Powered By Blogger

Friday, May 15, 2026

Ebla tablets attest accuracy of Bible

 

 


 

“Perhaps one of the most significant discoveries within the Ebla archives is

the presence of a creation account that bears a striking resemblance to the

biblical account of creation. According to reports, the Ebla Tablets contain

the oldest known creation account outside the Bible, predating the

Babylonian creation myth by some 600 years”.

 Edward D. Andrews

 

Sadly, the Syrian government, in its desperate attempt to portray the site of Ebla (modern Tell Mardikh) to the scholarly world as a purely Syrian entity, has thereby divested it of anything that pertains to the biblical world of the Hebrews (Israelites):

 

Bible-affirming Ebla hampered and censored by Syrian authorities

 

(6) Bible-affirming Ebla hampered and censored by Syrian authorities

 

Scandal of Ebla

 

(6) Scandal of Ebla

Edward D. Andrews here (2024) gives us a totally different picture – the correct one!

What Can the Ebla Tablets Teach Us About Biblical History and the Early Genesis Accounts? - Updated American Standard Version

 

The discovery of the Ebla Tablets has opened new avenues for understanding the ancient world, especially in terms of biblical history. Unearthed in modern-day Syria in the mid-1970s, these ancient clay tablets—dated to the third millennium B.C.E.—offer crucial insights into the social, economic, and religious life of the Eblaite civilization. More significantly, from an apologetic standpoint, they seem to provide evidence that parallels and confirms aspects of the early chapters of Genesis. As we explore the content of these tablets and their implications, it becomes clear that they strengthen the historical credibility of the biblical record.

 

The Historical Context of the Ebla Tablets

 

The Ebla Tablets, discovered in the ancient city of Ebla (modern Tell Mardikh), are believed to date from around 2580–2450 B.C.E., according to Giovanni Pettinato, or from 2400–2250 B.C.E., according to Paolo Matthiae.

 

These dates are significant because they place the tablets in a period predating other known written records by hundreds of years. However, from a biblical perspective, we must carefully examine these dates in light of the timeline provided in Scripture.

According to the Bible, the Great Flood occurred in 2348 B.C.E. (Genesis 7:6-10), an event that would have dramatically reshaped the ancient world. Given this, the Ebla Tablets would have to date after the Flood, providing us with valuable insight into the post-Flood civilizations and the cultural and religious environments in which early biblical figures lived. This is an important consideration because the information on the tablets provides historical corroboration for the early chapters of Genesis, particularly regarding the existence of certain cities and names mentioned in Scripture.

 

The Cities of Ur, Sodom, and Gomorrah: Confirmed by the Ebla Tablets?

 

One of the most intriguing aspects of the Ebla Tablets is the mention of cities that are also found in the Bible, such as Ur, Sodom, and Gomorrah. These cities play significant roles in the biblical narrative. For example, Ur is the birthplace of Abraham (Genesis 11:31), and Sodom and Gomorrah are infamous for their destruction due to their wickedness (Genesis 19:24-29).

 

The fact that these cities are mentioned in the Ebla Tablets provides additional historical grounding for their existence.

 

Critics have often argued that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is more mythological than historical, but the mention of these cities in non-biblical sources from such an early period suggests that they were, in fact, real locations. This aligns with the biblical account and supports the view that the early Genesis narrative is rooted in historical fact, not mythology. The Ebla Tablets also show that these cities were significant enough to be documented in ancient administrative records, further underscoring their historical importance.

 

The Mention of Names from Genesis: Adam, Eve, and Noah

 

Another compelling aspect of the Ebla Tablets is the reported mention of names found in the book of Genesis, including Adam, Eve, and Noah.

 

These are, of course, central figures in the biblical narrative, representing the first man and woman created by God and the patriarch who built the ark to survive the Flood.

 

The mention of these names in ancient non-biblical texts lends credibility to the historicity of these individuals. While critics of the Bible often argue that Adam, Eve, and Noah are mythological figures, the fact that their names appear in a completely separate ancient record suggests that these individuals were known and remembered by civilizations outside of Israel. The Ebla Tablets, therefore, provide external corroboration for the existence of key figures in the early Genesis narrative.

 

Creation Accounts: Ebla’s Version and Genesis

 

Perhaps one of the most significant discoveries within the Ebla archives is the presence of a creation account that bears a striking resemblance to the biblical account of creation. According to reports, the Ebla Tablets contain the oldest known creation account outside the Bible, predating the Babylonian creation myth by some 600 years.

 

This is crucial because it demonstrates that the concept of a monotheistic Creator was present in ancient cultures long before the rise of polytheistic mythologies. The creation tablet from Ebla speaks of a single being who created the heavens, moon, stars, and earth. This parallels the Genesis account, which begins with the words, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).

 

The Ebla account also describes creation ex nihilo, or creation from nothing, stating, “Lord of heaven and earth: the earth was not, you created it, the light of day was not, you created it.” This echoes the biblical description of God creating light by simply speaking it into existence (Genesis 1:3).

 

The fact that the Ebla creation account is older and less mythologically embellished than later accounts, such as the Babylonian Enuma Elish, suggests that the Genesis account represents the original and most accurate version of the creation story. This supports the idea that the Bible transmits historical facts without the mythological corruption seen in other ancient texts.

 

Implications for the Evolution of Religion: Monotheism Before Polytheism

 

The Ebla Tablets also have significant implications for the study of the evolution of religion. For many years, scholars following the evolutionary model of religion—championed by figures such as Charles Darwin and Julius Wellhausen—argued that monotheism evolved from earlier forms of polytheism and henotheism. According to this view, primitive humans initially believed in many gods and only later developed the concept of a single, all-powerful Creator.

 

However, the evidence from Ebla directly challenges this hypothesis. The Ebla Tablets show that monotheism existed in the third millennium B.C.E., long before the rise of polytheistic religions. The creation account from Ebla, which speaks of a single Creator, demonstrates that monotheism was the original belief system of humanity. This aligns with the biblical account, which teaches that the belief in one God—Jehovah—was present from the very beginning of human history. Genesis 1:1 affirms that “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,” indicating that monotheism is the oldest form of belief, not a later development.

 

This has profound apologetic significance, as it refutes the idea that the Bible’s monotheistic worldview is a late theological development. Instead, the Ebla evidence supports the view that the earliest chapters of Genesis are historical and that monotheism was the original belief of humanity. The Bible’s depiction of the early worship of one Creator is not only theologically accurate but historically confirmed by the Ebla discoveries.

 

Baal and Other Pagan Gods in the Ebla Tablets

 

The Ebla Tablets also mention various pagan gods, including Baal, a prominent figure in the religious practices of many ancient Near Eastern cultures. Baal is often mentioned in the Bible as a rival god to Jehovah, and the worship of Baal is condemned throughout the Old Testament (e.g., Judges 2:131 Kings 18:21). The fact that Baal is mentioned in the Ebla Tablets demonstrates that the worship of this false god was prevalent in the ancient world.

 

This aligns with the biblical narrative, which frequently warns the Israelites against adopting the pagan practices of the surrounding nations. Deuteronomy 12:29-31 specifically commands the Israelites not to follow the abominable practices of the nations they dispossess, which included the worship of gods like Baal. The mention of Baal in the Ebla Tablets thus provides additional historical context for understanding the religious environment in which the events of the Old Testament took place.

 

The Ebla Tablets and the Great Flood

 

While the Ebla Tablets do not directly mention the Great Flood, the timing of their creation places them in the post-Flood world. The Bible teaches that the Flood occurred in 2348 B.C.E. (Genesis 7:6-10), and the Ebla civilization flourished shortly thereafter. This means that the people of Ebla would have been among the early post-Flood civilizations, descendants of Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

 

The existence of a thriving civilization like Ebla so soon after the Flood is consistent with the biblical account of the rapid repopulation of the earth. Genesis 9:1 records that after the Flood, God commanded Noah and his sons to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” The development of sophisticated cities like Ebla, complete with a complex administrative system and written records, demonstrates that human civilization recovered quickly after the Flood, in accordance with God’s command.

 

Destroying the Critical Belief in the Evolution of Religion

 

As mentioned earlier, the discovery of monotheism in the Ebla Tablets dismantles the critical belief in the evolution of religion from polytheism to monotheism. For many years, the idea that monotheism evolved from earlier polytheistic or henotheistic beliefs dominated religious scholarship. This belief was rooted in the theories of 19th-century thinkers like Charles Darwin, whose evolutionary model influenced not only the study of biology but also the study of religion, and Julius Wellhausen, who applied an evolutionary framework to the development of religious beliefs in the Old Testament.

 

However, the Ebla Tablets provide clear evidence that monotheism predates polytheism.

 

The creation account found in the Ebla Tablets demonstrates that the belief in one God existed in the third millennium B.C.E., long before the polytheistic religions of Mesopotamia and Egypt gained prominence. This aligns with the biblical teaching that humanity originally worshipped one God—Jehovah—and that polytheism is a later corruption of this original belief. Romans 1:21-23 explains how humanity “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things,” a description of the descent into idolatry after the Fall.

 

Ebla’s Contribution to Apologetics and Biblical History

 

The Ebla Tablets are not just a fascinating archaeological discovery; they also provide powerful evidence that supports the Bible’s historical reliability. The parallels between the Ebla creation account and the Genesis creation narrative reinforce the idea that the Bible preserves an ancient and uncorrupted account of the origins of the universe. The mention of biblical cities and names in the Ebla Tablets also confirms the existence of these places and individuals in the ancient world, lending further credibility to the historical accuracy of the early chapters of Genesis.

 

Moreover, the evidence of monotheism in the Ebla Tablets dismantles the critical belief in the evolution of religion and supports the biblical teaching that the worship of one God is the original belief of humanity. This has significant implications for Christian apologetics, as it affirms that the Bible’s depiction of early human history is accurate and that the earliest form of religious belief was monotheistic, not polytheistic.

 

In summary, the Ebla Tablets provide valuable evidence that confirms the historical reliability of the Bible, particularly the early chapters of Genesis. They offer insight into the cultural and religious environment of the ancient Near East, demonstrating that monotheism existed long before the rise of polytheistic religions and that the biblical account of creation is the original and most accurate version. For Christian apologetics, the Ebla Tablets are a powerful tool in defending the faith and refuting critical theories that seek to undermine the truth of God’s Word.

 

Wednesday, May 13, 2026

Psibkhenno may serve to anchor Ramses II in a biblico-historical era

 



 

by

Damien F. Mackey

  

Pharaoh Psibkhenno needs an alter ego, because much of his building work is thought no longer to exist.

This is typical of Egypt’s so-called Twenty-First Dynasty, which is quite archaeologically deficient.

Nicolas Grimal has written, re “The historical interpretation of Tanis”, for instance (A History of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell, 1994, p. 317): “Nothing remains of the actual buildings of Psusennes I …”.

 

And again (p. 315): “At Tanis, Psusennes I built a new enclosure around the temple dedicated to the triad of Amun, Mut and Khonsu. If the few traces of reuse of earlier monuments are to be believed, he made many other contributions to the temple, but because of the current conditions of the site little is known concerning this work”.

 

Psibkhenno was apparently the father-in-law of Shoshenq I (N. Grimal, p. 319).

Smendes II, who I suspect must be Smendes=Shoshenq I, “sent a pair of bracelets to Psusennes …”. (p. 318).

 

Pharaoh Psibkhenno may now, at last, enable us to anchor Ramses II ‘the Great’ in a real historico-biblical phase.

 

Egypt often gets considered in complete isolation from the other nations, from Mesopotamia, for instance, and from the biblical history.

 

This is very much due to the effect of the Sothic chronology, serving to disconnect much of Egyptian history (especially in its earlier phases) from its real, contemporaneous scene; but it is also because the pharaohs were more inclined to boast about themselves to the exclusion of the other nations.

 

In this the ancient Egyptians were unlike, say, the Assyrians, who - whilst likewise being boastful - kept detailed and useful historical records, which included many handy foreign names and places.

 

With the name, Psibkhenno, we may perhaps be able to pick up a useful clue, enabling at last for a potential connection for Egypt with Mesopotamia. Thanks to David Rohl, a revisionist, we get this compelling observation of real phonetic value: “… we might find the true identity of Si’be in the 21st Dynasty king Psibkhenno, more commonly known by the classical name of Psusennes”.

(“Comments by David Rohl”, SIS Workshop, vol. 5, no.1, 1982, p. 19).

 

I had much liked this connection as made by Dr. Rohl, and had initially embraced it – Psibkhenno, a long-reigning ‘Ramesses’, and indeed my Ramses ‘the Great’, a contemporary of the mighty neo-Assyrian king Sargon II.

In conventional terms, the Sargonic era is c. 700 BC, approximately 600 years from Ramses’ presumed beginnings in c. 1300 BC.

 

However, I have since concluded, on the basis of the Tang-i Var inscription and other evidence, that Sargon II’s Egyptian opponent, Si’be, was in fact, Shebitku Khaemwaset, co-regent with Ramses II, and indeed, the son of that great pharaoh.

On this, see e.g. my article:

 

Khaemwaset, son of Ramses ‘the Great’

 

(6) Khaemwaset, son of Ramses 'the Great'

 

And I have further extended the phonetics by concluding that Sargon II’s pharaonic tribute bringer, Shilkanni, was, not the conventional Osorkon IV of the Twenty-Second Dynasty, but was Psibkhenno:

 

Sargon II’s Å ilkanni of Egypt was Psibkhenno, not Osorkon

 

(6) Sargon II’s Å ilkanni of Egypt was Psibkhenno, not Osorkon

 

What may strongly re-inforce Ramses II’s place in the neo-Assyrian era is the fact that an inscription of his at the mouth of the Nahr al-Kalb, stands opposite one of Sennacherib’s successor, Esarhaddon (c. 680-668 BC, conventional dating).

 

What to make of this?

 

-       Convention, of course, would have Esarhaddon arriving at the scene about half a millennium after Ramses II, and defacing the latter’s image. Thus, for instance:

https://www.livius.org/sources/content/anet/289-esarhaddons-nahr-al-kalb-inscription/

“To make sure that the Phoenician cities better understood that Esarhaddon was and would always be victorious, the king left an inscription at the mouth of the Nahr al-Kalb, opposite one of the reliefs that the Egyptian king Ramesses II had once made to commemorate his Syrian campaigns. Everyone traveling along the coast from Byblos to Beirut would see Esarhaddon's relief and understand that Esarhaddon was a greater conqueror than the heroes of the past”.

 

-       Dr. Velikovsky, with his radical revision, actually located Ramses II even later than Esarhaddon;

 

-       My revision has Ramses II as an older contemporary of Esarhaddon:

 

The Complete Ramses II

 

(6) The Complete Ramses II

 

Charles Boutflower (The Book of Isaiah Chapters [1-XXXIX] in the Light of Assyrian Monuments, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London/New York, 1930, p. 126) really extended Si’be, biblically, so that ‘So’, Sibe and Shabaka were all one and the same person. He had written that: “The Hebrew characters read “So” should probably be read “SÄ•vÄ•”. And: “SÄ•vÄ•” … is to be identified with Shabaka [Shabako] the son of Kashta, who succeeded his father in 715” [sic].

 

The name ‘So’, it seems, can be variously rendered: e.g. SÄ•vÄ•; Sua; Soan (Josephus[1]); Soa, Soba, Segor (LXX).

 

Most interestingly, in my new context, the Lucianic recension of the LXX has ‘So’ as an “Ethiopian, living in Egypt” (one Adrammelech).

 

Psibkhenno was the elusive “So king of Egypt” (2 Kings 17:4) at the time of Shalmaneser, king of Assyria. {Psibkhenno was most likely also the Shabako of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty, as Boutflower had thought}.

 

This now extends the floruit of our Ramses ‘the Great’ all the way from Shalmaneser to Esarhaddon.

This is also the very era of the Book of Tobit, whose chapter 1 encompasses “Shalmaneser”; “Sennacherib”; and “Esarhaddon”.

 

Book of Tobit and the Neo-Assyrian Kings

 

https://www.academia.edu/14097259/Book_of_Tobit_and_the_Neo_Assyrian_Kings

 

Sargon is not mentioned here in Tobit.

That is because Sargon was Sennacherib. See e.g. my article:

 

Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap

 

https://www.academia.edu/8854988/Sargon_II_and_Sennacherib_More_than_just_an_overlap

 

At last, Ramses II ‘the Great’ can be firmly fixed to the neo-Assyrian era, from Shalmaneser to Esarhaddon, thereby solving the long-existing problem for revisionists: Where to fit in Ramses II?

 

It also solves the burning question of who was the biblical “So”. We need no longer entertain such ridiculous assertions that “So” pertains to pharaoh Tefnakht by a “process of metonymy” in relation to Tefnakht’s town of Saïs (cf. N. Grimal, p. 342).

 

With the right key now in hand, we can firmly identify Sargon II’s Egyptian contacts, namely:

 

Si’be = Shebitku;

Pharaoh of Egypt (Pirʾu of Musri) = Ramses II ‘the Great’;

Shilkanni (thought to be Osorkon IV) is clearly Psibkhenno

Shebitku of the Tang-i Var inscription = Shebitku

 

Shilkanni’s gift to Sargon II of “twelve great horses from Egypt, which are unrivalled in the whole country” (N. Grimal, p. 343) is reminiscent of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty with its love of fine chargers. Thus, as is thought (loc. cit.): “Piankhy … was buried at Napata along with two of the famous Egyptian chargers … the same horses which had aroused the admiration of Sargon II”. 

 

 



[1] Antiquities, 9:14:1.

Sunday, May 10, 2026

Advantages if Hezekiah’s son Manasseh is identified with Josiah’s son Jehoiakim

 



by

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

It explains the complete absence of the name “Jehoiakim”

in Matthew 1’s Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah.

“Manasseh”, on the other hand, appears there in 1:10.

  

These are my most recent articles in favour of what I now consider to be a:

 

Necessary fusion of Hezekiah and Josiah

 

(7) Necessary fusion of Hezekiah and Josiah

 

Striking a match for Shebna (Sobna) in Hezekiah-Josiah parallel universe

 

(7) Striking a match for Shebna (Sobna) in Hezekiah-Josiah parallel universe

 

One important corollary of this parallelism is that Hezekiah’s idolatrous son, Manasseh, now becomes Josiah’s idolatrous son, Jehoiakim:

 

Manasseh – Jehoiakim

 

(8) Manasseh - Jehoiakim

 

The following two texts, I submit, are describing the very same incident.

 

Manasseh

2 Chronicles 33:11: “Yahweh then brought down on them the generals of the king of Assyria's army who captured Manasseh with hooks, put him in chains and took him to Babylon”.

 

Jehoiakim

2 Chronicles 36-5-6: “Jehoiakim … did what is displeasing to Yahweh his God. Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon attacked him, loaded him with chains and took him to Babylon”.

 

Note the common points: Yahweh; attack by a mighty foe; king of Judah defeated; that king loaded with chains; and taken off to Babylon.

 

Now, in my article:

De-coding Jonah

 

(6) De-coding Jonah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

 

I had identified Esarhaddon-Ashurbanipal as Nebuchednezzar.

 

The note in The Jerusalem Bible (33 b, 2 Chr 34) follows the conventional view that Esarhaddon, Ashurbanipal, were separate kings: “Manasseh of Judah was a vassal of Esarhaddon (680-669) and of Assurbanipal (668-633)”.

 

Esarhaddon-Ashurbanipal was just the one king, who only once captured Manasseh of Judah.

 

A few advantages of Manasseh = Jehoiakim

 

Some immediate advantages of this equation are that:

 

-         It explains the complete absence of the name “Jehoiakim” in Matthew 1’s Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah. “Manasseh”, on the other hand, appears there in 1:10;

-         It explains why the prophet Jeremiah would attribute the Babylonian captivity to the supposedly long dead “Manasseh”, when Jeremiah’s wicked contemporary was Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 15:4): “And I will cause them to be removed into all kingdoms of the earth, because of Manasseh the son of Hezekiah king of Judah, for that which he did in Jerusalem”;

-         It may supply that supposedly missing biblical evidence for the martyrdom of the prophet Isaiah, traditionally at the hands of King Manasseh.

 

See my explanation of this in e.g. my article:

 

God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon

 

(14) God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon