Unmasking the real identity of King David (Part 2)

In the first part of this mini-series, we showed overwhelming proof that what the Old Testament (OT) called “Israel” in the times of Abraham to David was actually northern (“Lower” ) Egypt. Present-day Israel was simply called Canaan, the Promised Land.

It was “promised” to Abraham in Genesis 17:8 as a reward for maintaining Lower Egypt as a buffer zone for “El/Eloi” (who was also known as Jah(Yah)-weh-Elohim: “Lord of the Illui”), hence it’s biblical name I-sira-El (“El’s shield”).

Egypt, however, traditionally belonged to El’s arch-rival Ra (later “Amun-Ra”: Unseen Ra), also known as “Baal” (Ba-El) in Canaan and “Marduk” in Babylon. But due to her strategic importance, control swung back and forth between the mighty rival clans of these gods as they wrestled for dominance. Last week we saw that Egypt was decidedly pro-Ra during the first half of the 20th Dynasty, and thus all its pharaohs were named “Rameses” (Ra-mose: “son of Ra”). El’s agents, however, infiltrated this Dynasty in the time of Rameses IX (Perez), Rameses X (Hezron) and Rameses XI (Ram), the acknowledged ancestors of Israel’s King David (see Ruth 4: 18-22). But, careful that they do not upset the indigenous Egyptians, these pharaohs maintained a token adoption of Ra as their god. OT compilers, however, did not claim Rameses I to VIII as it would have revealed that “Israel” was once “Egypt” itself! But using Ruth 4:18-22 as a guide, we easily saw that 21st Dynasty Pharaoh “Amin-adab” (who followed Ram/Rameses IX) is Amen-Nesban-ebjed; “Nashon” is Amen-em-nishu; “Salmon” is Siamun; “Boaz” is Bas-Osorkon; “Obed” is Amen-em-opet.

Biblically, this left us with just Jesse and David, and in secular Egyptian history with only Pasebakhaenuit (Psusennes) I and II, to match up. But something here is fishy. From Ram up to Nashon, biblical and secular chronologies match nicely. After Nashon, the OT names Salmon, Boaz, Obed, and Jesse in that order. Historically, however, the real succession is: Psusennes I, Amen-opet, Osorkon, and Siamun: i.e. the OT reversed the order! Why would compilers do that? And why is there no biblical name to match Psusennes I, where the reversal began? But if you remove “Amun” – the epithet of Ra – from Si-amun and replace it with “Jah” – you indeed get “Jah-Si” (Jesse), suggesting that “Siamun” was indeed the predecessor of David (Psusennes II)! Let’s unravel this.


Last week, using Setswana, we transliterated “Pasebakhaenuit” as “Pa!-sebaha-ka-Ene-o-itee! i.e. “Shine, jewel (or star) of En, hit them [with brightness]!” and then associated sebaha (jewel/star) with the Egyptian term DwD (duhat: “Milky Way”) to unearth the name “Star of David (DwD)”. We also saw how a previous “Star of Jacob” played havoc with historical timelines – whereby Jacob appears in two different periods of history (detailed in my upcoming book New Harmonized Timelines). Likewise, David’s “star” makes Psusennes I and II the same person! Indeed, scholars are baffled as to why, despite a perceived 21 years of reign, no tomb has ever been found for Psusennes I…

David ruled Lower Egypt (“Israel”) at a time when a system of Judges ruled in Canaan. Saul then became the first King of Canaan. There were thus two “Israels” that co-existed – which were made to seem as one in the OT. David “the Shepherd” represented a long-awaited branching (“branch”) from Jesse (see Isiah 11:1) whereby the two “flocks” would merge under one “shepherd”. So, after taking over from Saul in Canaan, for a time David (Psusennes II) was king of Lower Egypt and Canaan, both called “Israel”.

But while establishing himself in Canaan, a Libyan called Shishaq/Shoshenq deposed him in Egypt and founded the 22nd Dynasty. Canaanite “Israel” thus had two sets of hereditary leaders: (1) the Judges, duly overseen by the Levite priests, and (2) the “Davidic” line – and their pairing was to be the preferred form of governance envisaged even into the future.

There are other clues that identify the historical David. Historically, the daughter of Psusennes II is “Maakare Mu-Tamhat” while that of the biblical David, in Hebrew, is “Maakah Tamar”! Moreover, David’s chief commander of the army is ‘Joab’ in Hebrew and that of Psusennes II, in Egyptian, is ‘Un-tchoab-endjet’! That is not all.

The chief architect of temples and other buildings for both David and his successor Solomon is “Hiram Abif”’ in the OT, and “Herum Atif”’ in Egyptian history! Let us also consider the name “Bathsheba”. In Hebrew, it means “daughter of Sheba”, and “Sheba/Shebaha”, we saw, is the Egyptian name of David – something most OT readers will not know, but which allows us to unravel another fishy thing.

All the OT says about her is that David lusted so much after her that he slyly sent her husband to his death to be able to marry her. David then had Solomon by her. But is this the whole truth?

Yahweh’s anger towards David, it seems, was not because Bathsheba was another man’s wife, but because she was David’s own daughter by whom he had a son (Solomon)! Was she then banished to Egypt to avert scandal? Very likely. If indeed so, we can now decipher that the mysterious “Queen of Sheba” (i.e. “Queen/wife of David/Shebaha”), who visited King Solomon after the death of David, their mutual father, was in fact a sister/mother visiting her brother/son! That is why the OT is cagy about her. And, as if to confuse us further, 1 Kings 3:1 says that Solomon took “a Pharaoh’s daughter” in marriage. But the independently written, somewhat less censored Ethiopian bible, the Kebra Nagast, not only confirms that this “daughter” was the Queen of Sheba, it names her as Maakshare! Even the respected historian Josephus categorically states that this queen came from Egypt: not faraway Saba, Yemen; and not Ethiopia. Did Solomon take her, too? Levites, the OT spin doctors, it seems, tried to hide the full extent of David and Solomon’s mess while ruefully admitting Yahweh’s displeasure towards them…

Comments to [email protected]

Editor's Comment
What about employees in private sector?

How can this be achieved when there already is little care about the working conditions of those within the private sector employ?For a long time, private sector employees have been neglected by their employers, not because they cannot do better to care for them, but because they take advantage of government's laxity when it comes to protecting and advocating for public sector employees, giving the cue to employers within the private sector...

Have a Story? Send Us a tip
arrow up