From: Subject: THE SULMAN TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 18:12:05 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://localhost:8780/pubs/journals/kronos/vol0502/003templ.htm X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 THE SULMAN TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM

The Sulman Temple In Jerusalem

IMMANUEL VELIKOVSKY

Editor's Note: This article is reprinted from the Special = Issue of=20 the SIS Review (II:3, 1977-78, pp. 85-86) by earlier permission of the = author=20 and the present permission of SISR. The italicized preface and = footnotes=20 marked PJJ were written by Peter J. James in the original printing and = are=20 retained here. The Special Issue is a must for those interested in the = revised=20 chronology and those readers wishing to purchase a copy should write = to R. M.=20 Amelan, 6 Jersey House, Cotton Lane, Manchester 20, England for all = the=20 particulars. -- LMG.

The el-Amarna letters, most scholars believe, date from the 14th = century=20 B.C., while there is no doubt that the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem = was=20 constructed in the mid-10th century B.C. As a further challenge to the=20 conventional scheme, Velikovsky presents evidence that the Temple of = Solomon was=20 mentioned in the el-Amarna letters, resulting in an "anachronism " of = four=20 centuries in the accepted chronology that would be fully corrected by = his=20 proposed lowering of Egyptian dates by over five hundred years.

In the el-Amarna letters No. 74 and 290 there is reference to a place = read=20 (by Knudtzon) Bet-NIN.IB. In Ages in Chaos,(1) following = Knudtzon, I=20 understood that the reference was to Assyria (House of Nineveh). I was = unaware=20 of an article by the eminent Assyriologist, Professor Jules Lewy, = printed in the=20 Journal of Biblical Literature under the title: "The Sulman = Temple in=20 Jerusalem".(2)

From a certain passage in letter No. 290, written by the king of = Jerusalem to=20 the Pharaoh, Lewy concluded that this city was known at that time also = by the=20 name "Temple of Sulman". Actually, Lewy read the ideogram that had much = puzzled=20 the researchers before him.(3) After complaining that the land was = falling to=20 the invading bands (habiru), the king of Jerusalem wrote: ". . = . and=20 now, in addition, the capital of the country of Jerusalem -- its name is = Bit=20 Sulmani -- , the king's city, has broken away . . .".(4) Beth Sulman in = Hebrew,=20 as Professor Lewy correctly translated, is Temple of Sulman. But, of = course,=20 writing in 1940, Lewy could not surmise that the edifice was the Temple = of=20 Solomon and therefore made the supposition that it was a place of = worship (in=20 Canaanite times) of a god found in Akkadian sources as Shelmi, Shulmanu, = or=20 Salamu.

The correction of the reading of Knudtzon (who was uncertain of his = reading)=20 fits well with the chronological reconstruction of the period. In = Ages in=20 Chaos (chapters vi-viii) I deal with the el-Amarna = letters; there=20 it is shown that the king of Jerusalem whose name is variously read = Ebed-Tov,=20 Abdi-Hiba, etc. was King Jehoshaphat (ninth century). It was only to be = expected=20 that there would be in some of his letters a reference to the Temple of=20 Solomon.

Also, in el-Amarna letter No. 74, the king of Damascus, inciting his=20 subordinate sheiks to attack the king of Jerusalem, commanded them to = "assemble=20 in the Temple of Sulman".(5)

It was surprising to find in the el-Amarna letters written in the = fourteenth=20 century that the capital of the land was already known then as Jerusalem = (Urusalim) and not, as the Bible claimed for the pre-Conquest period, = Jebus or=20 Salem.(6) Now, in addition, it was found that the city had a temple of = Sulman in=20 it and that the structure was of such importance that its name had been = used=20 occasionally for denoting the city itself. (Considering the eminence of = the=20 edifice, "the house which king Solomon built for the Lord",(7) this was = only=20 natural.) Yet after the conquest by the Israelites under Joshua ben-Nun, = the=20 Temple of Sulman was not heard of.

Lewy wrote: "Aside from proving the existence of a Sulman temple in = Jerusalem=20 in the first part of the 14th century B.C., this statement of the ruler = of the=20 region leaves no doubt that the city was then known not only as = Jerusalem, but=20 also as Bet Sulman." "It is significant that it is only this name = [Jerusalem]=20 that reappears after the end of the occupation of the city by the = Jebusites,=20 which the Sulman temple, in all probability, did not survive."

The late Professor W. F. Albright advised me that Lewy's = interpretation=20 cannot be accepted because Sulman has no sign of divinity = accompanying=20 it, as would be proper if it were the name of a god. But this only = strengthens=20 my interpretation that the temple of Sulman means Temple of Solomon.

In the Hebrew Bible the king's name has no terminal "n". But in the=20 Septuagint -- the oldest translation of the Old Testament -- the king's = name=20 is written with a terminal "n"; the Septuagint dates from the = third=20 century before the present era. Thus it antedates the extant texts of = the Old=20 Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls not excluded.

Solomon built his Temple in the tenth century. In a letter written = from=20 Jerusalem in the next (ninth) century, Solomon's Temple stood a good = chance of=20 being mentioned; and so it was.

[Editor's Postscript: In a private communication (5/3/78), = Peter James=20 agreed with Velikovsky's argument that "Bit-Shulman means 'House of = Solomon'=20 because of the absence of a god-sign". However, James also thought = that "=20 'House of Solomon as a synonym for Jerusalem should be interpreted = more=20 literally, in the same way as 'House of Omr' rather than referring to = the=20 Temple":

James' idea finds support in a letter to the SIS = Review=20 (III:1, Summer 1978, pp. 7-8). There, P. N. Friedman writes:

"Although today the phrase 'Temple of Solomon' is commonly = used, it=20 never occurs in the Old Testament, where the Jerusalem Temple is = always the=20 'House [or Temple] of Yahweh ' ('House of the Lord ' in most English=20 translations). It is therefore unlikely we should render Beth Sulman = as=20 'Temple of Solomon'.

"We should note that the Hebrew beth means essentially 'house' = and only=20 secondarily 'temple'. Lewy adopted the reading 'temple' in his article = because=20 of his assumption that Sulman was a deity. Working with the assumption = that=20 Solomon is intended here, we may read 'House of Solomon' rather than=20 Velikovsky's 'Temple of Solomon'. Because of the context in which Bit = Sulmani=20 occurs in letter 290, both Lewy and Velikovsky have to assume that = 'Temple of=20 Sulman' came to designate the city of Jerusalem itself, not just its = Temple.=20 We may now suggest that the phrase never referred to the Temple at = all, but=20 from the start was another name for the city."

Friedman continues: " 'House of Solomon' should be perfectly = acceptable=20 as an alternative name for Jerusalem itself. We have a close parallel = to such=20 usage in the Assyrian records, which refer to Israel as Bit Humri, = 'House of=20 Omri' This term remained in use long after Omri's dynasty had fallen = (cf.=20 ANET, pp. 284-5). It is therefore perfectly feasible to suggest = that a=20 century after Solomon's reign Jerusalem was still known as the 'House = of=20 Solomon'. We should also consider the possibility that in letter 290 = Bit=20 Sulmani is synonymous with 'the country of Jerusalem' i.e. that 'House = of=20 Solomon' meant not merely the capital, but the whole kingdom of Judah, = approaching even more closely the use of 'House of Omri' for the = kingdom of=20 Israel."

The above comments only serve to reinforce Velikovsky's = contention that=20 the el-Amarna correspondence should be dated to the 9th century B. C. = rather=20 than its present placement in the 14th --=20 LMG]

References=20

1. A in C, vii: 'The Second Siege of Samaria".
2. = JBL 59=20 (1940), pp. 519 ff.
3. Cf. Weber in Knudtzon: Die El-Amarna = Tafeln,=20 p. 1160 and p. 1343, for the various attempts to read the ideograms for = NIN.IB.=20 Lewy solved the problem: "The ideogram ^dNIN.IB may be = pronounced=20 Sulmanu."
4. In an article preceding that of Lewy, P. Haupt=20 (Orientalistische Literaturzeitung XVIII, 1915, cols. 71-2) = translated=20 the verse in EA 290: "Die Landeshauptstadt Namens Jerusalem, die Stadt = des=20 Ninib-Tempels, die Königsstadt." Replacing Ninib by Shulman or = Shalmi, we=20 arrived at the conclusion that the sentence deals with Solomon's Temple. = Latest=20 is an article in Hebrew in Eretz-lsrael IX (Jerusalem, 1969), = by Tadmor=20 and Kalai, who read the ideogram as Beth-Ninurta and locate it in = Beth-Horon.=20 This is an error; but they have brought the pertinent literary = references=20 together.
5. [EA 74. was written to the Pharaoh by Rib-Addi of Gubla = and=20 Sumuru. Commenting on the mention of "Bit-Ninib" in this letter, Mercer = wrote:=20 "There was an albit-dNinib in the 'city of the land of Urusalim (290, = 16), but=20 it can hardly be identical with this. This, of course, may only be a = temple."=20 (S. A. Mercer: The Tell el-Amarna Tablets, Toronto, 1939, Vol. = I, p.=20 274.) - -PJJ] The idea that the reference in EA 74 to = Beth-Ninurta or=20 Beth-Shulman is to some other place is based on the erroneous location = of Sumur=20 on the Syrian coast; in A in C it was shown that Sumur is = Samaria, a=20 short distance from Jerusalem.
6. See A in C, vi:"Jerusalem, = Samaria, Jezreel". [The name of Jerusalem, however, is known from other = records=20 predating the Exodus - it occurs in the Egyptian "Execration Texts" of = the XIIth=20 and XIIIth Dynasties, the time of the Hebrew bondage in Egypt (see ANET, = p.=20 329); and recently the name has been discovered on the Ebla tablets (see = Hyam=20 Maccoby's report on "Ebla: New Discoveries" in SISR I:4, p. 3). -=20 PJJ]
7. I Kings 6:2=20

\cdrom\pubs\journals\kronos\vol0502\003templ.htm=20