisoners at the fall of Jerusalem. CHAPTER IX. Let us still follow the events which suc- ceeded the fall of Jerusalem. A peace was probably concluded between the great Elamite King Nebuchadnezzar and the Cushite Pharaoh Apries, and the main armies of the Elamite King retire to Babylon, The Jews of the tribe of Judah flock into the country from all quarters and gather wine and summer fruits very much under their national king Gedaliah. We now learn that a conspiracy is detected, and Gedaliah is warned that Ishmael, one of the surviving princes of the house of Zedekiah, had threatened to slay him ; but Gedaliah refused to believe it : — " Then Johanan spake to Gedaliah in Mizpah secretly, say- ing. Let me go, I pray thee, and I will slay Ishmael : wherefore should he slay thee, that all the Jews which are gathered unto thee should be scattered, and the remnant in Jcrc/iiiah a!. 14. 126 Jcrctiiiah xli. 9- Philistines and Israelites, y^udali perish?" There can be no doubt that the Jews here referred to represent the Elamite Jews of the tribe of Jiidah, who were reaping the rewards accruing to them, owing to the fall of Jerusalem. It, there- fore, becomes glaringly apparent that the Jews of the tribe of Judah were not the Philistine Jews who defended Jerusalem, so we have the two races of Jews plainly before us. The Philistine Jews had undoubtedly re- tired to their strongholds on the sea coast ; and Ishmael, a prince of the house of Zedekiah, makes a raid into the province of Israel, murders Gedaliah, and a general massacre takes place in Mizpah : — "Now the pit wherein Ishmael had cast all the dead bodies of the men whom he had slain because of Gedaliah, was it which Asa the king had made for fear of Baasha king of Israel : and Ishmael filled it with them that were slain." The Cushite revenge was a savage one ; but I only mention it as an instance to show what a deadly hatred must have existed between the two rival races. Philistines and Israelites, 127 "Then Ishmael carried away captive all the residue of the people that were in Mizpah, even the king's daughters [Geda- liah's], and all the people that remained in Mizpah." The Elamite forces pursue him, and as an engagement is recorded to have taken place at Gibeon, it becomes evident ' jcrcmiak xu. that Ishmael was retreating to his strong- holds on the sea coast. The Elamites appear to have succeeded in recovering their captives and their king Gedaliah's daughters, but perhaps thinking that discretion was the better part of valour, they cleared out of Judea as fast as they could and retreated to Egvpt : — " And all //• av^^--^ I x.w. 26. the people, both small and great, and the captains of the armies arose and came to Egypt." Are we not forced to conclude that the Cushite Philistines, under Ishmael, had defeated the Elamite army of occu- pation and had driven them out of the country ? The excuse given in the Biblical narratives why the Israelites under Jere- miah escaped to Egvpt is singularlv ingeni- ous : " Because of the Chaldeans, for they were afraid of them, because Ishmael had fcrcniiali xU. iS. 128 Philistines and Israelites, Baniih i. ii. Ezra ii. i. slain Gedaliah, whom the king of Babylon made governor in the land." The reader will notice that this record insensibly leads us to believe that Nebuchadnezzar was warring against the Israelites. That the Israelites felt themselves under the greatest obligations to Nebuchadnezzar is abundantlv manifest, for Baruch, one of Jeremiah's priests, tells them : " To pray for the life of Nebuchadnezzar, and for the life of Balthasar his son, that their davs mav be on the earth as the days of Heaven." This is not a prayer that would suggest itself to the Philistine Jews, who had just been signally defeated, whose principal families had been taken into captivity, whose king had been mutilated, whose royal family had been massacred, and whose royal city had been sacked. The Cushites never offered up such a prayer for Nebuchadnezzar. It has been the aim of the priestly writers and all their commentators to lead us to believe that the Israelites were taken into captivity at the fall of Jerusalem. In fact much of the framework of their narratives rests upon this. It is, however, obvious Philistines and Israelites, that the prisoners taken captive by Nebu- chadnezzar were the Phihstine Jews who were defending the fortress under their petty king Zedekiah. Fortunately the records are based upon authentic documents, and we can readily trace the two conflicting races ; for we find it recorded that Nebuchadnezzar not only slew Zedekiah's sons, but the nobles of yiidaJi^ which unquestionably refers to the Elamite Jews of the tribe of Judah, who had ranked themselves under the Cushite flag. Here then the two races are distinctly exposed. It is again recorded that : — " In the three and twentieth year of Nebuchadnezzar the Captain of the Guard carried away captive of the Jews seven hundred forty and five persons : all the persons were four thousand and six hundred." Here again the two parties are palpably defined ; hence we can conclude that 745 Elamite Jews, who were loyal to Zedekiah, and 3,855 Philistine Jews, were all the prisoners taken into captivity on the fall of Jerusalem. It is, however, the promi- 129 [crctiiiah .w.xix. 6. Jcrc/iiiah lit. I30 Philisti7ies ajtd Israelites. Ezra ii. Fresh Lights from the Momtnicnts, Prof. Sayce, 141. nent aim of the priestly writers to lead us to infer that a vast number of Israelites, their God protected race, were taken away to Babylon as prisoners on the fall of Jerusalem, and that their families remained in exile nearly a century, until released by Cyrus, who is alluded to as a Persian and a worshipper of the one true God, which led him to befriend God's chosen people. This view is already proved, and admitted, to be a delusion. There can be no doubt that the garbled records have tended to confuse us ; but if we use our common sense a moment's reflec- tion must convince us who the prisoners were who were taken into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar. Need I point to the Cushite forces serving under the Pharaoh Apries ; they had probably been recruited from every province in the empire between Carchemish and Ethiopia. I express a hope that I have made myself understood ; but the priestly plot is full of marvellous combinations. I may have fallen into some pitfalls, but confidently rely on scholars to give me a Philisti7ies a72d Israelites. 131 helping hand. I submit, however, I have proved beyond a shadow of doubt that the Israelites were not taken into captivity on the fall of Jerusalem, and the design of the writers mainly rests upon this delusion. Perhaps priestcraft has secured a com- manding position more through a claim of foresight than by any other method ; for a prophecy of some startling event carries with it a conviction of divine inspiration. I need not notice how easily compilers of history could insert predictions of events, after they had occurred, but they cometimes admit us behind the scenes. As an example I will recall the so-called prophet Daniel. A prophecy of Isaiah clearly points him out as a prince of the Cushite house of David. Hezekiah is in trouble : "And Isaiah said unto Hezekiah : — Behold the davs come, that all that is in thine house shall be carried into Babylon, and of thy sons that shall issue from thee, they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon." If the reader will turn to the Book of DanicU Daniel, it will be found this prophecy was fulfilled to the letter ; and we find Daniel //. Kings XX. 16. K 2 J X2 Phtlistiiies and Israelites. a prince of the house of David, occupying a position in Babylon the most degrading it is possible for the western mind to realise; and we must understand his misfortune had been brought upon him through Jeremiah the Elamite ; how bitter, then, must have been the hatred existing between Daniel and Jeremiah ; yet we find their two books bound together in our Bible, and we are expected to derive instruction and religious consolation from both. We may, however, assure ourselves that the whole story is pure fiction, only in- serted to obscure the true position of Daniel, who was a royal prince of the Cushite house of David, and eventuallv succeeded to the throne under the name of Nabonidus. This materially confirms my conjecture that the Prophets represented the leaders of the tvv^o races when out of power. Upon a prediction of Jeremiah, who was certainly a Pharaoh of Egypt, the Roman Church founded its power to depose, with bell and book, Kins: Henrv the Eighth of England. This Bull of Pope Paul III. is so Philistines and Israelites, instructive, I venture to give some short extracts from it: — "Sentence of Pope Paul III. against Henry VITI. 133 C. H. Colletle, Queen Elizabeth and the Penal "Condemnation and Excommunication of j AppmUx a. Henry VHI., King of England, and his Abettors and Accomplices, with the addition of other punishments. " Paul, Bishop, servant of the servants of God, in perpetual remembrance of this matter. "We, although unworthy, the vice-gerent on earth of Him who, unchangeable and eternal, governs all things, and placed in the seat of justice, according also to the prediction of the Prophet Jcrciniali in these words : Behold I have appointed thee over nations and kijio-doiiis, that thou niayest pnll tip and destroy^ build and plant ; the chief over all the kings of the universe, and all peoples obtaining- dominion. Wherefore — after mature deliberation upon these matters with our venerable brothers the Cardinals — require in the Lord that King Henry entirely abstain from the aforesaid errors i6.p. Jeremiah i. 10. 134 Philistines a7td Israelites, and revoke, declare void, and annul the aforesaid constitutions and laws, as in fact he made them, and that he entirely abstain from compelling his subjects to keep them. Otherwise if King Henry and his abettors, adherents, advisers and followers shall not effectually obey the exhortations and re- quisitions of this kind, we excommunicate King Henry, his abettors, adherents, advisers and followers, by Apostolic authority, and pronounce that King Henry himself has incurred the penalty of deprivation of his kingdom and aforesaid dominion ; and if in the meantime he shall die, we by our aforesaid authority and plenary power do declare and decree that he be deprived of ecclesiastical sepulture ; and ivc strike thcni with the sword of anathema, malediction and eternal damnation. And we absolve and altogether set free from the aforesaid king or his accomplices, and from the oath of allegiance, vassalage, and all obedience to the king, and other the parties aforesaid the magistrates, judges, constables, guardians, and officers of King Henry himself, and of his kingdom, and of all other his dominions. Philistines a?td Israelites. 135 These nevertheless we command, under penalty of excommunication, entirely to abstain from obeying the same King Henry and his officers. We by the same authority do will and decree, that King Henry and his accomplices be from that time infamous and not permitted to give evidence. We warn all the faithfull in Christ to shun the aforesaid excommunicated, accursed, and condemned persons. Moreover we in like manner exhort and require the aforesaid princes, and all others even serving in the pay of the faithful in Christ, and other persons whomsoever, both by land and sea, who have men under arms, that tliey rise in anus against Ki]ig Henry, his accomplices, and followers aforesaid, and that they perse- cute them, and every of them, and force and compel them to return to the unity of the Church, and obedience of the aforesaid See. "Given at Rome at St. Mark in the vear of our Lord 1535." But what gave rise to no little surprise, King Henry retained the Papal revenues, which were then the onlv veritable bones 136 Philistines and Israelites. The Times, March 12th iSg2 in contention. It was the commencement of a great rebellion ; and very shortly after the Tentonic race (probably Japhetic) threw off its allegiance to the house of Elam {i.e. the Pope). This has been ingeniously characterized as a religious reformation, which very neatly obscures a momentous racial revolution. " Fifty years ago most English readers believed that they knew all about the foundation and authorship of the Old Testament. They supposed that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, that Joshua recorded the conquest of Canaan, that Samuel com- posed Judges and Ruth, that David wrote all the Psalms, and that the prophets themselves committed their own pro- phecies to writing. It was a simple and satisfactory theory as long as it remained unquestioned ; but it was one that would not bear a moment's serious examina- tion." When we find the hightest authorities agree that neither Jeremiah nor any of the would-be prophets wrote the books ascribed to them, may we not conclude that the Philistines a?td Israelites. 137 \ Jeremiah i. narratives were only compiled, in their present form, to further the aims of priest- craft, and does not the Bull of Pope Paul III. indicate the power the priests acquired through them, and the motives which dictated them ? As I contend that the Biblical records are invariably based upon authentic facts, it is more than probable that Jeremiah's so-called prediction, quoted by Pope Paul III., was the formal edict of Nebuchad- nezzar appointing Jeremiah as the Pharaoh of Egypt. When the priestly design is detected, and we can assure ourselves that " the Lord," as used in the narratives, does not apply to the Almighty but to the Great King, true history becomes revealed. The Tel-el-Amarna tablets clearly prove that the Pharaohs were recognised as deities, and the official despatches were addressed to the king as " My Lord, my God, my Sun God, who is from heaven," it follows that the edict of the Great King would be referred to as "the word of the Lord." Jeremiah xliv. I. Philistines and Israelites. Fresh Lights from the Ancient Monuments, 132. Thus when we have it recorded that " the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah con- cerning all the Jews which dwell in the land of Egypt," we can only conclude that it was an edict from Nebuchadnezzar the Great King to his vassal Jeremiah [?>., Aahmes] the Pharaoh of Egypt. I trust the reader will pardon my digres- sion ; but let us return to the retreat of the Elamites to Egypt after their defeat by the Cushite Prince Ishmael of the house of David ; it is certainly authentic and discloses true history. There can be no doubt that the Elamite troops would not have escaped to Egypt had Egypt been still in the possession of the Cushite Pharaoh Apries, We are indebted to Professor Sayce for enabling us to clear up this difficulty. He tells us : " Records of Nebuchadnezzar's building operations exist in plenty, but of his annals onlv a small fra2:ment has as vet been discovered. This however contains an allusion to his campaign in Egvpt of which Jeremiah and Ezekiel prophesied, and which an over-hasty criticism has Philistines and Israelites, 139 denied. The campaign, we learn, took place in the thirty-seventh year of his reign. Other references to it have been detected on the Egyptian monuments, and we gather from these that the Babylonian [Elamite] army swept the whole of the northern part of Egypt, and penetrated as far south as Assouan, from whence they were forced to retreat by the Egyptian [Cushite] general Hor. Amasis was at this time kins: of Egypt, having dethroned and murdered Apries, the Pharaoh Hophra of the Bible, whose miserable end had been foretold by Jeremiah (xliv. 30)." Thus it becomes clear that the raid of Ishmael into the province of Israel oc- curred after the conquest of Egypt bv Nebuchadnezzar. The great Elamite king would now rule over the entire empire extending from Babylon to Thebes. The Cushite power has fallen, and the Pharaoh Apries of the house of David {i,c. Hirhor) has been murdered. A general revolution must have taken place, and the Elamite house of Aahmes is once more 140 Philistines a7id Israelites, triumphant. They had been eating the bread of subjection since Sabakah of the house of David {i.e. Hirhor) had wrested the prize out of their hands — a period of some hundred and fifiv years. CHAPTER X. As we are told that the Cushite Pharaoh Apries has been murdered, an event which had been " foretold by Jerennah," let us mquire who succeeded him on the throne of Egypt. We are aware that Nebuchadnezzar had secured dominion over the entire empire from Elam to Thebes ; so it becomes glaringly apparent that the great Elamite King had deposed Apries the Cushite Pharaoh ; and we must distinctlv bear in mind that Apries, before his deposition, was the greatest monarch in the world ; for I have pointed out that he ruled from Nineveh to Ethiopia ; hence a mighty re- volution is disclosed. The Cushite power had fallen not alone in Egypt but over the entire Empire. The inscriptions inform us that his name was Uahabra ; the Biblical writers refer to him as Hophra, and other 142 Philistt?7es and Israelites, historians term him Apries. This does not suggest the work of honest historians. We learn from the inscriptions that Apries was succeeded by a Pharaoh of the name of Aahmes ; historians, however, refer to him under the name of Amasis, which again suggests suspicion. We are, there- fore, led to pause and inquire who this Pharaoh Aahmes could have been. As to his name there can be no mistake ; it is precisely similar to that of Aahmes, an ancestor of Seti, and the founder of the great Elamite XVIIIth Egyptian dynasty ; from which we must conclude he was of the same royal family ; hence, an Elamite prince. Nebuchadnezzar, the Great Elamite King, had undoubtedly deposed all the Cushite petty kings from Nineveh to Jerusalem. The defeat of the Pharaoh Apries was his final conquest, for it placed him in absolute command of the entire empire. It was, therefore, the crowning event of his campaign. As we find this has been adroitly concealed by all historians, a vast conspiracy is disclosed, and we are forced P/iilisti?ies aiid Isj^aelites. 143 to the conclusion that every historical record we possess has been garbled and distorted. Fortunately they have only been garbled, and if we eliminate the distortions true historv is disclosed. Owing to the discovery of inscriptions beyond the control of priestcraft, we are absolutely certain that Nebuchadnezzar invaded Western Asia and Egypt, and secured dominion from Babylon to Thebes. It follows he must have deposed some other power. I submit that I have conclusively proved that this power was represented by the flag of Cush, under Apries of the Cushite house of Abraham. We must therefore understand that the Great Elamite King Nebuchadnezzar had vanquished his rivals the Cushites. Let us then look round and endeavour to trace who Nebuchadnezzar would place on the throne of Egvpt ; and we naturally turn to the conspicuous characters serving under his banner during his great campaign. There is only one prominent personage before us ; need I point to Jeremiah ? We can now detect why he did not accept 144 Philistines and Israelites, Jeremiah xliv. to li. the petty throne of Judea, taken by Geda- liah. It was vital to the priestly design that this should be concealed ; but when I assert that Aahmes, who succeeded the deposed Cushite Pharaoh Apries, represents Jere- miah, it is no rash conjecture ; for we find Jeremiah speaking with an authority in Egypt which none but the Pharaoh could assume. I w^ll now point out that the Biblical narratives have not been the onlv vehicles adopted for the purpose of misrepresenting history. The historian Herodotus, commonly known as the father of history, which suggests that general opinion ranks him before the Biblical historians, is supposed to have compiled his history about 450 B.C. only some hundred and forty years after the fall of Jerusalem and the rise of the Elamite power under Nebuchadnezzar, and as he is generally credited as an honest historian we should naturally expect to £nd a faithful re- cord of all events connected with this great revolution ; but, strange to relate, the power Philistines and Israelites, 145 led bv Nebuchadnezzar which secured him dominion over the entire empire from Baby- lon to Thebes is not once most distantly rierodotus, Euterpe, it. alluded to. A long rambling account is given of the Pharaohs of the XXVIth dynasty, but they are presented to us as only engaged in wars with Greeks and other maritime nations. The conquest of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar is unnoticed. The Pharaoh Apries is said to have been dethroned by some factions among the Egyptians, and Amasis [i.e. Aahmes), w^ho succeeded him, is pointed out as a private person of no illustrious family. Amasis is said to have been, even when a private person, fond of drinking and jesting, and by no means inclined to serious business, and when the means failed him for drinking and indulging himself he used to go about pilfering. All this is absolutely false, and I proclaim it as the forgery of arrant impostors. Its object is obvious ; Aahmes, the Elamite Pharaoh who succeeded the Cushite Pharaoh Apries, must not be recognised as " Jeremiah." 146 Phili St 17163 a?id Israelites. EiiVpt, vol i. igS. I have pointed out that the great scholar Josephiis, in a controversy he had with Apion concerning the origin of the Jews, asserts that the Jews were the old lords of Egypt [the Hyksos], who, after many cen- turies of glorious dominion, at length quitted it under an honourable convention, and the guidance of Moses {i.e. Apepi) long before the supposed date of an exodus of leprous outcasts under an apostate Egyptian priest, Osarsiph {i.e. Amenhotep III). It becomes obvious that this well- known scholar Josephus cannot be the Flavins Josephus, who gives us a totally different version of the origin of the Jews ; or else his history has been garbled and distorted in a similar manner to that of Herodotus, which is more than probable. I have ventured to assert, when Zedekiah rebelled against the great Elamite King Nebuchadnezzar, that he hoisted the Cushite flag of the Pharaoh Apries over Jerusalem. If we turn to the spurious history of Josephus we shall find the familiar combi- nation is adopted for obscuring the two great Hamitic and Semitic races, by allud- PhilistiJies and Isf^aelites, 147 ing to them under their territorial desig- nations as Egyptians and Babylonians. Nebuchadnezzar, the great King of Elam, had captured Carchemish from the Cushite Pharaoh Apries ; following up his victory he had invaded Western Asia, driving the Cushite forces before him till they made a stand in their strong fortress of Jerusalem. If we recognise that the Egyptian power under the Pharaoh Apries represents the Cushite flag, and Nebuchadnezzar was war- ring against it, under the Elamite flag, the two great races are clearly defined struggling for supremacy in the empire. It has been the aim of the priestly writers to lead us to infer that Zedekiah was an independent monarch ; but let us remember he was a lineal descendant of the house of Solomon, who had gone over to the Elam- ites ; and as the Pharoah Apries was a descendant of the senior branch of the Cushite house of David {i.e. Hirhor), it was only natural that Zedekiah, when he threw off his allegiance to the Great King, would run up the Cushite flag of his chief the Pharaoh of Egypt. This is solidly con- L 2 148 Philistines and Israelites. Joseph us, vol. i. 420. firmed by Josephus, for although distorted Hke the BibHcal narratives, his facts are based upon authentic records. The priestly writers in their version of the siege of Jerusalem entirely obscure the Egyptian {i.e. Cushite) power ; but Josephus admits us behind the scenes : — " Now when Zedekiah preserved the league of mutual assistance he had made with the Babylonians [i.e. Elamites] for eight years he broke it, and revolted to the Egyptians [i.e. Cushites]. When the King of Babylon knew this he made war against him, and took his fortified towns, and came to the city of Jerusalem itself to besiege it ; but when the King of Egypt heard what cir- cumstances Zedekiah, his ally, was in, he took a great army with him and came into Judea, as if he would raise the seige ; upon which the King of Babylon departed from Jerusalem and met the Egyptians, and joined battle with them and beat them, and when he had put them to flight he pursued them, and drove them out of all Svria." But when we find that Zedekiah still held Jerusalem, we may reasonably surmise that, Philisti?ies a7id Israelites, 149 instead of Nebuchadnezzar driving the Cush- ites out of all Svria, the Cushite Pharaoh Apries drove the Elamite forces out of all Syria. This is practically confirmed, for we find the Great King has again to invade the country shortly after, when he sacks Jerusalem and takes Zedekiah and many other nobles as prisoners to Babylon. Josephus again admits us behind the scenes in a very instructive record : — "And now, because we have enumerated the suc- cession of the kings, and who they were, and how long they reigned, I think it necessarv to set down the names of the hiijh J o priests, and who they were that succeeded one another in the high priesthood under the kings. The first high priest then at the temple which Solomon built, was Zadoc ; after him his son Achimas ; after Achimas was Asarias ; then follow Joram, Issus, Axioramas, Phideas, Sudeas, Juelus, Jotham, Urias, Nerias, Odeas, Sallumus, Elcias Azarias, Sareas and Josedek, who was carried captive to Babylon. All these received the high priesthood by succession, the sons from their father." Josephus, vol. i. 42 J. ISO Philistines and Israelites, I. Chron. xxix. 2. BrugscJi, vol. As we must suppose that these were the high priests of the temple in Jerusalem, we are led to inquire why they have been ob- scured in the Biblical narratives. But as I have conclusively proved that David, who founded this temple, was the Pharaoh Hirhor the high priest of Amen, we may be morally certain that the high priests named by Josephus were the high priests of Amen. If this is not the case perhaps students will explain who these high priests were. Let us now return to the Pharaoh Aalimes who succeeded the deposed Cushite Pharaoh Apries. Aahmes is no unknown character ; he was placed on the throne by Nebuchad- nezzar and was his vassal. His name is recorded on the Egyptian cartouches, and it is identical with the Aahmes of the XVIIIth Elamite Egyptian dynasty ; and we find him conspicuously engaged in the burial of an Apis bull. Dr. Brugsch gives us a full translation of the tablet recording it, to which I must refer the reader for details. We gather it was a gorgeous pageant : "They were pre- pared more splendidly than ever before, for Philistines a?id Israelites, his majesty had loved the living Apis better than all the other kings. This is what was done for him by Aahmes Si-Neit who bestows pure life for ever." The granite sarcophagus of this bull stands to this day /;/ sitii^ in the Serapeum ; and it exposes the gross fraud imposed upon us in the pages of Herodotus, who never could have recited such arrant non- sense. It has clearly been interpolated for the purpose of obscuring Jeremiah as the Pharaoh of Egypt, just as Abraham, Moses, and David have been foisted on us as simple shepherds. It was vital to the priestly de- sign that their characters should be stripped of worldly power, and appear only as vice- gerents of the Almighty. We must now understand that the Great King Nebuchadnezzar had subjugated Egypt, and deposed the Pharaoh Apries ; it was not, however, a decisive blow which crushed the Cushite power. We have it recorded in the Biblical narratives that the Cushite prince Ishmael, of the seed roval of the house of David, made a raid from his strongholds and ex- 151 Sec Herodotus Hi. 2y. Jeremiah xli. 152 Philistines and Israelites, fereiiiiah xli. pelled the Elamites from Judea ; and as the Elamites retreated to Egypt, Egypt must certainly at this time have been in pos- session of the Elamite Pharaoh Aahmes {i.e. Jeremiah) ; and, as we gather from the inscriptions that Aahmes was succeeded by a Pharaoh of the name of Psamethik ; and we know that Psamethik was a Cushite of the house of David {i.e. Hirhor), it becomes manifest that another revolution had taken place ; and when we learn that Ishmael succeeded Zedekiah as leader of the Cush- ites, we may reasonably surmise that Ishmael represents Psamethik III. who we find on the throne of Egypt. The Elamite Pharaoh, Aahmes {i.e. Jere- miah), placed on the throne by Nebuchad- nezzar, must therefore have been deposed ; and this, to a certain extent, is confirmed, for we find Jeremiah predicting the fall of Babylon ; which certainly indicates that a revolution had occurred and Babylon had passed under the rule of a rival power. It follows that the Cushites would be again supreme. Professor Sayce tells us that Nebuchad- Philistines and Israelites, 153 nezzar had a long reign of nearly forty-three years. His son and successor, Evil Mero- dach, lived hardly three years after his accession, and then was murdered by his brother-in-law, Nergal-Sharezer, who seized the crown. His son who succeeded him was a mere boy, and was murdered after a brief reign of four months. The throne was then usurped by Nabonidus who does not seem to have belonged to the royal family. The Professor touches upon this very lightly ; but must we not conclude that the Elamite power has fallen ? and, as we find the Cushite Pharaoh Psamethik still all-powerful in Egypt, might we not hazard a conjecture that Nabonidus repre- sented the Cushite party ? We must re- member that there are only two competing; powers in the Empire ; hence, if the Ela- mite party has been overthrown, there is no other power to take its place but the Cushite ; this becomes certainly confirmed when we find them masters of Egypt. I therefore submit there can be no doubt that Nabonidus secured his position as Great King under the Cushite flag ; and we may See Fresh Lii^ht from the Momi- ineiils, ijj. 154 Philisti?tes and Israelites. confidently conclude that the. Cushites are again in power from Babylon to Ethiopia. The Professor goes on to tell us that " Nabonidus reigned for seventeen years," when another great revolution is disclosed, which historians have carefullv obscured ; and, as Professor Sayce adds, that Nabonidus witnessed the rise of a new power in the east, another element of confusion is antici- pated. We come, then, to the rise of the Persian power under Cyrus ; but as I have conclusively proved that there were only two races struggling for supremacy in the empire, it stands to reason, if my position is a tenable one, that Cyrus must have acquired dominion under the Elamite flag. It is true he is designated as a Persian by the Biblical writers and all historians ; but may we not detect the old subtle combina- tion in the plot. The Elamites have now moved their seat of government to the territorial division of Persia ; and the writers, in order to obscure their race, adroitly refer to them by their territorial designation as Persians. Need I point out again that territorial designations give no Philistines a7id Israelites, 155 indication of race ; and, as it was vital to the priestly design that the Elamites should be obscured, they are, with consumate craft, alluded to as Persians. The reader is doubtless losing patience, and will imagine I am following a phantom Elamite flac:. I readilv admit that mv argument stands or falls on my being able to prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that Cyrus, the would-be Persian, secured his dominion over the entire Eastern Empire under the Elamite flag. I may therefore be permitted to review my position. As Abraham's race is adroitly concealed in the Biblical narratives, we are led to inquire who they were. As we find it re- corded that father Ham's {J.c. Abraham's) eldest son, was Cush, we are led to presume that Abraham represented the Cushite or Hamitic race. But when it has been dis- closed that Hirhor or Nisbindidi, an here- ditary prince. King's son of Cush, and Pharaoh of Egypt, was no other than David, a lineal descendant of the seed of Abraham, our presumption is massively confirmed ; and it becomes an absolute certainty w^hen 156 Philistines and Israelites. Assyrian Epoiiynin Canon, /^i we find that the Pharaoh Tirhakah of the house of Hirhor [i.e. David) is styled in the Assyrian inscriptions as King of Cush, I must remind the reader that the fall of the Xllth Egyptian dynasty synchronises with the defeat of the Elamites by Abra- ham ; when, therefore, the inscriptions dis- close that a foreign race, obscured under the name of the Hyksos, came into power on the fall of the Xllth dynasty and exercised dominion during seven centuries ; we can only conclude that the Hyksos represent the race of Abraham. Although Seti claims all the Pharaohs of the Xllth dynasty as his ancestors, he passes over all the Hyksos Pharaohs, and claims Aahmes who deposed them. And, as I contend that Abraham represents the Cushite race which overthrew the Elamites, it follows that the Xllth dynasty repre- sented the Elamites, and further that the so-called Hyksos were Cushites ; and as we have traced these two rival races in constant conflict for supremacy ever since, that is from about 2200 b.c. to 600 B.C. a period of sixteen hundred years, and no other race has P/iilisti?tes a?2d Israelites. appeared on the scene, we can only con- clude that the Persians were not another foreign race which had suddenly popped up, but the old Elamites masked under another name. The reader will notice that the two races have been concealed by the priestly historians with consummate skill under many difTerent appellations ; and probably my conception of history would not have obtained credence had it not been for a little tablet which has escaped destruction. But this precious little tablet proves, beyond a question of doubt, that Cyrus, the would-be Persian of the priestly historians, was the lineal descendant of a long line of Elamite Kings, and the Great King of Elam. The reader will now detect that mv position is absolutely confirmed ; and, I boldly assert, that it shatters the priestly plot to its very foundation. We are indebted to Professor Savce for his translation of this remarkable tablet, and I must refer mv readers to his interestinc: little work for all details. Cyrus explains very vividly who he was : " I am Cyrus, the king of legions, the great king, the powerful 0/ Fresh Light from the Momtincnts, '39- 158 Philistines a7td Israelites, king, the King of Babylon, the King of Siimer and Accad, the king of the four Zones, the son of Kambyses, the great king, the King of Elam ; the grandson of Cyrus the great king, the King of Elam ; the great-grandson of Teispes, the great king, the King of Elam ; of the ancient seed royal, whose rule has been beloved by Bel and Nebo, whose sovereignty they cherished according to the goodness of their hearts." There can be no doubt, then, that Cyrus was the great Elamite King, and every historian must have known it. Cyrus goes on to inform us that " All the kings who dwell in the high places of all regions from the upper sea to the lower sea, who dwelt in the high places of the Kings of Phoenicia and Sutar, all of them brought their rich tribute, and in the midst of Babylon kissed my feet .... Accad, Marad, Zamban, Me-Turnat and Duran as far as the border of Kurdistan, the fortresses (which lie) upon the Tygris, wherein from of old were their seats ; I restored the Gods who dwelt within them to their places, and I enlarged (for them) seats that Philistines and Israelites, 159 should be long enduring ; all the peoples I assembled, and I restored their lands. And the Gods of Sumer and Accad whom Nabonidus, to the anger of the Lord of Gods (Merodach), had brought into Baby- lon, I settled in peace in their sanctuaries by the command of Merodach, the great lord." It becomes then apparent that Cyrus the Elamite had subjugated Nabonidus the Cushite ; and it proves very forcibly that the Cushite cult was different to that of the Elamites. The Professor adds : " Such are the records which have risen up, as it were out of the tomb, to revolutionise all our previous conceptions of that part of ancient history with which they are concerned." With all due deference to the learned Professor, I assert that these records, not only revolutionise all our previous con- ceptions of history relating to Cjtus, but the whole history of the eastern empire ; for all Cyrus' ancestors were mighty monarchs ruling over the entire empire from Elam to Thebes ; and, when the Elamite flag did not i6o Philistines a?id Israelites control the empire, the Cushite flag took its place ; and these two powers have been absolutely concealed by the priestly historians. This precious tablet throws still more light upon the scene, for Cyrus gives us the names of his ancestors ; we have there- fore no longer to grope in the dark, nor can we be misled by the priestly writers. Svdnev Smith tells us that " Errors, to be dangerous, must have a great deal of truth mingled with them," thus, when we find records subtly based upon specious truth, which are calculated to convev a false im- pression, grave suspicion must rest on the authors. The question under discussion vividly illustrates this. We find it recorded that Cvrus was a Persian, and it cannot be denied that historians were quite as justified in alluding to him as a Persian as thev were in terming the Norman William an English- man, thus the record is subtly allied with truth. As regards the Normans it was highly desirable for all parties that the Norman flag should be obscured ; but no such reason can Philistines a?td Israelites, i6i be suggested for dubbing Cyrus a Persian. We are therefore forced to the conclusion that Cyrus was so named for the sole pur- pose of obscuring the Elamite flag, lead- ing us to believe he was the leader of a race, foreign to the Elamites, in race and religion. Now that we have learnt from Cyrus' cylinder that he was the Great King of Elam, it becomes evident that his conquest of the empire was only another struggle for supremacy between the rival Semitic and Hamitic races. Cyrus undoubtedly represented the house of Chedorlaomer the Great King of Elam, and the Pharaoh Psamethik represented the house of Abraham. We are led to infer that Cyrus' religious sentiments induced him to favour a race presented to us as specially protected by the Almighty. This view is lovingly dwelt upon by commentors. Cyrus is alluded to as " an inspired prophet " (Isaiah xliv. 28), recognized in him " a shepherd " of the Lord, an " anointed " king, the Messiah, 2nd the title seemed to later writers to invest him Diclionary of the Hiblc, Cvfiis. RI l62 Philistines and Israelites. with the dignity of being in some sense a type of Christ himself. But when we discover from long lost con- temporaneous inscriptions that Cyrus was the Great King of Elam and the successor of a long line of Great Kings of Elam, that he was a follower of the would-be false gods Merodach, Bel, and Nebo, and his son, Cambyses, was an adorer of the sacred Bull Apis, it becomes apparent that history has been egregiously distorted. But when we detect that it was vital to the priestly design that the great Semitic race which Cyrus re- presented should be obscured, we can only view the motives which dictated such fabri- cations with the gravest concern in the light they throw on all the other records. If I have convinced the reader that Cyrus secured dominion over the eastern empire under the flag of Elam it follows that Nabonidus, the King of Babylon, and Psamethik, the Pharaoh of Egypt, whom he deposed and supplanted, must have been contending against him under another flag, and I submit I have conclusively proved that Psamethik was a lineal descendant of Philistines and Israelites, \(y Hirhor {i-e. David), and as Hirhor styled himself as King of Ciish, it is absolutely certain that Psamethik was flying the Cushite flag. As I am only glancing over history I must leave it to unbiased students for further elucidation ; but I will point out that, if Cyrus' tablet is authentic, there can be no doubt that historv has been grossly distorted. We know that Nebuchadnezzar wrested the dominion of Western Asia and Egypt out of the hands of the Pharaoh Apries, and that he placed x^ahmes on the throne of Egypt under the Elamite flag. Another revolution takes place. Psame- thik III. deposes Aahmes in Egypt, and Nabonidus acquires dominion over the Asiatic Empire. It becomes evident, then, that Psamethik and Nabonidus, at this period, ruled over the entire Eastern Em- pire under the Cushite flag. Josephus informs us that Daniel was a prince of the house of Zedekiah and was taken captive to Babylon, where he was known under the name of Baltasar. Jose- WhistoiC s Josephus, Book X. Chap. X. 42g. ]\I 2 164 Fhilistiites and Israelites, IVhistoii's losephus, Book XI. 434- Ibid. 434. Ibid. 42g- 434- phiis also tells us that : "when Evil Mero- dach was dead, after a reign of eighteen years, Niglissar (Nergal-sharezer), his son, took the government and retained it forty years ; and after him the succession in the kingdom came to his son, Labosordacus, who continued in it in all but nine months ; and when he was dead it came to Baltasar, who by the Babylonians was called Naboan- delus (Nabonidus). Against him did Cyrus, the king of Persia, and Darius, the king of Media, make war." As we know that Daniel was a royal prince of the Cushite house of Zedekiah, we may infer that he was the lineal heir to the Cushite throne ; and as I have pointed out that Nabonidus secured his kingdom under the flag of Cush, having deposed the dynasty of Nebuchadnezzar, we might surmise that Daniel and Nabonidus were identical per- sonages ; but when we learn from Josephus that both Daniel and Nabonidus were called Baltasar, we may be morally certain that Daniel and Nabonidus were one and the same king. Truth will out, however cle- verly it may be concealed ! Philistines and Israelites. Another revolution takes place. Cyrus deposes both Nabonidus and Psamethik and becomes absolute master of the whole Em- pire under the flag of Elam. But Cyrus tells us he was the Great King of Elam, the son of Kambyses the Great King of Elam, the grandson of Cyrus the Great King of Elam, the great grandson of Teispes the Great King of Elam ; and as the great kings of Elam reigned over the entire Eastern Empire, Nebuchadnezzar must have been one of Cvrus' ancestors masked under another name, probably Cyrus I. We may be certain that the so-called Nebuchadnezzar was supreme over the vast Eastern Empire, extending from Elam to Thebes. Where can we find an empire for Cyrus the Great King of Elam the grandfather of Cyrus the Great King of Elam, unless we recognise him in the mask of Nebuchadnezzar ? The reader will notice that this is by no means the first mask we have lifted. We naturally again turn to Herodotus, the honest historian and father of history ; he also gives us a list of Cyrus' ancestors — 1 6s 1 66 Fresh Light from the Momiiiicnts, 141. Brugsch, vol. a. SI I. Philistijies a?td Israelites. Deioces, Phraortes, Cyaxares, Astyages, Cyrus. This is probably quite correct ; but why trace his descent through his mother's family ? It becomes, then, glaringly apparent that history has been systematically distorted, and we can only hope to gain an insight into true history from inscriptions beyond the control of priestcraft. Professor Sayce now informs us that : — " The Empire of Cyrus was broken up after the death of his son Kambyses, and had to be reconquered by Darius, the son of Hystaspes, the real founder of the Persian Empire." The Professor would then have us believe that the Persians were still a foreign race, and that they did subjugate fhe Empire. But as I have proved that there were only two races, viz., the Cushite and the Elamites, contending for supremacy, I must still maintain that Darius was a great Elamite king and succeeded Cyrus under the Elamite Hag. It is true that Darius styles himself a Per- sian ; but as I pointed out that Persia was under the rule of the Elamite Great King, Philistines a7id Israelites, Cvriis, as well as Darius and all the Elamite great kings, could style themselves kings of Persia, precisely as the Norman William and his dynasty could style themselvas kings of England, it is merely a territorial de-' signation, and does not indicate race. But Dr. Brugsch gives us a translation of another precious tablet which proves beyond ques- tion that Darius was the Great Elamite King. This tablet introduces us to a certain Suten- rekh {i.e. king's grandson) named Uza-hor- en-pi-ris, a high priest of the Goddess Nit ; and he tells us : " Now king Darius, may he live for ever ! commanded me to go to Egypt, ^vhile he was in the land of Elam, for he also was the great Lord of all lands and a great King of Egypt." Hence it follows that Darius, who succeeded Cyrus, was also the great Elamite king. This is confirmed bv Herodotus, for he informs us that Darius, the son of Hystaspes, was a lineal descendant of Cvrus. When we have discovered that Cyrus did not represent a new race, but was the great King of Elam and the lineal descendant of a long and illustrious line of Elamite kings ; 167 IlcrodoUis, Polyiiniia, xi. 4Tj. i68 Philistines a?id Israelites, it becomes manifest that all history has been garbled and distorted. We can, there- fore, only conclude that before the rise of the Elamites under Cyrus, the Cushites under Nabonidus and Psamethik were para- mount over the entire Eastern Empire ; consequently the Cushite prisoners taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar on the fall of Jerusalem would all have been liberated. It follows, then, that the captives released by Cyrus must have been the prisoners he had himself taken during his victorious cam- paign against Nabonidus and Psamethik III. This is practically confirmed, for we find they returned under Zerubbabel, a prince of the Cushite house of David. The seventy years captivity of the Israel- ites {i.e. Elamites) is obviously pure fiction. I will now give the reader a pause for reflection. CHAPTER XI. I HAVE taken it for granted, thus far, that our precious little tablet, disclosing Cyrus as an Elamite king, is authentic. It is almost impossible to credit that all our historians and the Biblical writers could have been ignorant of a historical fact of such wide-world importance ; we are, there- fore, led to inquire whether the tablet is genuine. Mr. Albert Lowy, in an article which appeared in the " Scottish Review," April 1887, seems to convincingly prove that the much-talked- of " Moabite stone" is a " fraudulent fabrication " ; may not the Cyrus tablet be also spurious ? We shall naturally turn to the father of history for information. Herodotus was a Greek born in Asia Minor ; he had devoted his life to study, and being a man of rank and wealth, he gathered his information bv personallv visit- Biographic Universellc. 170 Phiiisti?ies a?2d Israelites. Herodotus, Clio, I — /07. ing the seats of governments within the Eastern Empire ; and on his return com- piled his history, which he read before the Athenian Assembly in 444 b.c. Hence the rise of the Elamite power under Cyrus had only taken place some eighty years previously. We must, however, remember that the cylinder discloses that Cyrus was the son of Cambyses, a reigning Elamite emperor, who was descended from a long and glorious line of Elamite monarchs. His dynasty was still ruling from Elam to Thebes, Herodotus, then, must have been intimately acquainted with the whole po- litical situation. It will, therefore, be inte- resting to study his narratives in connection with the birth and life of Cyrus. He fortunately gives us the minutest details, and tells us that Astyages, a king of Media, had a daughter named Mundane ; and having dreamed that her offspring would acquire dominion in the empire became ex- ceedingly alarmed, and gave his daughter, when arrived at a marriageable age, to no one of the Medes who was worthy of her, through dread of the vision, but to a Persian Philistiftes aitd Israelites. 171 named Cambyses, whom he found of good family and a peaceful disposition, deeming him far inferior to a Mede of moderate rank. He has another dream which con- firms the first, so he sent to Persia for his daughter, who was then near her time of delivery ; and upon her arrival he put her under a guard resolving to destroy whatever should be born of her ; for the Magian inter- preters had signified to him from his vision that the issue of his daughter would reign in his stead. We then have a long rambling account how that the king gave the child, as soon as it was born, to one of his servants with orders to murder it, and bury the body wherever he thought fit. The child, how- ever, is saved by a subterfuge, and appears ten years after, playing in the village in which ox-stalls were, with boys of his own agCj in the road The bovs who were play- ing chose this reputed son of the herdsman for their king ; and as one of them refused to obey the orders of Cvrus, he scourc^ed the boy very severely. This leads to Astyages recognising Cyrus as his grandson. A long rigmarole follows to which I need 172 Philistines and Israelites. not refer ; it concludes bv informing us that Cyrus eventually became the Persian King of all Asia, and not one word concerning the Elamite power. It becomes, then, very apparent that such a conception of the political situation is absolutely inconsistent with the view re- vealed bv Kino^ Cvrus's cvlinder ; and this cvlinder is vouched for bv Professor Savce as an authentic document. I therefore assert, with every confidence, that the nar- ratives attributed to Herodotus are inter- polations, and the forgeries of rank im- postors ; and, as they cunningly support the priestly writers, we can easily detect the culprits. "We have been at their mercy," as Cardinal Newman tells us ; and verv little mercy have they shown us. We have only to glance over Herodotus to find it a tissue of fabrications, which craftily cor- roborate the priestly narratives ; and this, forsooth, is our school text book. Now that we know that Cyrus was the Great King of Elam, and a devoted follower of the Elamite worship, we may be certain that Cambvses, his son, followed the same cult. Philist'uies a7id Isj^aelites, 173 A record is however inserted to lead iis to believe he was a Persian, and a wor- shipper of the " true God." It was there- fore necessary to conceal his adoration of the god Apis; and we are told: "When the priests brought Apis, Cambyses, like one almost out of his senses, drew a dagger, meaning to strike the belly of Apis, but hit the thigh ; then falling into a fit of laughter he said to the priests : ' Ye blockheads, are there such gods as these, consisting of blood and flesh and sensible of steel ? This truly is a god worthy of the Egyptians. But you shall not mock me with impunity.' Having thus spoken, he commanded those, whose business it was, to scourge the priests and to kill all the Egyptians whom they should find feasting. But Apis, being wounded in the thigh, lay and languished in the Temple ; and at length, when he had died of his wound, the priests buried him without the knowledge of Cambyses. But Cambyses, as the Egyptians say, immediately became mad in consequence of this atrocity, though indeed he was not of sound mind before." This record has been palpably inserted to Herodotus, Hi. 16. Herodohis, Hi. sg. 174 Philistines and Israelites, Bnigsc/t, vol. lead us to infer that Cambyses was of foreign orig^in, and in no wav connected with the worship of the god Apis. The flagrant imposition is exposed by the inscriptions: ''According to an inscription, first found by me in Egypt but unforiunately much mutilated, this Apis was buried in the Serapeum in the fourth year of the king's reign. On the same stone we see Cambyses represented under his regal name, in a kneeling posture., distinctly as a worshipper of the Apis-htill. Underneath is a long inscription, of which I could only make out the first two lines : " Year 4, month Epiphi, under the reign (of King Cambvses), the bestower of life for ever, this God was carried to his burial in his place, which his majesty had already caused to be prepared for him." It follows, of undeniable necessity, that the Apis in question died, and was buried under the auspices of the Great King Cambyses himself. When we recognise that Cambyses was neither a Persian nor the leader of a foreign race, but the son of Cyrus the Great King of Elam, and a lineal descendant of all the Philisti?tes aitd Israelites, Elamite Pharaohs, the imposition becomes glaringly exposed. Let us steady our thoughts, and briefly review the political situation. Nebuchad- nezzar, an undoubted ancestor of Cvrus the Great King of Elam, had wrested the empire out of the hands of the Cushite Pharaoh Apries and had placed Aahmes {i.e. Jeremiah) on the throne of Egypt as his vassal. Another revolution took place. Naboni- dus, under the flag of Cush, deposed the dvnastv of Nebuchadnezzar; and Psame- thik III. replaced Aahmes on the throne of Egypt. Another revolution follows, when Cyrus, the Great King of Elam, invades the empire, deposes both Nabonidus and Psame- thik, and places his son Cambyses on the throne of Egvpt. When we turn to Herodotus an entirely different historical review is presented to us. The fall of the Cushite Pharaoh Apries, and the rise of Nebuchadnezzar as ruler over the vast Eastern Empire, is not most distantly alluded to. The fall of Nebu- chadnezzar's dynasty, and the rise of Na- 175 Joscphus, vol. i. 42S. Herodotus Book Hi. 1/6 Philisti7ies a7id Israelites, bonidus and Psamethik over the same empire, receives no notice. The fall of Nabonidus and Psamethik and the rise of Cyrus the Great King of Elam is so distorted that we are led to suppose Cvrus was a Persian, and the leader of a foreign race. The Elamite Pharaoh Aahmes {i.e. Jere- miah) placed on the throne of Egvpt by Nebuchadnezzar, is alluded to as Amasis, and Cambyses the son of Cyrus the Great King of Elam, is said to have been at war with him. The Cushite Pharaoh Psamethik, who de- posed the Elamite Pharaoh Aahmes, is said to have been his [Aahmes'] son and successor, and eventually was deposed by Cambyses. The great struggle for supremacy between the house of Elam and the house of Cush, we are led to suppose, was a war between the Persians and the Egyptians. The Cushites, whose empire Cyrus had overthrown, and whose forces had retired to their dominions in Ethiopia, are alluded to as Ethiopians ; leading us to infer they were negroes. P liilistiiies ajid Israelites. 177 These records are all based on a substra- tum of truth, but they have been garbled and falsified with the view of supporting the priestly narratives. Can any other motive be possibly suggested ? It cannot be questioned that the Bibhcal writers, and all their commentators, dis- tinctly lead us to believe that Cyrus was a Persian and the head of a new dynasty, foreign in race and religion. The reader will notice the importance of this ; for we have before us a gross imposi- tion which cannot be cloaked, now Cyrus' cylinder has revealed him, not only as the Great King of Elam, but the lineal de- scendant of all the kings of Elam. He undoubtedly secured his throne as the lineal heir of the Elamite royal family, and fol- lowed the same religion as all his ancestors, and flew the same flag. He, therefore, had no connection whatever with a Persian re- liirion or a Persian flaij. The accession of Cvrus to power simply indicated that the Elamites had subjugated the Cushites ; that is, the Semitic race had vanquished the Hamitic race. N 178 Philistiiies a7id Israelites, It was vital to the priestly design that these two rival races should be obscured ; hence we can readilv detect whv the Biblical writers and their commentators wish us to believe that Cyrus was a Persian. It ob- literated the race of Elam. Now that we have discovered the imposition, and can be morally certain that Cyrus, the Great King of Elam, was a lineal descendant of Chedor- laomer, the Great King of Elam ; we may also be certain that the religion practised by Chedorlaomer was the same religion as that followed by Cyrus ; and this re- ligion is absolutely ignored by the priestly writers. We mav also be absolutelv certain that the religion practised by Cyrus, the Great King of Elam, was also followed by his dynasty, which reigned supreme over the Asiatic Empire till about 336 B.C., when it was overthrown by Alexander under the flag of Cush. It becomes clear then that Cyrus was tlie chief of the great Semitic race and the lineal descendant of the former Great Kings of Elam, who had ruled, alternately with the Philist'nies cnnl Isj^aelites. ^79 Great Kings of Cush, over the Eastern Empire during thousands of years. When, therefore, we turn to Herodotus, the familiar text book of our schooldays, and find his conception of history is significantly based on the assumption that Cvrus and his dynasty were the leaders of a foreign Persian race, and followed a peculiar form of Persian worship, we are irresistibly led to the con- clusion that not alone Herodotus, but all our sources of historical information have been flas^rantlv distorted and trarbled for the purpose of supporting a priestly design. It is obvious that we can only hope to acquire reliable information from documents beyond the control of priestcraft ; and I earnestly appeal to unbiased students to follow them up. The true history of the world still lies buried under the sands of Egypt ; let us take care we are no longer imposed on. I must leave it for students to unravel the gross imposture, and pass on to more reliable history. The Elamites are now in power under the dynasty of the Great Elamite King N 2 i8o Philistines and Israelites. Cyrus. The Ciishite house of David is in the cold shade of opposition and watching their opportunity in Ethiopia. The Elamite dynasty remained in power for more than a century, so the land must have enjoyed a long rest from war. As we have only been glancing at recurrent revo- lutions, periods of repose have been passed over, it is therefore quite refreshing to notice a peaceful interval. It is well known to students that Psame- thik I. of the house of David (z*. c. Hirhor) was on the most friendly terms with the Lacedemonian Greeks. They were now a great power ; we are, therefore, not sur- prised to find that the Cushite house of David was allied with them against the Elamites, who are now kno\vn as Persians. On the death of Darius II. a struggle for succession to the Elamite throne took place between Artaxerxes II. and his brother Cyrus, his name strikingly indicating that he was of the family of the Great Elamite King Cyrus. This war of succession gave the house of David their opportunity ; and, as we find that a Pharaoh of the name of P/]ilisti?tes and Israelites, Amyrtaeiis ascends the throne of Egypt, we can only conchide that another revokition had taken place, and the Persian Elamite dynasty in Egypt has fallen. Amyrtasiis reigned only some six years, when he was succeeded by Naifaurot, just at the moment when Sparta had declared war against the Persian Elamites ; we might, therefore, gather that the Cushites were in close alliance with the Lacedemonians. This is strikingly confirmed, for we find it recorded that the Cushite Jews were of the same race as the Lacedemonians : " It is found in writing that the Lacedemonians and the Jews are brethren, and that they are of the stock of Abraham." The reader will notice, if this record can be relied upon, that it discloses an entirely new historical phase ; for we must be forced to the conclusion that the Lacedemonians were descendants of the Hamitic race. It would further lead us to infer that their rivals, the Athenians, were of Semitic descent. This is no rash conjecture, for we learn from the inscriptions that the Cushite Pharaoh Naifaurot had sent a fleet of one i«i Briigscli, vol. ii- JJS- I. Maccabees, xii. 21. Bniou-h, vol "• 33)- l82 Philisti7ies oj^d Israelites, hundred ships laden with corn, arms, and munitions of war, to the aid of the Lacede- monians ; it is, therefore, apparent that this Pharaoh was independent of the Persian Elamites ; hence the Cushite house of David (/. c. Hirlior) is again in possession of Egypt, and the dynasty, with considerable splen- dour, retain their power during a period of some sixty or seventy years, when they are ajjain overthrown bv the Persian Elamites under their great king Ochus. The Ela- mites are, however, hastening to their fall ; and seven or eight years after Alexander, the great Macedonian warrior, defeats the Persian Elamites, and secures dominion over the entire empire ; but, as I have shown, there were only two great races contend- ing for supremacy, Alexander's conquest discloses that the Macedonians were also Cushites ; and this is solidly con- firmed when we find that Alexander showed his respect for the ancient reli gion bv joining in the worship of Apis, and by going to the Oasis of Amnion to lay his offering as the "Son of the Sun" on the altar of Amen-Ra ; we mav be Philistines and Israelites. ■83 confident that he had some hereditary claim to the title. I hav^e pointed out that the Cushites were on the most friendly terms and in leamie with the Lacedemonians, who were in con- flict with the Persian Elamites. It is palpably obvious that historians have obscured the Greek Communities ; we know that they were split up into two great factions, which is not accounted for ; might we not reasonably conjecture that Greece was colonized by the Hamitic and Semitic races, and that the same contest for supremacy existed in Greece as in the Asiatic Empire. If this view is a correct one the Macedonians would represent the Cushite flag, and we are aware that they secured dominion bv overthrowinjr the Persian Elamite power ; but when we dis- cover that history has been systematically distorted, may we not surmise that the Macedonian Cushites only held their power during the life-time of their Great King Alexander. Undoubtedly a revolution did take place at his death, which historians have by no See Ju7., Aahmes), and retained their position for several generations, when they were subjugated by the Hamitic Pharaoh Khuenaten, and their forces were expelled from Egypt. As we have only the two races before us let us distinctly understand to which of these races the Philistines and the Israelites be- longed. Beyond a doubt the Israelites were represented by Joseph, the Semitic Pharaoh Aahmes ; and as the so-called Hyksos re- present the race of Father Ham (?>., Abraham), and the Philistines were a section of this race, it follows that the Philistines o 194 P/iiIisti72es and Israelites. personated the Hamitic race ; hence, when we find the Philistines and Israelites in conflict at Gilboa, this battle must represent a struggle for supremacy in the empire between the Hamitic and Semitic races. It becomes then glaringly apparent that the priestly writers have designated them as Philistines and Israelites for the purpose of obscuring the two great races. The Biblical writers allude to the pseudo- Saul as King of the Israelites ; but Josephus refers to him as King of the Hebrews ; we are therefore insidiously led to believe that the Israelites were Hebrews. I must con- tend that it is a glaring imposition, and one of the subtle combinations in the plot. The Israelites were a Semitic race and uncircum- cised ; the Philistines were of Hamitic descent and circumcised. This is practically confirmed, for the Hyksos Philistine Jews of the present day are circumcised. We have been adroitly led to infer that the race of Jacob and Joseph was Hebrew ; and as Jacob's name is ingeniously changed into Israel, the Hebrews and the Israelites appear as one race. Philistiijes ajtd Israelites. ^95 We must carefully bear in mind, if we rely on the Biblical narratives, that the Hebrews alone are God's chosen people, and sole heirs to the Divine promises ; it follows that the Biblical cult is centred in the Hebrews to the exclusion of any other race. If then the Hebrews were the only special objects of the Almighty's protection, it became vital to the priestly design that the two great races should be obscured and confounded into one. We can therefore detect the object the writers had in view when they insensibly lead us to infer that the Hamitic race of Abraham and the Semitic race of Jacob were both Hebrews. Commentators are clearly at their wits' end to explain this, and are by no means agreed as to who the Hebrews were ; and high ecclesiastical authorities go so far as to class them with Heber ; but this clashes with the priestly historians, for it is recorded that Abraham himself was a Hebrew. This probably was the case, but as it was vital to the priestly design that the two great Hamitic and Semitic races should be confused to- gether, we are also informed that Joseph Genesis m'v. O 2 196 P/]ilisti?2es a?td Israelites, Genesis xxxix. 14. was a Hebrew. He is not only a Hebrew, but Palestine, from whence he migrated, was in possession of the Hebrews. Moses also is represented as a Hebrew. We are there- fore adroitly led to infer that the race of Abraham and the race of Jacob were He- brews, and the two great rival races are thus subtlely confounded together, which insen- sibly leads us to infer that the Hebrews were in possession of their promised land. I must however contend that the house of Jacob or Joseph represents the Semitic race, and the house of Abraham or Moses points out the Hamitic race, and as these two races were constantly struggling together for supremacy in the empire, it was vital to the priestly plot, not only that the two great rival races should be obscured, but also the empire for which they were competing. This has been ingeniously overcome by focussing our attention on the two small provinces of Judea and Israel, and by mask- ing the two rival races under the name of Hebrews, which cleverly obliterates both the empire and the two rival powers. But as we find the Philistines and Israelites Philistines a7^d Israelites. 107 engaged in constant conflicts, they become conspicuously identified as the representa- tives of the two hostile races. After the death of Moses the contest for supremacy continued during three or four centuries, when we have it recorded that a general engagement took place at Gilboa, where the Israelites {i.e. Elamites) suffered a crushing defeat, leaving the Philistines I /. Sar.md {i.e. Cushites) absolute masters of the countrv ; and David becomes kinir over Western Asia. David then must have secured his empire under the Philistine {i.e. Cushite) flag. But when we find that at this moment a great revolution took place, and a dvnastv falls, which had ruled from Elam to Thebes for nine generations, it follows that David must have overthrown this dvnastv. The inscriptions absolutely confirm this ; for we learn from them that a Pharaoh, who bore the name of Hirhor, overthrew the Ramessides and became supreme from the Euphrates to Ethiopia. The reader will notice that this covers David's dominion, which indicates that David and Ilirhor must have been identical monarchs. .r.c.r/. 7. //. Samuel via. ?. 198 Philisti72es ajid Israelites. The inscriptions again confirm this, for Hirhor, who was a high priest of Amen and Prince of Cush, also bore the name of Nsbindidi, which is an equivalent to David, as I have already explained. It therefore becomes manifest that the Philistines and Israelites of the Biblical narratives must represent the two rival flags of Cush and Elam. It must strike us as remarkable that when we have a book purporting to be a history of the Hebrews, no one is able to define their origin or localise them. They cer- tainly haunt the narratives like phantoms, but are never disclosed in any commanding position ; they are introduced to us as slaves, are found occupying subordinate offices whenever alluded to, and at the fall of Jerusalem are discovered in servitude. We seem to be lost in a sea of confusion, and naturally refer to the Bible dictionary which may be regarded as the concentrated essence of sacerdotal sophistry. We turn first to " Hebrews " only to find a record of assumptions " utterly at vari- Jcrciniah xxxiv. g. Sntitlis Dictionary of I he Bible. ance with each other ; and we close the Philistiites and Israelites, 199 book bewildered in a cloud of " grossly im- probable " conjectures. We then turn to " Philistines " and find them also wrapped up in impenetrable mystery. Amid these conflicting efforts to explain away the palpable meaning of the term Hebrews, which would certainly apply to those who "crossed oyer"; might we not reasonably conjecture that the Cushites under Abraham acquired the name of He- brews owing to their conquering hosts haying "crossed oyer" from the far east when they subjugated the Elamites {i.e. Israelites) in Egypt and Western Asia. Let us now endeayour to fathom the part the Hebrews are allotted to play in the priestly drama. I haye pointed out that only two great races existed within the Eastern empire, eyer struggling for supremacy. It was clearly vital to the priestly design that these two races should not only be obscured, but blended into one. Hence, when we find Abraham the Cushite and Joseph the Elamite alluded to as He- brews, cannot we detect that the Hebrews Genesis xh>. /?; xxxix. 200 Philistines and Israelites, serve as the link which binds the two rival races together. As we know that the so-called Hyksos had ruled over Egypt and probably Western Asia during a period of seven hundred years, certainly a rival race must have supplanted them ; and the priestly writers (who, Cardinal Newman tells us, con- trolled all historical archives) have adroitly concealed them. The Hebrews, then, subtlely masked to represent both rival races, are placed on the scene as God's chosen people and sole heirs of the Divine promises. It is precisely the combination needed to carry out the priestly design, for it insensibly blends the two great races together, and we are led to believe that the kings of Judea and Israel repre- sented a common Hebrew monarchv ; hence the Hebrews appear as possessors of their promised land. But when the inscriptions inform us that only two great races were struggling for supremacy in the empire, it follows that one or the other of these races must be supreme. This is absolutely confirmed by the in- Philistines and Israelites, 20I scriptions ; for we find that the empire is governed alternately by the Elamites and the Ciishites, as I have illustrated in my fourth chapter. It becomes obvious that when the Ela- mites were in power the petty kings of Judea and Israel as well as the kings of all the provinces within the empire would be serving under the Elamite flag ; and when the Cushites were supreme, the various petty kines would serve under the banner of Cush ; consequently in times of peace and settled government, the two kings of Judea and Israel would beyond a doubt be flying the same flag as vassals of their great king ; and as the fortresses were garrisoned by the forces of the Great King, it is impos- sible, under such circumstances, that the two kings could have been at war with each other ; this could only have happened in times of revolution. We may, therefore, be absolutely certain when the king of Israel was at war with the king of Judea, that the Elamite flag flew over Samaria, and the Cushite flag flew over Jerusalem. It is manifest, then, that the view of a 202 Phtlistmes a?2d Israelites, continuous Hebrew monarchy in Palestine is a delusion. The wars between the kings, of Judea and Israel could only disclose a war between the Great King of Elam and the Great King of Cush : that is, a struggle for supremacy between the Semitic and Hamitic races. I assert that the Hebrews, as an isolated dominant power, cannot be locahzed ; and I challenge students to identify them, unless they are recognised as the Hamitic race of Abraham, in which case the present Jews will represent the inheritors of the supposed Divine promises to the exclusion of the Israelites, or any other race. Will the reader be good enough to pause for reflection ? The Tel-el-Amarna tablets have disclosed that the Pharaohs of Egypt were viewed by their subjects as gods. Khuenaten, the Cushite Pharaoh, who deposed the Elamite Pharaoh Amenhotep III., is styled by his officials as a deity : " To the kino[ mv Lord, mv God, mv Sun- God who is from Heaven," and as I assert that this Khuenaten was the Pharaoh P/]iIisti7ies and Israelites. "which knew not Joseph," it follows that Amenhotep, whom he deposed, was the Pharaoh who led the Israelites (/. c. Ela- mites) out of Egypt, which discloses a second Exodus. When, therefore, we read that " God led them not through the wav of the land of the Philistines," we must under- stand that God here does not refer to the Almighty, but to the Pharaoh Amenhotep. It becomes obvious that the record in question is a literal translation from the con- temporary Egyptian archives, where all the Pharaohs are designated as gods. This will apply generally to all the Biblical records of a similar character, and must open our eyes to the subtlety of the priestly combina- nations. It was vital to the priestly design that we should understand that the Hebrews were a special and God-protected race; and in some passages we are led to infer that they w^ere a community distinct from the Israelites. But still the Biblical writers refer to Saul as the King of the Israelites, and Josephus alludes to him as the King of the Hebrews, leaving us to conjecture that the Hebrews and 20' Exodus xiii. ly. I. Samuel x/t'. 21. fosephus, vol. i. 2'ji. 204 Philistines a7td Israelites. the Israelites were one and the same people. I must however contend that the Ciishites of the Hamitic race represent the Hebrews, and the Elamites of the Semitic race repre- sent the Israelites. Apepi {i.e. Moses) led the Ciishite He- brews out of Egypt when overthrown by Aahmes [i.e. Joseph) ; and Amenhotep III. led the Elamite Israelites out of Egypt when defeated by Khuenaten. These two distinct Exoduses have been designedly confounded into one, in order to obscure and blend together the two great hostile races. At the battle of Gilboa the pseudo-Saul represents the Elamite Pharaoh Ramses XII. the so-called King of the Israelites ; Achish the Philistine king of Gath represented the head of the house of Cush, the king of the so-called Hebrews. We may be morally certain that the Hamitic race was in conflict with the Semitic race. It follows that the so-called Hebrews (Cushites) and the so- called Israelites (Elamites) were two dis- tinct peoples, hostile in race and religion. P/ulJsti?ies a7id Israelites. The priestly writers had not only to blend together the two races, but also to confound the two religions. This transformation scene has been very ingeniously contrived ; the two great rival races are first obscured under the names of Philistines and Israelites, and then pre- sented to us as Hebrews, practising a common religion. It was claimed that Jesus was the lineal descendant and head of both the Hamitic and Semitic ancient royal families ; and as he was regarded as a Deity, the two reli- gions would become amalgamated. The Hamitic Jews, however, refused to acknowledge him ; and hence the two hostile cults at present existing. 205 Gospel of Nicodc/Hiis, a. 7. CHAPTER XIII. LAWS AND RELIGION. //. Kings xviii. 7. //. Chron. xxix. Let us now glance at the legal and religious aspect. There may have been many religious sects within the vast Eastern Empire ; but, as I have shown that only two great races exer- cised supreme power, we may assure our- selves that the two religious cults, as de- fined in the inscriptions, were generally adopted throughout the length and breadth of the land. We find, however, that both these cults are adroitly concealed by the priestly writers; but still we detect that after revolutions had taken place, religious reforms ensue in the small provinces of Judea and Israel. For instance, when Sabakah of the Cush- ite house of David (z'.. Moses) were not reduced to slavery, but retreated in force to Judea, where they in- trenched themselves in their strongholds on the sea coast, and became called Philistines, giving their name to the country they domi- nated as Phihstia. That it had no connec- tion with the exodus of the Elamite or Israelite slaves is apparent, for we learn that the slaves did not retreat to Judea, but fol- lowed the road to the east of the Dead Sea and entered the Province of Israel by cross- ing the Jordan at Jericho. Here we detect the second exodus. "And it came to pass when Pharaoh {i.e. Khuenaten) had let the people go, that God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, al- though that was near, for God said, lest per- adventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt." The reader will notice that the Pharaoh of Egypt is here alluded to, as it is in very many other instances, as Pharaoh ; this is a palpable blunder, and craftily adopted to obscure the Pharaoh's name. We must also remember that the Pharaohs P/iilistines a7id Israelites. 231 were recognised as Divine beings, and desig- nated as Gods. The record is undoubtedly authentic and extracted word for word from the Egyptian archives ; and we may be morally certain that the deposed Elamite Pharaoh, Amen- hotep III., led his forces from Egypt and retreated beyond the Euphrates ; when, therefore, we read "that God led them not through the way of the land of the Philis- tines," it simply means that Amenhotep III. avoided the Cushite troops in their strong- holds of Judea. It is obvious that the Cushites under Khuenaten had expelled the Elamite forces from Egvpt just as Aahmes (/. c. Joseph) had expelled the Cushites under Apepi (/, c. Moses). The Philistines, then, in Judea would represent a section of the Cushites, and the Israelites of the tribe of Judah must repre- sent a section of the Elamites. This is con- firmed, for we find that the Philistines and the Israelites were hostile to each other and continually struggling for supremacy. The Cushites under their Pharaoh Khue- Philisti?'ies a7id Israelites. Bnigsch, vol a. 76. naten were now in power in Egypt, and his dynasty continued supreme for some eighty years, when it was supplanted by the Ela- mites under their Pharaoh, Horemhib ; this is confirmed, for we find that Seti claims him as one of his ancestors. Horemhib is succeeded by Ramses I., Seti I., and Ramses II., and the inscriptions disclose that Ramses II. was engaged during all his long reign in defending his position against the attacks of the Cushites, when a treaty was concluded between the two rival races, which left them, as Dr. Brugsch tells us, the two greatest nations in the world. We have, therefore, the Cushites under their king Khita-sir ruling in Asia, and the Elamites under their Pharaoh, Ramses II., ruling in Egypt. A roval marriao^e cemented this solemn treaty, and Ramses II. married the Cushiie king's daughter. The two flags are, there- fore, conspicuously before us. This marriage united in blood relationship the two royal families ; but, as we might have anticipated, it had but little influence in uniting the two rival races. Philistines and Israelites. Ramses II. was succeeded by Mineptah II., and constant struggles for supremacy are disclosed both in the BibUcal narratives and the inscriptions. We learn from the priestly writers, "In those days there was no king in Israel, but everyone did that which was rig-ht in his J o own eyes." This is confirmed by the in- scriptions, which inform us : " The people of Egypt lived in banishment abroad. Of those who lived in the interior of the land none had any care for him. So passed away long years. Whatever any had gathered together that his companions robbed them of. Thus did they." It becomes clear that the solemen treaty has been broken, and the two rival races are as hostile to each other as ever. The Elamite Pharaoh, Ramses III., ap- pears to have obtained supremacy ; and, as we find among his prisoners after a protracted campaign, "The king of the miserable land of Kush, and the miserable king of the Khita," we mav be certain that the Cushites had been subjugated ; and as the Ramesside dvnastv continued to rei^n from father to ^y5 fudges xvii. '6. Brngsch, roJ. a. 143. Bnii;sch, vol. a. 13S. 234 Philistines a?id Israelites. Bnigscli, ii. jgi. vol. Ibid. 200. Briiq'sch, ii. 200. vol. 1. Samuel xiii. ig. son for nine generations, we can onlv conclude that a settled government was instituted ; and we find Ramses Xllth exercising sovereign power from Ecbatana to Thebes. The flag of Elam must have floated over every fortress within the empire during a period of at least 100 years. Another revolution is now disclosed both in the inscriptions and the Biblical narra- tives, Hirhor, the hereditary king's son of Cush, rebels against the Elamite Pharaoh, Ramses Xllth, and succeeds in securing his throne. This Hirhor was Grand Vizier to Ramses Xllth, High Priest of Amen, and king's son of Cush, We must therefore conclude that his father was alive, who would have repre- sented the dethroned king of the great Cushite race. He would therefore have led the rebellion against the Elamite Pharaoh, He is glaringly disclosed in the priestly narratives ; for we find it recorded that Achish, the Philistine [Cushite] King of Gath, did rebel and became master in Palestine, Two strange characters however appear Philisti7tes a?2d Israelites. 235 I. Samuel .wwi. J. on the scene. Saul, a man of low origin, is represented as King of the Israelites : "And \^:.'^'"'''"-'^ there was sore war against the Philistines all ; the days of Saul." David, a shepherd lad, marries Saul's daughter, and becomes general-in-chief of Saul's forces. Saul kills his thousands, and David his ten thousands ; David deserts Saul and goes over to the Philistines ; a great battle takes place at Gilboa, between the Philistines and the Israelites, and the Israelites are utterlv routed. Saul is killed in the battle, and as we hear nothing more of the Philistine king, Achish, we must conclude that he shared a similar fate. David succeeds Achish as King of the Philistines (/>., Cushites), and Esh-baal succeeds his father, Saul, as King of the Israelites (?>., Elamites) ; and we find it recorded that there was long war between the house of David and the house ! //. samuci of Saul. David murders Esh-baal, the King of the Israelites ; the Israelites tender their submission, and David becomes monarch from the Euphrates to Egvpt. We must, therefore, suppose that the Israelites, under Saul the stable boy, and 236 Philistines a7td Israelites. II. Samuel in. I. I. Samuel xiv. ^2. the Philistines under David the shepherd lad, have been fighting for the crown of the Pharaoh Ramses ; and the great Pharaoh, who had ruled from Ecbatana to Thebes, never interfered or struck one blow for his vast empire. As it is the aim of the priestly writers to obscure the two races and confound them together, we are adroitly led to imagine that David was an Israelite {i.e. Elamite) ; although it is recorded that there was long war between the house of David and the house of Saul, it is also recorded that there was sore war against the Philistines all the days of Saul. Now, if we must view David as an Israel- ite, it will be noticed that if there was sore war between Saul and the Philistines, and long war between David and Saul, we must understand that the Israelites were engaged in civil war ; and, if we accept that David was in conflict with the Philistines, we must suppose that the Philistines were fighting both sections of the Israelite forces. Hence Saul would be at war with David and the Philistines, and David would be at war with Philistines a?2d Israelites. Saul and the Philistines ; and the Philistines would be in conflict with both Saul and David. Such a three-cornered position being con- trary to reason, I must contend that the records leading us to believe that David was a simple Israelite shepherd boy, and a scourge to the Philistines, are only inserted with a view of leading us to infer that he was no Philistine. David's genealogy is given us ; and, as wo. find he was descended from Abraham and Moses and so back to Adam, we can hardly credit that he was the drudge of a large family tending sheep on the hill side ; but if we eliminate these egregious distortions we come to more re- liable history, when we find David a general in the Philistine camp, living with Achish King of Gath. As the inscriptions inform us that the Pharaoh Hirhor bore also the name of Nisbindidi or David, the flagrant imposition foisted upon us in the priestly records be- comes exposed. Although their narratives are distorted they are undoubtedly based upon authentic historv, for we find them 237 /. Samuel xxvii. A 2s8 Philistines and Israelites. I. Samuel xxxi. 7. confirmed by the inscriptions in all essential particulars. We must, therefore, understand that the great battle of Gilboa, represented in the narratives as an engagement between the Philistines and the Israelites, was a conflict between the Cushites and the Elamites which ultimately placed David [i.e. Hirhor) on the throne as the Pharaoh of Egypt. Dates are somewhat uncertain ; but when w^e learn from the inscriptions that the Ramessides were in power for at least one hundred years, and were then deposed by Hirhor, whose dynasty ruled at least fifty years, only one change of government could have taken place within a period of one hundred and fifty years. As all historians have accepted the Bibli- cal records as divinely inspired and abso- lutely authentic, when it was ascertained that David's accession to power over West- ern Asia must have occurred about 1060 B.C., another date w^as of necessity adopted for the accession of Hirhor as the Pharaoh of Egypt and Western Asia. Hence we find a divergence of opinion ; E pony III, Geo. Siiiilh. Brii-^sch, vol. ii. SOS Philistines and Israelites. but they are all agreed within a period of thirty-five years from 1035 B.C. for the rise of Hirhor to power. Now, let us understand, we are endeavour- ing to fix the date of one possible revolution which occurred on the fall of the Ramessides who had ruled over Western Asia for at least one hundred years ; and as the inscrip- tions disclose that Hirhor, an hereditarv king's son of Cush, supplanted them, and his dynasty ruled for at least fifty years, how can the Biblical David's reign of forty years be possibly inserted ? But when the inscriptions inform us that Hirhor bore also the name of Nisbindidi, or ^^^nspcro, . , Records of (he David, It becomes absolutelv certain that Past,N:s Hirhor represents David. The Cushites under David [i.e. Hirhor) were now supreme from the Euphrates to Ethiopia, and the Elamite forces would certainly have retired to their dominions on the east of the Euphrates. David's dynasty had but a short rule ; the Elamites, shortly after David's death, in- vaded the countrv from Assvria, and eventu- ally Shishak, the son of the great Elamite 239 !40 Philisti?2es a7id Israelites. II. Kings xini. 4 ; xviii. 7. Assyrian King, was placed on the throne of Egypt. Tlie Elamite flag must have again floated over every fortress in the Empire, and the Cushite forces must have retired to their dominions in Ethiopia. Although many struggles for supremacy are recorded between the two rival races none were successful for a period of more than two hundred years, when the inscrip- tions disclose that Bokenranef, of the house of Hirhor (z>. David) from Ethiopia, man- aged to reconquer Egypt and depose the Elamite Pharaoh Usarkon. Bokenranef succeeded in maintaining his seat on the throne, and is succeeded by Sabakah of the same house, who carried his arms into Western Asia. Hoshea, the petty Elamite King of Israel, and Hezekiah, the petty king of Judea, throw off" their allegiance to their Great King of Assyria ; hence the Cushite flag would now wave over all the fortresses from Samaria to Ethiopia. This brings Shalmaneser, the Great Elam- ite King, on the scene. Samaria after a long siege is taken, and Hezekiah is forced to Philistijtes and Isf^aelites. 241 hoist the Elamite flag over Jerusalem, and pay tribute to the Great King. The Cushite forces retiring to their fortresses on the sea coast and Egypt. A long series of engage- ments take place, and Jerusalem and Samaria are taken and retaken many times during the following fifty years, when Esarhadon succeeds in subjugating the Cushite Pharaoh Tirhakah and drives him back to his do- minion in Ethiopia. Tirhakah, however reconquers Egypt and is again expelled by Assurbanipal. The Cushites again rebel under Urdamaneh, but are again expelled. Twenty kings or satraps are set up in Egypt as vassals to the Great Elamite King. Psame- thik of the house of Gush secures ascendancy and assumes the double crown of Egypt ; and, as we find his successor Pharaoh Necho warring against the Elamite Assyrians at Carchemish, which guarded the northern fords of the Euphrates, we may be absolutely certain that the Cushite flag, at this date, floated on every fortress from Carchemish to Ethiopia ; and as we find that Nabopolassar the great king of Elam R 242 Philistiiies aiid Israelites. ir. ch.-o)i. xxxi'i. J 7. takes Nineveh, we may be equally certain that the Pharaoh Necho not only held Carchemish but Nineveh also ; for who could possibly have taken and defended Nineveh against Nabopolassar, but the Cushites. Nebuchadnezzar now becomes the Great King of Elam. The Pharaoh Necho was succeeded by Psamethik II. and Uahabra (the Hophra of the Bible, and the Apries of other historians). Nebuchadnezzar takes Carchemish and invades Western Asia ; he then besieges Jerusalem, hauls down the Cushite flag, and places Jehoiakin on the throne of Judea as his vassal ; and, probablv, a peace is concluded with Apries the Cushite Pharaoh of Egypt ; but shortly after the Cushites again secure possession of Jerusalem ; thev are, however, expelled by the Great King, and Zedekiah is placed on the throne of Judea under the Elamite flag. Zedekiah continues to reign during eleven years under the Elamite flag, when he rebels against the Great King and hoists the Cushite flag. Nebuchadnezzar again invades P/]i/isti?7es and Israelites. the country, recaptures Jerusalem, and eventually carries his arms into Egypt, deposes the Cushite Pharaoh Apries, and places Jeremiah on the throne of Egypt known in the inscriptions as Aahmes, a name which recalls the Elamite Pharaoh Aahmes of the XVIIIth dynasty. Every fortress within the Empire would now be garrisoned by Elamite troops, with the exception of the strongholds on the sea coast, which were protected by their war ships. A peace was probably concluded, and the Cushite troops in Egypt retired to their dominion in Ethiopia. Another rebellion is disclosed; the Elam- ites under their Great King Nebuchadnezzar again invade Western Asia and Tyre is besieged. Ishamel leads his Phihstine forces against the Elamite garrison in Mispath, and the Elamite troops are forced to retreat into Egypt ; and, as the inscriptions inform us, that the Cushite Pharaoh Psamethik III. secured the throne of Egypt, we can only conclude that he deposed the Elamite Joscphu!:, vjI. i. 43S. R 2 244 Philisti7tes a?id Israelites. The Story of the Nations, Rawtiiisoii, Pheiiicia, Pharaoh Aahmes {i.e. Jeremiah), and the forces of Nebuchadnezzar have been utterly routed. We might well anticipate the fall of the Elamite power in the empire. This is solidly confirmed ; for, as I have conclu- sively proved that there were only two great races struggling for supremacy, Na- bonidus must have wrested the throne of Babylon from the Elamites under the flag of Cush ; of this there ean be no doubt, for it appears from a cylinder of Nabonidus that Syria and Phoenicia continued faithful to Nabonidus until the verv last vear of his struggle with Cyrus the Great King of Elam. We have, then, the Cushite Pharaoh Psamethik on the throne of Egypt, and the Cushite King Nabonidus on the throne of Babylon. The Cushite flag must have floated over every fortress from Babylon to Ethiopia. It becomes obvious that there could not have been any Cushite prisoners in the Eastern Empire at this period ; for all the prisoners, taken by Nebuchadnezzar, on the fall of Jerusalem, w^ould have been liberated. Philistines a?7d Israelites. 245 The reader must notice that the priestlv writers invite us to believe that the Elamite Great King Nebuchadnezzar took a vast number of Israehtes into captivitv on the fall of Jerusalem. It is, however, palpablv apparent that Nebuchadnezzar's captives were the Cushite Philistine Jews ; the Elam- ite Jews had naturally flocked into Judea on the rise of the Elamite power. It fol- lows, that when the Cushite Nabonidus supplanted the dynasty of Nebuchadnezzar he would release all the Cushite prisoners taken by Nebuchadnezzar ; hence, if anv Elamite {i.e. Israelite) captives were pri- soners in Babylon during the reign of Nabonidus, they must have been prisoners taken by Nabonidus ; and when Cyrus, the Elamite King, deposed the Cushite Nabo- nibus, he would certainly release all the Elamite captives, and probably replace them with the Cushite prisoners he had himself taken captive during his victorious campaign. These prisoners have been so confounded together by the priestly writers, we are utterly bewildered ; but let us remember that they are designedly confused for the Ez?-a 246 Philistines and Israelites. See I. Esdras. purpose of confounding the two great rival races. If we allow our reason scope, it is easily explained. Nebuchadnezzar was the Great Kins: of Elam, and his prisoners were Cushites, Nabonidus was a Cushite King, and his captives were Elamites. Cyrus was the Great King of Elam, and his prisoners were Cushites. It stands to reason, then, that the Jews taken prisoners by Nebuchadnezzar were Cushite Jews, and the Jews taken prisoners by Nabonidus were Elamite Jews. Again. The Israelites, that is the people residing in the province of Israel, taken captive by the Cushite Nabonidus were Elamite Israelites, and the Israelites taken captive by Cyrus were Cushite Israelites. The drama has been designed with con- summate skill and is certainly very perplex- ing. The plot, however, becomes exposed the moment we recognise that the Hamitic and Semitic races permeated every province of the Empire, just as the Tories and Radi- cals permeate every county of Great Britain. The priestly writers, in order to obscure the two great rival races, have cunningly Pliilistiiies aiid Israelites, ^4; blended them together, and hence the con- fusion. Let nie add, that priestcraft still carries on the deception ; Christianity has confounded the races which are now as eagerly struggling for supremacy as ever. If students are clever enough to define the three races of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the political situation of the present contests under home rule flags will be better under- stood. Another great revolution is disclosed, and the priestly writers adroitly lead us to sup- pose that a foreign race appears upon the scene ; with barefaced eff'rontery we are told that Cyrus a Persian defeats Nabonidus, and acquires dominion for the Persians over all Asia, The imposition is however ex- posed, for we learn from a cylinder of Cyrus, only lately discovered, that Cyrus was the Great King of Elam, and the de- scendant of a long and illustrious line of Elamite Kings. During Cyrus' campaign he must have taken many captives ; and, ;vhen he had consolidated his Asiatic Empire, a peace was naturally concluded, and his prisoners 248 Philistines and Israelites, Herodotus, Hi. 2^. released. As we find it recorded that Zerub- babel, a prince of the Cushite house of David, leads these captives back to their homes from Babylon, it becomes glaringly evident that thev were Cushites of the seed of Abraham, and not Israelites [i.e. Elamites). Cyrus shortly after deposes the Cushite Pharaoh Psamethik, and places his son Cam- byses on the throne as his vassal. The Elamite flag must again have floated over every fortress from Elam to Thebes. The Philistine Cushites or Jews in their strongholds on the sea cost would become tributaries to the Great Elamite king, and the Cushite Egyptian forces would retire to their dominion in Ethiopia, where it is known that Cambyses followed them, and sustained a severe defeat ; hence, we may conclude, that their power was by no means exhausted. The Elamite dynasty of Cyrus continued in power over the entire Asiatic Empire from about 527 B.C. to 332 B.C., a period of 195 years. But the Cushites, under their Pharaoh Amyrtasus, of the house of David, Philisti?7es and Israelites. 249 in league with their kindred the Spartans, wrested the dominion of Egypt from the Elamites in 424 b. c, and held it till 340, when the Elamites, under their Great King Ochus, again subjugated the country, and thus again became master of the entire em- pire from Elam to Thebes. Another revolution is now disclosed. Alexander, designated by priestly historians as a Macedonian, invades Asia and secures dominion from the Indus to Ethiopia ; but, as I have proved, there were only two races struggling for supremacy ; and we have been so often imposed upon by territorial appel- lations, we may more than conjecture that Alexander acquired his empire under the Cushite flag. This is practically confirmed, for we find he adopts the old Cushite title of " Son of the Sun ; " and, we may reasonably infer, he could not have done so had he not some hereditary claim to the title. We must therefore understand that Alexander acquired dominion over the empire under the flag of Cush. We have now followed the ups and downs of the Cushite and Elamite flags since the /. Maccabees xii. 21. 250 Philistines a72d Israelites, defeat of the Elamites under Chedorlaomer by the Cushites under Abraham, a period of some nineteen hundred years ; and as we have found no foreign race intruding with the exception of the Scythians, who were probably a section of the Japhitic race, we mav be morallv certain that the Cushite flag: of Alexander could only have been deposed to make way for the Elamite flag. The priestly historians inform us that the Greeks came into power. It is palpably a designation which gives no indication of their race. We may therefore rest assured that it is only the old well-worn combina- tion in the plot for the purpose of obscuring the Elamites. They have been imposed upon us as Hebrews, as Israelites, as Meso- potamians, as Syrians, as Egyptians, as As- syrians, as Jews, as Chaldeans, as Persians, as Samaritans, and now they appear as Greeks. These Elamite Greeks retain their domi- nion over the empire for 275 years, when they are deposed by the Romans. The Cushites have been masked as He- brews, as Israelites, as Hyksos, as Philis- Philisti7ies ajjcl Israelites, 251 tines, as Cherithites, as Jews, as Babylonians, as Maccabees, as people of the land, as persons, and now they appear as Romans. From this we may reasonably conjecture that the Romans acquired dominion over the Eastern Empire under the flag of Cush. This remarkable phase, which must revolu- tionise our present conception of history, is practically confirmed, for we find it recorded that the Cushite Jews send an embassy to Rome. " So they went unto Rome and entered into the Senate and said : Jonathan the high priest, and the people of the Jews, send us unto you, to the end ye should renew the friendship which ye had with them, and league as in former times." The embassy also goes to Sparta, and we find it recorded : " It is found in Avriting that the Lacedemonians and Jews are brethren, and that they are of the stock of Abraham." It becomes evident, then, that the Cush- ites were leagued \\\i\\ the Romans and Spartans against the Elamite Greeks ; hence the Cushite flag was paramount in the Empire. /. Mac-ahccs I hid. 252 Philistiiies a7td Israelites, Dictionary of the Bible, Joshua. Nicodennis i. 12. Palestine Exploration, October, iSg2 When we view the political situation in this light a mighty revolution is disclosed. The great Elamite flag, which had floated over every fortress within the empire for nearly three hundred years, is now deposed, and the Elamite party retire into the cold shade of opposition. We have now traced the alternate rise and fall of the Hamitic and Semitic races for 2400 years, and approach the closing scene in the priestly drama. If we read between the lines of the Gospel of Nicodemus we may be absolutely certain that the Elamites rebelled against the Cush- ite rule, under Jesus, the head of the royal house of Elam. The name Jesus is an equiv- alent to Hoshea and Joshua, royal Elamite family names. He was undoubtedly hailed by the people as their king, and they address him under precisely the same title as we find the Great King is addressed in the Tel-el- Amarna tablets, "Lord who is from heaven," and as we are aware that the Great Kings were worshipped as deities, one of his titles would be ''Son of God." Philistijies a?id Israelites. I must submit that this unquestionably identifies Jesus as the bead of the house of Elam. If further proof is needed we have only to turn to the record of his genealogy. It will be noticed he claims his descent through Solomon, the junior branch of the Cushite house of David ; we shall remember. that this family adopted the Elamite flas:. His true roval descent would obviouslv be traced through the J o kings of the Elamite dynasties I have illus- trated in Chapter IV., and Seti's list of ancestors. The reader will bear in mind that the Elamites were not in power at this period ; and, as we find that Jesus w^as styled as the prophet, it strengthens my surmise that the prophets represented the royal leaders when in opposition. He un- doubtedly led a large and well organised party, and we might conjecture, that the "Lord's Prayer'' was a prayer for his restoration. Under these circumstances we may be morally certain that Peter succeeded Jesus as the recognised head of the house of Mal/hczo i. i. !54 Philisti7ies and Israelites. Elam. It therefore follows that the pre- sent Pope Leo XIII. represents the same flag. What a revelation is before us ! I have said enough to indicate an outline of my conception of veritable history, and leaving it to scholars for further elucida- tion, I will conclude in the name of the Great God, still clinging to our liturgy, still potential in its distorted form. AMEN. HE WHO RUNS MAY READ. Appendix. Sacerdotal Chain on which is founded a Claim OF Divine Right to Universal Dominion. Noah I Abraham Moses I David I Jesus Peter Constantine I Pope Paul III. The Teutonic race, probably Japhetic, throws off its allegiance to the House of Elam. This has been ingeniously characterized as a religious reformation, which cleverly obscures a momentous racial revolution. Lto XIII. Prcsenl Pope, claiming dominion, by Divine right, over the races of Shem, Ham, and Japliclh. Legend. Legend. Cushite Emperor. Cushite Emperor. Cushite Emperor. [Elam. Head of the royal House of Head of the race of Elam. Emperor under the flag of Elam. Head of the race of Elam, who excommunicated Henry Vlllth of England for refus- ing to pay the Papal revenues. L Copyrii^ht Kcscrvcd^ L9XD0N ; NICHOLS AND SOXS, PRIXTERS, 25, PARLIAMENT STREET, WESTMINSTE II. /<' VT^,' '■' V BS1197.1.K34 Philistines and Israelites; a new light Princeton Theological Semmary-Speer Library 1 1012 00012 0610 y^'^'M VI'