A INTERPOLATION IN OUR BIBLE
(Kings.14:31): King Solomon named his firstborn son Rehoboam,
Kings.15:2: Rehoboam marries Maachah, daughter of Abishalom, (Chron.11:21, ibid.22).
2Chronicles.11:20,22: Maachah becomes the daughter of Absalom!
2Chronicles.13:2: Maachah is renamed Michaiah and is now the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah.
This is where inconsistent elements become apparent, speaking to interpolations. We have 3 contradictory accounts of Maachah, and all 3 cannot be correct; meaning, interpolations have been added to our bible, in defiance of the Prohibition of our Elohim, that nothing may be added, (Deut.4:2, ibid.12:32).
Ibid originates from the Latin ibidem, which is abbreviated to ibid, meaning; “In the same place.” In this case, ibid.12:32 above, means Deuteronmy.12:32.
Rehoboam’s son Abijam, (Kings.14:31) is renamed Abijah in 2nd Chronicles.13:1-2.
Altering Abijam’s names, makes it harder to see, that Maachah has been given a third identity, which creates a irreconcilable paradox.
I have investigated and examined whether Abishalom and Absalom are one and the same person, and have concluded, that this is what the interpolator intended to convey.
However, for the following reasons, I reject that Prince Absalom was in any way related to Maachah:
Absalom, the brother of King Solomon, (2 Sam.13:1), had only one daughter named Tamar, (2 Sam.14:27). It is often posited, without any credible evidence, that this Tamar, had a daughter named Maachah, whom King Rehoboam married, (2 Chron.11:20, ibid.22). This Maachah, would then have been, his second cousin!
I would point out briefly, that Tamar, who was Prince Absalom’s sister, ( by some, referred to as his daughter as she dwelt in his house, (2 Sam.13:19-20)), and his own daughter’s namesake.
It is also possible, that Tamar who had been raped by her brother Amnon, (2 Sam.13:10-15) became pregnant; however, this would have made both Tamar, and her progeny, practically geriatrics for the young King Rehoboam!
By far the most crucial reason for rejecting such a union, is that this type of marriage between Aunt and nephew, is prohibited under Mosaic Law, (Lev.18:12).
Consequently, when examining these verses, it is only rational to assert that Absalom’s daughter, means Absalom’s
daughter Tamar, (2 Sam.14:27), whose age is comparative to that of King Solomon, (2 Sam.3:2-3, ibid.14:27).
I reject her as the wife of King Rehoboam, on the grounds that she was significantly older than King Rehoboam. King Solomon remained unmarried until he became King and had completed the Temple build, and that of his own house, (Kings.3:1, ibid.7:1): Meaning, by the time Solomon had his firstborn son Rehoboam, his niece Tamar, would have been in her forties.
It is therefore a reasonable conjecture, that if she married, this would have occurred twenty, even 25 years earlier; given that Scripture speaks to Tamar suffering no bareness, (Gen.11:30, ibid.25:21, ibid.30:1-2. Judges.13:2.Sam.1:6) we can reasonably conclude, that if she married, starting her family progressed swiftly and smoothly, (Gen.29:31-35), providing a 20 year age gap between her child and young King Rehoboam.
There are legal reasons why King Rehoboam could not wed his second cousin:
None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness. I am Elohim, (Lev.18:6).
Furthermore, neither Rehoboam’s father, King Solomon, nor his grandfather, Kind David, married near kin, as this does not appear to be the custom in this family.
To marry near kin is unlawful under Mosaic Law.
The two brothers, Solomon and Absalom, cannot under any circumstances, nor by any stretch of the imagination, be considered, distant relatives, (Kings.2:7).
It follows from Leviticus.18:6, that this Law prohibits their children marrying, right up to the third and fourth generation, (Ex.34:6-7. Deut.5:9).
I examined the Law further for guidance, noting that Leviticus.18:7:
The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover; she is thy mother, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
And Leviticus.18:8:
The nakedness of thy fathers wife thou shalt not uncover, it is thy fathers nakedness.
Lev.18:7,ibid.8, are duplicated: For thy mother and thy fathers wife, are unmistakable as identical, i.e., Your mother is your fathers wife.
We have a example
:
If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself. If he were married, then his wife shall go out with him, (Ex.21:3).
The repetitive nature of these injunctions, in such close proximity, cannot be attempting to convey, nothing less than a entendre, designed to soften the impact of the horror being legislated: That being, consensual incest between a mother and her son, or a father and his daughter.
And the man that lieth with his fathers wife, hath uncovered his fathers nakedness: Both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them, (Lev.20:11).
We tend to think of incest, from the child victim perspective, however, there are extraordinary cases of consensual adult incest:
Next
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/mum-son-incest-couple-go-7717788
Next
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3725551/Mother-36-son-19-fell-love-met-year-gave-adoption-baby-say-willing-risk-JAIL-defend-love.html
Next
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-14403980
Although I considered polygamous unions as strong contenders for Leviticus.18:8, I was compelled to reject it, for two reasons:
1. If Leviticus.18:7-8, is not referring to incest between biological parents and children, there would be no prohibition against this conduct in the following verses. And,
2. Leviticus.18:9
The nakedness of they sister, the daughter of thy father, or the daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
Would be tantamount to placing a child with no biological connection to her mother’s husband, (her Stepfather) ahead of a daughter with full homology.
There is no greater family betrayal, than that of a father forcing himself sexually upon his own helpless child.
The Mosaic entendre here, directs our attention to the fact, that it is not okay to sexually exploit any child, whether they are related to us or not.
In this respect, we have;
Leviticus.18:7-8, dealing with biological incest.
Leviticus.18:9, dealing with incest between half siblings, (for lack of a better word).
Leviticus.18:10, prohibiting grandparents committing incest.
Leviticus.18:11, prohibiting incest within polygamous unions.
Each correlating to the order of homology, with Leviticus18:9, incidentally activating a prohibition against sexual encounters between children and their half siblings, or step-parents.
I have digressed somewhat, to lay the foundations for the exposition of the prohibition against near cousins marrying. To that end, it is important to point out, that Mosaic Law, is not comprehensively exhaustive. It does not speak to lesbianism, or polyandry or a host of other things we regard as immoral and amoral. That said, I have examined the only incident, post Genesis, in the Mosaic Law, of what at first glance, appears to be first cousins marrying:
For Mahlah, Tirzah, and Hoglah and Milcah and Noah, the daughters Zelophehad, were married to their fathers brothers son’s, (Num.36:11).
Here we have the obverse form of Levirate marriages in all but name.
I can identify this verse as a interpolation, as neither Elohim, or the Prophet Moses Commanded incestuous marriages. Elohim said:
The daughters Zelophehad speak right; thou shall surely give them a possession of a inheritance among their fathers brethren, and thou shalt cause the inheritance to pass to them, (Num.27:7).
Nothing herein treats of incest or regulates it, nor was it understood by any, to be sanctioning incest as we see below:
And if they be married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the children of Israel, then shall their inheritance be taken from the inheritance of our fathers and shall be put to the inheritance of the tribe where they are received; so shall it be taken from the lot of our inheritance, (Num.36:3).
The word brethren, means, brother, family, kinsmen, kinship or tribe.
Elohim expressly uses the words among their fathers brethren, to explicitly stipulate, that these daughters must go to the tribe of Manasseh in order to satisfy the conditions for their inheritance.
So there exists no earthly reason whatsoever, for the Chiefs of the tribe of Manasseh to present a case to the Prophet Moses, that has already been disposed of by Elohim. The inheritance could not be passed to any other Israelite tribe, because Elohim had already said:
Thou shall surely give them a possession of inheritance among their fathers brethren.
I am not disposing of this interpolating here. Suffice to say, the Prophet Moses, could not instruct them to marry their near cousins, (Lev.18:6), particularly after already prohibiting this:
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy fathers brother, thou shalt not approach his wife; she is thy aunt, (Lev.18:14).
The near kin relationship being expressed thus:
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her [granddaughter] her sons daughter, or her daughters daughter, to uncover her nakedness, for they are her near kinswomen. It is wickedness, (Lev.18:17).
Meaning, for the male perspective; not the uncle, (already prohibited, Lev.18:14), his son or grandson.
I cannot accept that a woman’s near kin, would substantially deviate from that of a mans near kin. A man’s child is also his own flesh, and often described as his very own appendages:
Behold! The days comes when I will cut off thine arm and the arm of thy fathers house, that there shall not be a old man in thine house, (Sam.2:31).
Thine arm:
The Ark of Elohim was taken; and the two sons of Eli; Hopni and Phinehas were slain, (Sam.4:11).
The Arm of thy father:
And it came to pass when he made mention of the Ark of Elohim, that he [Eli] fell from off the seat, backward by the side of the gate, and his neck brake and he died – (Sam.4:18).
Near kin is near kin, whether we are discussing this from the point of view of the woman or the man. In this respect the uncle is prohibit as near kin, and so too is his son and grandson.
We have it confirmed, from medical and scientific research, that marriages between near relatives, such as first cousins, produce birth defects, genetic aberrations, chromosomal mutations, congenital anomalies and so forth.
Many point to famous first cousins who married, like Charles Darwin, however, what is rarely highlighted, is the fact, that of his 10 children: Ann, Mary and Charles died in infancy and childhood and William, Henrietta, Elizabeth and Leonard had no children. Only George, Francis and Horace had children, but we only know what became of Francis. It is highly likely, some of these children had birth defects – And given the times, several were infertile and sterile, or terrified of reproducing.
Dismissing Prince Absalom as the grandfather of Maachah for the reasons outlined above, my attention directs itself to what remains; namely, Michaiah, daughter of Uriel of Gibeah, (2 Chron.13:2).
According to Joshua.18:28, Gibeath was given to Benjamin as a inheritance, and somewhere along the line, this Canaanite Gibeath, became Gibeah. However, the Canaanites continued to dwell in the land, (Jud.3:5).
Scripture appears to make a distinction between Gibeah of Benjamin, (Sam.13:2, ibid.19:14, ibid.20:10), and the Gibeah of Saul, (Sam.15:34, ibid.2nd Sam.21:16. Isa.10:29), which makes the Israelite enclaves identifiable in the Gibeah not pertaining to the Canaanites. To that end, as Uriel of Gibeah, is not expressly identified as a Benjaminite, (2 Chron.13:2), it is a reasonable conjecture, that King Rehoboam married a Ammonitess of the Canaanites, (Gen.10:16) of his Mothers race, (King.14:31).
It would be a dereliction of duty, to pretend a man would abhor his Mothers people, because of her ethnicity, and extremely likely, that the womb from which he emerged, would be viewed by him unfavourably.
King Rehoboam was not rejected by the Israelites because, like both his parents, he was a black man, he was rejected for imposing austerity measures of taxation upon the Israelites without just cause, (Kings.12:13-24).
It is obvious to me upon a reading of the King James and William Tyndal bibles, where Judah is identified as marrying a black woman in Genesis.38:2; that the absence of this word Canaanitess in the Tanach, is only rediscovered in Chronicles.2:3, where it has been placed out of sight, to preclude us dwelling on the fact, that Judah married a black woman and had black children. In much the same way, Uriel of Gibeah has been obscured from the Book of Kings, and obfuscated in the book of Chronicles, lest we dwell on the fact that he too was a black Canaanite like King Solomon’s wife: For these facts obscured, do not, as they should, treat of the black Royal lineage of the Davidic dynasty and the original Hebrew Israelites. The purpose of interpolations, is to provide us with multiple
choices but no definitive truth. They exist to appease our conscience, and thereby enable us to believe whatever we wish; be it truth or lie. In seeking the truth, the righteous seek to obey the Commandments of Elohim, and shed the lives fractured by the racism that originated with modern men, who continue to believe, that their obscene and inferior concepts, are superior to those of Shaddai.
copyright 2018
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED