tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7695208512716312862024-03-18T12:57:41.867-07:00Jesus Christ. Alpha and Omega'I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending', said the Lord. (Revelation 1:8)AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.comBlogger418125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769520851271631286.post-38720453415242817602024-03-18T12:56:00.000-07:002024-03-18T12:56:45.764-07:00The Magi and the Star that Stopped<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgC28CZ4oJfJ2Uy1bHhjHbccXz3AG941trmOGZK_1Z2vbIfY3KAwiAYlchaalN2zJOGeZKic7Y_4eETc2qJhmBuO9GMO30FUr_DwBapwN8pdzuuGgwT3Ye6UEpTQmpIV0TdYgMik8eIn8dG2Gyh_MfvG3_OgQvPnk6JZh09n3zxobKiCcB9xymOP4eozBbB/s1024/Magi.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="1024" data-original-width="1024" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgC28CZ4oJfJ2Uy1bHhjHbccXz3AG941trmOGZK_1Z2vbIfY3KAwiAYlchaalN2zJOGeZKic7Y_4eETc2qJhmBuO9GMO30FUr_DwBapwN8pdzuuGgwT3Ye6UEpTQmpIV0TdYgMik8eIn8dG2Gyh_MfvG3_OgQvPnk6JZh09n3zxobKiCcB9xymOP4eozBbB/s600/Magi.png"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
This will be a two-part article in which, firstly, I shall attempt to account for the ethnicity of the eastern Magi, and, secondly - but not originally - identify Matthew 2’s “Star”.
Some might call it arrogance, while others might recognise it as a personal conviction that one’s well-researched conclusion is most definitely the correct one. Whatever about all that, the entertaining Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Catholic priest, author and lecturer, is utterly convinced that he has, after a long and serious probe into the matter, properly identified the enigmatic Magi of Matthew 2.
Fr. Dwight tells all about it in the following articles, the validity of whose conclusions I shall consider further on:
https://dwightlongenecker.com/the-myth-of-the-magi/
The Myth of the Magi
About this time in 2017 my book The Mystery of the Magi was published. I had high hopes for it. Of all my books it was the one I had spent the most time on. I had actually done something like RESEARCH believe it or not. I mean, the darn thing had footnotes and a bibliography!!!
Seriously, I had worked hard on the book and thought I had made some important discoveries about the historical basis of the Magi story in Matthew’s gospel. I hoped New Testament scholars and historians of the period might at least read it and that it might be critiqued and if I was wrong in my speculation, that the book would raise the issues of the possible historicity of the story of the wise men.
I was not prepared for how difficult it would be to dislodge centuries of myth about the magi.
Whoa! I hear you say, “Myth! Father, are you a liberal after all? You don’t believe the Bible? You think the Magi story is a myth?”
Yes and no and not quite so let me explain.
First of all, I don’t think Matthew’s account of the magi visiting Bethlehem is fiction.
I think the story is based in real events with real historical characters. However, I’m aware that most Biblical scholars think the whole thing is a fanciful fairy tale. In fact, thinking that the Magi story is a fairy tale is a kind of test of whether you are a serious Bible or scholar or not.
Raymond Brown admits it and even jokes about it in his big fat book The Infancy Narratives.
I was told the same thing by several well known conservative Bible scholars–both Evangelical and Catholic.
“Whoa!” they said, “Don’t you know that if I even suggest that the Magi story might have some basis in historical truth I’ll be laughed out of my job and relegated to teaching Sunday School in North Dakota!” (no offense intended towards the good people of ND)
I had a conversation with one condescending scholar on the phone who said, “But you are beginning from entirely the wrong premise. There is no historical basis for the Magi story.”
“Uh. That is what my book is about. The historical basis for the magi story.”
“You don’t seem to understand. There is NO historical basis for the magi story.”
“No, YOU don’t seem to understand. That is what my book is about.”
The conversation ended.
So why do the scholars think the magi story has no historical basis? Because, of all the stories from the New Testament, the Magi story actually has become rather mythical, magical and mysterious. I explain in my book how the Magi story began to be elaborated by the Gnostic writers in the third and fourth centuries and beyond.
They were very influenced by Manicheanism, and with their emphasis on secret knowledge and magical lore, the magi story was tailor made. The gnostic magi became the heroes of far out and fanciful gnostic apocryphal writings.
Soon they had names, they were kings and they followed a magical star and rode on camels on a long trek across the desert.
Add a few more centuries and a lot more story tellers and soon they came from India, China and Africa. One was old, one middle ages and one young. Then they represented the three main racial groups – African, Caucasian and Asian.
But none of that is in Matthew’s gospel. This mythical version became the received version and it is still the version we tell ourselves at Christmas.
In rejecting this elaborated mythical version, (which they were right to do) the scholars threw out the magi with the magic. They decided the magi story was nothing but a fanciful fable made up long after the birth of Christ by Christians who wanted make him seem more special.
In rejecting the myth they went ahead and created their own myth–the myth that the magi story can’t possible be historically true, and that myth is even harder to shift than a myth that is fanciful and magical.
So I decided to dig past all the myths and explore the culture, history, politics, geography and religion of first century Judea and Arabia. As I did the research I kept asking why nobody had done this before. What I was discovering was truly ground breaking and fascinating. Then I realized, the reason no one had bothered to do the homework was because they all believed the myth.
The traditional folks continued to believe the myth about three wise men named Balthasar, Melchior and Caspar going on a long desert journey on camels following a magical star while the liberals continued to believe the myth that the whole thing was a myth. Consequently neither side bothered to look into the question whether there might have been such characters and where they might have come from and why they might have been motivated to go on a quest to find a newborn King of the Jews
The result was The Mystery of the Magi. Most of those who read it thought highly of the book. Unfortunately many did not read it.
Why? Because they already figured that they knew about it already. In other words, they were not concerned with the Mystery of the Magi because they believed the Myth of the Magi.
….
November 30th, 2019 ….
Fr. Dwight will come to the conclusion that the Magi were wise Nabataean Arabs from the fabulous land of Petra:
https://stream.org/mystery-of-the-magi-solved-an-interview-with-fr-dwight-longenecker/
….
Matthew says they came “from the East.”
He was writing to the Jews in the area of Jerusalem-Judea. For them “the East” was the huge territory controlled by the Nabateans — present day Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, most of Iraq and Lebanon. We know this was “the East” for them not only because that kingdom lies to the East of Judea, but also because in the Old Testament “the people of the East” most often refers to the various tribes of the Arabian peninsula.
….
The Stream: So who were the Nabateans? And why would they … or specifically, counselors to the Nabatean king … be interested in some Hebrew prophesy about a Messiah?
The Nabateans were a trading nation controlling the trade routes from Yemen across the Arabian desert to the Mediterranean port of Gaza and from Egypt North to Syria and beyond. Their capital of Petra was at the crossroads of these two important routes. They traded in luxury goods from India and China through Yemen and back with goods from across the Roman Empire. Gauze? It came from Gaza. Damask fabric? It came from Damascus.
The Nabatean culture at the time of Jesus’ birth was a blend of Abrahamic tribes that had wandered in the Arabian desert, immigrants from Babylon who occupied the Arabian peninsula and the influence of the Greeks. Petra was therefore a very cosmopolitan city with the traders bringing not only goods, but culture influences from the ancient world from China to Greece and Rome and from Africa North to Syria, Persia and present day Turkey.
As wise men they would have been astrologers, but also students of the prophecies from the different cultures — including the Jewish prophecies. At the downfall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C., many Jews went into exile — not only to Babylon, but into the Babylonian controlled territory of Arabia. Some think the second portion of the book of Isaiah was actually written there, and this includes the important prophecy in chapter 60. ….
Were the Magi “enlightened pagans’’?
Although Biblical critics claim to find whom they call “enlightened pagans” all through the Bible (Old and New Testaments), I am not so sure that they always get this right.
I took a sample of such characters:
MELCHIZEDEK;
RAHAB;
RUTH;
ACHIOR;
JOB;
and concluded - in some cases following other researchers - that none of these was in reality a pagan (Gentile). Keeping it very simple by way of summary here:
MELCHIZEDEK was, according to Jewish tradition, the great Shem, righteous son of Noah. Whilst that does not make him a Hebrew (Israelite/Jew), which tribal concepts did not exist at that early stage, he, truly blessed as he was (cf. Genesis 9:26-27), was not, as is commonly thought, an enlightened Canaanite (hence pagan) king.
Melchizedek was the eponymous Semite (Shem-ite), whose “slave” Canaan was (9:26).
RAHAB the prostitute, in the Book of Judges, was truly enlightened (Hebrews 11:31):
“By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient”, but she, actually Rachab, may need to be distinguished from (the differently named) Rahab of Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah (Matthew 1:5).
RUTH was a Moabite only geographically, but not ethnically, otherwise she would have encountered this ban from Deuteronomy 23:3-4:
No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the Assembly of the LORD, not even in the tenth generation. For they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor … to pronounce a curse on you.
ACHIOR. The same comment would thus apply to Achior ‘the Ammonite’, presuming that he truly was an Ammonite.
He wasn’t. Achior needs some special extra treatment (see further on).
JOB was, in my firm opinion, Tobias, the son of Tobit, a genuine Israelite from the tribe of Naphtali, in Ninevite captivity. I suspect that his given pagan name in captivity was the Akkadian ‘Habakkuk’ (also shortened to Haggai), the prophet of that name.
And I suspect, too, that others could be added to the list, as Israelites, not pagans.
The Magi, for one.
Delilah, a presumed Philistine. Whilst she may not deserve the epithet, “enlightened”, Delilah most probably was an Israelite - as convincingly explained by George Athas:
https://withmeagrepowers.wordpress.com/2016/07/11/samson-and-delilah-the-israelite-woman/
Achior, his conversion and circumcision
Various significant misconceptions abound about this important character, ACHIOR. First of all, Achior of the Book of Judith (and the Douay’s Tobit) was not an Ammonite.
The Book of Judith, as we now have it, suffers from an unfortunate confusion of names (people and places), making it most difficult to make sense of it.
“… Achior, the leader of all the Ammonites” (Judith 5:5), should read, instead, “… Achior, leader of all the Elamites”. Not that Achior was ethnically an Elamite, but because king Esarhaddon had assigned him to govern Elam. For Achior was the same person as the famous Ahikar, governor of Elam, of whom the blind Tobit tells (2:10): “… Ahikar took care of me for two years before he went to Elymaïs [Elam]”.
To confuse matters even further, the Book of Judith has a gloss (1:6), in which Achior/ Ahikar is now called “Arioch”: “Rallying to [the king] were all who lived in the hill country, all who lived along the Euphrates, the Tigris, and the Hydaspes, as well as Arioch, king of the Elamites …”.
As noted further back, had Ruth been a Moabite, or Achior an Ammonite – as is commonly thought – then the Deuteronomical ban against these two nations (23:3-4) would disallow either from being received into the Assembly of Israel – which, in fact, Achior was, after the triumphant Judith had shown him the head of his Commander-in-chief, “Holofernes” (Judith 14:6-7, 10):
When [Achior] came and saw the head of Holofernes … he fell down on his face in a faint. When they raised him up he threw himself at Judith’s feet and did obeisance to her and said, ‘Blessed are you in every tent of Judah! In every nation those who hear your name will be alarmed’.
….
When Achior saw all that the God of Israel had done, he believed firmly in God. So he was circumcised and joined the House of Israel, remaining so to this day.
The unfortunate misconception that Achior was an Ammonite, who would join the Assembly of Israel despite the Deuteronomical ban, is one of the primary reasons why the Jews (Protestants) did not accept the Book of Judith into their scriptural canons.
The confusion of names (people and places), as already mentioned, is another reason. But this, too, can be rectified.
Tobit himself tells us precisely who was this Ahikar (Achior) (Tobit 1:21-22):
But not forty days passed before two of Sennacherib’s sons killed him, and when they fled to the mountains of Ararat, his son Esarhaddon reigned after him. He appointed Ahikar, the son of my brother Hanael, over all the accounts of his kingdom, and he had authority over the entire administration. …. Now Ahikar was chief cupbearer, keeper of the signet, and in charge of administration and accounts under King Sennacherib of Assyria, so Esarhaddon appointed him as second-in-command. He was my nephew and so a close relative.
The Magi were Transjordanian Israelites
Whilst I greatly enjoyed reading Fr. Dwight Longenecker, and I admire both his infectious enthusiasm and his genuine efforts to identify the Magi, my own conclusion is that they were - like those other alleged biblical “enlightened pagans” - true Israelites.
Fr. Dwight was right to look for a biblical East, rather than for a more global one, for the home of the Magi. We recall that he wrote:
Matthew says they came “from the East.” He was writing to the Jews in the area of Jerusalem-Judea. For them “the East” was the huge territory controlled by the Nabateans — present day Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, most of Iraq and Lebanon. We know this was “the East” for them not only because that kingdom lies to the East of Judea, but also because in the Old Testament “the people of the East” most often refers to the various tribes of the Arabian peninsula. ….
That, too, the biblical approach, is the one that I favour, but I would identify the Magi’s East, instead, with the East of the Book of Job (1:1-3):
In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil. He had seven sons and three daughters, and he owned seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen and five hundred donkeys, and had a large number of servants. He was the greatest man among all the people of the East.
I vaguely recall having read of (but can no longer trace it) a tradition that had the Magi descended from the prophet Job.
The best location for Job’s “Uz” is Ausitis in the Hauran region east of the Jordan.
Job, as young Tobias, had returned to that region, to “Ecbatana”, accompanied by the angel Raphael (Tobit 7:1). This was the Syrian Ecbatana, which is Batanaea, or Bashan, south of Damascus. This East was very close to Israel proper.
There, holy Naphtalian descendants of Job patiently awaited the return of “His Star” (Matthew 2:2).
But how did they know that it was coming? And how did they know that it was “His”?
A key to this, and to the identification of the “Star” itself, may be Tobit 13.
Old Tobit (now dying), a possible ancestor of the Magi, proclaimed this to his son, Tobias (i.e. Job) (13:11-18):
A bright light will shine to all the remotest parts of the earth;
many nations will come to you from far away,
the inhabitants of the ends of the earth to your holy name,
bearing gifts in their hands for the King of heaven.
Generation after generation will give joyful praise in you;
the name of the chosen city will endure forever.
Cursed are all who reject you
and all who blaspheme you;
cursed are all who hate you
and all who speak a harsh word against you;
cursed are all who conquer you
and pull down your walls,
all who overthrow your towers
and set your homes on fire.
But blessed forever will be all who build you up.
Rejoice, then, and exult over the children of the righteous,
for they will all be gathered together
and will bless the Lord of the ages.
Happy will be those who love you,
and happy are those who will rejoice in your peace.
Happy also all people who grieve with you
because of your afflictions,
for they will rejoice with you
and witness all your joy forever.
My soul blesses the Lord, the great King,
for Jerusalem will be rebuilt as his House for all ages.
How happy I will be if a remnant of my descendants should survive
to see your glory and acknowledge the King of heaven.
The gates of Jerusalem will be built with sapphire and emerald
and all your walls with precious stones.
The towers of Jerusalem will be built with gold
and their battlements with pure gold.
The streets of Jerusalem will be paved
with ruby and with stones of Ophir.
The gates of Jerusalem will sing hymns of joy,
and all her houses will cry, ‘Hallelujah!
Blessed be the God of Israel!’—
and the blessed will bless the holy name forever and ever.”
Some time later, as the Temple about which Tobit spoke here was nearing completion, the motivating prophet Haggai - who I believe to have been Tobit’s very son, Tobias (= Job/Habakkuk) - will promise the return to the Temple of the Glory of the Lord, commonly known as Shekinah (a name that does not, however, appear in the Bible). Haggai announces (2:6-9):
This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘In a little while I will once more shake the heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land. I will shake all nations, and what is desired by all nations will come, and I will fill this House with glory,’ says the LORD Almighty. ‘The silver is mine and the gold is mine,’ declares the LORD Almighty. ‘The glory of this present House [Temple] will be greater than the glory of the former House,’ says the LORD Almighty. ‘And in this place I will grant peace,’ declares the LORD Almighty.
His Star “Stopped”
What a contrast in attitudes (personalities?)!
Fr. Dwight Longenecker’s complete certainty that he has identified the Magi, and Matthew Erwin’s almost matter-of-fact right identification (so I think) of the “Star”.
Once again, as in the case of Fr. Dwight, the biblical approach is taken.
Previously I wrote regarding Matthew Erwin and his identification of the “Star”:
At last I have found an article that, for me, makes proper sense of the Nativity Star. Professor Matthew Ervin, in December 2013, explained it as the Glory of the Lord. He uses the word, Shekinah, which word, however, is not found in the Bible.
I would prefer:
Glory of the Lord (כְבוֹד יְהוָה), Chevod Yahweh (e.g. 2 Chronicles 7:1).
Matthew Ervin writes in a simple blog:
https://appleeye.org/2013/12/15/the-star-of-bethlehem-was-the-shechinah-glory/
The Star of Bethlehem Was the Shekinah Glory
….
Theories as to what the Star of Bethlehem was are myriad. The usual answers look to celestial objects ranging from real stars to comets. Indeed, the inquiry has been so wide sweeping that virtually every object appearing in the sky has been posited as the Bethlehem Star. However, when Scripture is examined the identity of the Star is evident. The Greek ἀστέρα or astera simply identifies a shining or gleaming object that is translated as star in Matthew 2:1-10.
The magi specifically referred to it as, “His star” (v. 2). In addition, the behavior of this Star alone is enough to discount any natural stellar phenomenon. ….
If not a regular stellar object then what exactly was the Star of Bethlehem? The synoptic narrative in Luke’s Gospel provides an answer:
And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with great fear.
Luke 2:8-9 (ESV)
The glory of the Lord here is a powerful example of the Shekinah Glory.
This type of glory is a visible manifestation of God’s presence come to dwell among men. The Shekinah was often accompanied by a heavenly host (e.g. Ezek. 10:18-19) and so it was at the birth of Christ (Luke 10:13). The Shekinah Glory declared Messiah’s birth to the shepherds (Luke 2:8-11). The Star of Bethlehem likewise declared to the magi that Messiah had arrived (Matt. 2:9-10). No doubt this is because Matthew and Luke were describing the same brilliant light in their respective gospels.
Although the Shekinah takes on various appearances in Scripture, it often appears as something very bright. This includes but is not limited to a flaming sword (Gen. 3:24), a burning bush (Ex. 3:1-5; Deut. 33:16), a pillar of cloud and fire (Ex. 13:21-22), a cloud with lightning and fire (Ex. 19:16-20), God’s afterglow (His “back”) (Ex. 33:17-23), the transfiguration of Jesus (e.g. Matt. 17:1-8), fire (Acts 2:1-3), a light from heaven (e.g. Acts 9:3-8) and the lamp of New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:23-24).
It was the Shekinah Glory that dwelled in the Holy of Holies. It was last in Solomon’s temple but departed as seen by Ezekiel (Ezek. 9:3; 10:4-19; 11:22-23). Haggai prophesied that the Shekinah Glory would return to the temple in Israel and in a superior way (Hag. 2:3; 2:9). And yet it would seem that this never happened for the Second Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. Perhaps though the Shekinah did return. The Star of Bethlehem was the Shekinah Glory declaring the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ and residing in His person. And why not? The Messiah was prophesied to come as a star (Num. 24:17), and Jesus is called the, “bright morning star” (Rev. 22:16). ….
[End of quote]
It would be most fitting for the prophet Haggai to foretell the return of the Glory cloud.
The family of Job-Tobias knew, from what we now have written in Tobit 13, that the Glory of the Lord was going to return after the Exile.
Job, as Haggai, now in his late old age, had advised the people, disappointed at the sight of the second Temple, that the Glory of the Lord would return to it.
And return again it did, with the Birth of Jesus Christ, the New Temple, who would render obsolete “the old stone Temple” (pope Benedict XVI).
In other words, the second Temple was only ever to be temporary, and would be dramatically replaced (destroyed even) by He who is the true Temple of God.
The Shepherds saw the Light at close hand and were able to go directly to the stable. For the Magi, the guiding Light conveniently stopped, just as the shining Cloud was wont to do during the Exodus (Numbers 9:17): “When the cloud moved from its place over the Tent, the Israelites moved, and wherever the cloud stopped, the Israelites camped”.
The Magi had long been expecting it. Their possible ancestor, Tobit, had foretold its return, and his son, Haggai, had confirmed it some time later.
The Magi, who - as descendants of Job, as I think - were undoubtedly clever and educated, did not really need, though, to be able to read the heavens and constellations (as Job almost certainly could, Job 38:31-33) to identify the Star.
They were expecting it and they simply had to wait until they saw it.
This was a manifestation for Israel, to be understood by Israel, which is a solid reason why I think that the Magi must have been Israelites, not Gentiles.
The Nativity Star of relevance to Israel determined the ethnicity of Matthew’s Magi.
Child Jesus at Pontevedra stands on a luminous cloud
The resplendent Christ Child appeared again, with his holy Mother, at Pontevedra, Spain, 10th December, 1925, likewise “elevated on a luminous cloud”.
We read about it at:
https://fatima.org/news-views/the-apparition-of-our-lady-and-the-child-jesus-at-pontevedra/
On July 13, 1917, Our Lady promised at Fatima:
“If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved … I shall come to ask for the Consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays.”
As Fatima scholar Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinité tells us, this first secret of Our Lady “is a sure and easy way of tearing souls away from the danger of hell: first our own, then those of our neighbors, and even the souls of the greatest sinners, for the mercy and power of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are without limits.” ….
Circumstances of the Apparition ….
The promise of Our Lady to return was fulfilled in December 1925, when 18-year-old Lucia was a postulant at the Dorothean convent in Pontevedra, Spain. It was here, during an apparition of the Child Jesus and Our Lady, that She revealed the first part of God’s plan for the salvation of sinners: the reparatory Communion of the First Saturdays of the month.
Lucia narrated what happened, speaking of herself in the third person – perhaps, in humility, to divert attention from her role in the event:
“On December 10, 1925, the Most Holy Virgin appeared to her [Lucia], and by Her side, elevated on a luminous cloud, was the Child Jesus. The Most Holy Virgin rested Her hand on her shoulder, and as She did so, She showed her a heart encircled by thorns, which She was holding in Her other hand. At the same time, the Child said:
“‘Have compassion on the Heart of your Most Holy Mother, covered with thorns, with which ungrateful men pierce It at every moment, and there is no one to make an act of reparation to remove them.’
“Then the Most Holy Virgin said:
“‘Look, My daughter, at My Heart, surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce Me at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude.
You at least try to console Me and announce in My name that I promise to assist at the moment of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, shall confess … receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary, and keep Me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary, with the intention of making reparation to Me.’”
The Great Promise and Its Conditions
As Fatima author, Mark Fellows, noted:
“The Blessed Virgin did more than ask for reparatory Communion and devotions on five First Saturdays: She promised Heaven to those who practiced this devotion sincerely and with a spirit of reparation. Those who wonder whether it is Mary’s place to promise eternal salvation to anyone forget one of Her illustrious titles: Mediatrix of all Graces.” ….
Our Lady promises the grace of final perseverance – the most sublime of all graces – to all those who devoutly practice this devotion. The disproportion between the little requested and the immense grace promised reveals the great power of intercession granted to the Blessed Virgin Mary for the salvation of souls. Furthermore, this promise also contains a missionary aspect. The devotion of reparation is recommended as a means of converting sinners in the greatest danger of being lost.
….
For more information, see The Magnificent Promise for the Five First Saturdays (Section III, pp. 8-16). ….
https://fatima.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/cr49.pdf
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769520851271631286.post-44660978643613181432024-03-14T19:36:00.000-07:002024-03-14T19:36:08.685-07:00Jesus Christ gives meaning to ancient history and geography <div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXG5MmaYk0oGUBvP8vF_0HUIU_fbP9vaa75b6cYPhhKiml-UIA1ukgZj6nSEu1Rmvk-UZpweMm-kNOTFLEopRwLNFxjypL47Voe8w2vbndGqKe3-CDSyXB1kMsGXQhSxivpAPKzbiryMEAAn0kNoPFw12dJdVq6vO9OXLnd_QYfgBXKzT-TgiVt02D_KXK/s1200/hagia-sophia-royalty-free-image-1574795258.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXG5MmaYk0oGUBvP8vF_0HUIU_fbP9vaa75b6cYPhhKiml-UIA1ukgZj6nSEu1Rmvk-UZpweMm-kNOTFLEopRwLNFxjypL47Voe8w2vbndGqKe3-CDSyXB1kMsGXQhSxivpAPKzbiryMEAAn0kNoPFw12dJdVq6vO9OXLnd_QYfgBXKzT-TgiVt02D_KXK/s600/hagia-sophia-royalty-free-image-1574795258.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
“After three days they found him in the Temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him
was amazed at his understanding and his answers”.
Luke 2:46-47
Jesus, who even as a child of twelve was skilfully able to teach Jerusalem’s teachers, would later, as an adult, correct many misconceptions and false traditions on a whole range of issues. ‘You have heard that it was said … but I tell you …’ (e.g. Matthew 5:38).
This was the voice of One who spoke words of unerring authority (Mark 1:21-22): “They went to Capernaum; and when the Sabbath came, he entered the synagogue and taught. They were astounded at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes”.
Just as when he had been a boy of twelve, when his listeners were “amazed” (ἐξίσταντο) by his knowledge, so now, again, at Capernaum, were those who heard him “astounded” (ἐξεπλήσσοντο) by his authoritative speech.
And Jesus continues today to teach us, through the Scriptures, and in prayer.
For, in a mere two verses filled with meaning, Jesus will succinctly span BC history, from Creation down to his own approximate era, and will, in so doing, identify for us the location of the Garden of Eden (Luke 11:50-51): ‘Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all’.
Eden was the holy place to which Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, had brought their sacrifices, and in whose vicinity Cain slew Abel (by cutting his throat like a sacrifice?) (cf. I John 3:12).
Jesus is telling us that the Jerusalemites who persecuted the prophets, and who even slew some of them (e.g., Zechariah son of Jehoiada and Urijah son of Shemaiah), including the last one, Zechariah son of Berechiah (cf. Matthew 23:35), were geographically of the same region as Cain and Abel had been, and were as well of the spirit of Cain, but not of the holy Abel.
In other words, the long sought for location of Eden was the site of Jerusalem – obviously much altered topographically and greatly impoverished since the halçyon days prior to the Fall of Adam and Eve.
This has many ramifications, including for the proper identification of the four rivers - generated by the one Edenic river (Genesis 2:10).
Those four rivers, Pishon (פִּישׁוֹן), Gihon (גִּיחוֹן), Hiddekel (חִדֶּקֶל) and Perath (פְרָת), must have geographically en-framed Eden.
Jesus, the Lord of History (and Geography), easily encompasses history from the beginning (Abel) until modern times (Zechariah) in two telling verses.
In so doing, he helps us to know that this Zechariah was not the martyred Zechariah son of the High Priest, Jehoiada, since this Zechariah was not the most recent martyr. Urijah son of Shemaiah, for instance, had come after Zechariah son of Jehoiada.
But even that was not so recent.
Hence, Matthew 23:35 is not contradictory about Zechariah as many like to suggest.
Jesus Christ is the Key to Knowledge and he is not about to contradict the Truth.
That is done, instead, by the likes of the “experts”, the blind know-alls, the types who resisted Jesus and had him crucified (Luke 11:52): ‘Woe to you experts in the Law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering’.
We lose all fine meaning, then, when we shift Eden, the central point of Genesis 2, from the region of Jerusalem to east of the Tigris (חִדֶּקֶל) and Euphrates (פְרָת) rivers, which easterly re-orientation seems to be the preferred location today for the ancient Garden of Eden.
But:
Ezekiel 5:5: “This is what the Sovereign LORD says: ‘This is Jerusalem, which I have set in the centre of the nations, with countries all around her’.”
Editor Moses would have had only one place meaning in mind for “Cush”, when he wrote of the Gihon river that “it winds through the entire land of Cush” (Genesis 2:13).
Moses is traditionally said to have led Egyptian armies into Nubia, or Cush (Ethiopia).
That fixes the Gihon river as the Blue Nile.
And the Tigris and Euphrates are well known.
Those like Dr. David Rohl, who want to turn Moses’s “Cush” into the Kusheh Dagh in Iranian Azerbaijan:
and search in vain for the vestiges of the Garden of Eden in that NE region of the ancient world, succeed only in emptying the Scriptures of their meaning and import.
Some of the unhappy consequences of this are:
• The authoritative words of Jesus Christ about Abel and Zechariah then become meaningless, and even unjust for his Jerusalemite “generation”.
• The whole wonderful cosmic symmetry of the Fall of Man, and then the Redemption of Man, occurring in the same geographical location, is totally lost.
“O God, who wonderfully created, and yet more wonderfully restored, the dignity of human nature: Grant that we may share the divine life of him who humbled himself to share our humanity, your Son Jesus Christ; who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen”.
• All the Garden of Eden symbolism at the Fall, of the tree and thorns and pain and sweat, ceases to be reflected by the same Garden symbolism at the Passion and Redemption:
It now becomes a case of poet John Donne’s And new philosophy calls all in doubt:
“Tis all in pieces, all coherence gone,
All just supply, and all relation;
Prince, subject, father, son, are things forgot,
For every man alone thinks he hath got
To be a phoenix, and that then can be
None of that kind, of which he is, but he.”
And it is interesting that John Donne aimed this famous statement at the new philosophies, which were mathematically and science-based and anti-metaphysical, reflecting a world largely of a priori theory, rather than one of studied reality.
The culmination of all of this would be a cosmography of models and numbers that has as much bearing upon reality as does the Kusheh Dagh location have for the Garden of Eden.
Our models of Astronomy today are cosmographies lacking an inherent meaning, lacking what pope Benedict XVI called “a cosmology discerning the visible inner logic of the cosmos”.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769520851271631286.post-56608647241167127462024-03-07T22:41:00.000-08:002024-03-07T22:41:58.619-08:00How C.S. Lewis made me a Christian – Barney Zwartz<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhK4jHuDKnS2jogGWTIMocFerj9t-0wPctReUMRzGck3By3y78JBwZweRawonTMzIKWnGcbbWwFC8NA6ShG0lJCclk-17iLs1Jz4JWf9MbUz7DbSMnGtUszIiFX7k8IjLSKNJkA7OfsnWdRsfUMwLYyRB5iz6mPScz5urWws3FiQGEDZ5As9hUB1Esd-0Af/s259/images.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="194" data-original-width="259" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhK4jHuDKnS2jogGWTIMocFerj9t-0wPctReUMRzGck3By3y78JBwZweRawonTMzIKWnGcbbWwFC8NA6ShG0lJCclk-17iLs1Jz4JWf9MbUz7DbSMnGtUszIiFX7k8IjLSKNJkA7OfsnWdRsfUMwLYyRB5iz6mPScz5urWws3FiQGEDZ5As9hUB1Esd-0Af/s600/images.jpg"/></a></div>
“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen,
not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else”.
C.S. Lewis
My son has just finished reading the seven Narnia books to my grandchildren, aged six and five. I am delighted by this because as a child I was addicted to these books, reading them over and over (and again as an adult).
Every good communicator knows the power of a story, and Narnia author C.S. Lewis – a great literary critic and explainer of Christianity whose influence is as strong today 60 years after his death – certainly did.
The first published, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, is the most perfect allegory of Christianity but, growing up in a household in which religion was utterly irrelevant, I did not understand this. The power of the story worked on its own terms.
Only after I became a Christian in my mid-20s did I understand how important an influence Lewis was on my journey. He showed me that we live in an ineluctably moral universe, in which personal responsibility really matters. He helped shape my understanding of good and bad as real rather than constructs – without in any way being “preachy”.
Lewis wrote of his Narnia books that such stories could bypass the inhibitions wrought on so many by the religiosity of much Christianity.
“Why did one find it so hard to feel as one was told one ought to feel about God or the sufferings of Christ? I thought the chief reason was that one was told one ought to. An obligation to feel can freeze feelings.
“But suppose that by casting all these things into an imaginary world, stripping them of their stained-glass and Sunday school associations, one could make them for the first time appear in their true potency? Could one not thus steal past those watchful dragons? I thought one could.”
I have always had my share of watchful dragons, but Lewis’ priorities and values resonated and silently took root.
Speaking of Lewis, theologian Alister McGrath noted: “Stories are not simply things to entertain us, they are things that are there to convey meaning, to open up newer imaginative possibilities. Here is a new way of seeing things, and if you enter into this way of seeing things the world is a very different place.
“This rediscovery of the imagination in human truth-seeking and truth-telling is really very important. Lewis played a very important role in doing that.”
What Lewis showed me in the Narnia books, though I understood this only much later, is well summarised in another of his famous lines: “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else.”
Barney Zwartz is a senior fellow of the Centre for Public Christianity.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769520851271631286.post-20611387687255228282024-02-28T11:00:00.000-08:002024-02-28T11:00:46.938-08:00That ‘Nineveh’ anachronism again: Apollonius, Mohammed, Heraclius
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKZBD1Ehe3e4RilY9__wAaqWcfBGwrr2UPtL18e4ZoWDZYGXtYrzKyzlmx2od8MCp-YCy45VJm62YhVbD3HS8xPX5MKjtXMVNBLZWm6Tyq33ApLaBJ1Tj5h0o8TZA6kcK21LRzk1FJpOUMC7_JIsw52R0Dor6eK0JYAkzQDvrXsb5W68QhdDVSZg31CH2_/s286/images.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="176" data-original-width="286" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKZBD1Ehe3e4RilY9__wAaqWcfBGwrr2UPtL18e4ZoWDZYGXtYrzKyzlmx2od8MCp-YCy45VJm62YhVbD3HS8xPX5MKjtXMVNBLZWm6Tyq33ApLaBJ1Tj5h0o8TZA6kcK21LRzk1FJpOUMC7_JIsw52R0Dor6eK0JYAkzQDvrXsb5W68QhdDVSZg31CH2_/s600/images.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
“… Nineveh was so laid waste that it was considered a total myth of the Bible
throughout most of the recent centuries, that is until it was discovered
by Sir Austen Layard in the nineteenth century”.
Archaeology of Ancient Assyria
Poor old Nineveh!
That ancient city gets dragged into various pseudo-histories purportedly belonging to AD time.
And so I could not help exclaiming at the beginning of my article:
Heraclius and the Battle of Nineveh
(8) Heraclius and the Battle of Nineveh | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
What! What! What! The Byzantine emperor, Heraclius (reign, 610 to 641 AD), fighting a “Battle of Nineveh” in 627 AD!
And here I am mistakenly under the impression that the city of Nineveh was completely destroyed in c. 612 BC, and that it lay hopelessly dead and buried until it was archaeologically resurrected by Layard in the mid-C19th AD. ….
Again, I found that the Prophet Mohammed, a supposed contemporary of Heraclius - the latter being suspiciously, I thought, “A composite character to end all composites” - was likewise supposed to have had various associations with the (presumably long dead) city of Nineveh. See e.g. my article:
Prophet Jonah, Nineveh, and Mohammed
https://www.academia.edu/30409779/Prophet_Jonah_Nineveh_and_Mohammed
Now I find that Apollonius of Tyana, supposedly of the C1st AD, was guided in his extensive travels - somewhat reminiscent of those of Tobias and the angel Raphael in the Book of Tobit (including “Nineveh”, “Tigris” and “Ecbatana”):
A Common Sense Geography of the Book of Tobit
https://www.academia.edu/8675202/A_Common_Sense_Geography_of_the_Book_of_Tobit
by one, Damis, said to have been a native of Nineveh.
And this Apollonius of Tyana is thought by many to have been the real model for Jesus Christ.
I would have to agree with the following comment:
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/puppets-should-not-give-homilies
“The case of Apollonius of Tyana is not comparable with the evidence we have for Jesus.
We have multiple sources for the life of Jesus, while we only have one source for Apollonius. This source, Philostratus, claims to have recorded what eyewitnesses said about Apollonius, but your professor probably neglected to mention that the only eyewitness Philostratus mentions is one Damis from Nineveh. This city didn’t even exist in the first century (which means Damis probably did not exist, either). …”.
If Nineveh did not then exist, and Damis “probably did not exist”, then I think it would be safe to say that neither did Apollonius of Tyana probably exist, but was a fictitious Greek appropriation of Jesus Christ whom Apollonius occasionally resembles quite remarkably. For the reason why this is, see my article:
Apollonius of Tyana, like Philo, a fiction
(3) Apollonius of Tyana, like Philo, a fiction | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
In the amusingly entitled: “APOLLONIUS CREED VS. JESUS THE ROCK”, David Marshall writes:
One of the supreme principles of modern thought is that there must be no great inexplicable "gaps" in Nature. This is the source of controversy in biology, where proponents of Intelligent Design claim that life reveals micro-machinery that naturalistic evolution cannot explain. Critics of ID reply that no, all such "gaps" can in principle be explained, and the more we understand the story of life, the more such gaps have and will continue to close. Likewise, those who affirm miracles say that events such as the Resurrection of Jesus, or the sudden healing of a loved one after prayer, cannot easily be displayed on naturalistic grounds.
Skeptics again beg to differ: "Nothing to see here, move along, folks. We may not have all the details, but nothing has happened that cannot in principle be explained by deceit, inattention, cognitive dissonance, the Will to Believe, confused reporting, or perhaps a timely group hallucination or two. These are all events that happen commonly in the natural world, and as Hume explained, prosaic explanations are therefore infinitely more likely than a miracle." Which sounds like begging the question to believers. The same debate has now raged for two centuries over the person of Jesus, and reports about his life. Here, it appears, lies a God-sized gap in Nature if ever there was one. A man who healed the blind! Who spoke with a voice of thunder, casting traders out of the temple as if the place belonged to him! Who fed thousands with a few loaves and fishes, and raised the dead! Who claimed to be "one with the Father," and spoke as if all of Israel's history, indeed all world history, would somehow be consummated by his mission, which involved his own sacrifice and then ultimate conquest of that ultimate boogeyman, death! All skeptical "historical Jesus" scholarship can be seen as a Herculean attempt to plug this gap in the universe. That includes the most famous and popular such attempts in our day, such as the work of scholars like Bart Ehrman and Paula Fredrikson, populists like Reza Aslan, the writings of the famous (or infamous) Jesus Seminar (and stars emerging from that constellation like John Crossan, Marcus Borg, Robert Funk, and John Spong), and the more radical writings of people like Richard Carrier and less-educated fellows on the "Jesus mythicist" fringe.
I believe Christians should look on their colossal effort to "plug the gap" as an act of kindness.
Opponents of the Christian faith are doing wonderful work for truth: they sift ancient writings over hundreds of years (Thomas Jefferson was already part of the game), turning every stone along the Sea of Galilee, sifting every play, drama, epic and farce out of Athens, tunneling under the pyramids of Egypt, knocking on the doors of forest mystics along the Ganges, climbing the Tibetan plateau, in the world's greatest scholarly manhunt. Our skeptical friends (atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Hindus, New Agers, nominal Christians) have been searching high and low for centuries, to locate their "missing man:" someone, anyone, who faintly resembles Jesus of Nazareth. Or, to put the matter another way, those who find the Jesus of the gospels both attractive and threatening would dearly like to find a genuine "Fifth Gospel." (A term that has been used for both the so-called "Gospel of Thomas" and for Fyodor Dostoevsky's masterpiece, The Brothers Karamazov). To summarize what I think is the true state of affairs, the actual results of this massive manhunt, let me begin autobiographically.
Then let's take a brief look at one of the most popular ancient comparisons to Jesus. I have argued in three books that this search for a credible analogy to Jesus of Nazareth has utterly failed. (Or, from the Christian perspective, succeeded wildly, by showing just how huge the gap is between Jesus and all those the world would compare to him). I first set this argument down in a book called Why the Jesus Seminar can't find Jesus, and Grandma Marshall Could. After detailing twelve fatal errors committed by Jesus Seminar fellows, I described 50 characteristics that define the gospels, and make them unique. (Having to do with setting, style and literary qualities, character, moral teachings, pedagogy, social qualities, and theology). I then analyzed some works that are often compared to the gospels, including the "Gospel" of Thomas and Apollonius of Tyana, and found that when analyzed objectively, at best these supposed "closest parallels" only resemble the real gospels on 6-9 out of 50 characteristics.
(The closest parallel I have found so far is The Analects of Confucius, which is our best source for the life of Confucius – though it lacks many of internal qualities that demonstrate the general historicity of the gospels). Later, for a Harvest House book called The Truth About Jesus and the "Lost Gospels" I analyzed all extant Gnostic "gospels." In doing that research, I found myself in for an even greater shock. It turned out that eminent scholars, having searched the ancient world high and low, offered up ancient "parallels" to the gospels that were as different from them in almost every meaningful way as a sea slug is from a falcon. "Great scholars" like Ehrman, Crossan, and Elaine Pagels had clearly fooled themselves, and their followers, to a monumental degree, seeing what just was not there, and missing what was. As C. S. Lewis memorably put it (so I quote roughly, from memory), "They claimed to see fern seed, and overlook an elephant standing fifty yards away in broad daylight." Finally, in a chapter of Faith Seeking Understanding called "The Fingerprints of Jesus," I focused on five qualities that the gospels share: his aphorisms or sayings, how he treated the weak, the cultural transcendence of his teachings, his revolutionary attitude towards women, and the particular character of his miracles. I made the case that like fingerprints, "These traits help the gospels grip the mind of the reader and mark them as unique.
They are not the sorts of things a disciple would add intentionally, or in some cases even could invent." This "forensic" argument for Jesus and the gospels is distinct from, but I think complements, traditional and more purely historical arguments. (Such as those made by Craig Blomberg in his excellent "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels"). In the gospels, I argue, we meet a unique person, a person whose personality has imprinted itself powerfully on the minds of those who recorded the strange and wonderful events that took place in Palestine. Skeptics OUGHT to easily find numerous real parallels to the gospels. Again and again they seem to have persuaded themselves that they have succeeded and found this unholy "holy grail." But all such parallels have turned out to be mirages, a room full of grails as fake as those in Indiana Jones. (But much more obvious!) Every such attempt collapses upon sober analysis, as Lewis again noticed decades before the Jesus Seminar was yet a twinkle in Robert Funk's eyes: “I have been reading poems, romances, vision literature, legends and myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this.” Space and time being limited, I cannot give a very full argument here. I will, therefore, focus briefly on one of the most popular alleged parallels: The Life of Apollonius of Tyana. Apollonius is mentioned again and again by skeptics who hold him up as proudly as a fourth-grader with a five-pound trout. About 300 AD, the Roman governor Hierocles already compared the "god-like" Apollonius favorably to Jesus in his Lover of Truth. Like Jesus, Apollonius was said to have done miracles and to be "divine." Harvard Jesus scholar Paula Fredriksen likewise wrote that Apollonius "had numerous miracles attributed to him: spectacular healings, exorcisms, even once raising someone from the dead," showing that Jesus' miracles were not "unprecedented or unique." Funk also advised us to compare stories about Jesus with "what was written about other teachers and charismatic figures of his time," placing Apollonius at the top of her list: "It is revealing to know that there are other stories of miraculous births, that other charismatic figures healed people of their afflictions and exorcised demons." In my debates with Robert Price and Richard Carrier, both similarly pointed to Apollonius as a strong parallel to the life of Jesus. Carrier said, "Now everything he says about the gospels is true of all kinds of faith literature in all religions . . . There are other examples that look more like the gospels, for example, the Book of Tobit. Or Plutarch's biography of Romulus. Or Philostratus' biography of Apollonius of Tyana.
There are a lot of these examples of faith literature that look more like the gospels. And if you wanted me to sit down and research and find the most similar example, I could. But it's not necessary. There's plenty of examples like this that have all the characteristics of the gospels . . . " This "gap" in the universe has thus, in their eyes, been completely filled. Until, that is, you take the time to actually read the Life of Apollonius, or any of these works. (The ones he gives here are quite ridiculous. Another, perhaps even more comical parallel Carrier gave elsewhere in the debate was The Golden Ass – the story of a man who accidentally bewitched himself and turned into a donkey until he ate some roses and turned back into a man). When one stops laughing, one has to shake one's head. The sober historian will begin by reminding skeptics that not only did Apollonius live after Jesus, his "life" was written up some 150 years after the gospels. In fact, it was written by one Philostratus, for the Empress Julia Domna, an early 3rd Century patroness of the arts and opponent of Christianity.
The story tells how a popular 1st Century philosopher journeyed (like Hercules) to exotic locales, from Africa to India. The author claimed to work from (among other sources) letters his subject wrote to kings and philosophers, and from the diary of his Boswell and most famous disciple, one Damis of Ninevah. (A city which, unfortunately, did not actually exist at the time of the diarist's alleged birth, however). As I reminded Dr. Price, if you want parallels to Jesus to show that Jesus is really not so special, it is best to find some that are credibly independent of the gospels. If Apollonius were at all like Jesus, if his "miracles" were at all like the ones worked in the gospels, one very plausible hypothesis would be that Philostratus prettied him up to match his competitor. (A common tactic in religious entrepreneurship). Given that the book was sponsored by an opponent of Christianity, this hypothesis seems even more credible. And Philostratus may indeed have intended that at times. But one need not stress this point too much, because if you read the two sets of writings, what cries out to the heavens, the "elephant" in the room, is that in fact, Apollonius is nothing at all like Jesus. Not even his miracles, ripped off as some likely were from the gospels, are much like those of Jesus. I found that in fact, Apollonius of Tyana only shared six of 50 characteristics with the gospels fairly strongly, three weakly. Most of what they shared was not very important to historicity: that like Jesus, Apollonius was a teacher, and used a Q&A format to teach, and that the book tells stories.
Let me briefly detail eight points of difference that are historically relevant:
1. The gospels were written within the plausible life-times of Jesus' first followers. Apollonius was written some 150 years after most the events it allegedly records. Such a gap is of deep significance to historicity.
2. Jesus carries out a remarkable, and unique, dialogue with the Hebrew tradition. He is Jewish from head to foot, steeped in the traditions and faith of his people. But he also challenges that tradition to the core, citing and fulfilling a plethora of prophecies and types and images from the ancient Hebrew world. One cannot do justice to this unique quality of the gospels, to which I know of no parallels, in a few words. Apollonius is not a dialogue with tradition, it is a monologue. In some ways a typical tourist, Apollonius floats dreamily across the world on a cushion of Greek arrogance. He is pleased to find his hosts in Babylon and India speak Greek. (This often happens in Greek novels, which center on lucky coincidences in far-away places). He visits all the sights, and takes the proper verbal snapshots, like backdrops to a James Bond flick. He is warmly welcomed by foreign priests, whom he instructs in superior (Greek, presumably) ritual. Why does this matter to those who want to know whether the gospels are telling the truth about Jesus or not?
Apollonius is the kind of work a moderately clever writer could produce from his veranda, in pajamas and slippers. The gospels are not: they record an earthshattering encounter with a unique historical person who challenged his beloved tradition to its core.
3. The gospel writers relate many details about places correctly. Dozens of facts have been confirmed independently from Luke's description in Acts of the Apostles, for instance. By contrast, Philostratus sends us a series of post-cards from prominent cities on the edges of the ancient world. He describes how the citizens of Tarsus congregate by the river "like so many waterfowl," a tunnel under the Euphrates River, and a city in India hidden by what Star Trek fans might call a cloaking device. His account of geography and customs bare a relation to reality so long as his guru sticks to ground trampled by Macedonian army boots. But when he ranges past the conquests of Alexander the Great, Damis proves an "errant story teller:" "His description of the country between the Hyphasis and the Ganges is utterly at variance with all known facts regarding it . . . Damis, in fact, tells nothing that is true about India except what has been told by writers before him." (JW MCrinkle, quoted in Phillimore, Apollonius of Tyana, preface) Apollonius also describes special Indian fauna: griffins, phoenix, apes that cultivate pepper trees, sluggish, 30 cubit marsh dragons, and lively alpine dragons: "there is not a single ridge without one."
4. The Gospel narrative is mostly understated, "Just the facts, Ma'am" in a style that contrasts sharply with the words of Christ. Everyone else is a straight man, not because the disciples lack personality, but by contrast to the unforgettable central figure. "Master, master, we are perishing." "Are you the one, or should we look for someone else?" This distinguishes the gospels from Job, Bhagavad Gita, Candide, or most ancient novels or plays, in which the animating genius appears not as a figure within the text, but the literary puppet-master who brings all characters to life. All the characters in Job, for example, speak with the same gusto, even God. But in the gospels, the "spice" comes from the words of Jesus, not from Mark or even (usually) John. This, too, reflects the fact that the gospel writers were talking about a real, memorable person, not merely telling pretty stories. But Philostratus is telling stories.
Apollonius contains much dialogue, in easy, colloquial tones, full of phrases like "But tell me," "By Zeus!" and the idiom of informal philosophical discourse: "So then . . . " "And what else could it be?" "We may rather consider this to be the case." The words of Apollonius do not much stand out from the text, in my opinion.
5. The gospels are full of realistic details, as even A. N. Wilson pointed out, when he was still a skeptic. It is often said that novelists can easily make up such details. But did they? Philostratus wants us to know his subject was remarkable, and tries to show this through the reaction of onlookers. At one point, Apollonius took a vow of silence. But when he entered a town in conflict, he shamed it into making peace by a gesture and the look on his face. Another time, the sages discussed how boiled eggs keep a child from alcoholism. "They were astonished at the many-sided wisdom of the company." It is hard to believe anyone was so impressed by such folklore, even in the 1st Century. One rare realistic touch comes when the sage talks to an Indian king through an interpreter. But this is spoiled by an earlier claim that he spoke all languages without studying. (As Eusebius already pointed out 1700 years ago). Besides crested dragons, spice-loving panthers (an addiction that proved their downfall), and 400 year-old elephants that shoot at enemies with their trunks, the hero's surprising fame in India, and his inane observations, which little justify that fame, allow the text to "work" for a modern audience only as a farce.
Imagine the following dialogue between Steve Martin as Apollonius, and Bill Murray as a customs official, who at first takes Apollonius for a spirit: Bill Murray: "Whence comes this visitation?" Steve Martin: "I come of myself, if possible to make men of you, in spite of yourselves! All the earth is mine, and I have a right to go all over it and through it." Murray: "I will torture you, if you don't answer my questions." Martin (baring teeth): "I hope that you will do it with your own hands, so that you may catch it well, if you touch a true man." Murray (batting eyes): "By the gods, who are you?" Martin (with a magnanimous flourish): "Since you have asked me civilly this time and not so rudely as before, listen . . . I am Apollonius of Tyana . . . I shall be glad to meet your king." Subdued, the official offers gold, which the sage refuses. Then he suggests a barbecue, but recalls with horror that Apollonius is a vegetarian. Finally he offers vegan hors d'ouvres -- unfortunately not organic: Murray: "You should have leavened bread and huge dates as yellow as amber. And I can offer you all the vegetables that grow in the garden of the Tigris." Martin: "Wild, natural vegetables are more tasty than the forced and artificial!" The unintended comedy of Philostratus' work makes me rather glad that skeptics often appeal to it as a parallel to the gospels: I would have missed the fun of reading this unconsciously silly book otherwise. One wonders, though, how so many brilliant, highlyeducated skeptics can seriously claim Apollonius as some sort of parallel to Jesus. They are none so blind.
6. Jesus noticed and cared about individuals. Where the disciples noticed a "Samaritan" "woman," Jesus saw a hurting individual with a history of failed relationships who hungered for God. He often noticed individuals – a lady who had endured much from doctors, a woman about to be stoned, a man of faith, Zaccheus the Short – where others saw members of a class – tax collector, blind beggar, guide. Jesus possessed a quality rare in the healing profession, of looking a patient in the eye. With the sick, too, he saw not just a condition to attend, but a mother or brother or friend.
If we possessed divine healing powers, would we think to ask a blind beggar who called on us, "What do you want?" Jesus did not dispense medicine to a procession of charity cases: he met and cared for human beings. Richard Carrier claimed that "Apollonius of Tyana notices individuals," as Jesus does. In fact, the disciples of Apollonius seem a nebulous lot. In his early days, the sage gathered seven, of whom nothing is said, apart from this parting shot when the philosopher set off for India: "I have taken council of the gods, and I have told you of my resolve . .. Since you are so soft, fare you well, and be true to your studies. I must go my way where Science and a higher Power guide me." But Apollonius' servants are forced to accompany him. Damius, whom he meets later in Ninevah, is probably no more than a rhetorical device. He serves two rhetorical purposes: to chronicle his master's adventures, and as foil to allow Philostratus to comment on sights along the way. When needed, extras appear, like the servants. They are just props. When confronted by two men with rival claims to buried gold, Apollonius judges their claims from universal principles: "I cannot believe that the gods would deprive the one even of this land, unless he was a bad man, or that they would, on the other hand, bestow on the other even what was under the land, unless he was better than the man who sold it." With pompous disinterest in real people like that, no wonder Apollonius became a wandering sage. So no, Apollonius does not really notice individuals – he's too busy preening and offering "wisdom." As for that alleged wisdom:
7. Jesus' teachings were surprising, shocking, paradoxical, and challenging. They were always original and surprising in form or context. G. K. Chesterton explained:
"A man reading the gospel sayings would not find platitudes. If he had read even in the most respectful spirit the majority of ancient philosophers and of modern moralists, he would appreciate the unique importance of saying that he did not find platitudes. It is more than can be said of Plato. It is much more than can be said of Epictetus or Seneca or Marcus Aurelius or Apollonius of Tyana.
And it is immeasurably more than can be said of most of the agnostic moralists and preachers of the ethical societies; with their songs of service and their religion of brotherhood." The gospels startle a reader by "strange claims that might sound like the claim to be the brother of the sun and moon," "startling pieces of advice," "stunning rebukes," and "strangely beautiful stories." An objective reader: "Would see some very gigantesque figures of speech about the impossibility of threading a needle with a camel or the possibility of throwing a mountain into the sea. He would see a number of very daring simplifications of the difficulties of life; like the advice to shine upon everybody indifferently as does the sunshine or not to worry about the future any more than the birds. He would find on the other hand some passages of almost impenetrable darkness, so far as he was concerned, such as the moral of the parable of the Unjust Servant. Some of these things might strike him as fables and some as truths; but none as truisms." By contrast, Apollonius of Tyana is choked with platitudes: "Is there any form of consumption so wasting as (falling in love)?" "Blessed are you then in your treasure, if you rate your friends more highly than gold and silver." Apollonius says little that is unique, and is often simplistic, making raids into the inane. But Philostratus is supposed to be one of the more clever writers of his time. Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John (according to our skeptics) are all anonymous writers, except maybe for Luke. Even on the traditional account, Jesus' disciples were a motley and mostly low-class crew. So why do the sayings of Jesus shine so much brighter than those of the "great sage," as transcribed by a "leading writer?" (And why do his words stand out from everyone else in the gospels?) The simplest explanation is clearly the best: the words of Jesus truly do trace to one unique genius, and represent a genuine, early memory of the actual teachings of our Lord.
8. But what about miracles? Isn't Apollonius proof that the miracles of Jesus were nothing special? Actually, I think such claims are proof, again, that some of our skeptical friends need to visit the eye doctor. The uber skeptic, Morton Smith, argued that miracles appear in the gospels because, indeed, Jesus did such things: "All major strands of the gospel material present Jesus as a miracle worker who attracted his followers by his miracles. All of them indicate that because of his miracles he was believed to be the Messiah and the son of a god. Anyone who wants to deny the truth of these reports must try to prove that within 40 to 60 years of Jesus' death all the preserved strands of Christian tradition had forgotten, or deliberately misrepresented, the most conspicuous characteristic of the public career of the founder of the movement." (Jesus the Magician: Charlatan or Son of God?, 4) Smith's own solution was to conflate "miracle" with "magic," which as I argue in Jesus and the Religions of Man, shows a failure in critical observation in itself. (Another way Smith dealt with Jesus was by inventing a saying of Mark to make Jesus look gay, probably as a gag). But this observation is accurate: Thomas Jefferson aside, one can't credibly take the miracles out of the gospels, anymore than one can de-bone a horse and still ride it. Glenn Miller has shown in a detailed summary that for two and a half centuries before the time of Jesus, miracle workers were essentially absent from the Roman world. ("Copy-Cat Savior" at ChristianThinktank.com). Skeptics like John Crossan often point to alleged parallels like Honi the CircleDrawer and Hanina ben Dosa, who strictly speaking, did no miracles at all. One prayed for rain, and rain came in a timely manner.
But even that was reported long after the fact, and after the writing of the gospels. The desperation on the part of those who would make Jesus less lonely, is palpable. It is stunning that such seem to be the closest parallels skeptics can find, after an epic canvassing of ancient records. The search for an historical person who parallels Jesus on these points – the character and fact of his miracles – should convince us not that miracle workers were common, but exceedingly rare. No one seems to have found any records in the ancient world that parallel the realism, piety, practicality, and historicity of the miracle stories of Jesus. So what about Apollonius' "miracles?" Philostratus begins his work by reminding us that a philosopher can dabble in magic without tainting his credibility, as he says Plato, Pythagoras, Socrates, and Anaxagoras all did. For the most part, he prefers to describe Apollonius as philosopher rather than magician. Occasionally, though, his hero disappears or foretells the future. The Hindu gurus also practice levitation, for which a metaphysical explanation is given. The secret to virtue is not magic, but "science." Often, when called on to cure people of an illness, Apollonius chose to rebuke them of sin, instead, and let them know they had what came to them, coming to them. Often this looks like blaming the victim. Anthropologist Rene Girard even used Apollonius as a case study of scape-goating. When the people of Ephesus asked the good sage to save them from a plague, he did so by having them stone a beggar to death. Beaten to a bloody pulp, the beggar's eyes glowed red, thus revealing him to be a demon. Girard reacted to this "horrible miracle" by noting, "Jesus is poles apart from Apollonius. Jesus doesn't instigate stonings; rather, he does all he can to prevent them." (Girard, I See Satan Fall Like Lightening, 54) Philostratus also raised a girl from apparent, but possibly misdiagnosed death. Even those at the scene "could not decide" whether or not she had been alive. So while Philostratus, writing long after the gospels and probably aware of them, claimed his sage did miracles, too, they were infrequent, and of a totally different character from those of Jesus. Parallels with Christ's miracles are therefore superficial, and this "proof text" is the exception that proves the rule. There simply are no serious parallels to Jesus in the ancient world, on this, as on many traits, or the sum total of those traits, even less. For two thousand years, skeptics have tried to find some parallel to the life of Jesus, so as to render it less unique, and, if possible, dismiss it as "just another tall tale." This attempt has utterly failed, revealing Jesus as unique indeed. Apollonius of Tyana is a dreadful choice as a parallel Christ. It is about someone whose career mostly occurred after the life of Jesus, was written up hundreds of years later, perhaps purposely in order to compete with or undermine Christianity. Yet even so, read these two sets of ancient writings, and no comparison could be more incongruous. No one could be less like Jesus than the cocky, banal, self-satisfied, inane, and ridiculous Apollonius, who has nothing much to say that has not been said better on Saturday Night Live. Why is that? Philostratus is supposed to the more cosmopolitan and clever writer. Something obviously much deeper and more remarkable is going on in the Gospels than mere literary cleverness. It says something about the gospels that so many skeptics have spent so much time looking for parallels, yet the best they can come up with is something like Apollonius of Tyana. Divine fingerprints rest upon the gospels, of a visitation to which no remote parallel has yet been found. ….
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769520851271631286.post-71576400623134933822024-02-26T22:16:00.000-08:002024-02-26T22:16:01.868-08:00Nabonassar also called Shalmaneser<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgv0F0DWLWKQjvjb8eORAQSELieEQarNm_JzbwLGjPZQun9XwyTCM-CcP38e6qVtQ7zuYaP8kypNBurP_BMCnVG5h51XlCLfLod-yXgjC9JB4I62Zb9B2coikVk1hL2vmGpTXWiCWjeAmQGGpSk4mHJbK4ITFurRa0MoW80iG7UJDn23PWAK90eYZpUFpne/s300/maxresdefault.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgv0F0DWLWKQjvjb8eORAQSELieEQarNm_JzbwLGjPZQun9XwyTCM-CcP38e6qVtQ7zuYaP8kypNBurP_BMCnVG5h51XlCLfLod-yXgjC9JB4I62Zb9B2coikVk1hL2vmGpTXWiCWjeAmQGGpSk4mHJbK4ITFurRa0MoW80iG7UJDn23PWAK90eYZpUFpne/s600/maxresdefault.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
“[Copernicus] seems to identify Nabonassar with the biblical Shalmaneser,
king of Assyria, whom, following Eusebius, he calls Salmanassar,
king of the Chaldeans”.
N. M. Swerdlow, O. Neugebauer
Having tradition supply an extra name for a potentate can sometimes serve to change the order of things.
Thus, thanks to the Chronicle of John [of] Nikiu (supposedly C7th AD), I learned that Cambyses had the other name of Nebuchednezzar (Nebuchadnezzar), thus enabling me to associate the mad, Egypt-conquering Cambyses with the mad, Egypt-conquering Nebuchednezzar. See e.g. my six-part series:
Cambyses also named Nebuchadnezzar
beginning with:
(5) Cambyses also named Nebuchadnezzar? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
And, now, the above information opens the door to the possibility that Nabonassar may have been an Assyrian king, “Shalmaneser”.
This could be very helpful, because, whilst Nabonassar is now well-known by name:
https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/nabonassar-e815690
“(Ναβονάσσαρος; Nabonássaros). Graecised form of the Babylonian royal name Nabû-nāṣir. N.'s reign (747-734 BC) is not marked by any spectacular events. His fame is due to the fact that Claudius Ptolemaeus (Cens. 21,9) chose the beginning of the first year of N.'s reign (calculated to 26 February 747 BC) as the epoch for his astronomical calculations (‘Nabonassar Era’; in the ‘Ptolemaic Canon’, a continuous list of the kings ruling over Babylonia until Alexander [4] the Great, then continued by the rulers of Egypt …”
he is otherwise quite poorly known, as is apparent from what William W. Hallo wrote (in The Nabonassar Era and other Epochs in Mesopotamian Chronology and Chronography, 1988, p. 189):
The numerous innovations thus associated with Nabonassar stand in sharp contrast to the actual circumstances of his reign. Whatever high hopes he may have harbored at its outset, they were very soon dashed on the rocks of hard political reality. We have no royal inscriptions of the fourteen-year reign, and two private inscriptions of the time may be regarded as evidence of the relative strength of private dignitaries and corresponding weakness of the monarchy …. Only three years after Nabonassar’s accession in Babylonia, there occurred that of Tiglatpileser III in Assyria. He was a truly heroic figure, destined to lay the foundations of the neo-Assyrian empire. He too tampered with traditional historiographic conventions, reviving the age-old concept of the bala (in its Akkadian guise of palû) to date and count his annual campaigns, but beginning these with his accession year instead of waiting, like his predecessors, for the first full year of his reign. ….
[End of quote]
Some queries, and some suggestions, are immediately necessary here, I find.
That so apparently innovative and substantially reigning a king, of such a well-documented era as that of the neo-Assyrians, could have left “no royal inscriptions”, can only mean that - as according to my custom - an alter ego for him needs to be identified. And the most obvious candidate for this would be the likewise innovative, and contemporaneous, king, Tiglath-pileser so-called III, who is known to have ruled Babylon - and that under a non-Assyrian name. Especially if Tiglath-pileser was also named - as Nabonassar is said to have been - “Shalmaneser”.
And that I have often argued to have been the case, for instance:
King Tiglath-pileser was Tobit’s “Shalmaneser”
(8) King Tiglath-pileser was Tobit’s “Shalmaneser” | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
So, it was the innovative Tiglath-pileser who had presumably, under his adopted name “Nabonassar”, as ruler of Babylon, inaugurated a new chronological era.
Tiglath-pileser was multi-facetted
This Tiglath-pileser was too larger-than-life a character for him not to have absorbed various alter egos, apart from Nabonassar.
In I Chronicles 5:26, he is also called Pul (or Pulu) in a waw consecutive construction:
So the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, that is, Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria. He carried the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh into captivity. He took them to Halah, Habor, Hara, and the river of Gozan to this day.
And Tiglath-pileser so-called III was also Tiglath-pileser so-called I, according to my reconstructions, such as:
Tiglath-pileser King of Assyria
(8) Tiglath-pileser King of Assyria | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
And, with the necessary folding of the Middle Assyrian era of the c. C12th BC into the Neo Assyrian era of the c. C8th BC:
Folding four ‘Middle’ Assyrian kings into first four ‘Neo’ Assyrian kings
(8) Folding four ‘Middle’ Assyrian kings into first four ‘Neo’ Assyrian kings | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
as further reinforced by a repetition of Middle and Neo Elamite Shutrukid kings:
Horrible Histories: Suffering Shutrukids
(8) Horrible Histories: Suffering Shutrukids | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
then Shalmaneser so-called I must likewise be folded into Neo kings “Shalmaneser”.
Was Nabonassar’s Assyrian alter ego an innovator?
“Tiglath-pileser III (745-727 B.C.E.) introduced a new era in the history
of the ancient Near East. He is the ruler who laid the firm foundations of
the Neo-Assyrian empire, developing new methods of military occupation,
political organisation and communications throughout his vast,
subjugated territories. It is not by chance”.
Bustanay Oded
To find the historical prophet Jonah - and also to fill him out biblically (a task upon which I was able to focus without much distraction during the period of lockdown) - I had to turn upside down, and inside out, the conventional sequence of Assyro-(Babylonian) kings. See e.g. my article:
De-coding Jonah
(DOC) De-coding Jonah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Whilst I did not then come to the further conclusion that Nabonassar may have been a powerful Assyrian king who had ruled the city of Babylon, my Assyrian reconstruction around the prophet Jonah has important bearing upon the “Shalmaneser” of whom it was said that he was Nabonassar.
Without going back here through all of the complicated details, let me simply summarise the extent of the composite king, Shalmaneser – Tiglath-pileser.
My revised neo-Assyrian succession relevant to Jonah is as follows:
1. Adad-Nirari [I-III];
2. Tiglath-pileser [I-III]/Shalmaneser [I-V];
3. Tukulti-ninurta [I-II]/Sargon II-Sennacherib;
4. Ashurnasirpal-Esarhaddon-Ashurbanipal-Nebuchednezzar.
According to my Jonah article, the last of these kings, my enlarged king 4., was Jonah 3:6’s repentant “king of Nineveh”.
Now, was this Assyrian king [no. 2 above] in any way the inaugurator of a new outlook, or a new era?’ (as would seem to befit Nabonassar)
Bill Cooper, who has favoured (my potential Nabonassar) this same king 2. above - in his guise as Tiglath-pileser III - as Jonah’s Ninevite king, has written of this king as if he had indeed inaugurated a new sort of era (which Cooper himself would attribute, mistakenly, I believe, to the Jonah effect).
Thus he wrote (“The Historic Jonah”, p. 112):
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j02_1/j02_1_105-116.pdf):
…. Almost overnight, it seems, the empire underwent a total revival. Where defeat had so recently been staring them in the face, the Assyrians were now enjoying decisive victories. Where there had been economic collapse, there was now available wealth and a reasonable stability.
Political turmoil and civil unrest now quietened down. In other words, the disaster-prone empire that Tiglath-pileser III had ‘inherited’ … was almost unrecognisable after the inauguration of his reign. Shortly after he took over the rule of the empire, something dramatic, almost disturbing happened to turn on its head Assyria’s forthcoming and imminent destruction. ….
Be that as it may, Tiglath-pileser (so-called III) – {who would also be, in my reconstruction, the enlightened “Shalmaneser” of Tobit 1, Tobit’s royal patron} - is definitely considered by Assyriologists to have inaugurated something of “a new era”.
Thus, for example, Bustanay Oded writes (“The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III: Review Article” (Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 47, No. 1/2 (1997), pp. 104-110): “Tiglath-pileser III (745-727 B.C.E.) introduced a new era in the history of the ancient Near East.
He is the ruler who laid the firm foundations of the Neo-Assyrian empire, developing new methods of military occupation, political organisation and communications throughout his vast, subjugated territories. It is not by chance”.
And again, Shigeo Yamada, “The Reign and Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, an Assyrian Empire Builder (744-727 BC)” https://journals.openedition.org/annuaire-cdf/1803
“… it has become fully apparent that [T-P III’s] reign marked the beginning of the imperial phase of Assyria, and that this period of time should be regarded as a watershed in the history of the ancient Near East”.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769520851271631286.post-14225918809356897422024-02-25T20:46:00.000-08:002024-02-25T20:46:13.202-08:00Jesus Christ came as Bridegroom <div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiK-aKBEsVs0vTy5PKsbkBUAK-5JZClZem7DVAXG02G9pjA7wzK_wPgFDEWVfPy5jpyNlxEhvJmmDPWa_d10qzE6p6X295sTDRXQtxep43EIc3kKGr920mtQAt8Jr-yh9EEGaUvMQ4RY8fbsCVOaZe23vKk5YUHBYqy1pSB9vEYeLKUe9gE5wwxKM6Es2Qv/s400/marriage-of-creator-creature-quote-pin-pitre.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiK-aKBEsVs0vTy5PKsbkBUAK-5JZClZem7DVAXG02G9pjA7wzK_wPgFDEWVfPy5jpyNlxEhvJmmDPWa_d10qzE6p6X295sTDRXQtxep43EIc3kKGr920mtQAt8Jr-yh9EEGaUvMQ4RY8fbsCVOaZe23vKk5YUHBYqy1pSB9vEYeLKUe9gE5wwxKM6Es2Qv/s600/marriage-of-creator-creature-quote-pin-pitre.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
John the Baptist says,
“You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, ’I am not the Christ, but I have been sent
before him.’ The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom,
who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice. Therefore this joy
of mine is now complete. He must increase, but I must decrease.
John 3:28-30
Introduction
Every new disturbance in the world, be it of natural cause such as earthquakes, tsunamis or hurricanes; political, such as Middle Eastern crises, Islamic Jihads and Chinese aggression; or economic, for example the new wave of food shortages sweeping the world, finds its modern-day interpreter with the Book of Revelation in hand. Depending upon one’s political or religious proclivity the Beast of Revelation (Revelation 13:11) can be, now the President of the United States, or, previously, Saddam Hussein rebuilding the city of Babylon, or even the Pope ruling Catholicism. This sort of frenzied speculation became particularly apparent as Year 2000 approached, with the ‘millennium bug’ seriously biting the loony cultist fringe. For the Israeli government then had to deport a group of American ‘Christians’ for fear that they had violent intentions towards the Old City, suspecting them to be amongst fanatics who believe that the ancient Temple of Jerusalem is destined to be rebuilt in the near future.
This would mean firstly clearing away - even with a bomb if necessary - the great Moslem shrine, the Dome of the Rock, that now occupies the mount.
Meanwhile, certain Protestant and evangelical groups continue to persist with the notion, conceived during the Reformation, that the Pope is Antichrist and that the ‘Roman Catholic Church’ is the “famous prostitute” of Revelation, “riding a scarlet beast which had seven heads and ten horns” (17;2, 3), the seven heads being also “the seven hills” (18:9). This latter, they insist, must be a reference to Rome with its Seven Hills. And they puzzle as to why prayerful, Bible-believing Catholics cannot see this.
The Modernist crisis has only reinforced this view in their minds, especially when they learn of ‘Catholic’ bishops denigrating the Bible and supporting Gay Acceptance, etc.
No doubt some of these non-Catholic brethren are genuine in their beliefs. They are certainly firm in them. Leo Harris for instance, writing the Foreword to Thomas Foster’s The Pope, Communism and the Coming New World (Acacia Press, Victoria), having acknowledged that: “In the present remarkable days, with the Holy Spirit touching the lives of many people in both the Roman Catholic and main-line Protestant churches, one may feel reluctant to expose the errors found in any church system”, feels constrained nonetheless to add a point that will be taken up more vehemently by Foster himself: “However, it is no light matter that any one man should arise and claim supreme headship over the church as Christ’s sole representative or vicar”.
Foster himself will go so far as to identify the Pope as Antichrist (which name, he insists, literally means in the place of Christ).
I personally know of Protestants who, whilst likewise being quite uncomfortable with the concept of the Papacy, are prepared nonetheless - in the current climate of ecumenism - not to make too much of an issue out of it, but to accept that there is presently going on throughout the world what they might call a ‘mustering of all people of good will’ (including even Roman Catholics).
Perhaps this new outlook is the first stirring of unity; the graces of the ecumenical effort.
We Catholics have of course a view quite different from these Protestants regarding the Pope and the Church. We acknowledge the Pope to be the appointed Vicar of Christ on earth (cf. Matthew 16:18), the very foundation of the Church, and infallible in matters of faith and morals. The Church we consider to be pre-eminently Marian (even before it was Petrine). The Blessed Virgin Mary, according to John Paul II, “is the image of the Church whom we likewise call mother” (Homily 18 November 1980. Cf. Lumen Gentium, #63).
We therefore shudder at the accusation made by Luther-inspired Protestants that the Catholic Church is to be identified with the loathsome “Harlot” of the Apocalypse, which derogatory title we consider to be a most appropriate label, symbolically speaking, for the Modernist ‘World Wide Church of Darkness’ (cf. Pope St. Pius X).
Apocalypse already fulfilled
In this article I shall be endeavouring to show - hopefully to assist ecumenical efforts by clearing away misgivings, but especially to provide Catholics with a defence against unwarranted accusations by Protestants - that the mystery Whore, “Babylon the Great”, is not Rome at all (either physical or spiritual) but the ancient City of Jerusalem where Jesus himself was crucified - and where many of the Prophets (beginning with Abel), Apostles and disciples of Our Lord were martyred. In this way I hope to establish that the Whore cannot possibly have anything to do with the Catholic Church.
I shall be arguing here that the Book of Revelation has, in the main, already been literally fulfilled; that it was fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies under Titus in 70 AD, corresponding to the burning of “Babylon” in Apocalypse ch.s 17-18.
Its relevance for us today is allegorical and symbolical (e.g. the above-mentioned likening of the Harlot, which is a city, with Modernism, which is a system of thought with a corresponding praxis). Indeed this view accords perfectly with John Paul II’s statement to a C20th audience that the Book of Revelation is ‘symbolical and figurative in meaning’.
Essentially Revelation is about the divorce of one ‘woman’ (one formerly just ‘woman’ who had gone bad), and the marrying of a new, faithful one.
The scroll of Revelation 5:1 is actually a bill of divorce; the divorce being completed in the most emphatic manner with the annihilation of the harlot city, “Babylon”.
I am indebted to Kenneth Gentry (Jr.) in “A Preterist View of Revelation” for spelling this out.
E.g. [pp. 51-2]:
When viewed against the backdrop of the theme of Jewish judgment, personages (a harlot and a bride), and the flow of Revelation (from the sealed scroll to a capital punishment for “adultery” to a “marriage feast” to the taking of a new “bride” as the “new Jerusalem”), the covenantal nature of the transaction suggests that the seven-sealed scroll is God’s divorce decree against his Old Testament wife for her spiritual adultery.
In the Old Testament God “marries” Israel (see esp. Ezek. 16:8, 31-32), and in several places he threatens her with a “bill of divorce” (Isa. 50:1; Jer. 3:8).
(In C. Marvin Pate’s Four Views on the Book of Revelation, Zondervan, 1998. The word “preterist” is based on a Latin word præteritus, meaning “gone by”, i.e. past).
Also I want to clear up the serious problem (one of commentators own making) whereby the Apostles, expecting (according to such commentators) Christ’s final coming (Parousia), in their own day, were thus mistaken because that did not come about - still has not. Such an interpretation would suggest that Our Lord had passed on to his intimate friends the wrong time-table.
This is, of course, quite unacceptable.
My argument here will be that the Apostles were referring first and foremost to Christ’s victorious coming in 70 AD, thus freeing the early Church from her Judaïc (now corrupted and nationalistic) connections.
The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD may not mean a lot to us now in the C20th -especially we who have grown up with Western-based education that tends to eschew (or not understand) everything Semitic - but it meant a heck of a lot to those of the Apostolic era, who were mostly Jews, and who continued to worship in the Jerusalem Temple and the synagogues virtually to the very end.
The emphasis here will be on the historico-literal.
Some Illustrations of this Interpretation
The historico-literal level of biblical interpretation is the most basic one, and Popes and Saints have urged that Scripture scholars firstly identify that level. Saint Thomas Aquinas himself was utterly convinced of its importance; for, according to Monsignor G. Kelly, in his refutation of Fr. Raymond Brown and co. (The New Biblical Theorists, p. 13): “St. Thomas Aquinas is usually cited as a leading Church doctor who knew the importance of discovering the literal sense”.
Obviously there can be only one historico-literal fulfilment of anything.
The ancient prophet Hosea was actually commanded by God to pantomime the tragic situation of Israel’s infidelity to God, by taking for his wife an adulteress from the harlot nation of Samaria (northern Israel). ‘Go, marry a whore, and get children with a whore, for the country itself has become nothing but a whore by abandoning Yahweh’ (Hosea 1:2). God knew that this woman, a product of her environment, would be unfaithful to the prophet, but He nevertheless urged Hosea to take her back after her infidelity, as a sign to Israel that God was patient and long-suffering and was also prepared to take back unfaithful Israel (3:1-3).
The bad wife/good wife scenario is in fact the whole tension of the Book of Apocalypse.
The pantomime that Hosea had played out in c.700 BC would now be approximately re-enacted by Jesus Christ himself, the Saviour, in his divorce of the unfaithful earthly Jerusalem (Judaïsm) and his marriage with his new Bride, the heavenly Jerusalem.
This time there will be no taking back of the adulteress, Jerusalem - even though He had passionately longed to do so: ‘Jerusalem, Jerusalem ... How often have I longed to gather your children, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you refused!’ (Luke 13:34).
His patience with her had at last run out, so to speak.
The ‘Holy Family’ of the Old Testament
The prophet Isaiah’s outspokenness before young king Ahaz would not have endeared him to that proud monarch who went on to become one of Jerusalem’s most evil kings. Though Scripture does not spell it out, there is the implication that Isaiah and his family eventually had to flee Jerusalem to escape king Ahaz’s wrath. This would make Ahaz a forerunner of Herod (cf. Matthew 2:13-14). Here is the reasoning behind such an assumption:
Immanuel we are told, would, before he reached the age of reason, “feed on curds and honey” (Isaiah 7:15).
What does that signify?
It suggests that the family must have been obliged to head north, away from Jerusalem, to the region that had already been devastated and depopulated by the Assyrian armies, where briars and thorns had taken the place of abundant vineyards, and where “all who are left in the country will feed on curds and honey” (vv.22, 23).
Now St. John the Evangelist, in the Book of Revelation, picks up this theme of Immanuel and his mother fleeing into the wilderness to escape the wrath of the ‘king’:
The woman brought a male child into the world, the son who was to rule all the nations with an iron sceptre, and the child was taken straight up to God and to his throne, while the woman escaped into the desert, where God made a place of safety ready, for her to be looked after in the 1260 days (12:5-6).
This “male child”, the victorious One, who rides the white horse, is the Christ, victorious in his Passion and Resurrection (cf. 5:5). Pope Pius XII stated unequivocally: “He is Jesus Christ” (as quoted in Opus Dei’s The Navarre Bible: Revelation, p. 70).
This is actually quite obvious from Revelation’s further description of Him (19:12-16):
... the name written on Him was known only to Himself, his cloak was soaked in blood. He is known by the name, The Word of God. From his mouth came a sharp sword .... He is the one who will rule [the pagans] with an iron sceptre, and tread out the wine of Almighty God’s fierce anger. On his cloak and on his thigh there was a name written: ‘The King of Kings and The Lord of Lords’.
He is also Immanuel, “God-with them” (21:3).
As to Revelation’s “Woman”, the “Marian Dimension” of this has already been ably explained by others. The Woman also, of course, represents the Church; and, in literal terms, the fledgling Church of St. John’s day, the new Bride, which was forced to flee into the desert for the duration of 1260 days (i.e. 42 months or 3 and a half years - see below); no doubt in obedience to Our Lord’s Olivet command to his faithful to leave the city of Jerusalem on the eve of her destruction (Matt. 24:15-17,20-22; cf. Mark 13:14):
So when you see the disastrous abomination, of which the prophet Daniel spoke, set up in the Holy Place (let the reader understand), then those in Judæa must escape to the mountains .... Pray that you will not have to escape in winter or on a sabbath. For then there will be great tribulation such as, until now, since the world began, there never has been, nor ever will be again.
That this “great tribulation” refers literally to a pre-70 AD scenario - and not to any later time, including the C21st - is obvious from the mention of the “sabbath” restricting the movements of peoples in Palestine.
All that Jewish legalism went right ‘out the window’ after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
Jesus Christ challenges “the reader” to “understand” about the “Abomination that makes desolate”, from which the faithful must flee. But what might have been a riddle then for his contemporaries is really made easy for us by St. Luke, who, removing all the mystery, tells us that this refers to the pagan armies that will encompass Jerusalem (Luke 21:20).
These are the Gog and Magog of Revelation 20:8 - the idea for which St. John borrowed from Ezekiel 38 and 39 - the multi-nation armies of the ruling empire that would attack Judæa and Jerusalem.
“Armageddon” (Revelation 16:16) apparently refers to Jerusalem’s strong northern fortress of Har Magedo (Megiddo).
St. John picks up this, Our Lord’s command to flee, when he writes:
“A new voice from heaven; I heard it say, ‘Come out, My people, away from [Babylon] so that you do not share in her crimes and have the same plagues to bear. Her sins have reached up to heaven ...’.” (Revelation 18:4, 5; cf. 18:2).
The 1260 days (i.e. 42 months or three and a half years) pertain to the period of the Jewish war in the era 66-70 AD.
Now the Virgin Mary did not flee into the desert at this time in history, and for that precise duration of time; for She was no longer on earth, having taken her place beside her Son in heaven. So, just as in the case of Isaiah’s young wife, the literal details cannot be made to fit Mary. And yet the Woman of Apocalypse, in the far-sweeping gaze of the Holy Spirit, does symbolise Mary, as does Isaiah’s “maiden”. Fr. Kramer was therefore quite wrong in his blanket assertion in The Book of Destiny (p. 276) that: “The woman of chapter twelve is not the Blessed Virgin Mary”.
Opus Dei, on the other hand, is most emphatic about this Marian connection, based on Pope St. Pius X (ibid., p. 26):
As in the case of the parables, not everything in the imagery necessarily happens in real life; and the same image can refer to one or more things - particularly when they are closely connected, as the Blessed Virgin and the Church are. So, the fact that this passage is interpreted as referring to the Church does not exclude its referring also to Mary. More than once, the Church’s Magisterium has given it a Marian interpretation. For example, St. Pius X says: ‘Everyone knows that this woman was the image of the Virgin Mary ...’.
Less satisfactory, though, do I find Opus Dei’s implication that the Holy Spirit’s text has trouble fitting a specific, given scenario (p. 97):
The mysterious figure of the woman has been interpreted ever since the time of the Fathers of the Church as referring to the ancient people of Israel, or the Church of Jesus Christ, or the Blessed Virgin. The text supports all of these interpretations but in none do all the details fit.
Such a misalignment is, I believe, forced upon those who fail to recognise in the entire Revelation a consistent historico-literal substratum: namely, that of the era of the Apostles.
All of Revelation’s prophecies strongly reflect actual historical events in St. John’s near future, though - as is obvious to any sound commentator - they are set in apocalyptic drama and clothed in poetic hyperbole.
There will be no problem fitting details once one has the appropriate matrix; the matrix that the Holy Spirit has in mind.
Having said that, there is no harm in one’s allegorizing (one of the three spiritual senses) the whole situation of the Woman fleeing into the desert from the great Red Dragon as the current banishment of Marian devotion, by the Modernists, to the desert of oblivion, or the rejection by Catholics of Our Lady of the Rosary (Fatima) and her message.
It seems to me that the historico-literal sense is necessary to the spiritual sense in a way analogous to the need of the soul for the body. Admittedly the soul can exist without the body, even in Heaven, but there is an incompleteness there that will be resolved only on the last day.
Unmasking the Whore, “Babylon the Great”
St. Augustine, in his The City of God, juxtaposed two cities - the camp of the just and that of the evil - from Cain and Abel right down to his own day. Taking a lead from this, but adopting alongside it the perspective relevant to this article, of the good and the evil woman - of divorce and re-marriage - I shall be contrasting Christ’s Bride with the Devil’s Harlot Woman.
The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah (Jerusalem) are typified in many Scriptures (e.g. Isaiah 1:8, Lamentations 2:13) as a Woman. In Ezekiel, Israel is likened initially to a helpless girl-child upon whom God (as Father) took pity, nourishing her and watching her grow. Afterwards He dressed her in finery and (as Bridegroom) took her for His spouse; eventually crowning her with queenship so that she became the envy of the nations (16:4-14).
But, with the passing of time, she became infatuated with her own beauty; using her fame to make herself a prostitute (v.15); even going beyond the excesses of a prostitute (vv. 21, 33-34).
For her punishment, God handed her over to “all the lovers” [i.e., the nations], with whom she had been trafficking, but who had become sick of her filthy ways (v. 28). These were to treat her in the same way as were treated in antiquity “women who commit adultery and murder ... stripped ... stoned and run through with a sword” (vv. 38, 40).
1. Thus did Assyria do to the northern kingdom of Israel which Ezekiel calls Jerusalem’s “sister”. (Fulfilled in c. 720 BC, conventional dating).
2. And so, God warns through Ezekiel, would the Babylonians do to Jerusalem for not having learned from her sister’s mistakes. (Fulfilled in c. 590 BC, conventional dating).
For the Lord Yahweh says this: “I now hand you [Jerusalem] over to those you hate, to those in whom you have lost interest. They will treat you with hatred, they will rob you of the fruits of your labours and leave you completely naked. And thus your shameful whoring will be exposed .... As you have copied your sister’s behaviour, I will put her cup in your hand”.
The Lord Yahweh says this:
“You will drink your sister’s cup, a cup that is wide and deep, leading to laughter and mockery, so ample the draught it holds. You will be filled with drunkenness and sorrow. Cup of affliction and devastation, the cup of your sister Samaria, you will drink it, you will drain it; then it will be shattered to pieces and lacerate your breast.
I have spoken - it is the Lord Yahweh who speaks”. (Ezekiel 23:28, 29:31-33, 34).
3. And St. John is right in line with this Old Testament tradition. In Apocalypse he prepares the Jews for the second destruction of Jerusalem (by the Romans), just as Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel had done for the earlier destructions, of Israel (by the Assyrians) and Jerusalem (by the Babylonians). The Book of Revelation is absolutely saturated with references from Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel and Ezekiel; for, according to Fr. Kramer (ibid., 3-4. My emphasis):
The Apocalypse is a prophetical book (IV.1), and it ranks St. John with the prophets of the Old Testament (X.11). The “mystery of God” had been declared by His “servants the prophets (X, 7) .... [Apocalypse] is so largely a restatement of the Old Testament prophecies, that some have called it a mere compilation.
All the seemingly idiosyncratic imagery used in the Book of Revelation by Saint John the Evangelist (e.g. “wormwood”, “burning mountain”; “blood sun”, “great hailstones”, etc.) turns out upon investigation to be ‘re-cycled’ imagery in the sense that it has already been used - and its meaning established - in the Old Testament.
Thus the above graphic image by Ezekiel of Jerusalem as the drunken whore, holding the cup of wrath in her hand, is exactly the same image of Jerusalem that we find in the Book of Revelation (though separated in time from Ezekiel by about half a millennium); the harlot drunk with wine and holding a golden cup in her hand. Thus St. John (17:4-6):
The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and glittered with gold and jewels and pearls, and she was holding a golden winecup filled with the disgusting filth of her fornication; on her forehead was written a name, a cryptic name: ‘Babylon the Great, the mother of all the prostitutes and all the filthy practices on the earth’. I saw that she was drunk, drunk with the blood of saints, and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus ....
Here the martyrs of the Old Testament (called “saints”) are distinguished from those of the New Testament (“martyrs of Jesus”); but they all suffered their fate in the one same city. This city, this vile ‘woman’, is apostate Jerusalem! She is also called “the Great City” (e.g. Revelation 14:8; 18:10), and, again, “the Great City known by the symbolic names Sodom and Egypt, in which their Lord was crucified” (11:8). Derogatory names like “Sodom”, “Gomorrah” and “Egypt” were indeed code-names - or, rather, labels of contempt - applied by the Old Testament prophets to Israel and Jerusalem turned harlot. Thus Isaiah addressed Jerusalem’s leaders: “Hear the word of Yahweh, you rulers of Sodom; listen to the command of our God, you people of Gomorrah ... What a harlot she has become, the faithful city, Zion, that was all justice!” (Isaiah 1:10, 21; cf. Jeremiah 23:14).
And St. John, in turn, picks up this usage for Jerusalem - clearly Jerusalem because she is the only city of which it can be said “in which their Lord was crucified” - and he applies to her the mystery name of “Babylon”, “a cryptic [symbolical] name” (17:5).
And, in case we missed it, St. John goes on to tell us of this “Great City” that: “In her you will find the blood of prophets and saints, and all the blood that was ever shed on earth” (18:24).
Now the Evangelist’s description could not possibly apply to Rome, despite what even good commentators seem to think. E.g:
Opus Dei (op. cit.) on Rev 17:1-19:10: “This first section of the final scene begins with the depiction of the city of Rome (described as the great harlot, the great city, great Babylon), its punishment, and its connexion with the beast (the symbol of absolutist antichristian power personified by certain emperors (cf 13:18).
Fr. Kramer (The Book of Destiny, pp. 387-8): “The name of the harlot was written on her forehead. Seneca (“Contro. V.i”) says that Roman harlots wore a label with their name on their foreheads. That would make this verse point to Rome, since this woman is the figure of the great city. St. Peter (I Peter, V.13) writes from Babylon, by which he surely [sic] means Rome.
Roman harlots may indeed have worn a label on their foreheads, which was ancient practice, but it was of Jerusalem that Jeremiah shouted: “You had a whore’s forehead” (Jeremiah 3:3).
Note that Rome does not figure at all in the Old Testament until we come all the way down to its very last history, I and II Maccabees. Rome is there mentioned, but not at all in terms of John the Evangelist’s condemnatory: “In her you will find the blood of prophets and saints, and all the blood that was ever shed on earth”. Rather, Rome is spoken of most favourably, even eulogised, by the inspired Maccabean writer. Moreover, the Maccabees had actually formed an alliance with Rome (I Maccabees 8:1, 12-16).
And obviously, from St. John’s description of “Babylon” in terms of great antiquity, it cannot refer to any modern-day (historically recent) city.
No, St. John’s “Babylon” refers to Jerusalem!
In fact Our Lord himself told the Pharisees in what great city the blood of all holy men had been shed, and was still being shed (Matthew 23:35-39):
‘... you will draw down on yourselves the blood of every holy man ... from the blood of Abel ... to the blood of Zechariah ... whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar [i.e., of the Jerusalem Temple]. I tell you solemnly, all of this will recoil on this generation. Jerusalem Jerusalem, you that kill the prophets and stone those who are sent to you! ...
Your House [Temple] will be left to you desolate [cf. Abomination that makes desolate], for I promise, you shall not see Me any more until you say: Blessings on Him who comes in the name of the Lord!’ (Matthew 23:35-39).
‘This generation’
There is a lot for us to chew over in this statement alone. For starters, here is mention of that coming of Christ that has so baffled exegetes, that seems emphatically to pertain to that generation. Yahweh God, who had conceded to Israel a 40-year probation in the desert under Moses (c. 1400 BC), would now again in the time of His Beloved Son allow for about 40 years (c. 30-70 AD), a full generation, to enable the Apostles to gather in whomsoever was destined to be saved. And just as Moses, with assistance from his loyal Levite priests, had to carry, cajole and exhort his people during the trying sojourn in the wilderness, so do we find St. Peter, with his loyal team of Sts. John, Paul, etc., doing the same.
Thus St. Peter: “You must repent ... every one of you must be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ... Save yourselves from this perverse generation”. (Acts 2:38, 41).
And St. John: “I am writing this, my children, to stop you sinning; but if anyone should sin, we have our advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ ...”. (I John 2:1).
And St. Paul: “The Holy Spirit says: If only you would listen to Him today; do not harden your hearts, as happened at the Rebellion [Moses’s day], on the Day of Temptation in the wilderness, when your ancestors challenged Me and tested Me, though they had seen what I could do for forty years”. (Hebrews 3:9)
St. Paul in fact most eloquently tried to lift the peoples’ minds above the earthly Jerusalem that was passing away, to the heavenly Jerusalem. “What you have come to is nothing known to the senses [as it indeed had been in the case of those at Mount Sinai, with fire, noise etc.] ...” (Hebrews 12:18, etc.).
St. Peter again: “... men with an infinite capacity for sinning ....They may promise freedom but they themselves are slaves ... to corruption; because if anyone lets himself be dominated by anything, then he is a slave to it; and anyone who has escaped the pollution of the world once by coming to know our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and who then allows himself to be entangled by it a second time and mastered, will end up in a worse state than he began in. It would even have been better for him never to have learnt the way of holiness, than to know it and afterwards desert the holy rule that was entrusted to him. What he has done is exactly as the proverb rightly says: The dog goes back to his own vomit, and: When the sow has been washed, it wallows in the mud”. (2 Peter 2:14, 19-22).
And St. John again: “Write to the angel of the church in Sardis and say, ‘... I know all about you: how you are reputed to be alive and yet are dead. Wake up; revive what little you have left: it is dying fast. ... Repent. If you do not wake up, I shall come to you like a thief, without telling you at what hour to expect Me’.” (Revelation 3:1-4).
In this way many were saved, “a huge crowd” (Revelation 19:6).
But “the apostasy” of which St. Paul warned (2 Thessalonians 2:3), and from which St. John, too, was trying to hold back the seven churches of Asia (Revelation 1), and from which, too, St. Peter and the other Apostles would have been striving to protect Judæa and Samaria, was ever working its way also - as it had with Moses’s generation as typified at Meribah and Massa in the desert (Psalm 94).
The ‘fruits’ of this apostasy would ultimately be mass destruction.
Thus I believe the above texts of the Apostles to be all approximately contemporaneous witness and exhortation - not writings separated by decades, before and after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD!
The Jewish people (especially) would be given a full generation of 40 years to change, with the Apostles urging them not to fall back. Eventually the destroying angel would pass by those who had been marked with the sign of the Lamb, that is the baptised who had persevered in their faith. But those who wore the mark of the beast (Revelation 14:10), the apostates, would be destroyed, and violently.
This is exactly what Jesus Christ had prophetically alluded to prior to his Passion, when he - having had placed before Him by “some people” the examples of
(i) those slain by the Roman troops of Pilate, and
(ii) others killed by a falling tower – had insisted:
‘Unless you do penance you will all perish as they did [that is, by a violent death]’ (Luke 13:1-5). [Not to mention the danger of spiritual death].
For at the end of the 40 years of probation thousands upon thousands of Jews did die violent deaths at the hands of the Romans, with towers likewise falling upon them, and missiles, stones and fire.
Our Lord’s warning applies to all wicked generations, including our own. And we have also had a ‘John and a Paul’ (in John Paul II) telling us, specifically with reference to Revelation, that Vatican II is most essentially a Council of Advent, of the Coming.
But let us once and for all get away from the idea that some modern-day Beast is going to implant 666 micro-computer chips in the foreheads of his followers. More plausibly the ‘mark of the beast’ is - like a Satanic aping of the tau marked upon the forehead by the angel in Ezekiel (9:4) - an invisible, spiritual character that the destroying angel could discern, to kill or to spare.
Nor should anyone be living in fear of terrible storms of hail of unnatural size. [Comment: I first wrote this before Sydney’s awesome hailstorm in April of 1999, when some claimed to have seen hailstones even “the size of a bucket”]. The “great hailstones weighing a talent each” of Revelation 16:21 are undoubtedly the same as those of the exact same weight as described by the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, eyewitness to the ultimate destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD (The Jewish War, 3.7.9, cf. 3.7.10, emphasis added): “... catapults ... threw at once landed upon them with great noise, and stones of the weight of a talent were thrown by the engines that were prepared for that purpose, together with fire .... which made the wall so dangerous that the Jews durst not to come upon it”.
They were stones from the Roman catapults, not hailstones from the clouds.
Josephus’s description of this doomed generation, fittingly punished, completely backs up Our Lord’s numerous complaints about it being “an evil and adulterous generation”, (e.g. Matthew 13:39; Mark 8:12; Luke 11:29), and even worse than Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15; 11:24 Mark 6:11; Luke 10:12). Josephus wrote in retrospect (ibid., 5.10.5): “Neither did any other city ever suffer such miseries, nor did any age ever breed a generation more fruitful in wickedness than this was, from the beginning of the world”.
Is there an analogous situation with the post-Vatican II generation - again one of history’s worst? Is its time of probation also running out?
Those blessed to have the gift of Faith need to be exhorters and encouragers like the Apostles were to their “perverse generation”, to save some at any cost (cf. Romans 11:14; I Corinthians 9:22).
“Must Soon Take Place”
Revelation is a book of urgency. The events it describes were to happen soon. [When the Bible says “soon”, it means soon, as in the case of the birth of Isaiah’s Immanuel - not in the Third Millennium!]. We learn that lesson when we start reading Revelation at its beginning. Plato, in The Republic, had stated an important maxim: “The beginning is the most important part of the book”, and this principle holds a special significance for the would-be interpreter of Revelation.
“Unfortunately”, as Gentry rightly notes (op. cit., p. 40), “too many prophecy enthusiasts leap
over the beginning of this book, never securing a proper footing for the treacherous path ahead”.
The key to Revelation is found in St. John’s beginning (1:1a, 3):
This is the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants what must soon [Gk. tachos] take place .... Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near [Gk. engys].
Again, in case we missed it, St. John repeats this soon-ness at the very end (22:6):
The angel said to me, ‘These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God of the spirit of the prophets, sent His angel; to show His servants the things that must soon take place’ .... Then he told me, ‘Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, because the time is near’.
Just as it would have been senseless for Isaiah’s “sign” for king Ahaz to have been something that would not occur until 700 years later, so would John the Evangelist - according to Gentry (op. cit. p. 42) “... be taunting [the churches] mercilessly if he were discussing events two thousand or more years distant. God answers the anxious cry “How long?” by urging their patience only a “little while longer” (6:10-11). Revelation promises there will no longer be “delay” (10:6)”.
The angel’s command to St. John not to seal up the scroll is also tellingly in favour of this “soon” interpretation. The prophet Daniel, by contrast, had been commanded by the angel to keep his “words secret and the book [scroll] sealed until the time of the End”, because the things Daniel was shown were not to happen for a long time in the future - in fact several hundred years later, in the time of the Apostles’ generation. For Our Lord himself had, during his important Olivet Discourse when facing the Temple of Jerusalem, referred to the “abomination that makes desolate of which the prophet Daniel spoke” (Matthew 24:15; cf. Mark 14:13).
We know from Josephus’s history that the Roman armies of Cestius Gallus, that came up to (and surrounded) Jerusalem in 66 AD, and had all but conquered the city, had suddenly, most strangely, retreated. Even Josephus recognised the hand of Providence in this most unexpected turnabout. Many Jews, he said, fled the city at the time - no doubt e.g. those obedient to Jesus Christ’s Olivet warning. And Josephus is correct in seeing this intermission as only intensifying the pressure ultimately, so that with the return of the Roman armies the final destruction of Jerusalem, when it came (in 70 AD), would be total.
Thus would be fulfilled Our Lord’s prophecy that ‘Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the time of the Gentiles are fulfilled’ (Luke 21:24).
St. John recalls this in Revelation 11:2: “But exclude the outer court [of the Temple]; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months”.
As Gentry has observed (op. cit., p. 66): “... the trampling of the temple in AD 70 (Dan. 9:26-27) after its “abomination” (9:27; cf. Matt. 24:15-16; Luke 21:20-21) ends the Gentiles’ ability to stamp out the worship of God. In Daniel 9:24-27, Matthew 23:38-24:2, and Revelation 11:1-2, the “holy city” and its Temple end in destruction”.
But how do the “times of the Gentiles” relate to the forty-two months of Revelation 11:12)?
Well, the period would range from the spring of 67 AD - when Emperor Nero sent his general, Vespasian, to put down the revolt of the Jews - to August 70 - when the Romans breached the inner wall of Jerusalem, transforming the Temple and city into a raging inferno: a period of forty-two months.
The five months of Revelation 9:5 pertain specifically to the period when the Jewish defenders held out desperately (one might say, fanatically), from April 70 - when Titus began the siege of Jerusalem - until the crescendo at the end of August. According to Gentry (61): “This five months of the Jewish war happens to be its most gruesome and evil period” (cf. Wars, 5.1.1, 4-5; 10:5; 12:4; 13:6).
The Setting
Palestine, not the world, is the stage for the drama of Revelation, despite translations that tell us of Christ’s judgment bringing mourning upon “all the tribes of the earth” (NIV).
Literal translation of the text shows that St. John actually focusses on all the tribes of “the land” (Gk. tês gês), the well-known Promised Land in which the Jews lived. We should probably translate the Greek word hê gê as ‘the land’ rather than ‘the earth’ in the great majority of cases where this occurs in Revelation.
According to Gentry (p. 72):
After mentioning the redeemed/sealed of Israel in 14:1-5, John turns his attention to further judgements on the land by means of three woes (14:6-21) and the seven bowls (chaps. 15-16). Though the prophecies are crafted in dramatic hyperbole, they refer to historical events.
For instance, consider the reaping of the grapes of wrath: “they were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses’ bridles for a distance of 1,600 stadia” (14:20). For compelling reasons, “the city” here appears to be Jerusalem:
(1) John defines the city earlier as Jerusalem (11:8);
(2) the “harvest” is in “the earth/land” (Gk hê gê; 14:15-19);
(3) this judgment falls on the place where Jesus was crucified; “outside the city” (John 19:20; cf. Heb. 13:11-13); and
(4) the Son of Man “on the cloud” (Rev. 14:14-15) rehearses Revelation’s theme regarding Israel (1:7).
The distance of blood flow is 1,600 stadia, which is roughly the length of the land as a Roman province: The Itinerarium of Antoninus of Piacenza records Palestine’s length as 1664 stadia.
This prophecy refers to the enormous blood flow in Israel during the Jewish war. Allow me to document this:
In his Wars Josephus writes: “the sea was bloody a long way” (3.9.3); “one might then see the lake all bloody, and full of dead bodies” (3.10.9); “the whole of the country through which they had fled was filled with slaughter, and Jordan could not be passed over, by reason of the dead bodies that were in it” (4.7.6); “blood ran down over all the lower parts of the city, from the upper city” (4.1.10); “the outer temple was all of it overflowed with blood” (4.5.1); “the blood of all sorts of dead carcasses stood in lakes in the holy courts” (5.1.3); and “the whole city ran down with blood, to such a degree indeed that the fire of many of the houses was quenched with these men’s blood” (6.8.5).
The Burnings
The burning up of a third of the trees of “the land” (Revelation 8:7) reminds of the Romans’ setting villages on fire in conjunction with their denuding the land of its trees. Gentry (ibid.):
Note what Josephus writes about the policy of the Romans: “he also at the same time gave his soldiers leave to set the suburbs on fire, and ordered that they should bring timber together, and raise banks against the city” (Wars 5.6.2).
The Romans destroyed the trees in Israel for fuel and for building their weapons: “All the trees that were about the city had been already cut down for the making of the former banks” (Wars 5.12.4). “They cut down all the trees that were in the country that adjoined to the city, and that for ninety furlongs round about” (Wars 6.1.1; cf. 3.7.8; 5.6.2). Of Vespasian’s march on Gadara, Josephus writes: “He also set fire, not only to the city itself, but to all the villas and small cities that were round about it (Wars 3.7.1.; cf. 4.9.1). Galilee was all over filled with fire and blood” (Wars 3.4.1.). Vespasian “went and burnt Galilee and the neighbouring parts” (Wars 6/6/2).
When the temple finally burns, Josephus moans: “One would have thought that the hill itself, on which the temple stood, was seething hot, as full of fire on every part of it” (Wars 6.5.1).
And, of course, ultimately the whole city of Jerusalem goes up in flames so that as the Romans take the Jews captive to Rome, they relate that they are from “a land still on fire upon every side” (Wars 7.5.5.)
“Babylon”, the code name for the impious city of Jerusalem, was “ruined within a single hour”. “They see the smoke as she burns” (Revelation 18:9, 19).
A friend of mine remarked that, if our times are following a pattern parallel to all of this, then what sort of punishment is our world in for!
‘Great Tribulation’
Now the ‘great tribulation’ of which Our Lord spoke is none other than the ‘great tribulation’ of which St. John wrote in, e.g., Revelation 7:14 (cf. Matthew 24:21). These are not meant to be separated by millennia! No need to extrapolate to, say, the Third Millennium, to find the “great tribulation” [though, allegorically, modernistic Relativism today are ‘in the spirit’ of the religious persecution that the Jews were then suffering at the hands of their own people]; the seven churches of Revelation (1:9; 2:9-10, 13) were already feeling the strain of it.
And no need even to go to Rome and Nero for a terrible persecution of the early Christians. Jerusalem is far enough. On the eve of Nero’s accession, there was a great famine that “spread over the whole empire” (Acts 11:28; cf. Matthew 24:7). “It was about this time that King Herod started persecuting certain members of the Church. He beheaded James the brother of John, and when he saw that this pleased the Jews he decided to arrest Peter as well” (Acts 12:1-3).
Some Church Fathers thought that Nero was the Beast of Apocalypse, having shown that his name adds up to 666; the Beast’s heads being the succession of Roman emperors. Be that as it may, in Herod (not either of the Herods contemporary with Jesus, of course) the Beast would have found an appropriate ally. Thus (Acts 12:21-23):
... Herod, wearing his robes of state and enthroned on a daïs, made a speech to them. The people acclaimed him with, ‘It is a god speaking, not a man!’, and at that moment the angel of the Lord struck him down, because he had not given the glory to God. He was eaten away with worms and died.
Need we even necessarily go to the Eternal City of Rome for the martyrdom of Sts. Peter and Paul?
I don’t know.
St. Peter’s bones, we are told, lie beneath St. Peter’s in the Vatican. But that is not necessarily proof that he died there (cf. Exodus 13:19, where Moses carried Joseph’s bones from Egypt to Israel). In this regard, I was interested to read in the Opus Dei commentary re the two witnesses of Revelation 11, who definitely died in Jerusalem (v. 8), that “because the two witnesses testify to Jesus Christ and die martyrs, tradition identifies them with Sts. Peter and Paul ...”.
But the two witnesses of Revelation could just as well - perhaps even more likely - be two other of the Apostles slain in Jerusalem before the city’s destruction by the Romans: e.g. James the Lesser. Eusebius (The History of the Church) wrote in detail about this great miracle-working Patriarch of Jerusalem whose martyrdom, he says, was “instantly followed” by the capture of Jerusalem by the Romans (13:1).
Some of the Fathers thought that the two witnesses would be Enoch and Elijah, said not to have died. But this could be only in an allegorical sense; in the sense of the two witnesses coming “in the spirit” of Enoch and Elijah (like St. John the Baptist).
The next thing we read in Scripture is Jesus’s telling his disciples re the Temple that ‘not a single stone standing here will be left on another’ (Matthew 24:2), and then afterwards telling His four chief Apostles, Peter, Andrew, James and John, privately (the famous Olivet Discourse), about what would happen to Jerusalem.
The Book of Revelation is Our Lord’s revealing all of this through St. John now, several decades later, to an audience far larger than just the select four. The Book of Revelation is, I maintain, a continuation of the Gospels and especially of the Olivet Discourse. Why, then, don’t commentators realise the obvious; that Sts. Peter and John are referring to Jerusalem; but under the cryptic name of “Babylon”?
And why “Babylon”, instead of, say, “Sodom” or “Egypt”?
There is a sad and biting irony in this choice of epithet. Whereas the Babylonians had been they who had destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem the first time round, now it will be the Jews themselves, nick-named “Babylon”, who will be responsible for burning to the ground their very own Temple. And this time it would be irrevocable.
Admittedly, what makes somewhat confusing the identifying of Revelation’s “Babylon” is that this scarlet Woman is portrayed as riding on a Beast whose description, “seven hills”, seems to point clearly to Rome. Commentators then take the whole package, Woman plus Beast, as pertaining to Rome; which city - according to tradition - did persecute the followers of Jesus. However, according to the following, this description could actually fit Jerusalem (http://musingsofanoldpastor.blogspot.com.au/search?q=seven):
The City on Seven Hills
Jerusalem was known long before Rome as the city of Seven Mountains/hills.
Rev 17:9: And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
1. Mt. Gareb, 2. Mt. Acra, 3. Mt. Goath 4. Mt. Bezetha, 5. Mt. Zion, 6. Mt. Ophel, 7. Mt. Moriah.
Revelation more naturally evokes the image of Jerusalem as the city seated on seven mountains in 17:9 than Rome. The view that Babylon is a cipher for Jerusalem in the Apocalypse cannot then be dismissed on the basis of this common objection; not only can it be defended that the evidence of 17:9 can fit Jerusalem, there are strong reasons to believe that it in fact does most properly fit Jerusalem. ….
Nevertheless, we have already seen in the paradigmatical Old Testament cases of Israel and Jerusalem that two protagonists, not one, were involved, namely:
1. The once just Woman turned Harlot; and;
2. Her suitors who have wooed her in the past, made her rich, but who eventually come to loath her, then turn on her and destroy her.
So some could argue that the same situation is to be found in Revelation: 1. The Woman, Jerusalem, rides on 2. Roman power, but is to be distinguished from the latter which will eventually cause her destruction.
The Woman is Jerusalem; the Destroyer is Rome.
When was the Book of Revelation Written?
What has exacerbated the whole exegetical problem of properly interpreting Revelation on a literal level is, I believe, the conventional opinion that St. John wrote this Apocalypse in hoary old age, in c. 95 AD, about a quarter of a century after Jerusalem had been destroyed. Hence many commentators are loath to see any relevance for Revelation in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
Protestant and Catholic writers alike accept the late 95 AD date of authorship (Protestant Thomas Foster sharing this view in common with Opus Dei and Fr. Kramer).
However, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, there has emerged a new scholarship of great expertise as typified by Fr. Jean Carmignac, showing that the books of the New Testament literature (esp. the Gospels), were composed much earlier than was originally thought.
And the signs are that the entire New Testament, including Revelation, pre-dates 70 AD.
I believe that there is abundant evidence in the Apocalypse to indicate that it was written early. In fact the reason that prevented my writing this article initially was: Where to start? There is so much! My effort in the end had been greatly assisted by my finding Gentry’s preterist interpretation on the eve of commencing this article.
The whole Book of Revelation is focussed upon the Holy Land and especially Jerusalem. The Temple; the golden altar; the 24 elders keeping watch at Beth Moked in the north from where an attack might come (and general Titus did in fact take Jerusalem from there, at the city’s weakest point); the sabbath restrictions; etc., etc.
Apart from their late dating of St. John’s Revelation preventing commentators from recognising the obvious, that “Babylon” is Jerusalem, this path they have taken leads them into other awkward anomalies as well. It is commonly believed that St. Paul had already completed his missionary activity and had been martyred well before St. John the Evangelist wrote the Book of Revelation.
Paul is given the credit for having established the seven churches to which John later wrote. This view forces commentators into making such strange observations as Fr. Kramer’s: “... St. John could not have interfered in the administration of the churches in the lifetime of St. Paul” (op. cit., pp. 7-8).
Oh, no? Was St. Paul (who even refers to himself as a very late arrival on the scene, I Corinthians 15:8) greater than St. John, the Beloved Disciple of Our Lord?
St. Paul himself would answer us an emphatic: ‘No’! Of his visit to Jerusalem after his 14 year absence, he tells us: “... James, Cephas and John, these leaders, these pillars, shook hands with Barnabas and me .... The only thing they insisted on was that we should remember to help the poor ...” (Galatians 2:9, 10).
St. John was by no means subservient to St. Paul; but apparently gave orders to the latter.
All the Apostles had a hand in establishing the churches throughout Judaea and Samaria, as Jesus Christ had commanded them, and then “to the ends of the earth”, which St. Paul boasted had been achieved even in his day (Colossians 1:23).
And Our Lord told the Apostles, “solemnly”, that they would not have completed “the rounds of the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes” (Matthew 10:23).
We had better look now briefly at that particular ‘Coming’.
The ‘Coming’ for the Apostles
The Son of Man refers on various occasions to his ‘coming with His kingdom’ in the context that it would occur whilst some of those present were still alive (e.g. Matthew 16:28; Luke 9:27). Liberal modernist exegetes, imagining that Christ could here be referring only to his final and definitive Coming, love to point out that, because it has not occurred to this day, Jesus Christ was prone to error, was not omniscient, and that the Apostles who had expected His coming in their day were deluded (especially St. Paul).
But there may be more than one biblical ‘coming’.
Only a matter of about a week after Our Lord had addressed the above words to His disciples, there had occurred the Transfiguration, to which St. Peter would refer back in later years in the context of “the coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ” (cf. 2 Peter 1:16 and 1:18-19). At least, it seems to have been a kind of preview of the real thing. The risen Lord told Peter, in regard to John: “‘If I want him to stay behind till I come, what does it matter to you? You are to follow Me’. The rumour then went out among the brothers that this disciple [John] would not die. Yet Jesus had not said to Peter, ‘He will not die’, but, ‘If I want him to stay behind till I come’.” (John 21:21-23)
Since the Apostles greatly yearned for the ‘coming’ of Jesus Christ, could that have been the definitive ‘coming’ at the end of the world? I suggest not. Too far away. Rather the Apostles were yearning for a ‘coming’ of Jesus in their own day; one that would, in some cases, coincide with their martyrdom, their being uplifted into Heaven (as in the case of the deaths of the two witnesses). Apparently Christ had apprised them of this; for St Peter wrote: “I know the time for taking off this tent is coming soon, as Our Lord Jesus Christ foretold to me” (2 Peter 1:14). Presumably the Master would also have told St. Paul; for did he not ‘show [Paul] how much he himself must suffer for My name’ (Acts 9:16)?
Was this ‘coming’ for the Apostles therefore the kind of consoling heavenly visitation that St. Stephen Protomartyr had experienced just before his death (Acts 7:56): ‘I can see heaven thrown open ... and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God’?
Did it, for many of them, coincide with his victorious coming in 70 AD as the Rider upon the white horse, to oversee the destruction of harlot Jerusalem and the now-corrupted Judaïc system?
Because Our Lord’s predictions are - for those who believe him to be the Word Incarnate - infallible, there must have been a ‘coming” already in the days of the Apostles, of that particular generation. 70 AD (conventional dating) is then the likely date for it.
The 40 years of probation for the ‘woman’ were now up. It was to be divorce and execution.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769520851271631286.post-26412091545711317002024-02-24T12:22:00.000-08:002024-02-24T12:22:34.576-08:00The “Essenes” in the Bible
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2J61o3BaHZA3ce7lGdTNlGFO0ShlS8L64_vVfROkKJx5rEFnK5qZGLRVX_pM8cZsKxswSkOzmVsrFbQwxHnJ_hSqRAmI2T_Xk-jSPeuTYXEot3NqzuBnIpAQuF9666GoShPQEwG7sDrqdo7JD4u8QKU-pUIDrWkZ7jm-wFdHvzBuLVqruZ1C25adCImhr/s1000/1000_F_579153176_pAQuuf5yVmmXXaH1H443fDHIJh0tG6Cp.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="667" data-original-width="1000" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2J61o3BaHZA3ce7lGdTNlGFO0ShlS8L64_vVfROkKJx5rEFnK5qZGLRVX_pM8cZsKxswSkOzmVsrFbQwxHnJ_hSqRAmI2T_Xk-jSPeuTYXEot3NqzuBnIpAQuF9666GoShPQEwG7sDrqdo7JD4u8QKU-pUIDrWkZ7jm-wFdHvzBuLVqruZ1C25adCImhr/s600/1000_F_579153176_pAQuuf5yVmmXXaH1H443fDHIJh0tG6Cp.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
“[Otto] Betz rightly concludes that the Herodians
mentioned in Mark are the Essene Scrolls authors”.
Marvin Vining
I: “Herodians”
Marvin Vining, author of the controversial book, Jesus the Wicked Priest. How Christianity was born of an Essene Schism (2008), considered an insight into the subject by Otto Betz to have been crucial for his own biblical identification of the enigmatic Essenes. And I, in similar fashion, owe it entirely to Marvin Vining for his having fully identified the Essenes, who would probably otherwise have continued to remain a complete mystery to me.
Vining’s important chapter 2, “Identifying the Essenes in the New Testament”, will break completely new ground as far as I am concerned. In # 13 of that chapter, “Herodians”: A Minor New Testament Name for the Essenes”, he writes, leading up to Betz (p. 28):
Many scholars have contributed to the identification of the Essenes in the New Testament. C. Daniel once uncovered a key historical reference to the Essenes that unraveled a great many mysteries. … He found that Josephus recorded the story of an Essene named Manaemos (Ant. 15.371-79). When Herod the Great was still a school boy, long before he took the throne, Manaemos predicted that Herod would become king.
This prediction by Manaemos found favour with Herod, as Vining tells continuing Josephus.
“And”, Josephus writes, “from that moment on [Herod] continued to hold the Essenes in honor” (Ant 154.379). The Essenes became Herod’s favorite sect, on whom he would often bestow special favors. For example, Herod excused them from an oath of loyalty (Ant 15.371). It is reasonable, then, to conclude that the common people would have nicknamed the Essenes the “Herodians”.
That the Essenes were the “Herodians” already opens up for us a whole new vista.
Thus Vining continues (pp. 28-29):
….
We now have good reason to believe the Essenes were called Herodians. How does that help us? The Gospels of Mark and Matthew contain references to the Herodians (Mk 3:6; 8:14-21; Mk 12:13 // Mt 22:16), and these passages answer a great many open questions. Otto Betz (a leading Dead Sea Scrolls scholar with whom I had the honor of corresponding before he died) commented that New Testament scholarship has always had difficulty identifying the Herodians, for it was assumed that they must have been political delegates of King Herod. … But who: Herod the Great? Herod Antipas? Herod’s dynasty? None of these interpretations ever made sense. The Herodians we find in the Gospels appear to be a priestly sect in league with the Pharisees against Jesus. The Herodians’ interests were not merely political but religious in nature, primarily so. Like the Pharisees they were concerned with what Jesus had to say about the Torah and the prophets.
The new identification of the “Herodians”, as Essenes (and there is more to come, see II:), will marvellously enable Marvin Vining to explain one of Jesus’s seemingly most obscure parables, “The feeding of the multitudes” (Mark 8:14-21). P. 29”: “[Jesus] phrased a warning to the disciples in what seems to my generation’s eyes just about the most esoteric parable that Jesus ever gave”. Vining, after recounting this parable, will proceed on p. 30 to tell of how the meaning of this parable had long “baffled” him, with no commentator on it being helpful. “Only when I read the fine work of Yigael Yadin, who published the Temple Scroll found in Cave 11, did I finally discover the accurate interpretation. Here follows Vining’s account of it:
Yadin found a passage in the Temple Scroll that dealt with rituals accompanying the Feast of Milluim, a time of ordination, a dedication of the priesthood during the first seven days of the month of Nisan (Ex 29; Ez 43:18-27).
According to the Temple Scroll, the Essenes had modified the Torah’s procedure for cleansing of the altar during the Feat of Milluim (11Q19 XV, 9-14; cf. Ex 29; Ez 43:18-27). Instead of offering up twelve baskets of bread for each of the twelve weeks of the Holy Presence in the Temple, as did the Pharisees, the Essenes altered their ritual. On each of the seven days of celebration, the Essenes gathered a basket of bread together with a ram, as a waive offering. Thus when Jesus warned the disciples to “beware the leaven of the Pharisees and the Herodians”, and then, in that corresponding order, reminded them of the number of baskets gathered after his two feedings, (a sympathetic association: Pharisees = twelve baskets, Herodians = seven baskets), he was referring to the respective rituals of each for the Feast of Milluim. Jesus saw himself as the “bread of life” (Jn 6:33-35), who, as God’s Son, could offer eternal life.
He was both the single sacrificial lamb and loaf of bread the disciples needed (Mk 8:14), by whom they and the multitude had all just been consecrated priests of the new era. The miraculous feeding of the multitudes was an ordination from God. ….
II: Scribes
On pp. 32-33, Marvin Vining will write of what he describes as “the cornerstone for this entire restoration”:
In James H. Charlesworth’s Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls … a chapter written by Otto Betz offers an additional correlation between the Essenes and Herodians by bringing forth another passage in which they are mentioned, Mark 3:6. In so doing, Betz confronts me with a stunning revelation that appears in chapter 7 (section 73).
That one piece of scholarship is the cornerstone for this entire restoration, as you will eventually see. For now it is enough that we confirm that the Essenes were called Herodians in the Gospels, where they are in league with the Pharisees against Jesus. This is easily done, for Mark records that Jesus antagonized two Jewish sects in the synagogue, the “Pharisees and Herodians” (3:1-6). The latter sect, the Herodians, were singled out for their extremely rigid observance of Sabbath laws, a characteristic trait of the Essenes (War 2:143-49). Betz mentions a parallel situation to this incident found in Matthew…. where Jesus cited and ridiculed a statute peculiar to the Scrolls, the prohibition against rescuing an animal fallen into a pit on the Sabbath (Mt 12:11; cf. CD XI, 13-14). Betz rightly concludes that the Herodians mentioned in Mark are the Essene Scrolls authors. With this knowledge, we are immediately able to assess Jesus’s relation with the Essenes.
We are given solid biblical evidence that Jesus directed much of his preaching against the Essenes, just as he did his other well-known spiritual enemies, the Pharisees. Clearly the Essenes/Herodians were opposed to Jesus, as we expected to find given their vast differences in doctrine. But this is just the beginning.
Though now entirely confident that the Herodians of the Gospels were the Essenes, Vining must yet come to terms with the meagre references to the Herodians as opposed to the historically well-known Essenes.
He commences on p. 33:
The Herodians are very seldom mentioned in the Gospels, so seldom that it seems unreasonable to believe they were the popular Essenes that Josephus, Philo, and other historians record. Could the Herodians have been a derogatory nickname the Gospel writers used only on occasion? It seems so.
This opens the way (his # 14 “A Door is Opened”) for Marvin Vining to identify the Essenes by the name by which they are more frequently known in the Scriptures:
A parallel citation to Betz’s synagogue incident, Mark 3:1-6, is found in Luke 6:6-11. The two groups in league against Jesus are not called Pharisees and Herodians, as in Mark’s version; Luke calls them Pharisees and scribes (Mk 3:6 // Lk 6:7). A little faith that the citations are indeed parallel, that they refer to the same event and persons, and we have just uncovered an unbelievably valuable prooftext. The Essenes/Herodians must have been the same New Testament group as the scribes. What a door has just opened!
Now that the biblical identity of the Essenes has been fully established, this may be a good opportunity to return to Josephus’s tale (considered in I:) of Herod ‘the Great’ and Manaemos. According to my reconstruction of this Herod, he was a Phrygian. Hence it is somewhat unlikely that he would have had contact with an Essene when Herod “was still a school boy”.
There may be a different underpinning to this story.
It calls to mind the account in Matthew 2 of the encounter between King Herod and the Magi, seeking the “infant king of the Jews”. It is notable, now, that King Herod enquired of the scribes, that is, the Essenes (2:4): “[King Herod] called together all the chief priests and the scribes of the people, and enquired of them where the Christ was to be born”.
Here we have the key elements of Matthew’s account: King Herod; a boy who would be king; and the Essene scribes, who were very Messianic in their outlook.
The Essene scribes would immediately have been able to inform Herod that the Christ was to be born (v. 5): “At Bethlehem in Judaea”, based on the prophet Micah (5:1). Perhaps Manaemos was one of their number, who stepped forward at the critical moment to provide the king with this biblical information.
Whether King Herod rewarded with favours the scribes for their assistance in this most pressing matter, we cannot say at this stage.
Marvin Vining will go on to develop this identification wonderfully and convincingly.
This is a must read.
There are other parts of his book, albeit interesting, that I would not endorse – some of which I would vehemently disagree with.
III: Meaning of the name, “Essenes”
In his # 16 “Etymology: the Essenes are “the Pious”,” pp. 37-39, Vining arrives at what is probably the true origin and meaning of whom we call “Essenes”:
… we must seek the etymology for the name Essenes in … the historical writings.
The English Essenes comes from the Latin Essenei, which was used by Pliny the Elder. In the Greek, the order is called Essaioi by Philo, and Essenoi by Josephus and an early Church father, Hippolytus. Epiphanius, also an early church father, described two divisions of Essenes, the Nazareans … in the north and the Osseaens in the south (Proem I 3.1-5; 19.1.1-3).
Scholars have determined that these writers are all referring to the same group by examining their common doctrine, location, and similar characteristics. But the etymology still remains an enigma, for the name Essenes held no intrinsic meaning in Latin of Greek.
It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the name had meaning in the original Semitic, which has probably come to us as a transliteration, such as Sadducees, meaning descendants of the Zadokite priests. If we are lucky, a word will pass meaningfully from one language and alphabet to another.
…
Why create confusion where none exists? If we place some faith, as we must, in the scholastic integrity of those who have gone before us, we see that Josephus and Philo were trying to translate as best they could from the original Semitic.
…,
Clearly the Essenes derived their name from and were known as the “holy” or the “sanctified”. Within the same word-field, it is not difficult to imagine that they were known as the “pious”, sometimes translated in the Bible as the “faithful ones” or “saints” (I Sam 2:9a; Ps 30:4a). It is the last derivation that finally allows us to translate back into the Semitic.
The work has already been done. Nearly a hundred years ago, an excellent scholar named Ginsburg collected more than twenty possible derivations from various scholars and concluded that the most logical was the Aramaic hsa, whose plural is hysn, the equivalent of the Hebrew hasid, usually translted as “the pious”. … Several nineteenth-century scholars had independently arrived at this conclusion – most notably Emil Schürer – and it is still the reigning view. The only apparent weakness of the derivation is that hysn, the plural of hsa, never occurs in Palestinian Aramaic, but only in Syrian Aramaic, the first Yiddish, the Jewish language of the Persian exile. Yet … this is hardly a weakness. It only stands to reason that the Essenes originally drew their name from Syrian Aramaic, for it is during the Persian exile that they first emerged.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769520851271631286.post-75533709595971486772024-02-23T13:23:00.000-08:002024-02-23T13:23:17.083-08:00Christ the King<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFYbFURpDm8J9aXgoaGRLklhFjB9KbSufdI_HPRVmxJiPjpCo_ayASwFfytiHGqdOtRc2CYYAvsVoXPm3F6kNEbuxn4qst19mmxF-UWfrgIvZKS6otb5HEKoXH2k1QHBAozA7H7BJ5fqqpsNCyfzV7wPA1fiV7cQUdIssYrtdrir3aBmoqMN7YI4aq-r-W/s680/e69f2c38531ebb44ac57ca77e70fb35b.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="680" data-original-width="680" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFYbFURpDm8J9aXgoaGRLklhFjB9KbSufdI_HPRVmxJiPjpCo_ayASwFfytiHGqdOtRc2CYYAvsVoXPm3F6kNEbuxn4qst19mmxF-UWfrgIvZKS6otb5HEKoXH2k1QHBAozA7H7BJ5fqqpsNCyfzV7wPA1fiV7cQUdIssYrtdrir3aBmoqMN7YI4aq-r-W/s600/e69f2c38531ebb44ac57ca77e70fb35b.jpg"/></a></div>
“The desire for peace is certainly harbored in every breast, and there is no one
who does not ardently invoke it. But to want peace without God is an absurdity,
seeing that where God is absent thence too justice flies, and when justice is taken away
it is vain to cherish the hope of peace. "Peace is the work of justice" (Is. xxii., 17).
There are many, We are well aware, who, in their yearning for peace, that is for
the tranquillity of order, band themselves into societies and parties, which they style
parties of order. Hope and labor lost. For there is but one party of order
capable of restoring peace in the midst of all this turmoil, and that is
the party of God. It is this party, therefore, that we must advance, and to it
attract as many as possible, if we are really urged by the love of peace”.
This year (2023) the Catholic Church will celebrate the Feast of Christ the King on Sunday, the 26th of November.
In 1957, I (Damien Mackey) made my First Holy Communion on the same feast-day, which occurred that year on the 27th of October.
It is all about Jesus Christ.
He is the Lord of Creation, the Lord of History, the Alpha and the Omega, to whom all things must be subjected.
Pope Saint Pius X dedicated his 1903 encyclical letter, E Supremi to the theme:
ON THE RESTORATION OF ALL THINGS IN CHRIST.
Venerable Brethren,
Health and the Apostolic Benediction.
In addressing you for the first time from the Chair of the supreme apostolate to which We have, by the inscrutable disposition of God, been elevated, it is not necessary to remind you with what tears and warm instance We exerted Ourselves to ward off this formidable burden of the Pontificate. Unequal in merit though We be with St. Anselm, it seems to us that We may with truth make Our own the words in which he lamented when he was constrained against his will and in spite of his struggles to receive the honor of the episcopate. For to show with what dispositions of mind and will We subjected Ourselves to the most serious charge of feeding the flock of Christ, We can well adduce those same proofs of grief which he invokes in his own behalf. "My tears are witnesses," he wrote, "and the sounds and moanings issuing from the anguish of my heart, such as I never remember before to have come from me for any sorrow, before that day on which there seemed to fall upon me that great misfortune of the archbishop of Canterbury. And those who fixed their gaze on my face that day could not fail to see it . . . I, in color more like a dead than a living man, was pale for amazement and alarm. Hitherto I have resisted as far as I could, speaking the truth, my election or rather the violence done me. But now I am constrained to confess, whether I will or no, that the judgments of God oppose greater and greater resistance to my efforts, so that I see no way of escaping them. Wherefore vanquished as I am by the violence not so much of men as of God, against which there is no providing, I realize that nothing is left for me, after having prayed as much as I could and striven that this chalice should if possible pass from me without my drinking it, but to set aside my feeling and my will and resign myself entirely to the design and the will of God."
2. In truth reasons both numerous and most weighty were not lacking to justify this resistance of Ours. For, beside the fact that We deemed Ourselves altogether unworthy through Our littleness of the honor of the Pontificate; who would not have been disturbed at seeing himself designated to succeed him who, ruling the Church with supreme wisdom for nearly twenty six years, showed himself adorned with such sublimity of mind, such luster of every virtue, as to attract to himself the admiration even of adversaries, and to leave his memory stamped in glorious achievements?
3. Then again, to omit other motives, We were terrified beyond all else by the disastrous state of human society today. For who can fail to see that society is at the present time, more than in any past age, suffering from a terrible and deeprooted malady which, developing every day and eating into its inmost being, is dragging it to destruction? You understand, Venerable Brethren, what this disease is - apostasy from God, than which in truth nothing is more allied with ruin, according to the word of the Prophet: "For behold they that go far from Thee shall perish" (Ps. 1xxii., 17). We saw therefore that, in virtue of the ministry of the Pontificate, which was to be entrusted to Us, We must hasten to find a remedy for this great evil, considering as addressed to Us that Divine command: "Lo, I have set thee this day over the nations and over kingdoms, to root up, and to pull down, and to waste, and to destroy, and to build, and to plant" (Jerem. i., 10). But, cognizant of Our weakness, We recoiled in terror from a task as urgent as it is arduous.
4. Since, however, it has been pleasing to the Divine Will to raise Our lowliness to such sublimity of power, We take courage in Him who strengthens Us; and setting Ourselves to work, relying on the power of God, We proclaim that We have no other program in the Supreme Pontificate but that "of restoring all things in Christ" (Ephes. i., 10), so that "Christ may be all and in all" (Coloss. iii, 2). Some will certainly be found who, measuring Divine things by human standards will seek to discover secret aims of Ours, distorting them to an earthly scope and to partisan designs.
To eliminate all vain delusions for such, We say to them with emphasis that We do not wish to be, and with the Divine assistance never shall be aught before human society but the Minister of God, of whose authority We are the depositary. The interests of God shall be Our interest, and for these We are resolved to spend all Our strength and Our very life. Hence, should anyone ask Us for a symbol as the expression of Our will, We will give this and no other: "To renew all things in Christ." In undertaking this glorious task, We are greatly quickened by the certainty that We shall have all of you, Venerable Brethren, as generous cooperators. Did We doubt it We should have to regard you, unjustly, as either unconscious or heedless of that sacrilegious war which is now, almost everywhere, stirred up and fomented against God. For in truth, "The nations have raged and the peoples imagined vain things" (Ps.ii., 1.) against their Creator, so frequent is the cry of the enemies of God: "Depart from us" (Job. xxi., 14). And as might be expected we find extinguished among the majority of men all respect for the Eternal God, and no regard paid in the manifestations of public and private life to the Supreme Will - nay, every effort and every artifice is used to destroy utterly the memory and the knowledge of God.
5. When all this is considered there is good reason to fear lest this great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils which are reserved for the last days; and that there may be already in the world the "Son of Perdition" of whom the Apostle speaks (II. Thess. ii., 3). Such, in truth, is the audacity and the wrath employed everywhere in persecuting religion, in combating the dogmas of the faith, in brazen effort to uproot and destroy all relations between man and the Divinity! While, on the other hand, and this according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God's majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. "He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God" (II. Thess. ii., 2).
6. Verily no one of sound mind can doubt the issue of this contest between man and the Most High. Man, abusing his liberty, can violate the right and the majesty of the Creator of the Universe; but the victory will ever be with God - nay, defeat is at hand at the moment when man, under the delusion of his triumph, rises up with most audacity. Of this we are assured in the holy books by God Himself. Unmindful, as it were, of His strength and greatness, He "overlooks the sins of men" (Wisd. xi., 24), but swiftly, after these apparent retreats, "awaked like a mighty man that hath been surfeited with wine" (Ps. 1xxvii., 65), "He shall break the heads of his enemies" (Ps. 1xxvii., 22), that all may know "that God is the king of all the earth" (Ib. 1xvi, 8), "that the Gentiles may know themselves to be men"(Ib. ix., 20).
7. All this, Venerable Brethren, We believe and expect with unshakable faith. But this does not prevent us also, according to the measure given to each, from exerting ourselves to hasten the work of God - and not merely by praying assiduously: "Arise, O Lord, let not man be strengthened" (Ib. ix., 19), but, more important still, by affirming both by word and deed and in the light of day, God's supreme dominion over man and all things, so that His right to command and His authority may be fully realized and respected. This is imposed upon us not only as a natural duty, but by our common interest.
For, Venerable Brethren, who can avoid being appalled and afflicted when he beholds, in the midst of a progress in civilization which is justly extolled, the greater part of mankind fighting among themselves so savagely as to make it seem as though strife were universal? The desire for peace is certainly harbored in every breast, and there is no one who does not ardently invoke it. But to want peace without God is an absurdity, seeing that where God is absent thence too justice flies, and when justice is taken away it is vain to cherish the hope of peace. "Peace is the work of justice" (Is. xxii., 17). There are many, We are well aware, who, in their yearning for peace, that is for the tranquillity of order, band themselves into societies and parties, which they style parties of order. Hope and labor lost. For there is but one party of order capable of restoring peace in the midst of all this turmoil, and that is the party of God. It is this party, therefore, that we must advance, and to it attract as many as possible, if we are really urged by the love of peace.
8. But, Venerable Brethren, we shall never, however much we exert ourselves, succeed in calling men back to the majesty and empire of God, except by means of Jesus Christ. "No one," the Apostle admonishes us, "can lay other foundation than that which has been laid, which is Jesus Christ." (I. Cor.,iii., II.) It is Christ alone "whom the Father sanctified and sent into this world" (Is. x., 36), "the splendor of the Father and the image of His substance" (Hebr.i., 3), true God and true man: without whom nobody can know God with the knowledge for salvation, "neither doth anyone know the Father but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal Him." (Matth. xi., 27.) Hence it follows that to restore all things in Christ and to lead men back to submission to God is one and the same aim. To this, then, it behoves Us to devote Our care - to lead back mankind under the dominion of Christ; this done, We shall have brought it back to God. When We say to God We do not mean to that inert being heedless of all things human which the dream of materialists has imagined, but to the true and living God, one in nature, triple in person, Creator of the world, most wise Ordainer of all things, Lawgiver most just, who punishes the wicked and has reward in store for virtue.
9. Now the way to reach Christ is not hard to find: it is the Church. Rightly does Chrysostom inculcate: "The Church is thy hope, the Church is thy salvation, the Church is thy refuge." (Hom. de capto Euthropio, n. 6.) It was for this that Christ founded it, gaining it at the price of His blood, and made it the depositary of His doctrine and His laws, bestowing upon it at the same time an inexhaustible treasury of graces for the sanctification and salvation of men. You see, then, Venerable Brethren, the duty that has been imposed alike upon Us and upon you of bringing back to the discipline of the Church human society, now estranged from the wisdom of Christ; the Church will then subject it to Christ, and Christ to God. If We, through the goodness of God Himself, bring this task to a happy issue, We shall be rejoiced to see evil giving place to good, and hear, for our gladness, " a loud voice from heaven saying: Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God and the power of his Christ." (Apoc. xii., 10.) But if our desire to obtain this is to be fulfilled, we must use every means and exert all our energy to bring about the utter disappearance of the enormous and detestable wickedness, so characteristic of our time - the substitution of man for God; this done, it remains to restore to their ancient place of honor the most holy laws and counsels of the gospel; to proclaim aloud the truths taught by the Church, and her teachings on the sanctity of marriage, on the education and discipline of youth, on the possession and use of property, the duties that men owe to those who rule the State; and lastly to restore equilibrium between the different classes of society according to Christian precept and custom.
This is what We, in submitting Ourselves to the manifestations of the Divine will, purpose to aim at during Our Pontificate, and We will use all our industry to attain it. It is for you, Venerable Brethren, to second Our efforts by your holiness, knowledge and experience and above all by your zeal for the glory of God, with no other aim than that Christ may be formed in all.
10. As to the means to be employed in attaining this great end, it seems superfluous to name them, for they are obvious of themselves. Let your first care be to form Christ in those who are destined from the duty of their vocation to form Him in others. We speak of the priests, Venerable Brethren. For all who bear the seal of the priesthood must know that they have the same mission to the people in the midst of whom they live as that which Paul proclaimed that he received in these tender words: "My little children, of whom I am in labor again until Christ be formed in you" (Gal. iv., 19). But how will they be able to perform this duty if they be not first clothed with Christ themselves? and so clothed with Christ as to be able to say with the Apostle: "I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me" (Ibid. ii., 20). "For me to live is Christ" (Phlipp. i., 21). Hence although all are included in the exhortation "to advance towards the perfect man, in the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ" (Ephes. iv., 3), it is addressed before all others to those who exercise the sacerdotal ministry; thus these are called another Christ, not merely by the communication of power but by reason of the imitation of His works, and they should therefore bear stamped upon themselves the image of Christ.
11. This being so, Venerable Brethren, of what nature and magnitude is the care that must be taken by you in forming the clergy to holiness! All other tasks must yield to this one. Wherefore the chief part of your diligence will be directed to governing and ordering your seminaries aright so that they may flourish equally in the soundness of their teaching and in the spotlessness of their morals. Regard your seminary as the delight of your hearts, and neglect on its behalf none of those provisions which the Council of Trent has with admirable forethought prescribed. And when the time comes for promoting the youthful candidates to holy orders, ah! do not forget what Paul wrote to Timothy: "Impose not hands lightly upon any man" (I. Tim. v., 22), bearing carefully in mind that as a general rule the faithful will be such as are those whom you call to the priesthood. Do not then pay heed to private interests of any kind, but have at heart only God and the Church and the eternal welfare of souls so that, as the Apostle admonishes, "you may not be partakers of the sins of others" (Ibid.). Then again be not lacking in solicitude for young priests who have just left the seminary. From the bottom of Our heart, We urge you to bring them often close to your breast, which should burn with celestial fire - kindle them, inflame them, so that they may aspire solely after God and the salvation of souls. Rest assured, Venerable Brethren, that We on Our side will use the greatest diligence to prevent the members of the clergy from being drawn to the snares of a certain new and fallacious science, which savoureth not of Christ, but with masked and cunning arguments strives to open the door to the errors of rationalism and semi-rationalism; against which the Apostle warned Timothy to be on his guard, when he wrote: "Keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called which some promising have erred concerning the faith" (I. Tim. vi., 20 s.). This does not prevent Us from esteeming worthy of praise those young priests who dedicated themselves to useful studies in every branch of learning the better to prepare themselves to defend the truth and to refute the calumnies of the enemies of the faith.
Yet We cannot conceal, nay, We proclaim in the most open manner possible that Our preference is, and ever will be, for those who, while cultivating ecclesiastical and literary erudition, dedicate themselves more closely to the welfare of souls through the exercise of those ministries proper to a priest jealous of the divine glory. "It is a great grief and a continual sorrow to our heart" (Rom. ix., 2) to find Jeremiah's lamentation applicable to our times: "The little ones asked for bread, and there was none to break it to them" (Lam. iv., 4). For there are not lacking among the clergy those who adapt themselves according to their bent to works of more apparent than real solidity - but not so numerous perhaps are those who, after the example of Christ, take to themselves the words of the Prophet: "The Spirit of the Lord hath anointed me, hath sent me to evangelize the poor, to heal the contrite of heart, to announce freedom to the captive, and sight to the blind" (Luke iv., 18-19).
12. Yet who can fail to see, Venerable Brethren, that while men are led by reason and liberty, the principal way to restore the empire of God in their souls is religious instruction? How many there are who mimic Christ and abhor the Church and the Gospel more through ignorance than through badness of mind, of whom it may well be said: "They blaspheme whatever things they know not" (Jude ii., 10). This is found to be the case not only among the people at large and among the lowest classes, who are thus easily led astray, but even among the more cultivated and among those endowed moreover with uncommon education. The result is for a great many the loss of the faith. For it is not true that the progress of knowledge extinguishes the faith; rather is it ignorance, and the more ignorance prevails the greater is the havoc wrought by incredulity. And this is why Christ commanded the Apostles: "Going forth teach all nations" (Matth. xxvii., 19).
13. But in order that the desired fruit may be derived from this apostolate and this zeal for teaching, and that Christ may be formed in all, be it remembered, Venerable Brethren, that no means is more efficacious than charity. "For the Lord is not in the earthquake" (III Kings xix., II) - it is vain to hope to attract souls to God by a bitter zeal. On the contrary, harm is done more often than good by taunting men harshly with their faults, and reproving their vices with asperity. True the Apostle exhorted Timothy: "Accuse, beseech, rebuke," but he took care to add: "with all patience" (II. Tim.iv., 2). Jesus has certainly left us examples of this. "Come to me," we find Him saying, "come to me all ye that labor and are burdened and I will refresh you" (Matth. xi., 28). And by those that labor and are burdened he meant only those who are slaves of sin and error. What gentleness was that shown by the Divine Master! What tenderness, what compassion towards all kinds of misery! Isaias has marvelously described His heart in the words: "I will set my spirit upon him; he shall not contend, nor cry out; the bruised reed he will not break, he will not extinguish the smoking flax" (Is. xlii., I, s.). This charity, "patient and kind" (I. Cor. xiii., 4.), will extend itself also to those who are hostile to us and persecute us. "We are reviled," thus did St. Paul protest, "and we bless; we are persecuted and we suffer it; we are blasphemed and we entreat" (I. Cor., iv., 12, s.). They perhaps seem to be worse than they really are. Their associations with others, prejudice, the counsel, advice and example of others, and finally an ill advised shame have dragged them to the side of the impious; but their wills are not so depraved as they themselves would seek to make people believe. Who will prevent us from hoping that the flame of Christian charity may dispel the darkness from their minds and bring to them light and the peace of God? It may be that the fruit of our labors may be slow in coming, but charity wearies not with waiting, knowing that God prepares His rewards not for the results of toil but for the good will shown in it.
14. It is true, Venerable Brethren, that in this arduous task of the restoration of the human race in Christ neither you nor your clergy should exclude all assistance. We know that God recommended every one to have a care for his neighbor (Eccli. xvii., 12). For it is not priests alone, but all the faithful without exception, who must concern themselves with the interests of God and souls - not, of course, according to their own views, but always under the direction and orders of the bishops; for to no one in the Church except you is it given to preside over, to teach, to "govern the Church of God which the Holy Ghost has placed you to rule" (Acts xx., 28). Our predecessors have long since approved and blessed those Catholics who have banded together in societies of various kinds, but always religious in their aim. We, too, have no hesitation in awarding Our praise to this great idea, and We earnestly desire to see it propagated and flourish in town and country. But We wish that all such associations aim first and chiefly at the constant maintenance of Christian life, among those who belong to them. For truly it is of little avail to discuss questions with nice subtlety, or to discourse eloquently of rights and duties, when all this is unconnected with practice. The times we live in demand action - but action which consists entirely in observing with fidelity and zeal the divine laws and the precepts of the Church, in the frank and open profession of religion, in the exercise of every kind of charitable works, without regard to selfinterest or worldly advantage. Such luminous examples given by the great army of soldiers of Christ will be of much greater avail in moving and drawing men than words and sublime dissertations; and it will easily come about that when human respect has been driven out, and prejudices and doubting laid aside, large numbers will be won to Christ, becoming in their turn promoters of His knowledge and love which are the road to true and solid happiness. Oh! when in every city and village the law of the Lord is faithfully observed, when respect is shown for sacred things, when the Sacraments are frequented, and the ordinances of Christian life fulfilled, there will certainly be no more need for us to labor further to see all things restored in Christ. Nor is it for the attainment of eternal welfare alone that this will be of service - it will also contribute largely to temporal welfare and the advantage of human society. For when these conditions have been secured, the upper and wealthy classes will learn to be just and charitable to the lowly, and these will be able to bear with tranquillity and patience the trials of a very hard lot; the citizens will obey not lust but law, reverence and love will be deemed a duty towards those that govern, "whose power comes only from God" (Rom. xiii., I). And then? Then, at last, it will be clear to all that the Church, such as it was instituted by Christ, must enjoy full and entire liberty and independence from all foreign dominion; and We, in demanding that same liberty, are defending not only the sacred rights of religion, but are also consulting the common weal and the safety of nations. For it continues to be true that "piety is useful for all things" (I. Tim. iv., 8) - when this is strong and flourishing "the people will" truly "sit in the fullness of peace" (Is. xxxii., 18).
15. May God, "who is rich in mercy" (Ephes.ii., 4), benignly speed this restoration of the human race in Jesus Christ for "it is not of him that willeth, or of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy" (Rom. ix., 16). And let us, Venerable Brethren, "in the spirit of humility" (Dan. iii., 39), with continuous and urgent prayer ask this of Him through the merits of Jesus Christ.
Let us turn, too, to the most powerful intercession of the Divine Mother - to obtain which We, addressing to you this Letter of Ours on the day appointed especially for commemorating the Holy Rosary, ordain and confirm all Our Predecessor's prescriptions with regard to the dedication of the present month to the august Virgin, by the public recitation of the Rosary in all churches; with the further exhortation that as intercessors with God appeal be also made to the most pure Spouse of Mary, the Patron of the Catholic Church, and the holy Princes of the Apostles, Peter and Paul.
16. And that all this may be realized in fulfillment of Our ardent desire, and that everything may be prosperous with you, We invoke upon you the most bountiful gifts of divine grace. And now in testimony of that most tender charity wherewith We embrace you and all the faithful whom Divine Providence has entrusted to Us, We impart with all affection in the Lord, the Apostolic Blessing to you, Venerable Brethren, to the clergy and to your people.
Given at Rome at St. Peter's, on the 4th day of October, 1903, in the first year of Our Pontificate.
PIUS X
Kingdom of the Son: Scott Hahn Reflects on the Solemnity of Christ the King
https://stpaulcenter.com/audio/sunday-bible-reflections/kingdom-of-the-son-scott-hahn-reflects-on-the-solemnity-of-christ-the-king/
Readings:
2 Samuel 5:1–3
Psalm 122:1–5
Colossians 1:12–20
Luke 23:35–43
________________________________________
Week by week, the Liturgy has been preparing us for the revelation to be made on this, the last Sunday of the Church year.
Jesus, we have been shown, is truly the Chosen One, the Messiah of God, the King of the Jews. Ironically, in today’s Gospel we hear these names on the lips of those who don’t believe in Him—Israel’s rulers, the soldiers, a criminal dying alongside Him.
They can only see the scandal of a bloodied figure nailed to a cross. They scorn Him in words and gestures foretold in Israel’s Scriptures (see Psalm 22:7–9; 69:21–22; Wisdom 2:18–20). If He is truly King, God will rescue Him, they taunt. But He did not come to save Himself, but to save them—and us.
The good thief shows us how we are to accept the salvation He offers us. He confesses his sins and acknowledges he deserves to die for them. And he calls on the name of Jesus, seeking His mercy and forgiveness.
By his faith he is saved. Jesus “remembers” him—as God has always remembered His people, visiting them with His saving deeds, numbering them among His chosen heirs (see Psalm 106:4–5).
By the blood of His cross, Jesus reveals His Kingship—not in saving His own life, but in offering it as a ransom for ours. He transfers us to “the kingdom of His beloved Son,” as today’s Epistle tells us.
His kingdom is the Church, the new Jerusalem and House of David that we sing of in today’s Psalm.
By their covenant with David in today’s First Reading, Israel’s tribes are made one “bone and flesh” with their king. By the New Covenant made in His blood, Christ becomes one flesh with the people of His kingdom—the head of His body, the Church (see Ephesians 5:23–32).
We celebrate and renew this covenant in every Eucharist, giving thanks for our redemption, hoping for the day when we too will be with Him in Paradise.
[End of quote]
“In an era of resurgent nationalism, a belief in Christ as king guards against the ever-present and profoundly unchristian tendency to elevate politics over faith”.
Jacob Lupfer
Taken from:
Sunday is the Feast of Christ the King. Here's why it still matters. (msn.com)
Sunday is the Feast of Christ the King. Here's why it still matters.
Religion News Service
(RNS) — Lost in the shorter, busier, cooler days of late November, around Thanksgiving but before the Christmas rush, is an important Christian observance called the Solemnity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Universe.
It was instituted in 1925 by Pope Pius XI in an encyclical titled “Quas Primas” and was Pius’ response to the increasing secularization and nationalism in the aftermath of World War I, which saw the fall of the royal houses of the Hohenzollerns, Romanovs, Habsburgs and the Ottoman Empire, all within four gruesome years.
Thus Christ the King came into a seemingly extinguished Christendom with live memories of the Great War’s incomprehensible human carnage and epochal political upheaval. Then, as now, modern people were pulled in competing directions about where their loyalties lay. Pius’ encyclical drew richly on Old and New Testament teaching about divine kingship. In answer to the political chaos he offers the comfort of a king “of whose kingdom there shall be no end.”
Not even the most ardent Protestant biblicist could object. Indeed, the feast day has taken on an increasingly ecumenical character and is better known nowadays by its Protestant name, Christ the King Sunday.
Jesus’ kingship had been expounded long before “Quas Primas,” of course.
Pius’ notions are captured in a well-loved (though controversial) hymn from the 1870s that proclaims, “Crowns and thrones may perish, kingdoms rise and wane; But the church of Jesus constant will remain.” Others come to mind for anyone who has attended church for any time: “Come Thou Almighty King,” “Rejoice! The Lord Is King,” “Crown Him With Many Crowns,” “Praise, My Soul, the King of Heaven,” “All Glory, Laud, and Honor (to Thee, Redeemer, King).”
That last was composed by Theodulf of Orleans in 820.
So, is Christ king? Does the image matter to Christians anymore?
It should. Christ the King offers both a hopeful and a sobering reminder to Christians whose loyalty to Jesus becomes subordinated to political ideology. In an era of resurgent nationalism, a belief in Christ as king guards against the ever-present and profoundly unchristian tendency to elevate politics over faith.
Some would be tempted to impose the kingship of Christ by coercion or force of law. When adherents of Catholic Christian nationalist Nick Fuentes chanted “Christ is king!” on the National Mall the day the U.S. Capitol was overrun, it was palpably a cry against declining Christian cultural power, not for the Christian submission that Pius called for, a call that Christ reign in Christians’ hearts, minds, wills and bodies.
Not that Christ the King doesn’t point up serious problems of pluralism and tolerance we have not solved yet.
The first new British sovereign in seven decades awaits his coronation — his anointing in the name of the only king greater than he — amid global concern about whether democracy can prevail over anti-pluralistic nationalist and fascist-adjacent currents. King Charles’ reign has already invited questions about whether a Christian state even makes sense in the modern world and whether it can survive.
The aftereffects of European empire now mean that the nations that invented the divine right of kings and put Christ above their own are subsuming diverse religious populations and institutions into their civic life. Charles’ new prime minister and the Conservative Party’s new leader, the Right Honorable Rishi Sunak, is a practicing Hindu and an icon for his nearly one million British co-religionists (and many millions more elsewhere).
In advance of the G20 meeting in Indonesia earlier this month, the international organization held its first Religion Forum, the “R20.” Former U.S. ambassador to the Holy See Mary Ann Glendon attended as a delegate and observed “earnestness and palpable goodwill.”
If there is an echo of the crusaders in “Christ the King,” there is no note of it in the way Charles and leaders of other historically Christian-dominated nations have resolved to move forward on faith. If religion, reduced to diplomatspeak, seems to pale a bit, it may be better that way. Our triumphalist line has not prevented the diminishment of faith in every sense.
Which brings us to American evangelicals, who, regrettably tend not to observe Christ the King Sunday. This is one more instance in which they should unite more closely with global ecumenical Christianity. It’s not a theological problem — conservative evangelicals are inherently comfortable with “King Jesus” language. Rather, evangelicals, having grasped for political salvation, have the most to lose in submitting to a king that asks them to put off the trappings of power. In the end, Christ’s kingship is a spiritual matter for Christians. And that needs to be enough.
(Jacob Lupfer is a political strategist and writer in Jacksonville, Florida. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.)
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769520851271631286.post-91450503240318431632024-02-22T20:55:00.000-08:002024-02-22T20:55:22.100-08:00A Nativity Shining Light of relevance to Israelite Magi <div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXcjVkh3ZpjNyYoyYRAG4p9ZK8yP5kzniTjN-CHpnEaT7feSZSr39AqiGZZejyyUAlfn3kId-YsERGrFJxFH5-V35wOmLEerdj-JHTTPgJ-lVv9xfuzzClNFwksSntpntx0Ygw_TidZASPFWYSX171i0NVnCtFCitxm-RXEFkOBltFNopWVLfntOIIWmaX/s800/HD-wallpaper-wise-men-holy-well-painting-kings-camels-star-artwork-palms.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="571" data-original-width="800" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXcjVkh3ZpjNyYoyYRAG4p9ZK8yP5kzniTjN-CHpnEaT7feSZSr39AqiGZZejyyUAlfn3kId-YsERGrFJxFH5-V35wOmLEerdj-JHTTPgJ-lVv9xfuzzClNFwksSntpntx0Ygw_TidZASPFWYSX171i0NVnCtFCitxm-RXEFkOBltFNopWVLfntOIIWmaX/s600/HD-wallpaper-wise-men-holy-well-painting-kings-camels-star-artwork-palms.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
“Magi from the east came to Jerusalem”.
Matthew 2:1
Part One:
Were the Magi inspired pagans or Israelites?
According to my recent article:
Magi and the Persian factor
(8) Magi and the Persian factor | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
the Magi of Matthew 2 definitely could not have been from Persia.
Nor were they likely to have been, as I concluded, non-Israelites:
“Now, from what has gone before, I think that there must be a very good chance that these, too [the Magi] - however many of them there may have been - must have been Israelites, albeit ‘enlightened’, rather than foreigners (gentiles), Persians or Nabateans”.
Even the suggestion that the Magi were Zoroastrians may smack of a Hebrew element.
Because, according to certain traditions, Zoroaster (Zarathustra) was actually the Jewish prophet Baruch: https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2562-baruch
—In Arabic-Christian Legend:
The Arabic-Christian legends identify Baruch with Zoroaster, and give much information concerning him. Baruch, angry because the gift of prophecy had been denied him, and on account of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, left Palestine to found the religion of Zoroaster. The prophecy of the birth of Jesus from a virgin, and of his adoration by the Magi, is also ascribed to Baruch-Zoroaster (compare the complete collection of these legends in Gottheil, in "Classical Studies in Honor of H. Drisler," pp. 24-51, New York, 1894; Jackson, "Zoroaster," pp. 17, 165 et seq.). It is difficult to explain the origin of this curious identification of a prophet with a magician, such as Zoroaster was held to be, among the Jews, Christians, and Arabs. De Sacy ("Notices et Extraits des MSS. de la Bibliothèque du Roi," ii. 319) explains it on the ground that in Arabic the name of the prophet Jeremiah is almost identical with that of the city of Urmiah, where, it is said, Zoroaster lived. However this may be, the Jewish legend mentioned above (under Baruch in Rabbinical Literature), according to which the Ethiopian in Jer. xxxviii. 7 is undoubtedly identical with Baruch, is connected with this Arabic-Christian legend.
As early as the Clementine "Recognitiones" (iv. 27), Zoroaster was believed to be a descendant of Ham; and, according to Gen. x. 6, Cush, the Ethiopian, is a son of Ham.
It should furthermore be remembered that, according to the "Recognitiones" iv. 28), the Persians believed that Zoroaster had been taken into heaven in a chariot ("ad cœlum vehiculo sublevatum"); and according to the Jewish legend, the above-mentioned Ethiopian was transported alive into paradise ("Derek Ereẓ Zuṭṭa," i. end), an occurrence that, like the translation of Elijah (II Kings ii. 11), must have taken place by means of a "vehiculum."
Another reminiscence of the Jewish legend is found in Baruch-Zoroaster's words concerning Jesus: "He shall descend from my family" ("Book of the Bee," ed. Budge, p. 90, line 5, London, 1886), since, according to the Haggadah, Baruch was a priest; and Maria, the mother of Jesus, was of priestly family. ….
[End of quote]
The captivating tale of the Magi has been absorbed by other ethnicities-religions.
For, as I wrote in my article:
Magi incident absorbed into Buddhism?
(4) Magi incident absorbed into Buddhism? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
quoting Holger Kersten:
“At last, in 1937, various expeditions were dispatched from Lhasa to seek out
the holy child according to the heavenly omens, in the direction indicated.
Each group included wise and worthy lamas of highly distinguished status
in the theocracy.
In addition to their servants, each group took costly gifts with them …”.
Interestingly, too, “the holy child” was aged 2 (cf. Matthew 2:16).
Which Israelites could the Magi have been?
We know at least the when of the Magi, the beginning of AD time, reign of Herod.
We also know the where, that they were “from the east” (Matthew 2:1-2):
After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, ‘Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him’.
If they were Israelites, as I believe they must have been, then what was their east?
Presumably they, like the prophet Job, were living east of the River Jordan (Job:1:2): “[Job] was the greatest man among all the people of the East”.
His home, traditionally, was in Hauran, Ausitis (Uz), where lived the bene qedem.
In the Book of Tobit, it is called “Ecbatana” (Bathania) (Tobit 7:1), which is Bashan.
According to Jewish Virtual Library, article “Kedemites or Easterners”:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/kedemites-or-easterners
KEDEMITES OR EASTERNERS (Heb. בְּנֵי קֶדֶם (benei kedem, bene qedem), adjective qadmoni, קַדְמֹנִי; Gen. 15:19) is a general designation for the peoples living on the eastern border of Syria and Palestine, from as far north as Haran (Gen. 29:1–4) to as far south as the northern end of the Red Sea (Gen. 25:1–6). In Israelite ethnology, all these peoples, and the Ishmaelites as well, who ranged from the border of Egypt to Assyria (i.e., the Middle Euphrates), and who included the inhabitants of Tema and Dumah (Gen. 25:12–18), were all related.
Their center of dispersion was the Middle Euphrates region – called Aram-Naharaim (Gen. 24:10; Deut. 23:5), Paddan-Aram (Gen. 28:2, 5, 6, 7; 31:18 (or Paddan, Gen. 48:7)), "the country Aram" (Hos. 12:13), or simply Aram (Num. 23:7). From here Abraham and Lot moved to Canaan (Gen. 12:5). Lot eventually moved to Transjordan and became the ancestor of Moab and Ammon (Gen. 19:30ff.), while Abraham became the ancestor of all the other Kedemites, including the Ishmaelites, and of the Israelites as well. His son Isaac and the latter's son Jacob-Israel married wives from Abraham's original home-land, where Jacob even lived for 20 years.
Hence the confession, "My father was a wandering/ fugitive Aramean who migrated to Egypt" (Deut. 26:5). The Israelites acknowledged all those peoples as their kin in contrast to the Canaanites. The Kedemites enjoyed among the Israelites a great reputation for wisdom. Not only does David quote a Kedemite proverb which he characterizes as such, but the wisdom of the Kedemites is rated only lower than Solomon's though higher than that of the Egyptians (I Kings 5:10), and Isaiah represents the Egyptian king's wise men as seeking to impress him by claiming descent from sages of Kedem (this, not "of old," is the meaning of qedem in Isa. 19:11). ….
[End of quote]
Now, given my re-dating of the Nativity to the time of Judas Maccabeus:
Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus
(5) Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
then we might expect to find the Magi amongst Transjordanian allies of the Maccabees.
In I Maccabees 5 we read of Judas and his army crossing over the Jordan to deliver oppressed Jews, and there occurs the very interesting reference to “the land of Tobias” – that being (the Greek version of) the name of Job.
Also mentioned here is Dathema, that is apparently right in Job-ian territory (Bashan):
https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/hdb/d/dathema.html
DATHEMA ( 1Ma 5:9 ). A fortress in Bashan. It may perhaps be the modern Dâmeh on the S. border of the Lejâ district, N. of Ashteroth-karnaim.
And so we read (vv. 9-23):
Now the nations in Gilead gathered together against the Israelites who lived in their territory and planned to destroy them. But they fled to the stronghold of Dathema and sent to Judas and his brothers letters that said, ‘The nations around us have gathered together to destroy us. They are preparing to come and capture the stronghold to which we have fled, and Timothy is leading their forces.
Now then, come and rescue us from their hands, for many of us have fallen, and all our kindred who were in the land of Tobias have been killed; the enemy have captured their wives and children and goods and have destroyed about a thousand persons there’.
While the letters were still being read, other messengers, with their garments torn, came from Galilee and made a similar report; they said that the people of Ptolemais and Tyre and Sidon and all Galilee of the gentiles had gathered together against them “to annihilate us.” When Judas and the people heard these messages, a great assembly was called to determine what they should do for their kindred who were in distress and were being attacked by enemies. Then Judas said to his brother Simon, ‘Choose your men and go and rescue your kindred in Galilee; Jonathan my brother and I will go to Gilead’. But he left Joseph, son of Zechariah, and Azariah, a leader of the people, with the rest of the forces in Judea to guard it, and he gave them this command, ‘Take charge of this people, but do not engage in battle with the nations until we return’. Then three thousand men were assigned to Simon to go to Galilee and eight thousand to Judas for Gilead.
So Simon went to Galilee and fought many battles against the nations, and the nations were crushed before him.
He pursued them to the gate of Ptolemais; as many as three thousand of the nations fell, and he despoiled them. Then he took the Jews of Galilee and Arbatta, with their wives and children, and all they possessed and led them to Judea with great rejoicing.
Note, moreover, the likeness to the Book of Job 1:16, 17 and 18: “While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said …”, to:
“While the letters were still being read, other messengers, with their garments torn, came from Galilee and made a similar report …” (I Maccabees 5:14).
Did the Magi, like Job’s first generation of children, perish amidst turmoil, or were they still to be found living amongst those “rejoicing” Jews whom Judas Maccabeus led safely “to Judea”? King Herod no longer cast his dark shadow over the kingdom.
Perhaps some Magi had perished at the hands of Timothy, and some had survived.
One can only guess at this stage.
Tobias (Job) had benefitted from family inheritances (Tobit 14:13): “He took respectful care of his aging father-in-law and mother-in-law; and he buried them at Ecbatana …. Then he inherited Raguel’s estate as well as that of his father Tobit”.
He, as Job, would see to it that all of his surviving children likewise benefitted (Job 42:12-15):
The LORD blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the former part. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys. And he also had seven sons and three daughters. The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch. Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job’s daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers.
Now, in my much shortened revision, there was not much time lapse at all between late Job and the Birth of Jesus Christ.
There are common elements with Job and the Magi; the East; wisdom; purity of gold (e.g., Job 23:10); camels (presumably); expecting a Redeemer (Job 19:25); wealth.
Job (Tobias), whose father, Tobit, had quoted the prophet Amos (Tobit 2:6), would surely have known the Messianic prophecy of Micah, who was this very Amos:
God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon
(8) God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Micah’s prophecy had famously been repeated to King Herod after the Magi had arrived in Jerusalem (Matthew 2:3-6):
When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the Law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. ‘In Bethlehem in Judea’, they replied, ‘for this is what the prophet has written:
“But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler
who will shepherd my people Israel”.’
Of course the Magi already knew it, but they had gone directly to Jerusalem presuming (I think) that the royal Babe had now grown and would be ensconced in Jerusalem.
Why did the Magi take so long to leave their home?
Perhaps this was due to the turmoil of war that was raging in Israel at the time.
Tobit (1:15) tells his son, Tobias, of the roads being unsafe for travel during the reign of Sennacherib, king of Assyria.
Possibly, the Magi picked up (some of) their gifts for the Messiah in Jerusalem.
It is interesting that the name of one of Job’s daughters, Keziah, or Cassia (42:14), has a close connection with frankincense and myrrh:
https://www.earthsunessentials.com.au/product/cassia/
“Cassia features in folklore medicine often. It is even included in the Bible with Myrrh, Frankincense, and other oils and herbs”.
Did Matthew (2:11) have Job 42:11 in the back of his mind when writing of the Magi’s visit to “the house”?
All [Job’s] brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. … each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring.
The road taken by the Magi from “the land of Tobias” to Jerusalem was not to be the way that these wise men (and women?) would return (Matthew 2:12): “… having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route”, avoiding Jerusalem this time.
Intending to head NE, did they make a switch eastwards from the Central Ridge Route to the King’s Highway?
Readers with a good knowledge of ancient biblical roads may be able to help out here.
Conclusion
The when of the Magi - the beginning of AD time, reign of King Herod ‘the Great’ (Maccabean era in my revision).
The where of the Magi - they were “from the east” (Matthew 2:1-2), the Bashan region.
The who of the Magi - certainly enlightened Israelites, likely family of the prophet Job.
Part Two:
What was the bright Star that the Magi saw?
‘Where is He who has been born King of the Jews?
For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him’.
Matthew 2:2
While some of the best efforts to interpret the Magi Star have concluded, as we have read in:
Solid attempts to interpret the biblical sky
(3) Solid attempts to interpret the biblical sky | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
that it was a planet, say, Venus or Jupiter, none, I think, has been able fully to explain it in its precise detail - for example, the fact that “it stopped” (Matthew 2:9):
“After [the Magi] had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was”.
At last I have found an article that, for me, makes proper sense of the Nativity Star.
Matthew Ervin, in December 2013, explained it as the Glory of God.
He uses the word, Shekinah, which, however, is not found in the Bible.
I would prefer:
Glory of the Lord (כְבוֹד יְהוָה), Chevod Yahweh (e.g. 2 Chronicles 7:1).
Matthew Ervin writes:
https://appleeye.org/2013/12/15/the-star-of-bethlehem-was-the-shechinah-glory/
The Star of Bethlehem Was the Shekinah Glory
….
Theories as to what the Star of Bethlehem was are myriad. The usual answers look to celestial objects ranging from real stars to comets. Indeed, the inquiry has been so wide sweeping that virtually every object appearing in the sky has been posited as the Bethlehem Star. However, when Scripture is examined the identity of the Star is evident. The Greek ἀστέρα or astera simply identifies a shining or gleaming object that is translated as star in Matthew 2:1-10. The magi specifically referred to it as, “His star” (v. 2). In addition, the behavior of this Star alone is enough to discount any natural stellar phenomenon. The Star led the magi from the east to the west [sic] toward Jerusalem (vv. 1-4). Then the Star moved from the north to the south in Bethlehem (v. 9). The Star would disappear and then reappear before it finally came to hover over where Jesus was staying (vv. 7-9).
If not a regular stellar object then what exactly was the Star of Bethlehem? The synoptic narrative in Luke’s Gospel provides an answer:
And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with great fear.
Luke 2:8-9 (ESV)
The glory of the Lord here is a powerful example of the Shekinah Glory.
This type of glory is a visible manifestation of God’s presence come to dwell among men. The Shekinah was often accompanied by a heavenly host (e.g. Ezek. 10:18-19) and so it was at the birth of Christ (Luke 10:13). The Shekinah Glory declared Messiah’s birth to the shepherds (Luke 2:8-11). The Star of Bethlehem likewise declared to the magi that Messiah had arrived (Matt. 2:9-10). No doubt this is because Matthew and Luke were describing the same brilliant light in their respective gospels.
Although the Shekinah takes on various appearances in Scripture, it often appears as something very bright. This includes but is not limited to a flaming sword (Gen. 3:24), a burning bush (Ex. 3:1-5; Deut. 33:16), a pillar of cloud and fire (Ex. 13:21-22), a cloud with lightning and fire (Ex. 19:16-20), God’s afterglow (His “back”) (Ex. 33:17-23), the transfiguration of Jesus (e.g. Matt. 17:1-8), fire (Acts 2:1-3), a light from heaven (e.g. Acts 9:3-8) and the lamp of New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:23-24).
It was the Shekinah Glory that dwelled in the Holy of Holies. It was last in Solomon’s temple but departed as seen by Ezekiel (Ezek. 9:3; 10:4-19; 11:22-23). Haggai prophesied that the Shekinah Glory would return to the temple in Israel and in a superior way (Hag. 2:3; 2:9). And yet it would seem that this never happened for the Second Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. Perhaps though the Shekinah did return. The Star of Bethlehem was the Shekinah Glory declaring the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ and residing in His person. And why not? The Messiah was prophesied to come as a star (Num. 24:17), and Jesus is called the, “bright morning star” (Rev. 22:16). ….
[End of quote]
It would be most fitting for the prophet Haggai to foretell the return of the Glory cloud.
For Haggai (an abbreviated name) was my Habakkuk, the Akkadian name of Tobias (= Job) from his years spent in Nineveh:
Haggai as Job late in his life?
(10) Haggai as Job late in his life? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
And his father, Tobit, appears to have foretold the return of God’s glory in chapter 13, as I noted in my article (following a 2013 piece):
Saint John Paul II on Tobit
(10) Saint John Paul II on Tobit | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
I once read an intriguing article that valiantly attempted to identify Luke’s Shepherds, at the Nativity, with Matthew’s Magi.
Upon examination, h0wever, the two entities appear to be really quite different – geographically speaking, for one.
But what, I think, can now be identified as one, thanks to Matthew Erwin, is the Glory beheld by both the Shepherds and the Magi:
… when Scripture is examined the identity of the Star is evident. The Greek ἀστέρα or astera simply identifies a shining or gleaming object that is translated as star in Matthew 2:1-10. The magi specifically referred to it as, “His star” (v. 2). In addition, the behavior of this Star alone is enough to discount any natural stellar phenomenon. The Star led the magi from the east to the west [sic] toward Jerusalem (vv. 1-4). Then the Star moved from the north to the south in Bethlehem (v. 9). The Star would disappear and then reappear before it finally came to hover over where Jesus was staying (vv. 7-9).
If not a regular stellar object then what exactly was the Star of Bethlehem? The synoptic narrative in Luke’s Gospel provides an answer:
And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with great fear. Luke 2:8-9 (ESV) ….
The shining Glory
God’s glory had been manifest, according to Matthew Erwin, in the Flaming Sword of Genesis; to Moses, in the Burning Bush, to the Exodus Israelites in the Pillar of Cloud; and to Israel, again, in the first Temple.
But it had departed at the time of the Babylonian Exile and had not returned when the second Temple was completed.
Matthew Erwin has really sewn this up:
It was the Shekinah Glory that dwelled in the Holy of Holies.
It was last in Solomon’s temple but departed as seen by Ezekiel (Ezek. 9:3; 10:4-19; 11:22-23). Haggai prophesied that the Shekinah Glory would return to the temple in Israel and in a superior way (Hag. 2:3; 2:9). And yet it would seem that this never happened for the Second Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. Perhaps though the Shekinah did return. ….
The family of Job-Tobias knew, from what we now have written in Tobit 13, that the Glory of the Lord was going to return after the return from Exile.
Job, as Haggai, now in his late old age, had advised the people, disappointed at the sight of the second Temple, that the Glory of the Lord would return.
And return again it did, with the Birth of Jesus Christ, the New Temple, who would render obsolete the old stone Temple (pope Benedict XVI).
In other words, the second Temple was only ever to be temporary, and would be dramatically replaced (destroyed even) by He who is the true Temple of God.
The Shepherds saw the Light at close hand and were able to go directly to the stable. Their guiding Light conveniently stopped, just as the shining Cloud was wont to do during the Exodus (Numbers 9:17): “When the cloud moved from its place over the Tent, the Israelites moved, and wherever the cloud stopped, the Israelites camped”.
The Magi saw it at a distance from Bethlehem. They had long been expecting it.
Their ancestor, Tobit, had foretold its return, and his son, Haggai, confirmed it much later.
The Magi, who - as descendants of Job, as I think - were undoubtedly clever and educated, did not really need, though, to be able to read the heavens and constellations (as Job almost certainly could, Job 38:31-33) to identify the Star.
They were expecting it and they simply had to wait until they saw it.
This was a manifestation for Israel, to be understood by Israel, which is a solid reason why I think that the Magi mut have been Israelites, not gentiles.
The Nativity Star of relevance to Israel determines the ethnicity of Matthew’s Magi.
Conclusion
The when of the Magi - the beginning of AD time, reign of King Herod ‘the Great’ (Maccabean era in my revision).
The where of the Magi - they were “from the east” (Matthew 2:1-2), the Bashan region.
The who of the Magi - certainly enlightened Israelites, likely family of the prophet Job.
The Star of the Magi - the Glory of the Lord.
The resplendent Christ Child appeared again, with his holy Mother, at Pontevedra, Spain, 10th December, 1925 “elevated on a luminous cloud”.
We read about it at:
https://fatima.org/news-views/the-apparition-of-our-lady-and-the-child-jesus-at-pontevedra/
On July 13, 1917, Our Lady promised at Fatima:
“If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved … I shall come to ask for the Consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays.”
As Fatima scholar Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinité tells us, this first secret of Our Lady “is a sure and easy way of tearing souls away from the danger of hell: first our own, then those of our neighbors, and even the souls of the greatest sinners, for the mercy and power of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are without limits.”
….
Circumstances of the Apparition ….
The promise of Our Lady to return was fulfilled in December 1925, when 18-year-old Lucia was a postulant at the Dorothean convent in Pontevedra, Spain. It was here, during an apparition of the Child Jesus and Our Lady, that She revealed the first part of God’s plan for the salvation of sinners: the reparatory Communion of the First Saturdays of the month.
Lucia narrated what happened, speaking of herself in the third person – perhaps, in humility, to divert attention from her role in the event:
“On December 10, 1925, the Most Holy Virgin appeared to her [Lucia], and by Her side, elevated on a luminous cloud, was the Child Jesus. The Most Holy Virgin rested Her hand on her shoulder, and as She did so, She showed her a heart encircled by thorns, which She was holding in Her other hand. At the same time, the Child said:
“‘Have compassion on the Heart of your Most Holy Mother, covered with thorns, with which ungrateful men pierce It at every moment, and there is no one to make an act of reparation to remove them.’
“Then the Most Holy Virgin said:
“‘Look, My daughter, at My Heart, surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce Me at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You at least try to console Me and announce in My name that I promise to assist at the moment of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, shall confess … receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary, and keep Me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary, with the intention of making reparation to Me.’”
The Great Promise and Its Conditions
As Fatima author, Mark Fellows, noted:
“The Blessed Virgin did more than ask for reparatory Communion and devotions on five First Saturdays: She promised Heaven to those who practiced this devotion sincerely and with a spirit of reparation. Those who wonder whether it is Mary’s place to promise eternal salvation to anyone forget one of Her illustrious titles: Mediatrix of all Graces.” ….
Our Lady promises the grace of final perseverance – the most sublime of all graces – to all those who devoutly practice this devotion. The disproportion between the little requested and the immense grace promised reveals the great power of intercession granted to the Blessed Virgin Mary for the salvation of souls. Furthermore, this promise also contains a missionary aspect. The devotion of reparation is recommended as a means of converting sinners in the greatest danger of being lost.
Much has been written on the Five First Saturdays devotion.
Therefore, here I provide only a brief summary of the conditions.
For more information, see The Magnificent Promise for the Five First Saturdays (Section III, pp. 8-16). ….
1. The First Saturday of five consecutive months: This request was the culmination of a whole movement of devotion, consistent with a series of papal decisions giving the forerunners of this new devotion:
a. The 15 Saturdays in honor of Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary (plenary indulgence granted by Pope Leo XIII, 1889).
b. The 12 First Saturdays of the month (officially approved by Pope St. Pius X, 1905).
c. The Devotion of Reparation on the First Saturdays of the month (new indulgences granted by Pius X, 1912).
At Pontevedra we see two new elements: the reduction of the number of Saturdays required; and assurance of receiving at the moment of death “all the graces necessary for salvation,” instead of merely indulgences for the remission of punishment for sins already pardoned. Knowing our inconstancy, Our Lady asks for only five Saturdays – the number of decades on our Rosary.
2. Confession: Though the confession is not required to be made on the First Saturday itself … it is preferable – as far as possible – that it be made on a day close to the First Saturday.
3. Communion of Reparation: Frère Michel tells us: “The Communion of Reparation, of course, is the most important act of the devotion of Reparation. All the other acts center around it. To understand its meaning and significance, it must be considered in relation with the miraculous Communion of autumn 1916; already this Communion was completely oriented to the idea of Reparation, thanks to the words of the Angel.” ….
4. Recitation of the Rosary: In each of the six apparitions of 1917, Our Lady asked the children to pray the Rosary every day.
5. The 15-minute meditation on the 15 Mysteries of the Rosary: In addition to praying the Rosary, Our Lady asks for a separate 15 minutes of meditation on the Mysteries of the Rosary. But, as Sister Lucia has explained, not all 15 Mysteries need to be meditated upon each month. One may, by their choice, meditate on only some of the Mysteries each month. ….
6. The intention of making Reparation: As Sister Lucia has written, this condition is the principal one, and concerns the general intention with which all the other five conditions must be fulfilled. They must each be accomplished “in the spirit of Reparation” towards the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Without this general intention, without the desire to make Reparation to Our Lady to console Her, all these external acts are by themselves insufficient to obtain the magnificent promise of obtaining, at the moment of death, all the graces necessary for salvation. ….
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769520851271631286.post-68340665389505142972024-02-22T20:38:00.000-08:002024-02-22T20:38:24.023-08:00Matthew, in his Genealogy, may not have omitted any king of Judah<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQ_7OMzp9kfG-Z0UEGv1CQ93NostQ9s3XK4ObSHGmJsaQqttWfKLKI3vp4hl4iAfaRejEHXXghY2KBrUKFDJczpZ71hltiLWHbXWhWjuhyXwZA0Z5QHBgUyDxZFmbi40b6VLi0vv7taeJcjliLRpLgviNn5sXN2pNeLKzNuUZF6RZisurcIvfsXX6y1qWA/s945/sept-21-st-matthew17.webp" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="600" data-original-height="945" data-original-width="669" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQ_7OMzp9kfG-Z0UEGv1CQ93NostQ9s3XK4ObSHGmJsaQqttWfKLKI3vp4hl4iAfaRejEHXXghY2KBrUKFDJczpZ71hltiLWHbXWhWjuhyXwZA0Z5QHBgUyDxZFmbi40b6VLi0vv7taeJcjliLRpLgviNn5sXN2pNeLKzNuUZF6RZisurcIvfsXX6y1qWA/s600/sept-21-st-matthew17.webp"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
“Had Matthew included all these names, the generations would have
numbered twenty instead of fourteen. Fourteen, for Matthew’s purposes,
was very important (cf. Matt 1:17)”.
Mitch Chase
A typical assessment of Matthew the Evangelist’s list of the Kings of Judah (1:7-11) – and one with which I would fully have agreed some time ago – is clearly laid out in this short piece (2013) by Mitch Chase:
https://mitchchase.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/why-are-there-missing-kings-in-matthew-1/
Why Are There Missing Kings in Matthew 1?
Matthew’s genealogy is edited, and by that I mean he has omitted certain kings in the second section (Matt 1:6b-11). Here are his fourteen generations represented by names: Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asaph, Jehoshaphat, Joram, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amos, Josiah, and Jechoniah.
In 2 Kings, it is clear that between the reigns of Joram and Uzziah are three other kings: Ahaziah (2 Kgs 8:25-29), Jehoash (2 Kgs 12:1-21), and Amaziah (2 Kgs 14:1-22).
Matthew condenses the genealogy by omitting these three rulers. This is not historical ignorance or oversight. Matthew explains in 1:17 that he has a numerical design to the genealogy of 1:2-16. And since he wants to show fourteen generations, some kings have to be left out. Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah were all evil kings, so we’re not missing anything edifying. They were a trinity to ignore!
Then between Josiah and Jechoniah (aka Jehoiachin), Matthew omits Jehoahaz (2 Kgs 23:31-34) and Jehoiakim (2 Kgs 24:1-2). Again the reason appears to be his literary design.
The last reigning king in the Davidic line before the exile was not Jechoniah, however. It was Zedekiah, Jechoniah’s uncle. Zedekiah, then, is another Matthean omission. Why leave out the last king of Judah? Grant Osborne is probably right: Matthew believed the Babylonian exile began under Jechoniah’s reign and so focused on him (Matthew, ZECNT, 66-67).
In summary, what were the omissions Matthew made in the second section of his genealogy (Matt 1:6b-11)?
(1) Ahaziah
(2) Jehoash
(3) Amaziah
(4) Jehoahaz
(5) Jehoiakim
(6) Zedekiah
Had Matthew included all these names, the generations would have numbered twenty instead of fourteen. Fourteen, for Matthew’s purposes, was very important (cf. Matt 1:17).
[End of quote]
I would no longer accept this method of appraisal.
Firstly, I have by now written several articles identifying Mitch Chase’s (2) Jehoash, and (3) Amaziah, as, respectively, Uzziah and Jotham.
For example:
Early prophet Zechariah may forge a link with Joash, Uzziah of Judah
(7) Early prophet Zechariah may forge a link with Joash, Uzziah of Judah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
And Mitch Chase’s (5) Jehoiakim, I have identified with Manasseh. For example:
Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah far from straightforward
(7) Matthew's Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah far from straightforward | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
As for Mitch Chase’s (1) Ahaziah, (4) Jehoahaz, and (6) Zedekiah, I have until very recently given very little consideration to these names. But that has now changed, with a recent article of mine being about (4) Jehoahaz, appearing in Matthew’s list, so I suggest, under two alter ego names: Amon and Jehoiachin. Thus:
Whatever did happen to King Jehoahaz of Judah?
(7) Whatever did happen to King Jehoahaz of Judah? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
And I hope shortly to do a similar type of resuscitation with Mitch Chase’s (1) Ahaziah.
As for Mitch Chase’s (6) Zedekiah, only a few days ago I had written this about him:
I am not interested, since Matthew appears to have deliberately omitted him. For, as Mitch Chase himself has rightly noted: “Why leave out the last king of Judah? Grant Osborne is probably right: Matthew believed the Babylonian exile began under Jechoniah’s [Jehoiachin’s] reign and so focused on him (Matthew, ZECNT, 66-67)”.
As in the cases of Jehoahaz and Ahaziah, I am now having serious second thoughts as well about Zedekiah - that he may, in fact, be a duplicate of Manasseh (= Jehoiakim). While I am well aware that any attempt to identify Zedekiah as Manasseh/Jehoiakim will encounter some awkward chronological difficulties, there initially do appear to be certain promising points of comparison. For instance:
- Original name, Manasseh, Mattaniah (for Zedekiah) has phonetic (if not meaning) similarity;
- Jehoiakim, Zedekiah reigned for 11 years;
- Jehoiakim, Zedekiah had Egypt as an ally;
- Jehoiakim, Zedekiah fully wicked;
- Jehoiakim, Zedekiah revolted against King Nebuchednezzar and went into captivity.
So, rather than lean on the latter part of the quote above: “Matthew believed the Babylonian exile began under Jechoniah’s [Jehoiachin’s] reign and so focused on him”, I may now be more inclined to lean on its first part: “Why leave out the last king of Judah?” [Meaning Zedekiah – but who may not have been the last].
I am now disinclined, as well, to think that the number 14 was important to Matthew, as Mitch Chase thinks: “Had Matthew included all these names, the generations would have numbered twenty instead of fourteen. Fourteen, for Matthew’s purposes, was very important (cf. Matt 1:17)”.
I now think that this may have been an artificial gloss later attached to the Genealogy.
Whilst I am now inclined to believe that no Kings of Judah may have been omitted from Matthew’s genealogical list, I am of the opinion that there are some unwarranted duplications in the text as we now have it:
(Tentatively) I think that Abijah was the same as Asa;
(Confidently) I think that Hezekiah was Josiah; and that
Amon (Haman) was Jehoiachin.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769520851271631286.post-80124063109558665952024-02-20T14:14:00.000-08:002024-02-20T14:14:42.016-08:00Whatever did happen to King Jehoahaz of Judah?<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_GHIyPanImnwlwZzPZMoesfmLIJWWHEFJGCBGcgqKHctH-tEpqvC7elpK_d-wDnIVCNaCrRJKbPbiyPC1DWeybac0WnP-cEsNRMkeSMLLieebI-pY7M8n_9ELklBFVMKPNdr7H4iCFlEbCi_XgKCMjETZWc15bKl3BzqpnmmLHyWRG5Vg2S_nMvHcAf4w/s1456/agamemnon1.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="816" data-original-width="1456" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_GHIyPanImnwlwZzPZMoesfmLIJWWHEFJGCBGcgqKHctH-tEpqvC7elpK_d-wDnIVCNaCrRJKbPbiyPC1DWeybac0WnP-cEsNRMkeSMLLieebI-pY7M8n_9ELklBFVMKPNdr7H4iCFlEbCi_XgKCMjETZWc15bKl3BzqpnmmLHyWRG5Vg2S_nMvHcAf4w/s600/agamemnon1.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
To get right to the point: King Jehoahaz of Judah has not been omitted
from Matthew’s Genealogy at all. He is there under two alter ego names:
Amon and Jehoiachin. And Amon-Jehoiachin is the Haman of the Book of Esther.
The record of the life of Jehoahaz, qua Jehoahaz, can be read in a paltry few verses in 2 Kings 23:30-34 and in 2 Chronicles 36:1-4.
2 Kings
30 …. And the people of the land took Jehoahaz son of Josiah and anointed him and made him king in place of his father.
Jehoahaz King of Judah
31 Jehoahaz was twenty-three years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. His mother’s name was Hamutal daughter of Jeremiah; she was from Libnah. 32 He did evil in the eyes of the LORD, just as his predecessors had done.
33 Pharaoh Necho put him in chains at Riblah in the land of Hamath so that he might not reign in Jerusalem, and he imposed on Judah a levy of a hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold. 34 Pharaoh Necho made Eliakim son of Josiah king in place of his father Josiah and changed Eliakim’s name to Jehoiakim. But he took Jehoahaz and carried him off to Egypt, and there he died.
2 Chronicles
1 And the people of the land took Jehoahaz [Joahaz] son of Josiah and made him king in Jerusalem in place of his father.
Jehoahaz King of Judah
2 Jehoahaz was twenty-three years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. 3 The king of Egypt dethroned him in Jerusalem and imposed on Judah a levy of a hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold. 4 The king of Egypt made Eliakim, a brother of Jehoahaz, king over Judah and Jerusalem and changed Eliakim’s name to Jehoiakim. But Necho took Eliakim’s brother Jehoahaz and carried him off to Egypt.
These two mini biographies provide us with almost the same details, and wording, but also with a few important variations from the one to the other.
Matthew the Evangelist, in his Genealogy of the Kings of Judah (1:7-11), completely omits Jehoahaz, qua Jehoahaz, even though the latter did actually reign for a short period of time in Jerusalem.
I am using the phrase “Jehoahaz, qua Jehoahaz”, because, although we know extremely little about this king under that name, there is, so I believe, far more to King Jehoahaz of Judah than is given in the two OT sections above (2 Kings and 2 Chronicles).
King Jehoahaz (var. Joahaz, 2 Chronicles 36:1) of Judah was, in fact, a highly significant person in the history of Israel, as we are going to learn.
To get right to the point: King Jehoahaz of Judah has not been omitted from Matthew’s Genealogy at all. He is there under two alter ego names: Amon and Jehoiachin.
And Amon-Jehoiachin is the Haman of the Book of Esther:
King Amon's descent into Aman (Haman)
(4) King Amon’s descent into Aman (Haman) | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Jehoahaz as Haman-Amon-Jehoiachin
Points in favour
• Chronologically, Jehoahaz was contemporaneous with Jehoiachin.
• Like Jehoiachin, Jehoahaz “reigned in Jerusalem three months” (cf. 2 Kings 24:8; 23:31).
• Very much like Amon, “twenty-two years old” (2 Kings 21:19), Jehoahaz “was twenty-three years old when he became king” (23:31).
• The mother of Jehoahaz was Hamutal (2 Kings 23:31), whom I have identified as the Hammedatha in Esther 3:1: “Haman son of Hammedatha”.
• Jehoahaz, who “did evil in the eyes of the LORD, just as his predecessors had done” (23:32), was, in this regard, just like Amon (21:20) and Jehoiachin (24:9).
I had identified the name “Haman” (var. Aman) of the Book of Esther as Egyptian, Amon – and rightly, I think:
Evil persecutor of the Jews, Haman, had Egyptian name
(7) Evil persecutor of the Jews, Haman, had Egyptian name | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
My case would now be strengthened considerably if - as I am now arguing - Haman was the same as King Jehoahaz of Judah, who was actually taken captive into Egypt by pharaoh Necho.
So we have some welcome coincidences here, further enhancing my previous articles of revision:
Jehoahaz/Jehoiachin reigned for “three months”;
Jehoahaz’s mother was Hamutal, identified as Haman’s parent, Hammedatha;
Jehoahaz was taken captive to Egypt, so an Egyptian name could be expected.
Points not in favour
• Whilst Jehoiachin, Jehoahaz “reigned in Jerusalem three months” (cf. 2 Kings 24:8; 23:31), Amon “reigned in Jerusalem two years” (21:19).
• Very much like Amon, “twenty-two years old” (2 Kings 21:19), Jehoahaz “was twenty-three years old when he became king” (23:31), but Jehoiachin “was eighteen years old when he became king” (24:8).
• The mother of Jehoahaz was Hamutal (2 Kings 23:31), but she is not given as the mother of Amon, of Jehoiachin.
• Jehoahaz died in Egypt according to 23:34, whereas Haman died in Susa.
The rather slight differences in lengths of reign could be accounted for by co-regency.
Amon, Jehoiachin, Jehoahaz – all young at the beginning of reign.
The mother is admittedly problematical. Hamutal, for Jehoahaz, is not matched by:
(Amon) “His mother’s name was Meshullemeth daughter of Haruz; she was from Jotbah” (21;19).
(Jehoiachin) “His mother’s name was Nehushta daughter of Elnathan; she was from Jerusalem” (24:8).
Grandmother, aunt, may perhaps also be applicable here.
We know how tricky genealogies can be.
The 2 Chronicles version of Jehoahaz does not mention that he died in Egypt.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769520851271631286.post-88100044800583594262024-02-17T20:49:00.000-08:002024-02-17T20:49:35.018-08:00 Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah far from straightforward<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjy0l4ScpaV-7SYI9fhXh8MuJotz56No73-Y6NtChgnWqeD4QOvQLcks0yF4F8YVWeeZ8NRCgb2zzxfRG6e6J0ngcmk8iQmYYgL3TnFOV7Xhnxopua6jz77GHHqKOnsE1EW7lEx1uWPAO46xoQkhHT_ym3LnEdiGwkbUxq07nnrJaEa2H0W19a-v-6o8evB/s1030/Matthew.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="687" data-original-width="1030" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjy0l4ScpaV-7SYI9fhXh8MuJotz56No73-Y6NtChgnWqeD4QOvQLcks0yF4F8YVWeeZ8NRCgb2zzxfRG6e6J0ngcmk8iQmYYgL3TnFOV7Xhnxopua6jz77GHHqKOnsE1EW7lEx1uWPAO46xoQkhHT_ym3LnEdiGwkbUxq07nnrJaEa2H0W19a-v-6o8evB/s600/Matthew.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
“For those who study deeply into the Gospel text, Matthew’s prologue,
contained in his first two chapters, is one of the most masterful pieces of writing ever presented to human eyes. The genealogy with which this prologue begins displays its full share of wondrous artistry, but so subtle is its turn that
many commentators have failed to grasp the logic that it implies.”.
Monsignor John McCarthy
Here I am interested only in Matthew 1:7-11, referring to the Kings of Judah.
Previously, while I had always been loathe to relinquish the two mighty kings of Judah, Joash and Amaziah (who are not listed), I had acquiesced in the face of good scholarly arguments urging for an understanding of what Matthew himself was trying to tell us.
And so I had written as follows on Matthew’s Genealogy, with deference especially to the excellent scholar Monsignor John McCarthy of Sedes Sapientiae (the Vatican):
…. [Here firstly quoting Bernard Sadler, “The Structure of Matthew - The structure Saint Matthew gave his gospel” (Sydney, 2013):
http://www.structureofmatthew.com/The%20Structure%20of%20Matthew.pdf
Understanding the structure of the gospel and how Matthew ordered the various parts to each other and to the whole is important, because unless this structure is correctly understood what Matthew is saying is likely to be misunderstood. Understanding the gospel‘s structure will not prevent readers or commentators making errors of interpretation but misunderstanding the structure certainly will not help.
The purpose of this book is threefold: to explain the basic structure Matthew used composing his gospel; to present outlines showing how this basic structure is found throughout the gospel; and to provide a gospel text laid out using those structures.
Basic structure
Now, contrary to modern perceptions, early Greek versions do show the structure — but not the way modern readers expect. Matthew wrote his gospel in paragraphs grouped into larger symmetrical units called chiasms. A chiasm is a passage of several paragraphs (or other units) so written that the last paragraph of the chiasm is linked to the first paragraph, the second-last paragraph is linked to the second paragraph, and so on. It is the linking of paragraphs this way that binds them together as a chiasm. A chiasm usually has a freestanding central paragraph about which the others are arrayed. Chiasm is the only structure Matthew used in his gospel.
The linking of the paragraphs of a chiasm is done by parallelism. Parallelism consists in the repetition of words or phrases. A differently inflected form of a word may be used and occasionally a synonym is used; for example, Matthew uses the word treasures in 6:19 and repeats it in 7:6 as pearls. Sometimes two words are repeated in reverse order to produce what is called inverted parallelism.
There are other kinds of chiasms and other uses of parallelism in Hebrew literature but here we are considering only those Matthew used to shape his gospel. ….
Wise words indeed by Bernard Sadler (RIP).
I next proceeded to:
Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus Christ
Question: What does Saint Matthew have to say about Our Lord‘s Genealogy?
A merely superficial reading of this text (Matthew 1:6-17) will not suffice to unravel its profound meaning. According to Monsignor John McCarthy, in his Introduction to “The Historical Meaning of the Forty-two Generations in Matthew 1:17” (http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt13.html):
For those who study deeply into the Gospel text, Matthew’s prologue, contained in his first two chapters, is one of the most masterful pieces of writing ever presented to human eyes. The genealogy with which this prologue begins displays its full share of wondrous artistry, but so subtle is its turn that many commentators have failed to grasp the logic that it implies. ….
[End of quote]
In my comment on this, I showed my reluctance to have certain major kings missing from this genealogy:
Deep study is indeed required to grasp the logic of it all, because it appears that Matthew has, within his neat triple arrangement of “fourteen generations” (1:17):
“Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah”
completely dumped four kings of Judah whose history is written in Kings and Chronicles. Those familiar with the sequence of the kings of Judah as recorded in Kings and Chronicles will be struck by the fact that Matthew 1 is missing these:
Ahaziah; Joash (Jehoash); and Amaziah,
three virtually successive kings - Matthew understandably omits the usurping Queen Athaliah before Joash - and later, Jehoiakim.
Four in all!
….
What is going on here?
Was Saint Matthew the Evangelist mathematically deficient, somewhat like the schoolboy whose ‘sum of all fears’ is actually the fear of all sums?
Even a mathematical dope, however, can probably manage to ‘doctor’ basic figures in order to arrive at a pre-determined number!
Monsignor McCarthy, when discussing Fr. Raymond Brown’s attempted resolution of this textual difficulty, begins by asking the same question: Could Matthew count?
Raymond Brown, reading Matthew's genealogy from the viewpoint of a modern reader, does not plainly see fourteen generations in each of the three sets of names, but by using ingenuity he can "salvage Matthew's reputation as a mathematician." He cautions, for one thing, that we should not expect too much logic in Matthew's reasoning, since omissions are frequently made in tribal genealogies "for reasons that do not seem logical to the Western scientific mind" (pp. 82-84). ….
[End of quotes]
On the face of things - or, as Monsignor McCarthy puts it – “reading Matthew's genealogy from the viewpoint of a modern reader” - what Saint Matthew may seem to have done would be like, say, a horse owner whose nag had come fourth in the Melbourne Cup, who later decided to re-write the story by completely ignoring any reference to the first three winners (trifecta), so that his horse now came in ‘first’.
We however, believing the Scriptures to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, cannot simply leave it at that: a supposed problem of the sacred writer’s own making. Though this is apparently where the more liberally-minded commentators are prepared to leave matters in the case of a scriptural difficulty that it is beyond their wisdom to solve; thereby, as Monsignor McCarthy writes with reference to Fr. Brown, leaving things “in a very precarious state” (see below).
… with Fr. Brown, there is a failure to attempt to “salvage” the sacred text. Rightly, therefore, does Monsignor McCarthy proceed to suggest:
Brown's reasoning leaves a big problem. In the light of the deficiencies that he sees in Matthew's counting, how can one seriously believe that Matthew really shows by his 3 x 14 pattern that "God planned from the beginning and with precision the Messiah's origins" …? What kind of precision is this? And what could the number fourteen seriously mean in the message of Matthew? Brown believes that for Matthew fourteen was, indeed, "the magic number" … but he cannot surmise what that number was supposed to mean. He knows of no special symbolism attached to the number fourteen, and, therefore, he cannot grasp at all the point that Matthew is trying to make. So, rather than "salvage" Matthew's reputation as a theologian, Brown leaves Matthew's theology of 3 x 14 generations in a very precarious state.
[End of quote]
Monsignor McCarthy will, like Bernard Sadler above, seek to determine what Matthew himself is saying. Thus:
Let us look at the plain message of the text of Mt 1:17
Contrary to what Fr. Brown had imagined: ― Matthew is not plainly saying that there were fourteen immediate biological generations in each period. In fact, when in his opening verse Matthew speaks of Jesus as "Son of David, son of Abraham," he is setting up a definition of terms which enlarges the notion of a generation.
The Evangelist’s ways are not our ways - not how we might operate in a modern context. Accordingly, Monsignor McCarthy will allow Matthew to speak for himself:
Just as Matthew can use the word 'son' to mean any descendant in the direct line, so can he use the word 'begot' to mean any ancestor in the direct line. Therefore, he does not err in saying in the second set of names that "Joram [Jehoram] begot Oziah [Uzziah]" (Mt 1:8), even though there were three immediate biological generations in between. Matthew is saying that there were fourteen undisqualified generations in each period of time, and his point has force as long as there is a discernible reason for omitting some of the immediate generations in keeping with the purpose of his writing.
[End of quote]
This brings us to that exceedingly interesting matter of the “discernible reason for omitting some of the immediate generations”.
For, how to justify bundling out of a genealogical list two such mighty Judaean kings as Jehoash [Joash] and Amaziah? Between them they occupied the throne of Jerusalem for about three quarters of a century! Well, say some liberals, Matthew was using faulty king lists. No, say some conservatives, those omitted kings of Judah were very evil, and that is why Matthew had chosen to ignore them.
But, can that really be the case?
2 Kings 12:2: ― “[Jehoash]
did what was right in the eyes of the Lord
all the years Jehoiada the priest instructed him”.
2 Kings 14:3: ― “[Amaziah]
did what was right in the eyes of the Lord,
but not as his father David had done.
In everything he followed the example of his father Joash”.
Why, then, does Matthew’s Genealogy include the likes of Jehoram (Joram), and Ahaz (Achaz), for instance, about whom Kings and Chronicles have nothing whatsoever favourable to say? 2 Chronicles 21:6 – “[Jehoram] followed the ways of the kings of Israel, as Ahab’s family had done, because his wife was Ahab’s daughter. So he did what the Lord considered evil”.
2 Kings 16:2-4 ― “Unlike David his father, [Ahaz] did not do what was right in the eyes of the Lord his God. He followed the ways of the kings of Israel and even sacrificed his son in the fire, engaging in the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites”.
Monsignor John McCarthy, wisely basing himself upon the [Church] Fathers, seems to have come up with a plausible explanation for why these particular kings were omitted from the genealogy, and why the name of the wicked Jehoram, for instance, was genealogically preserved:
Regarding the second set of "fourteen" generations, we read that "Joram begot Oziah" (Mt 1:18). But we know that Joram was actually the great-great-grandfather of Oziah, because Oziah is another name for Azariah (cf. 2 Chr 26:1; 2 Kg [4 Kg] 14:21), and in 1 Chr 3:11-12 we read: "and Joram begot Ochoziah, from whom sprang Joas[h], and his son Amasiah begot Azariah." Hence, Matthew omits the generations of Ochoziah, Joas, and Amasiah from his list, and the judgments given in the Old Testament upon these people may tell us why.
St. Jerome …
sees a reason in the fact that Joram married Athalia, the daughter of Jezebel of Sidon, who drew him deeper and deeper into the practices of idolatry, and that the three generations of sons succeeding him continued in the worship of idols.
In the very first of the Ten Commandments given by God through Moses on Mount Sinai it was stated: "Thou shalt not have foreign gods before me. ... Thou shalt not adore or serve them. I am the Lord thy God, powerful and jealous, visiting the iniquity of fathers upon their children unto the third and fourth generation of those that hate me, and showing mercy unto thousands to those that love me and keep my commandments" (Ex 20:3-6). Now Solomon was a sinner and an idolater (1 Kg f3 Kg] 11: 7-8), but he had a good man for his father and was therefore not punished in his own generation (1 Kg [3 Kg] 11:12).
St. Augustine …
points out that the same was true of Joram, who had Josaphat for his father, and therefore did not have his name removed from Matthew's genealogy (cf. 2 Chr 21:7).
St. John Chrysostom …
adds the further reason that the Lord had ordered the house of Ahab to be extirpated from the face of the earth (2 Kg [4 Kg] 9:8), and the three kings eliminated by Matthew were, as descendants of Athalia, of the seed of Ahab. Jehu eradicated the worship of Baal from Israel, but he did not forsake the golden calves in Bethel and Dan. Nevertheless, the Lord said to him: "Because you have diligently performed what was right and pleasing in my eyes and have done to the house of Ahab in keeping with everything that was in my heart, your children shall sit upon the throne of Israel unto the fourth generation (2 Kg [4 Kg] 10:28-31). So it is interesting to note that while these generations of Jehu were inserted into the royal lineage of Israel, the three generations of Ahab were taken out of the genealogy of Jesus by the judgment of God through the inspired pen of St. Matthew.
[End of quote]
According to the revision that I have undertaken, though, there is no reason for major kings like Joash [Jehoash] and Amaziah to be dumped. (I can accept, perhaps, that the ephemeral and idolatrous Ahaziah, son of queen Athaliah, might be bypassed). Nor have Joash and Amaziah been dumped, for I find them in their alter egos, respectively, Uzziah and Jotham. The King Joash, who would ultimately murder the holy prophet Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, was the same as the King Uzziah who would, for a time, come under the spiritual influence of that Zechariah, “who instructed him in the fear of God” (cf. 2 Chronicles 24:22; 26:5).
Similarly, the seemingly missing King Jehoiakim can be found in his alter ego, Manasseh:
Manasseh - Jehoiakim
(7) Manasseh - Jehoiakim | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
So far, I have explained that some apparently missing kings (except for Ahaziah?) are not actually missing from Matthew’s genealogical list.
But, then, another problem presents itself according to my revision.
There are duplicated kings as well in Matthew’s list as we currently have it.
Thus:
Potentially Abijah is Asa (common mother, Maacah);
Hezekiah is certainly Josiah; and
Amon is certainly Jeconiah.
For an explanation of each of these three sets, see e.g. my articles, respectively:
Maacah mother of Abijah, Asa
(5) Maacah mother of Abijah, Asa | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Damien F. Mackey’s A Tale of Two Theses
(5) Damien F. Mackey’s A Tale of Two Theses | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu
and:
King Amon’s descent into Aman (Haman)
(5) King Amon's descent into Aman (Haman) | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
When this revision is brought into effect, then we do not end up with the requisite fourteen kings.
How many kings does this give us?
Including David, whom some don’t, we get only twelve kings:
1. David;
2. Solomon;
3. Rehoboam;
4. Asa (Abijah);
5. Jehoshaphat;
6. Jehoram;
7. Uzziah (Joash);
8. Jotham (Amaziah);
9. Ahaz;
10. Hezekiah (Josiah);
11. Manasseh (Jehoiakim);
12. Amon (Jehoiachin).
Or thirteen if my Abijah = Asa is rejected.
May I be so bold as to ask if verse 17: “Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah”, which occurs only once, may be a neat mathematical gloss that was not actually part of the original text?
An artificial construct, perhaps?
After all, what vital significance did the number “fourteen” have in the Bible, anyway?
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769520851271631286.post-24993866325141043582024-02-16T13:20:00.000-08:002024-02-16T13:20:51.885-08:00Divine Mercy loathes tepidity, lukewarmness
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_zS1VfmFJpb_QFmDkGnzAuWEasXUWQj41Iau4vvEBKR4sLyRKNGmsX2mM0of_i8fprBap_LN5IdT8Vr2SgtXAxKQJbMZu3a485WBODrFdZM4dCx6EfTAiS1_A70sogOpEZcwXKTj2FGsLi7IzNhGa-ZqobMDS7LPu5yLIOb1rFJe419fXM3PljAweDivH/s1280/divine_mercy_cross_10_in__59643_zoom.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="600" data-original-height="1280" data-original-width="1057" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_zS1VfmFJpb_QFmDkGnzAuWEasXUWQj41Iau4vvEBKR4sLyRKNGmsX2mM0of_i8fprBap_LN5IdT8Vr2SgtXAxKQJbMZu3a485WBODrFdZM4dCx6EfTAiS1_A70sogOpEZcwXKTj2FGsLi7IzNhGa-ZqobMDS7LPu5yLIOb1rFJe419fXM3PljAweDivH/s600/divine_mercy_cross_10_in__59643_zoom.jpg"/></a></div>
‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either
one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—
I am about to spit you out of my mouth’.
Revelation 3:15-16
For the ninth day, Christ asked Saint Faustina to pray for the sake of all the souls who have become lukewarm in their belief. She recorded the following words of Our Lord in her diary: “Today bring to Me the Souls who have become Lukewarm, and immerse them in the abyss of My mercy. These souls wound My Heart most painfully. My soul suffered the most dreadful loathing in the Garden of Olives because of lukewarm souls. They were the reason I cried out: ‘Father, take this cup away from Me, if it be Your will.’ For them, the last hope of salvation is to run to My mercy.”
Divine Mercy Novena
Taken from: https://www.thedivinemercy.org/articles/when-lukewarm-soul-reheated
When a Lukewarm Soul is Reheated
MAY
07
2019
David Van Sise, a recovering lukewarm soul, knows all about that particular character flaw that keeps some souls from stepping out in faith.
He knows, for instance, what Jesus told St. Faustina about lukewarm souls - that "My soul suffered the most dreadful loathing in the Garden of Olives because of lukewarm souls" (Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska, 1228).
And how does the Lord define lukewarm souls? As "souls who thwart My efforts" (Diary, 1682).
Thwarting Jesus' efforts certainly was never David's intention. But in retrospect, a spiritually lukewarm David Van Sise meant that, among other things, Jesus' Divine Mercy message wasn't reaching certain hardened criminals in a New Jersey maximum security federal prison. That's no longer the case.
David, an insurance industry executive from East Windsor, New Jersey, now engages in prison ministry, each week going cell to cell helping the greatest of sinners come to know of God's love for them.
His own lukewarm faith began heating up in 2014 when he discovered a Marian Press pamphlet explaining the Divine Mercy Chaplet.
"It spoke to my heart," said David. "I said to my wife, Chrystyna, 'This St. Faustina - she has a Diary, too.' Chrystyna said, 'I know,' and she pulled it out and handed it to me. I just kept reading and reading the Diary. I'm still reading it."
He felt the call to learn every-thing he could about Divine Mercy. Eventually, he learned of the National Shrine of The Divine Mercy. He and Chrystyna visited. During Mass, he felt the Lord speak to his heart, telling him to come to the Shrine on the first Sunday of every month and to bring people with him. He's been doing that ever since.
"I went from being a lukewarm Catholic, raised in the faith, but I didn't live my faith," he said. "I lived as if I wasn't worthy of God's
love. But then I read the Diary and came to know that God's mercy is for everybody - the greater the sinner, the greater the right I have to His mercy (see Diary, 723). I realized He never turned His back to me. He was waiting for me with His arms stretched."
During the Church's extraordinary Jubilee Year of Mercy three years ago, David vowed to obey the command Jesus gave to the world through St. Faustina when He said, "I demand from you deeds of mercy, which are to arise out of love for Me" (Diary, 742). He decided to spend the year engaging in each of the works of mercy. But when he got to "Visit the imprisoned," he seized up.
"That's just not for me," he concluded.
But he eventually went to a workshop led by prison ministers and felt called to help out. Now he looks forward to his weekly prison visits. Each week, in the prison's toughest section, he goes cell to cell and offers himself as a merciful presence and listening ear. He offers the inmates materials on Divine Mercy and Our Lady. He offers to pray for them.
"I make the Sign of the Cross, and I do my best to ask the Lord to speak through me and give me the words that are going to bring some light to them," David says. "And many times afterwards they're like, 'Wow, man. Thanks a lot. That was really good.'"
Why does he choose to minister to an inmate population whom society has declared the worst of the worst?
"What I see is that they thirst for something," David says. "They have an emptiness in their hearts, and many of them have spent their whole lives filling that with drugs, alcohol, pornography, and other vices, and there's never been an opportunity for them to put anything good inside that emptiness."
He has witnessed conversions. Mostly, he's witnessed inmates finding comfort in the simple fact that someone cares and that Jesus never gives up on us.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769520851271631286.post-63831977085350304882024-02-16T12:56:00.000-08:002024-02-16T12:56:09.006-08:00“Sacred Heart of Jesus, burning with love of us, inflame our hearts with love of Thee” <div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4Z43He4dvUf9NRsUOyGQ56OBqe6M_fsd6kZl5eHjEjeCuhjMbCJReFBS3gkPJmv4212r2wbvr5EycpwGbRfgx1ZWOKPPChKCORcO2eJ0sUZ18KrJfJZDTNor5i0M43IGFM1GxibxHXrumKhzswOdQmBwrg4tlSue4ZCajTSt2nw-Jf-9XgM7rVS-v_2eY/s1280/maxresdefault.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4Z43He4dvUf9NRsUOyGQ56OBqe6M_fsd6kZl5eHjEjeCuhjMbCJReFBS3gkPJmv4212r2wbvr5EycpwGbRfgx1ZWOKPPChKCORcO2eJ0sUZ18KrJfJZDTNor5i0M43IGFM1GxibxHXrumKhzswOdQmBwrg4tlSue4ZCajTSt2nw-Jf-9XgM7rVS-v_2eY/s600/maxresdefault.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
“May we stand within the fire
Of your Sacred Heart, and raise
To our God in joyful choir
All creation’s song of praise”.
James P. McAuley
Professor James P. McAuley, the author of this great hymn to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, biblically symbolised in this stanza by king Nebuchednezzar’s Fiery Furnace (Daniel 3:8-38), was my teacher of English around 1970, when I was doing a Bachelor of Arts degree at the University of Tasmania.
I recall that professor McAuley was an extremely rigorous teacher, invariably returning one’s essays covered with his red inked, highly-critical comments. For more, see my article:
MEMORIES OF AUSTRALIAN POET, PROFESSOR JAMES P. MCAULEY
(5) Memories of Australian poet, professor James P. McAuley | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
His mystical hymn (Jesus, in Your Heart We Find, Gather Australia, 464) reads in full:
Jesus, in your heart we find
Love of the Father and mankind.
These two loves to us impart –
Divine love in a human heart.
May we stand within the fire
Of your Sacred Heart, and raise
To our God in joyful choir
All creation’s song of praise.
In our hearts from roots of pride
Deadly growths of evil flower;
But from Jesus’ wounded side
Streams the sacramental power.
To the depths within your heart
Draw us with divine desire,
Hide us, heal us, and impart
Your own love’s transforming fire.
The fiercely anti-Communist James McAuley, who was born in Sydney (Australia) in 1917 (my father William was born in Tasmania that very same year), moved to Hobart (Tasmania) in 1960, where his large family stayed for a time with our large family, in Lenah Valley.
This fact never gets mentioned in any of the biographies of the professor that I have read. However, I certainly recall the cramped accommodation endured at the time, and some of the incidents associated with it all.
The McAuley family became prominent musically (even including drums in the choir) in our local parish church, appropriately Sacred Heart, in New Town.
Here is one brief biography of “James McAuley (1917 - 1976)”:
https://www.poetrylibrary.edu.au/poets/mcauley-james
James McAuley was born in Lakemba, in the western suburbs of Sydney, in 1917, the son of grazier and real estate speculator, Patrick McAuley, and his wife Mary (née Judge). He spent most of his childhood at Homebush, where the family moved after his father’s retirement, and attended Homebush Public School. Displaying early literary and musical talents, McAuley was sent to the selective public school Fort Street Boys High School, where he became school captain and won prizes for his writing; a number of his earliest poems appeared in the school magazine, The Fortian. In 1935 he matriculated to the University of Sydney, where he studied English and philosophy.
At university he continued to hone his poetic craft, contributing poems to the student magazine Hermes, where he also became one of the editors. After graduating with a B.A. (Hons) in 1938, he went on to complete an M.A., writing a thesis on the influence of symbolism in English, French and German literature. From the late 1930s he supported himself in various tutoring and teaching positions, and in 1942 took up a teacher’s scholarship, completed a Diploma of Education and was appointed to Newcastle Boys Junior High School. In June 1942 he married a fellow teacher, Norma Elizabeth Abernethy.
In January 1943, McAuley was called up for national service in the Militia, and quickly transferred to the Australian Imperial Force. In January 1944 he was commissioned in the Melbourne-based Army Directorate of Civil Affairs, where he renewed his association with another Fort Street graduate, Harold Stewart. While working at the Army Directorate in 1944, McAuley and Stewart concocted the ‘Ern Malley’ hoax, intending to expose what they saw as a lack of meaning in modernist literature and art. The target of the hoax was Max Harris, the Adelaide-based editor of Angry Penguins magazine and champion of literary modernism. When Harris took the bait and published the poems of ‘Ern Malley,’ Stewart and McAuley were (eventually) revealed as the actual authors, and admitted having concocted a fictitious identity for ‘Ern’ and using partly random composition methods to produce the poems. While the hoax did cause significant embarrassment to Harris—and has been seen by some as inhibiting the development of literary modernism in Australia—the poems of ‘Ern Malley’ have remained in print and continue to be a subject of significant critical debate: a consequence Stewart and McAuley surely did not intend. In 1946, McAuley published his first collection of poetry (in his own name), Under Aldebaran.
After the war, McAuley became a lecturer at the Australian School of Pacific Administration, first in Canberra then Sydney, a position he retained until 1959. While at the School he became deeply interested in the then Australian administered Territory of Papua and New Guinea, and was profoundly influenced by the Roman Catholic missionary archbishop Alain Marie Guynot de Boismenu (1870–1953). In 1952, McAuley converted to Catholicism, which would henceforth have a defining influence on his intellectual life. Immersing himself in Cold War politics, he became associated with the radical Catholic ideologue B.A. Santamaria, and was instrumental in the anti-Communist agitation that split the Labor movement and resulted in formation of the Democratic Labor Party in the mid-1950s. In 1955, he joined the Australian branch of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a conservative, anti-Communist organisation, funded in part by the CIA, and became editor of its journal, Quadrant. McAuley’s reputation as a poet was furthered with the publication of his second collection, A Vision of Ceremony, in 1956, and his credentials as a conservative public intellectual were bolstered by the publication of a collection of critical essays, The End of Modernity: Essays on Literature, Art and Culture (1959).
In 1960 McAuley and his family moved to Hobart, where he took up a position at the University of Tasmania, and the following year he was appointed to the chair of English at the University.
Despite his academic duties he continued to write and publish poetry, including his epic poem Captain Quiros (1964), and the collection Surprises of the Sun (1969), which included a poem sequence ‘On the Western Line,’ based on McAuley’s childhood experiences in the Western suburbs of Sydney.
During the 1960s he also published a number of critical works, including a monograph on the work of Christopher Brennan (1963), a general introduction to poetics, A Primer of English Versification (1966), and a book-length study of Australian poetry entitled The Personal Element in Australian Poetry (1970). He did not abandon his interest in politics, publishing and organising in support of Australian involvement in the Vietnam War.
In 1970, McAuley was diagnosed with bowel cancer. After recovering from the illness, he devoted increased time and energy to ensuring his literary legacy. His Collected Poems appeared in 1971, and was a joint winner of the Grace Leven Prize in that year. In 1975, he published a second collection of his essays, The Grammar of the Real: Selected Prose, 1959–1974, and a collection of his critical work on Australian poetry, A Map of Australian Verse: The Twentieth Century. Two collections of his later poetry appeared in 1976: Time Given: Poems 1970–1976, and Music Late at Night: Poems 1970–1973. Early in 1976, McAuley was diagnosed with liver cancer; he died on 15 October that year, in Hobart. His posthumous publications included the poetry collection, ‘A World of its Own’ (1977), a collection of his writing edited by his long-time friend Leonie Kramer (James McAuley: Poetry, Essays and Personal Commentary, UQP, 1988), and a revised volume of his Collected Poems (1994).
A significant and often controversial figure in the Australian post-War literary landscape, McAuley’s achievement as a poet has in recent years often been overshadowed by debates over his role as a right-wing intellectual. While unquestionably seen as a major Australian poet in his own time, it is a lasting irony that critical interest in McAuley’s work since his death has been largely eclipsed by the interest in his short-lived creation ‘Ern Malley.’
[End of quote]
It is rumoured that McAuley, when told that he would need to have part of his colon removed, and ever the grammarian, quipped: “Better a semi-colon than a full stop!”
The Fiery Heart of Jesus
Catholics, particularly, like to see in king Nebuchednezzar’s Fiery Furnace, in which the three youths sang their hymns of praise to God the Creator, a symbol of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. For, those who choose to live mystically within the fiery Heart of Jesus are not harmed, but, instead, are filled with inexpressible joy and an exuberant praise of God.
There is a saying that we must either burn within the Heart of Jesus, or we burn outside of It. The latter is a most harmful and unpleasant burning. And it can be fully realised in Hell.
Stephen Beale has written an article (2018) for the purpose of “Explaining the strange symbolism of the Sacred Heart”:
https://aleteia.org/2018/06/08/explaining-the-strange-symbolism-of-the-sacred-heart/
What do the flames, light, arrows, and crown of thorns mean?
The Sacred Heart is among the most familiar and moving of Catholic devotional images. But its symbolism can also be strange. As we mark the Feast of the Sacred Heart early this month, here is a look at the explanation behind some of the features of the Sacred Heart.
The flames. The Sacred Heart most obviously brings to mind the Passion of Christ on the cross. There is the crown of thorns, the cross, usually atop the heart, and the wound from the spear that pierced His side. But why is the Sacred Heart always shown as if it’s on fire? That certainly did not happen at the crucifixion.
There are three reasons behind this. First, we have to remember that Christ’s self-offering on the cross was the one-time perfect consummation of all the sacrifices of the Old Testament. This necessarily includes burnt offerings, which were the highest form of sacrifices in ancient Israel, according to The Jewish Encyclopedia. An early form of such sacrifices was what Abraham set out to do with Isaac, hence the wood he had his son collect beforehand.
Second, fire is always associated with the essence of divinity in the Old Testament. Think back to the burning bush that spoke to Moses, the cloud of fire that settled on Sinai, and the flames from above that consumed the sacrifice of Elijah. This explanation fits with the gospel account of the crucifixion, in which the piercing of Christ’s side revealed His heart at the same time that the curtain of the temple was torn, unveiling the holy of holies where God was present.
Finally, the image of fire associated with heart represents Christ’s passionate love for us. One 19th-century French devotional card has these words arched above the Sacred Heart—Voilà ce Cœur qui a tant aimé les hommes, which roughly translates to: “Here is the heart that loved men so much.” One traditional exclamation is, “Sacred Heart of Jesus, burning with love of us, inflame our hearts with love of Thee.” We see this actually happen in the gospels, where the disciples on the road to Emmaus realized that their hearts had been “burning” after their encounter with Jesus. ….
The rays of light. Look closer at the image of the Sacred Heart. There is something else framing it besides the flames. They are rays of light. In John 8:12, Christ declares that He is the “light of the world.” In Revelation 21:23, we are told that in the new Jerusalem at the end of times there will be no light from the sun or moon because the Lamb of God—that is, Jesus—will be its source of light. Light, like fire, is a symbol of divinity. Think of the Transfiguration and the blinding light that Paul experienced on the road to Damascus. As the light of the world, Christ is also the one who “enlightens” us, revealing God to us.
The Sacred Heart constitutes the climax of divine self-revelation, showing us the depths of God’s love for us. ….
The arrows. The crown of thorns and the spear make sense. But sometimes the Sacred Heart is also depicted with arrows. Again, that’s not something we find in the gospels. One explanation is that the arrow represents sin. This is reportedly what our Lord Himself said in a private revelation to St. Mary of St. Peter. (See here for more.) The arrow could also draw upon an ancient Roman metaphor for love, which, according to ancient myth, occurred when the god Cupid shot an arrow through the hearts of lovers (as this author points out).
The crown of thorns. Unlike the arrows, the crown of thorns is reported in the gospels. But in traditional images it encircles the Sacred Heart, whereas in Scripture the crown was fixed to Jesus’ head. One traditional account offers this interpretation, describing those who are devoted to it: “They saw the crown transferred from His head to His heart; they felt that its sharp points had always pierced there; they understood that the Passion was the crucifixion of a heart” (The Heart of the Gospel: Traits of the Sacred Heart by Francis Patrick Donnelly, published in 1911 by the Apostleship of Prayer). In other words, wrapping the crown around the heart emphasizes the fact that Christ felt His wounds to the depths of His heart.
Moreover, after the resurrection, the crown of thorns becomes a crown of victory. Donnelly hints at this as well: “From the weapons of His enemy, from cross and crown and opened Heart, our conquering leader fashioned a trophy which was the best testimony of His love.” In ancient gladiatorial contests, the victor was crowned. In the Revelation 19:12, Christ wears “many crowns” and believers who are victorious over sin and Satan will receive the “crown of life” (Revelation 2:10).
Finally, according to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, the seventeenth French nun who helped start the devotion, the points of the thorns are the many individual sins of people, pricking the heart of Jesus. As she put it in a letter, recounting the personal vision she had received, “I saw this divine Heart as on a throne of flames, more brilliant than the sun and transparent as crystal. It had Its adorable wound and was encircled with a crown of thorns, which signified the pricks our sins caused Him.”
The cross. Like the thorns, the cross is both rooted in the gospels but also displayed in a way that does not follow them in every detail. There is almost an inversion of the crucifixion. In the gospels, Christ hung on the cross, His heart correspondingly dwarfed by its beams. But in images of the Sacred Heart, it is now enlarged and the cross has shrunk. Moreover, rather than the heart being nailed to the cross, the cross now seems ‘planted’ in the heart—as St. Margaret Mary Alacoque put it—if to say to us that the entire reality of the crucifixion derives its meaning from and—cannot be understood apart from—the heart of Jesus. As Donnelly wrote, “The Heart [is] … forever supporting the weight of a Cross.” Truly, it is the heart of Jesus that makes the cross meaningful for us today.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769520851271631286.post-27329247206140295062024-02-15T12:54:00.000-08:002024-02-15T12:54:40.638-08:00Mohammed, a composite of Old Testament figures, also based upon Jesus Christ <div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEiGHtvo6cBkY8mmcs2huldNIgKZF1u5wCPYK0YTvtIaEHuHZCO00yaOJqAK3GTO9g08X73MR-8dqwbJPi6JqSBsG8mkTG8Y1rF8qiEzSqE4q3VonLwuIsfVtfzENcO4bFF9wl45VURvOVKhfstVSA1RWCfi4BsBnNQBJRBrpnTrEYZp3hfH8YhTI9KpZk/s430/muhammad-jesus2.webp" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="200" data-original-width="430" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEiGHtvo6cBkY8mmcs2huldNIgKZF1u5wCPYK0YTvtIaEHuHZCO00yaOJqAK3GTO9g08X73MR-8dqwbJPi6JqSBsG8mkTG8Y1rF8qiEzSqE4q3VonLwuIsfVtfzENcO4bFF9wl45VURvOVKhfstVSA1RWCfi4BsBnNQBJRBrpnTrEYZp3hfH8YhTI9KpZk/s600/muhammad-jesus2.webp"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
The Prophet Mohammed was, in fact, a non-historical composite
based upon various Old Testament characters, but also -
as we shall find - based upon Jesus Christ.
Scholars and writers have come up with all sorts of views and theories in their attempts to explain the well-known problems associated with Mohammed and the Qur’an (Koran).
Regarding Mohammed, the correct attitude is, I believe, as I noted in my article:
Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History
(6) Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
with reference to Robert Spencer:
I think that Spencer really gets close to hitting the nail on the head when he arrives at the conclusion that the Prophet Mohammed was, in fact, “a semi-legendary figure … whose exploits were greatly elaborated upon by later generations” - though my qualification of what he argues would be that this “semi-legendary figure” was based on real historical individuals, and not on figures as historically vague as the ones that Spencer will …. propose.
[End of quote]
My own firm conclusion is that:
The Prophet Mohammed was, in fact, a non-historical composite based upon various Old Testament characters, but also - as we shall find - based upon Jesus Christ.
1. Old Testament manifestations
I gave various of these in my “Biography of the Prophet Mohammed” article above, whilst excluding others, such as the prophet Jeremiah, who resembles Mohammed in, for example, his timidity when first called (Jeremiah 1:6), and his “23 years” (Jeremiah 25:3).
("23 Years" indicates the duration of Muhammad's Islamic ministry from 610 to 632 AD.)
Let us recall some of this here (not presented in biblical chronological order):
Nineveh, Tobias and Jonah
….
Yet we have found in … related “Heraclius and the Battle of Nineveh” articles (Heraclius supposedly having been a contemporary of Mohammed’s), that it is as if Mohammed had lived during the time of the powerful C8th BC neo-Assyrian kings. This would be in favour of my view that much of the life of the Prophet Mohammed was based on Tobias, son of Tobit, which family did actually live in ancient Nineveh:
The prophet Jonah, who had predicted the actual destruction of ancient Nineveh, and who was contemporaneously known to Tobit and Tobias (Tobit 14:4; cf. 14:8): ‘Go to Media, my son, for I fully believe what Jonah the prophet said about Nineveh, that it will be overthrown’, is incongruous as the “brother” of Mohammed, as the latter is supposed to have said of Jonah when speaking to a Christian slave supposedly from the town of Nineveh.
To make matters even worse, the Qur’an has those converted by Jonah as being Jonah’s own people:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/jonah.html
The Quran and the Islamic traditions agree on Jonah being sent to Nineveh:
If only there had been a single township (among those We warned), which believed - so its faith should have profited it,- except the People of Jonah?
When they believed, We removed from them the Chastisement of Ignominy in the life of the present, and permitted them to enjoy (their life) for a while. S. 10:98
And remember Zunnün, when he departed in wrath: He imagined that We had no power over him! But he cried through the depths of darkness, "There is no god but Thou: glory to Thee: I was indeed wrong!" So We listened to him: and delivered him from distress: and thus do We deliver those who have faith. S. 21:87-88
So also was Jonah among those sent (by Us). When he ran away (like a slave from captivity) to the ship (fully) laden, He (agreed to) cast lots, and he was of the rebutted: Then the big Fish did swallow him, and he had done acts worthy of blame. Had it not been that he (repented and) glorified Allah, He would certainly have remained inside the Fish till the Day of Resurrection. But We cast him forth on the naked shore in a state of sickness, And We caused to grow, over him, a spreading plant of the gourd kind. And We sent him (on a mission) to a hundred thousand (men) or more. And they believed; so We permitted them to enjoy (their life) for a while. S. 37:139-148
Here is Ibn Kathir on S. 10:98:
"... The point is that between Musa and Yunus, there was no nation in its entirety that believed except the people of Yunus, the people of Naynawa (Nineveh). And they only believed because they feared that the torment from which their Messenger warned them, might strike them. They actually witnessed its signs. So they cried to Allah and asked for help. They engaged in humility in invoking Him. They brought their children and cattle and asked Allah to lift the torment from which their Prophet had warned them. As a result, Allah sent down His mercy and removed the scourge from them and gave them respite.
... In interpreting this Ayah, Qatadah said: ‘No town has denied the truth and then believed when they saw the scourge, and then their belief benefited them, with the exception of the people of Yunus. When they lost their prophet and they thought that the scourge was close upon them, Allah sent through their hearts the desire to repent. So they wore woolen fabrics and they separated each animal from its offspring. They then cried out to Allah for forty nights. When Allah saw the truth in their hearts and that they were sincere in their repentance and regrets, He removed the scourge from them.’ Qatadah said: ‘It is mentioned that the people of Yunus were in Naynawa, the land of Mosul.’ This was also reported from Ibn Mas'ud, Mujahid, Sai'd bin Jubayr and others from the Salaf." ….
Ahab and Jezebel
Further possible confirmation that the Prophet Mohammed,
a non-historical character, is a biblical composite.
The biography of the Prophet Mohammed has borrowed so many of its bits and pieces from the Bible (Old and New Testaments) that it is no wonder that Mohammed has been portrayed as a most remarkable kind of man (verging on a superman), having such a breathtaking career.
The real miracle is that scholars down through the ages have been able to compile a coherent life of the man. The downside of it is - apart from religious implications - that it is historically a complete shambles. Better to view the whole thing as a marvellous work of fiction.
Now, a Turkish writer, Ercan Celik, believes that he has traced the so-called “uncle” of Mohammed, to the biblical king Ahab of Israel:
https://iqsaweb.wordpress.com/2015/05/26/celik_abu-lahab-jezebel/
Who were Abu Lahab and His Wife? A View from the Hebrew Bible
by Ercan Celik*
In The Qur’an and Its Biblical Subtext, G. S. Reynolds observes that
…scholars of the Qur’an accept the basic premise of the medieval Islamic sources that the Qur’an is to be explained in light of the life of the Prophet Muhammad…
However, he proposes that critical Qur’anic scholarship not depend on prophetic biography (sīrah) or traditional Qur’anic exegesis (tafsīr), but rather,
… the Qur’an should be appreciated in light of its conversation with earlier literature, in particular Biblical literature…This argument necessarily involves an examination of both the relationship of Muslim exegetical literature to the Qur’an and the relationship of the Qur’an to Biblical literature.
Sūrat al-Masad (Q 111) offers a valuable example for how a Biblical perspective can augment our understanding of the Qur’anic text. The text of the sūrah names its main character Abu Lahab, and mentions that he has a wife, but does not provide any further identifying information. Only extra-Qur’anic literature can give us more details about who he was. In this blog post, I compare how he may be identified through the Islamic literary sources and through the Hebrew Bible.
Abu Lahab In Islamic Literature
….
Abu Lahab, meaning “the father of flame,” is identified as the uncle of the prophet Muhammad, ʿAbd al-ʿUzza ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib, nicknamed Abu Lahab on account of his reddish complexion. He is said to have been a rich and proud man, and he and his wife Umm Jamil, sister of Abu Sufyan, are depicted as fierce enemies of Muhammad and the early Muslim community.
There are many anecdotes in the Islamic literary sources about their verbal and physical attacks on the prophet. Some Qur’an commentators say that Umm Jamil used to litter Muhammad’s path with harmful thorns of twisted palm leaf fibres, and that this is the historical context for the final verse of Sūrat al-Masad: “Will have upon her neck a halter of palm-fibre” (Q 111:5).
Abu’l-Ahab in Biblical Literature
In searching the Hebrew Bible for a wicked man whose name resembles Abu Lahab, one finds Ahab (Hebrew: אַחְאָב), the seventh kings of ancient Israel (r. ca. 885-874 BCE), son of King Omri and husband of Jezebel of Sidon. We could read “Abu Lahab” alternatively, and without substantial change, as “Abu’l-Ahab,” father of Ahab. According to the Hebrew Bible, the father of Ahab is Omri, who is described in 1 Kings 16:25 as having acted “more wickedly than all who were before him.”
His son Ahab, in his own time, “married Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians, and went to serve Baal and worshiped him . . . Thus Ahab did more to provoke the Lord God of Israel than all the kings of Israel who were before him” (1 Kings 16:31-33).
….
As for Jezebel, it is said that she ordered the killing of prophets (1 Kings 18:4). The prophet Elijah escaped her persecution and with God’s command confronted Ahab with a challenge to the priests of Baal: “You call on the name of your god and I will call on the name of the Lord; the god who answers by fire is indeed God” (18:24). The supporters of Baal called upon their god to send fire to consume their sacrifice, but nothing happened. When Elijah called upon the name of the Lord, fire came down from heaven immediately and consumed their offering.
Eventually Ahab in killed in battle, and when Elisha, successor to the prophet Elijah, anoints Jehu king of Israel, the latter had the house of Ahab killed. Jezebel was captured by her enemies, thrown out of a window, trampled by a horse, and her flesh eaten by dogs.
A Comparison of the Qur’anic and Biblical Characters
There are some significant parallels between the qur’anic character of Abu Lahab and the biblical character of Abu’l-Ahab. To illustrate these, let us evaluate Sūrat al-Masad in light of the biblical account:
May the hands of Abu Lahab [Abu’l-Ahab] be ruined and ruined is he. The biblical story of Ahab fits well with this verse, in both linguistic and narrative/thematic terms. The father is invoked for ruin. Omri was the first person to introduce the worship of Baal in Israel, for which his progeny are to be ruined. In Qur’anic Arabic terminology, hands (here, yadā) are symbolic of power and of progeny. The fate of Omri’s progeny is pronounced not so much in the tafsir literature as in the biblical texts.
His wealth will not avail him or that which he gained. The Ahab of the Bible seems to have had greater wealth than the Abu Lahab of Islamic tradition; his great wealth failed to prevent his demise by God’s command.
He will [enter to] burn in a Fire of [blazing] flame. Hellfire is an eschatalogical concept associated with unbelief, especially with the sort of idolatry instituted by Omri and Ahab.
And his wife [as well]—the carrier of firewood. The feature of firewood (ḥaṭab) is key. The challenge at Mount Carmel consisted of sacrificing bulls on firewood in order. We can imagine Jezebel supporting the Baalist priests by collecting the best woods to burn the sacrifice easily. The image of Jezebel carrying firewood makes more sense of this verse than that of Umm Jamil dumping thorns.
Around her neck is a rope of [twisted] fiber. Traditional exegetes struggle to explain the meaning of the rope of palm-fiber (masad). It may be better understood in light of the Jezebel story. The term masad appears to be a hapax legomenon in the Qur’an that might have a Hebrew root and be related to Jezebel’s violent death. This term begs for further examination along these lines.
See also my article on this:
Abu Lahab, Lab'ayu, Ahab
(7) Abu Lahab, Lab'ayu, Ahab | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
More Assyria, Tobit, Job, Ahikar
The ‘life’ of Mohammed will be shown to consist of, to a large extent,
a string of biblical episodes (relating to, for instance, Moses; David;
Job/Tobias; Jeremiah; Jesus Christ), but altered and/or greatly embellished,
and re-cast into an Arabian context. This has been achieved with the greatest
of skill, conflating all of these disparate sources, and re-arranging them
into a thrilling epic of literary magnificence.
THE NEO-ASSYRIAN FACTOR
Whilst it is not to be commonly expected for ancient Assyria to be discussed in the context of the Prophet Mohammed, given that the Assyrian empire had dissolved in the C7th BC, and here is Mohammed supposedly in the C7th AD, I have found compelling reason to raise this issue.
Why?
Because an event that is said to have taken place in the very year that the Prophet Mohammed was born, c. 570 AD, the invasion of Mecca by ‘Abraha[s] of the kingdom of Axum [Aksum], has all the earmarks, I thought, of the disastrous campaign of Sennacherib of Assyria against Israel.
Not 570 AD, but closer to 700 BC!
Lacking to this Qur’anic account is the [Book of] Judith element that (I have argued in various places) was the catalyst for the defeat of the Assyrian army.
But that feminine detail is picked up, I believe, in the story of the supposedly AD heroine, Gudit (possibly Jewish), who routed the Axumites.
Hence read: Gudit = Judith; and Axum can substitute for Assyria:
Judith the Simeonite and Judith the Semienite
https://www.academia.edu/24416713/Judith_the_Simeonite_and_Judith_the_Semienite
If that famous biblical incident involving neo-Assyria is some sort of chronological marker for the very beginning of those “biblical episodes” pertaining to Mohammed (as mentioned above), then the era of king Sennacherib of Assyria must be our (revised) starting point.
And, indeed, it is there that we find one who displays some striking resemblances to Mohammed: he is Tobias, the son of Tobit, who was born at this time, and whom I have identified with the prophet Job:
Prophet Job not an enlightened Gentile
(7) Prophet Job not an enlightened Gentile | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
His father Tobit tells us about this arduous time for his family, continuing on into the reign of Sennacherib’s successor, Esarhaddon (Tobit 1:18-22):
I [Tobit] also buried any whom King Sennacherib put to death when he came fleeing from Judea in those days of judgment that the king of heaven executed upon him because of his blasphemies. For in his anger he put to death many Israelites; but I would secretly remove the bodies and bury them. So when Sennacherib looked for them he could not find them.
Then one of the Ninevites went and informed the king about me, that I was burying them; so I hid myself. But when I realized that the king knew about me and that I was being searched for to be put to death, I was afraid and ran away.
Then all my property was confiscated; nothing was left to me that was not taken into the royal treasury except my wife Anna and my son Tobias.
But not forty days passed before two of Sennacherib’s sons killed him, and they fled to the mountains of Ararat, and his son Esarhaddon reigned after him. He appointed Ahikar, the son of my brother Hanael over all the accounts of his kingdom, and he had authority over the entire administration. Ahikar interceded for me, and I returned to Nineveh. Now Ahikar was chief cupbearer, keeper of the signet, and in charge of administration of the accounts under King Sennacherib of Assyria; so Esarhaddon reappointed him. He was my nephew and so a close relative.
Ahikar and Luqman
More needs to be said, too, about the immensely important Ahikar, because his wisdom - for much of which he would have been indebted to his uncle Tobit - has been drawn upon in the Qur’an:
http://archive.org/stream/TheStoryOfAhikar/Ahikar_djvu.txt
….
ON THE USE OF THE LEGEND OF AHIKAR
IN THE KORAN AND ELSEWHERE.
We pass on, in the next place, to point out that the legend of Ahikar was known to Mohammed, and that he has used it in a certain Sura of the Koran.
There is nothing a priori improbable in this, for the Koran is full of Jewish Haggada and Christian legends, and where such sources are not expressly mentioned, they may often be detected by consulting the commentaries upon the Koran in obscure passages. For example, the story of Abimelech and the basket of figs, which appears in the Last Words of Baruch, is carried over into the Koran, as we have shown in our preface to the Apocryphon in question. It will be interesting if we can add another volume to Mohammed’s library, or to the library of the teacher from whom he derived so many of his legends.
The 31st Sura of the Koran is entitled Lokman (Luqman) and it contains the following account of a sage of that name.
* We heretofore bestowed wisdom on Lokman and commanded him, saying, Be thou thankful unto God: for whoever is thankful, shall be thankful to the advantage of his own soul: and if any shall be unthankful, verily God is self-sufficient and worthy to be praised. And remember when Lokman said unto his son, as he admonished him.
….
O my son, Give not a partner unto God, for polytheism is a great impiety.
♦ ♦♦♦♦♦
O my son, verily every matter, whether good or bad, though it be of the weight of a grain of mustard-seed, and be hidden in a rock, or in the heavens, God will bring the same to light: for God is clear-sighted and knowing.
O my son, be constant at prayer, and command that which is just, and forbid that which is evil, and be patient under the afflictions that shall befall thee: for this is a duty absolutely incumbent upon all men.
♦ ♦♦#♦♦
And be moderate in thy pace, and lower thy voice, for the most ungrateful of all voices surely is the voice of asses.’
♦ ♦♦#♦♦
Now concerning this Lokman, the commentators and the critics have diligently thrown their brains about.
The former have disputed whether Lokman was an inspired prophet or merely a philosopher and have decided against his inspiration: and they have given him a noble lineage, some saying that he was sister’s son to Job, and others that he was nephew to Abraham, and lived until the time of Jonah.
Others have said that he was an African: slave. It will not escape the reader’s notice that the term sister’s son to Job, to which should be added nephew of Abraham, is the proper equivalent of the ἐξάδελφος by which Nadan and Ahikar are described in the Tobit legends.
Job, moreover, is singularly like Tobit.
A few comments are due here. Concerning the last statement “Job … is singularly like Tobit”, that is because, I believe, that Job was Tobias, the very son of Tobit.
Most interesting, too, that “Lokman … was a sister’s son to Job”.
Now, returning ‘Ahikar in the Koran’:
That [Lokman] lived till the time of Jonah reminds one of the destruction of Nineveh as described in the book of Tobit, in accordance with Jonah’s prophecy. Finally the African slave is singularly like Aesop … who is a black man and a slave in the Aesop legends. From all of which it appears as if the Arabic Commentators were identifying Lokman with Ahikar on the one hand and with Aesop on the other; i.e. with two characters whom we have already shown to be identical.
The identification with Aesop is confirmed by the fact that many of the fables ascribed to Aesop in the west are referred to Lokman in the east: thus Sale says: —
‘The Commentators mention several quick repartees of Luqman which agree so well with what Maximus Planudes has written of Aesop, that from thence and from the fables attributed to Luqman by the Orientals, the latter has been generally thought to be no other than the Aesop of the Greeks.
However that may be (for I think the matter may bear a dispute) I am of opinion that Planudes borrowed a great part of his life of Aesop from the traditions he met with in the east concerning Luqman, concluding them to have been the same person, etc. …’. *
These remarks of Sale are confirmed by our observation that the Aesop story is largely a modification of the Ahikar legend, taken with the suggestion which we derive from the Mohammedan commentators, who seem to connect Lokman with Tobit on the one hand and with Aesop on the other. ….
Comment: In all of this we find ourselves firmly grounded in the neo-Assyria era of the C8th BC.
The article now focusses upon the relevant Qur’anic text:
Now let us turn to the Sura of the Koran which bears the name Lokman, and examine it internally: we remark (i) that he bears the name of sage, precisely as Ahikar does: (ii) that he is a teacher of ethics to his son, using Ahikar’s formula ‘ ya bani ‘ in teaching him: (iii) although at first sight the matter quoted by Mohammed does not appear to be taken from Ahikar, there are curious traces of dependence. We may especially compare the following from Ahikar: ‘O my son, bend thy head low and soften thy voice and be courteous and walk in the straight path and be not foolish.
And raise not thy voice when thou laughest, for were it by a loud voice that a house was built, the ass would build many houses every day.’
Clearly Mohammed has been using Ahikar, and apparently from memory, unless we like to assume that the passage in the Koran is the primitive form for Ahikar, rather than the very forcible figure in our published texts. Mohammed has also mixed up Ahikar’s teaching with his own, for some of the sentences which he attributes to Lokman appear elsewhere in the Koran. But this does not disturb the argument. From all sides tradition advises us to equate Lokman with Aesop and Ahikar, and the Koran confirms the equation. The real difficulty is to determine the derivation of the names of Lokman and Aesop from Ahikar ….
Some of the Moslem traditions referred to above may be found in Al Masudi c. 4 : ‘ There was in the country of Ailah and Midian a sage named Lokman, who was the son of Auka, the son of Mezid, the son of Sar. ….
Comment: The mention of “Midian” in association with Lokman is also most significant in my context, because as I have argued in:
A Common Sense Geography of the Book of Tobit
https://www.academia.edu/8675202/A_Common_Sense_Geography_of_the_Book_of_Tobit
it was from Midian (wrongly given as “Media”) that the Naphtalian clan of Tobit and some of his relatives hailed.
Continuing with the article:
Another curious point in connexion with the Moslem traditions is the discussion whether Loqman was or was not a prophet.
This discussion cannot have been borrowed from a Greek source, for the idea which is involved in the debate is a Semitic idea.
But it is a discussion which was almost certain to arise, whether Lokman of whom Mohammed writes so approvingly had any special … as a prophet, because Mohammed is the seal of the prophets.
And it seems from what Sale says on the subject, that the Moslem doctors decided the question in the negative; Lokman * received from God wisdom and eloquence in a high degree, which some pretend were given him in a vision, on his making choice of wisdom preferably to the gift of prophecy, either of which was offered him.’ Thus the Moslem verdict was that Lokman was a sage and not a prophet.
On the other hand it should be noticed that there are reasons for believing that he was regarded in some circles and probably from the earliest times as a prophet. The fact of his teaching in aphorisms is of no weight against this classification: for the Hebrew Bible has two striking instances of exactly similar character, in both of which the sage appears as prophet. Thus Prov. XXX. begins :
* The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, even the prophecy*
and Prov. xxxi begins :
*The words of king Lemuel, the prophecy that his mother taught him.’
Both of these collections appear to be taken from popular tales*, and they are strikingly like to the sentences of Ahikar. ….
At the conclusion of the Syntipas legends, when the young man is solving all the hard ethical problems that his father proposes to him, we again find a trace of Ahikar, for he speaks of the ‘ insatiate eye which as long as it sees wealth is so ardent after it that he regards not God, until in death the earth covers his eyes.’ And amongst the sayings of Ahikar we find one to the effect that * the eye of man is as a fountain, and it will never be satisfied with wealth until it is filled with dust.’ Dr Dillon points out that this is one of the famous sayings of Mohammed, and if that be so, we have one more loan from Ahikar in the Koran.
Cf Sura 102, ‘The emulous desire of multiplying [riches and children] employeth you, until ye visit the graves.’ ….
[End of quotes]
….
We also learned previously that Mohammed had encountered a young man from Nineveh – quite an anomaly. And the pair discussed the prophet Jonah whom Mohammed called his “brother”.
Tobit, for his part, well knew of the prophet Jonah, having warned his son, Tobias (14:4): “Go into Media [sic], my son, for I surely believe those things which Jonah the prophet spoke about Nineveh, that it shall be overthrown”.
I would re-set the childhood of Mohammed, therefore, to the reign of king Sennacherib of Assyria, and have Tobias/Job as a major biblical matrix for it. Tobias’s/Job’s long life in fact, which extends - according to my revision - from Sennacherib to beyond the Fall of Nineveh, will suffice to encompass “biblical episodes” attached to Mohammed from his birth to his marriage to Khadijah bint Khuwaylid.
My primary source here, serving as a biography of Mohammed,
will be Yahiya Emerick’s Muhammad (Critical Lives), Alpha, 2002:
Birth of Mohammed
Given as c. 570 AD, the “Year of the Elephant”. But revised here to the reign of Sennacherib. Mohammed’s parents are traditionally given as ‘Abdullah and Aminah, or Amna.
Now, this information is what really confirms me in my view that Tobias is a major influence in the biography of Mohammed, because the names of Tobias’s parents boil down to very much the same as those of Mohammed. Tobit is a Greek version of the name ‘Obad-iah, the Hebrew yod having been replaced by a ‘T’.
And ‘Obadiah, or ‘Abdiel, is, in Arabic ‘Abdullah, the name of Mohammed’s father.
And Amna is as close a name as one could get to Anna, the wife of Tobit (as we read above).
Tobias (my Job) is the biblico-historical foundation for the young Mohammed!
In articles of mine such as:
Similarities to The Odyssey of the Books of Job and Tobit
https://www.academia.edu/8914220/Similarities_to_The_Odyssey_of_the_Books_of_Job_and_Tobit
I have drawn many parallels between the Hebrew and Greek tales, showing how Odysseus and his son, Telemachus, can sometimes resemble, respectively, Tobit and his son, Tobias; the goddess Athena can sometimes assume the part played by the angel, Raphael {In the ‘life’ of Mohammed, we … find one “Maysara” performing a service akin to that of the angel Raphael in the Book of Tobit}; the cruel Poseidon is the demon, Asmodeus; there are the many suitors, as with Penelope, with Sarah; and then there is the common factor of the dog, given the name of “Argos” in The Odyssey.
These extremely popular and much copied books of Tobit and Job have also influenced Mesopotamian literature.
Egypt - according to the Testament of Job, the prophet Job had been a “king of Egypt”.
We are finding the Prophet Mohammed to have been no more real a person (though less obviously mythical) than was Odysseus, or Telemachus.
Now, as explained in my “Odyssey” article, it can happen that events associated with the biblical original, for example, the father, can be, in the mythological version, attributed to someone else, say, the son. And we now find that to be the very case in the biography of Mohammed. For, whereas Mohammed is thought to have been orphaned and to have been raised by his grandfather and uncle, in the Book of Tobit the father was orphaned (Tobit 1:8):
“I [Tobit] would bring it and give it to them in the third year, and we would eat it according to the ordinance decreed concerning it in the law of Moses and according to the instructions of Deborah, the mother of my father Tobiel, for my father had died and left me an orphan”. {“Deborah” here may be a distant ancestor, possibly even the famous Deborah of the Book of Judges, given her close association with the tribe of Naphtali (e.g., Judges 4:10; 5:18), Tobit’s tribe (Tobit 1:1)}.
Now poor ‘Abdullah, the father of Mohammed, in an episode that harkens back to the era of the Judges, to Jephthah’s terrible vow (Judges 11:30): ‘… whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering’, was elected by his father, ‘Abdel Muttalib, as the one of his ten sons to be sacrificed to God in thanksgiving.
Ultimately ‘Abdullah was spared that grim fate, due to an encounter between ‘Abdel Muttalib and the shamaness, Shiya - Emerick tells about this Shiya on p. 19.
Saul, Jephthah
Here we may have a reminiscence of king Saul of Israel’s clandestine visit to the witch of Endor (I Samuel 28:7).
Indeed, a further facet of the Jephthah story will recur again, later, in the quite different context of who will have the honour of placing the fabled Black Stone of the Ka’aba back on the eastern wall after repairs. (This whole wall building episode is like that of Nehemiah). Emerick recounts it on p. 48. Abu Umayyah will advise the assembled crowd to wait for the next person who will come through a nearby gate in the courtyard of the Ka’aba.
That person was, as fate would have it, Mohammed himself.
The situation of Mohammed, born into a Qureish environment of universal idol worship, and with the Jews as a separate entity, is very much the situation of Tobit and his little family, whose the tribe of Naphtali (separate from the Jews) had completely apostatised (Tobit 1:4): ‘When I was in my own country, in the land of Israel, while I was still a young man, the whole tribe of my ancestor Naphtali deserted the house of David and Jerusalem’.
Again, ‘Abdullah’s involvement in caravan trading into Syria is entirely compatible with what Tobit tells us about himself in 1:12-14: ‘Because I was mindful of God with all my heart, the Most High gave me favor and good standing with Shalmaneser, and I used to buy everything he needed. Until his death I used to go into Media, and buy for him there’ – compatible especially given my identification (in my “Geography of Tobit”) of “Media” as Midian, including Bashan, “a part of the province of Damascus”:
As with Tobit’s genealogy, with the repetition of names of the same root (Tobit 1:1): ‘I am Tobit and this is the story of my life. My father was Tobiel …’, so was the case with Mohammed’s grandfather, ‘Abdel Muttalib, and his son, Abu Talib.
Samuel, David
Youth of Mohammed
When the aged ‘Abdel Muttalib died, Mohammed was taken in by his uncle, Abu Talib, who, more than Mohammed’s short-lived father, ‘Abdullah (despite the common name), represents Tobit and his wise and kindly mentoring of the young Tobias. Emerick (p. 33): “Abu Talib took Muhammad in and treated him with great affection. Although Abu Talib was poor, he and his wife …”. Cf. Tobit 4:21:
‘We’re poor now, but don’t worry. If you obey God and avoid sin, he will be pleased with you and make you prosperous’.
In a famous story, an old priest, in the fashion of Samuel choosing to anoint the young David from amongst the sons of Jesse, will pick out the 12-year old Mohammed amongst many. Emerick tells of it (pp. 34-35):
Around the year 582, Abu Talib decided to join the great caravan going to Syria in order to boost his finances. …. After a couple of weeks of long, hard travel, the caravan and its attendants decided to make camp in a region called Bostra, just short of Syria. Just ahead on the road was a small Christian monastery where a solitary monk by the name of Bahira lived. …. He sent an invitation to the men of the caravan to come to the monastery for a banquet, asking that everyone attend. When the merchants arrived, the priest looked them over and found nothing special about any of them. He asked if everyone from the caravan was present and was told that everyone was there except a small boy who was left behind to watch the animals. Bahira requested that he also be invited, so someone went to fetch young Muhammad.
Compare (the strikingly similar) I Samuel 16:10-11:
Jesse had seven of his sons pass before Samuel, but Samuel said to him, “The LORD has not chosen these.” So he asked Jesse, “Are these all the sons you have?”
“There is still the youngest,” Jesse answered. “He is tending the sheep.”
Samuel said, “Send for him; we will not sit down until he arrives.”
Like David, too, Mohammed (later) tended sheep (Emerick, p. 40): “Muhammad’s humble occupation as a shepherd impressed upon him the value of hard, honest work”.
Tobit, Tobias and Sarah
Marriage of Mohammed
The golden thread in the ‘life’ of Mohammed of the Book of Tobit (combined with Job) continues on, I believe, into the account of his marriage to the widowed beauty, Khadijah, also given as ‘Siti Khadijah’:
http://kelantan.attractionsinmalaysia.com/SitiKhadijahMarket
“Siti Khadijah Market (Pasar besar Siti Khadijah), as its name implies, is a local wet market. Its name after Prophet Muhammad’s wife, [who] is known for her entrepreneurial skill, as this market is mostly run by women”.
In the Testament of Job the prophet’s wife is similarly called “Sitis”:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/jul/26/judaism-job-philosoph
“Job’s first wife is Sitidos (Sitis). Her name may have the same root as the word Satan in Hebrew or Sotah (unfaithful wife). She is a princess and Job a tribal leader”.
She is, I have argued, the same as the wife of Tobias, Sarah, meaning “princess”, “lady”.
Sarah was apparently, then, just like Khadijah, a woman of high status. She was likewise beautiful and full of quality, as described by the angel Raphael (Tobit 5:12): “She is sensible, brave, and very beautiful; and her father is a good man”. Just as with Khadijah, whose former husbands had died (Emerick, p. 41): “… Khadijah … married not once but twice …. Each husband died in turn, leaving her with a huge personal fortune”, likewise (though rather more spectacularly) Sarah (Tobit 3:8): “Sarah had been married seven times, but the evil demon, Asmodeus, killed each husband before the marriage could be consummated”.
The poor and rather insignificant Muhammad got his big break in life when that lowly life of his would - like with the young Tobias - converge with that of his future wife. And it similarly involved a journey to Syria for business purposes.
When (as Emerick tells, p. 42): “In about the year 595, Khadijah announced that she would hire a local man to lead a particularly important caravan to go to Syria”, Abu Talib suggested to Muhammad that he should apply. “Abu Talib, always on the lookout for opportunities for his own or any family member’s advancement, suggested to his nephew Muhammad that he try to get a job with Khadijah’s caravan”.
The part played by Abu Talib in this situation reminds one of Tobit, who instructed his son (Tobit 4:20-21): ‘Tobias, I want you to know that I once left a large sum of money with Gabrias' son, Gabael, at Rages in Media. We're poor now, but don't worry. If you obey God and avoid sin, he will be pleased with you and make you prosperous’. In my “Geography of Tobit” I have proposed that “Rages” here equates geographically with the city of Damascus. Tobias was now a young man of marriageable age, and Muhammad was “twenty-five years old and still living with his uncle …” (Emerick, p. 42). Muhammad, similarly as with Tobit, “saw this caravan as an excellent opportunity to earn money …”.
“Abu Talib confidently told his nephew that he could get him double the salary of the man already hired … two camels”. And he duly informed Khadijah of it, “… we won’t accept less than four”.
Tobias, on the other hand, wants to give the disguised angel, who had guided him on the way, not “double the salary”, but “half of everything we brought back with us” (Tobit 12:2). And whilst that “two camels” can be found also in Tobit 9:1-2: “Then Tobias called Raphael and said to him:
“Brother Azariah, take along with you four servants and two camels and travel to Rages”,” we see from this text that those “four servants” have been ‘reincarnated’ in the Islamic version as “four [camels]”.
Khadijah here refers to Muhammad as “a close relative”. We find the identical description in Tobit 6:10-11, where the angel tells Tobias: ‘Tonight we will stay at the home of your relative Raguel. He has only one child, a daughter named Sarah, and since you are her closest relative, you have the right to marry her’.
Just as Tobit had looked out for a suitable travelling companion for his son, and had found in the angel-disguised-as-Azariah a good character (Tobit 5:13): ‘… you are from a good family and a relative at that! …. Your relatives are fine people, and you come from good stock. Have a safe journey’, so, in Maysara - whose name is phonetically compatible with Azariah - does Abu Talib perceive a good character and worthy travelling companion (Emerick, p. 43): “Abu Talib knew of Maysara’s good character and encouraged his presence on the journey”.
Khadijah, who “was known for rejecting all suitors” (p. 44), though for reasons less dramatic than in the case of Sarah’s loss of all suitors, now married the younger Muhammad, whose fortunes had just increased exponentially (p. 45): “not only was he suddenly getting married, his fortunes were also taking a dramatic turn for the better”.
So had the angel informed Tobias about Sarah (6:11): “… you have the right to marry her. You also have the right to inherit all her father's property”.
“Muhammad and Khadijah would have six children together, two boys and four girls”. Tragically, the life of the sons would be cut off early, just as with Tobias/Job.
Recommended viewing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=walncNs3sOw
…. Jay [Smith] DESTROYS THE BIOGRAPHY OF MUHAMMAD
in 20 minutes!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1. above we discovered that the Biography of Mohammed is based upon a notable bunch of Old Testament characters, such as (now in chronological order):
JEPHTHAH;
SAUL AND THE WITCH OF ENDOR;
(SAMUEL AND) DAVID;
AHAB AND JEZEBEL;
TOBIT, TOBIAS (JOB), SARAH;
AHIKAR;
(JEREMIAH)
which names by no means, I suggest, would exhaust the OT list.
Now we move on the consider the New Testament influences upon Mohammed and the Qur’an, culminating in Jesus Christ.
2. New Testament manifestations
…. But there is also a recorded incident in the otherwise unknown boyhood of Jesus (the Good Shepherd) at the age of twelve – and it, too, involves travellers (Luke 2:41-42):
“Every year Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem for the Festival of the Passover. When he was twelve years old, they went up to the festival, according to the custom.”
Emerick continues with the story of Bahira, with the boy Mohammed now present (p. 35): “After Muhammad joined the gathering, Bahira watched the boy carefully and noted his physical features and behaviour. He seemed to have an otherworldy look in his eyes, a strength in his bearing”.
David also had fine eyes and a good appearance (I Samuel 16:12): “Now [David] was ruddy and had beautiful eyes and was handsome”.
On pp. 56-57 Emerick, still in connection with the Bahira story which is here accepted as being quite “historically tenable”, will make this notable admission:
A fair amount of literature exists on the portents and signs prior to the rise of Muhammad as a religious leader. These writings may be based more on retrospective idealism than proven facts. One can logically assume that Muhammad had no knowledge of his future significance and that premonitions and recognition of his greatness by his contemporaries were greatly exaggerated. Beyond the episode with the monk Bahira when he was twelve, which was related not only by Abu Talib but also by several of his associates and thus gains more credibility, little except the predictions of a man named Waraqah seem historically tenable. The abruptness and unexpectedness of Muhammad’s rise may be simply inexplicable.
[End of quote]
Why I think that it might be very important for Islam to defend the veracity of the Bahira incident is because he is the one who would proclaim Mohammed as “the last prophet” in God’s great scheme of things. Thus Emerick (p. 35):
…. Muhammad boldly told the monk that he hated the idols. This statement impressed the aged Christian further. Then he asked for the boy to lift his shirt, and the monk found a birthmark on his back, just between the shoulder blades.
Bahira looked at the spot, which was about the size of a small egg, and declared, “Now I am most certain that this is the last prophet for whom the Jews and Christians [sic] await …”.
It is interesting that both Bahira and the Waraqah referred to above, seemingly lone individuals, non-Jews, but monotheists, are either Christian (Bahira) or, like Waraqah (Emerick, p. 31): “… [an] unaffiliated monotheist who also had some knowledge of Christianity”. ….
One might like also to read my article:
Dr Günter Lüling: Christian hymns underlie Koranic poetry
(8) Dr Günter Lüling: Christian hymns underlie Koranic poetry | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
“Many a verse of the Koran goes directly back to Christian liturgy”.
Uwe Topper
From Luke’s Gospel
The account of the pregnancy of Mohammed’s mother is predictably extraordinary, and one might be inclined to think of, for example, the pregnancy of Elizabeth with John the Baptist, and of the Virgin Mary with Jesus. If so, it would be only one of many borrowings from the Gospels, in this case Luke’s.
Emerick tells of it (pp. 21-22):
About two months after her husband left [having joined a caravan trade to Syria], Aminah called her servant … “I’ve had a strange dream! I saw lights coming from my womb, lighting up the mountains, the hills, and the valleys all around Mecca”. Her servant then predicted: “You will give birth to a blessed child who will bring goodness”.
In Luke 1:11-17, we read about the miraculous encounter of the Baptist’s father, Zechariah, the Aaronite priest, with an angel who will be identified in v. 19 as “Gabriel”:
Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear. But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John.
He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born.
He will bring back many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God. And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”
Common to the ‘life’ of Mohammed here are the visitation by the angel Gabriel (who also figures in the Book of Daniel); the avoidance of alcohol; and the exaltation of the child.
Further on in Luke’s Gospel it will be the Virgin Mary whom the angel Gabriel will address (Luke 1:30-32): ‘You [Mary] have found favor with God. You will become pregnant, give birth to a son … He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High’.
Luke 1:28 is sometimes translated as [Mary’s being] “Highly Favoured”.
Now, according to Emerick (p. 29):
“Highly Praised is the translation of the Arabic name Muhammad, which was an unusual name in Arabia at that time”. This name was given to the child by his grandfather, who had, in the ancient Israelite fashion of going around Jericho “seven times” (Joshua 6:15), walked with the new born baby “seven times around the Ka‘bah”. It was then that ‘Abdel Muttalib named the child, connecting him with an ancient House - as with the angel Gabriel’s (Luke 1:32-33): ‘The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end’. The joyful ‘Abdel Muttalib exclaimed: “Blessed child, I shall call you Highly Praised. The birth of this child coincided with the glory and triumph of the Ancient House, blessed be he?”
As in the story of Moses (Exodus 2:7-9), a wet nurse is provided for the child. “Aminah, frail from her depression and weakened by the arduous childbirth, engaged a wet nurse in the city …”. And also as with Moses (v. 10), “Muhammad would be raised by a foster mother …”.
Whereas both Moses and Jesus had to be saved from the wrath of a monarch, the situation with which baby Mohammed was faced was (p. 30): “An epidemic … going around the city …”. When it was safe to return, after some years had elapsed, exactly as with the young Jesus (Matthew 2:19-21), Mohammed came home.
Some of the Jesus Elements in Islam
Coins marked with Cross
There is that troublesome case of the Christian-ness of some supposedly Islamic coins.
On this, see my article:
Christian Cross depicted on Moslem coins?
(4) Christian Cross depicted on Moslem coins? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Would the leader of a religious group whose founding prophet claimed that Jesus would return at the end of the world and "break all crosses"—as an insult to himself and a testament to the transcendent majesty of Allah—really allow a cross to be featured on any inscription carved anywhere in his domains?
Would the followers of this new prophet, whose new religious and political order was defiantly at odds with that of the “cross worshippers,” have placed any figure bearing a cross on any of their coinage? Perhaps this can be interpreted as a gesture of Islam’s tolerance, given that Christians overwhelmingly populated the domains of the new Arabian Empire. Yet Islamic law as codified in the ninth and tenth centuries forbade Christians to display the cross openly—even on the outside of churches—and there is no indication that the imposition of this law was a reversal of an earlier practice. So it is exceedingly curious that Muslim conquerors of Christians would strike a coin bearing the central image of the very religion and political order they despised, defeated, and were determined to supplant.
Ascent into Heaven from Jerusalem
https://answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol1/3d.html
….
1. The Story of the Mi'raj in the Hadith.
One of the most famous Islamic monuments in the world is the Dome of the Rock which stands on the site of the original Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. It is the third-holiest in the Muslim world after the Ka'aba in Mecca and Prophet's Mosque in Medina and commemorates the alleged occasion of Muhammad's ascent through the seven heavens to the very presence of Allah. It stands above the rock from which Muhammad is believed to have ascended to heaven. The narrative of this ascent is recorded in all the major works of Hadith in some detail, but there is only one verse in the Qur'an openly refer ring to the incident and in a limited context at that.
The traditions basically report that Muhammad was asleep one night towards the end of his prophetic course in Mecca when he was wakened by the angel Gabriel who cleansed his heart before bidding him alight on a strange angelic beast named Buraq. Muhammad is alleged to have said:
I was brought al-Burg who is an animal white and long, larger than a donkey but smaller than a mule, who would place his hoof at a distance equal to the range of vision. I mounted it and came to the Temple (Bait-ul Maqdis in Jerusalem), then tethered it to the ring used by the prophets. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, p. 101).
Some traditions hold that the creature had a horse's body and angel's head and that it also had a peacock's tail. It is thus represented in most Islamic paintings of the event. The journey from Mecca to Jerusalem is known as al-Isra, "the night journey". At Jerusalem Muhammad was tested in the following way by Gabriel (some traditions place this test during the ascent itself):
Allah's Apostle was presented with two cups, one containing wine and the other milk on the night of his night journey at Jerusalem. He looked at it and took the milk. Gabriel said, "Thanks to Allah Who guided you to the Fitra (i.e. Islam); if you had taken the wine, your followers would have gone astray". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 196).
After this began al-Mi'raj, "the ascent".
Muhammad passed the sea of kawthar, literally the sea of "abundance" (the word is found only once in the Qur'an in Surah 108.1), and then met various prophets, from Adam to Abraham, as well as a variety of angels as he passed through the seven heavens. After this Gabriel took him to the heavenly lote-tree on the boundary of the heavens before the throne of Allah.
Then I was made to ascend to Sidrat-ul-Muntaha (i.e. the lote-tree of the utmost boundary). Behold! Its fruits were like the jars of Hajr (i.e. a place near Medina) and its leaves were as big as the ears of elephants. Gabriel said, "This is the lote-tree of the utmost boundary". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p. 147).
This famous tree, as-sidratul-muntaha, is also mentioned twice in the passage in Surah 53 describing the second vision Muhammad had of Gabriel (Surah 53.14,16) where he also saw the angel 'inda sidrah, "near the lote-tree". Gabriel and Buraq could go no further but Muhammad went on to the presence of Allah where he was commanded to order the Muslims to pray fifty times a day ….
[End of quote]
The correct story, I believe, is this one (Acts 1:9-11):
Jesus Ascends to Heaven
Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, who also said, ‘Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven’.
Moreover, what the two angels told the ‘Men of Galilee’, ‘This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven’, was perfectly fulfilled within ‘that same generation’ (Luke 9:27).
On this, see e.g. my article:
Jesus Christ came as Bridegroom
(5) Jesus Christ came as Bridegroom | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Jesus always keeps his Word!
Mohammed’s Biblical titles
This was already discussed above:
….
Further on in Luke’s Gospel it will be the Virgin Mary whom the angel Gabriel will address (Luke 1:30-32): ‘You [Mary] have found favor with God. You will become pregnant, give birth to a son … He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High’.
Luke 1:28 is sometimes translated as [Mary’s being] “Highly Favoured”.
Now, according to Emerick (p. 29):
“Highly Praised is the translation of the Arabic name Muhammad, which was an unusual name in Arabia at that time”. This name was given to the child by his grandfather, who had, in the ancient Israelite fashion of going around Jericho “seven times” (Joshua 6:15), walked with the new born baby “seven times around the Ka‘bah”. It was then that ‘Abdel Muttalib named the child, connecting him with an ancient House - as with the angel Gabriel’s (Luke 1:32-33): ‘The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end’. The joyful ‘Abdel Muttalib exclaimed: “Blessed child, I shall call you Highly Praised. The birth of this child coincided with the glory and triumph of the Ancient House, blessed be he?”
As in the story of Moses (Exodus 2:7-9), a wet nurse is provided for the child. “Aminah, frail from her depression and weakened by the arduous childbirth, engaged a wet nurse in the city …”. And also as with Moses (v. 10), “Muhammad would be raised by a foster mother …”.
Whereas both Moses and Jesus had to be saved from the wrath of a monarch, the situation with which baby Mohammed was faced was (p. 30): “An epidemic … going around the city …”. When it was safe to return, after some years had elapsed, exactly as with the young Jesus (Matthew 2:19-21), Mohammed came home. ….
Coupled with this, is the following extraordinary quote from my “Christian Cross” article above, which may just have managed to grasp the true situation:
“… it may be that the word muhammad is not a name at all but a title, meaning the “praised one” or the “chosen one”.”
….
Other coins from this period also bear the cross and the word Muhammad. A Syrian coin that dates from 686 or 687, at the earliest [sic], features what numismatist Volker Popp describes as “the muhammad motto” on the reserve side. The obverse depicts a ruler crowned with a cross and holding another cross.
….
The most obvious explanation is that the “muhammad” to whom the coin refers is not the prophet of Islam.
Alternatively, the figure on the coin could have evolved into the Muahmmad of Islam but was not much like him at the time the coin was issued. Or it may be that the word muhammad is not a name at all but a title, meaning the “praised one” or the “chosen one.” Popp, noting that some of these seventh-century cross-bearing coins also bear the legend bismillah—“in the name of God”—as well as muhammad, suggests that the coins are saying of the depicted ruler, “He is chosen in the name of god,” or “Let him be praised in the name of God.”
This could be a derivative of the common Christian liturgical phrase referring to the coming of Christ: “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.” In that case, the muhammad, the praised or blessed one, would be Jesus himself.
Supporting this possibility is the fact that the few times the Qur’an mentions Muhammad by name, the references are not clearly to the prophet of Islam but work equally well as general exhortations to obey that which was revealed to the “praised one,” who could be someone else. Jesus is the most likely candidate, because, as we have seen, the Qur’an tells believers that “Muhammad is nothing but a messenger; messengers have passed away before him” (3:144), using language identical to that it later uses of Jesus: “the Messiah, the son of Mary, is nothing but a messenger; messengers have passed away before him” (5:75). This opens the possibility that here, as elsewhere, Jesus is the one being referred to as the “praised one,” the muhammad.
The first biographer of Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq, lends additional support to this possibility.
Recall that in Qur’an 61:6, Jesus is depicted as prophesying the coming of a new “Messenger of God,” “whose name shall be Ahmad.” Because Ahmad—the “praised one”—is a variant of Muhammad, Islamic scholars take this passage to be a reference to the prophet of Islam. Ibn Ishaq amplifies this view in his biography of Muhammad, quoting “the Gospel,” the New Testament, where Jesus says that “when the Comforter [Munahhemana] has come who God will send to you from the Lord’s presence, and the spirit of truth which will have gone forth from the Lord’s presence, he (shall bear) witness of me and ye also, because ye have been with me from the beginning. I have spoken unto you about this that ye should not be in doubt. Ibn Ishaq then explains: “the Munahhemana (God bless and preserve him!) in Syriac is Muhammad; in Greek he is the paraclete.”
Ibn Ishaq’s English translator Alfred Guillaume notes that the word Munahhemana “in the Eastern patristic literature…is applied to our Lord Himself”—that is, not to Muhammad but to Jesus. The original bearer of the title “praised one” was Jesus, and this title and the accompanying prophecy were “skillfully manipulated to provide the reading we have” in Ibn Ishaq’s biography of Muhammad—and, for that matter, in the Qur’an itself.
Whichever of these possibilities is correct, the weakest hypothesis is that these muhammad coins refer to the prophet of the new religion as he is depicted in the Qur’an and the Hadith. For there are no contemporary references to Muhammad, the Islamic prophet who received the Qur’an and preached its message to unify Arabia (often by force) and whose followers then carried his jihad far beyond Arabia; the first clear records of the Muhammad of Islam far postdate these coins. ….
In other words, Mohammed is not the name of a person, but may be simply a Christian title for Jesus Christ himself.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769520851271631286.post-80553713972868464172024-02-12T11:06:00.000-08:002024-02-12T11:06:29.843-08:00Jesus is the Alpha and Omega <div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0KIXzdpLB2zCIRnnAF_szy4tDC6T_HoTDroOgPXvqHn0lnmx7Ii4gzu-S4ooR4drVKRpi_GgLIR4xM7C-bwrZQwLKazY9q4pZ1GvA0hQtvWGKuQmtzvpxA6S5d7T4kPebZeKY7Z-7SgAVuOqSxUqbxpsv4rEjBeV43NZzXrWohrLhANGpWQNue6O49MB6/s1920/christ-in-revelation-alpha-omega.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1920" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0KIXzdpLB2zCIRnnAF_szy4tDC6T_HoTDroOgPXvqHn0lnmx7Ii4gzu-S4ooR4drVKRpi_GgLIR4xM7C-bwrZQwLKazY9q4pZ1GvA0hQtvWGKuQmtzvpxA6S5d7T4kPebZeKY7Z-7SgAVuOqSxUqbxpsv4rEjBeV43NZzXrWohrLhANGpWQNue6O49MB6/s600/christ-in-revelation-alpha-omega.jpg"/></a></div>
“Jesus is God incarnate. Because of his human nature, he is the only human being who can say he is the Alpha and the Omega. Jesus is the person who is, who was, and who always will be”.
Carolyn Humphreys
Taken from: https://www.hprweb.com/2020/07/alpha-and-omega/
Alpha and Omega
JULY 2, 2020 BY CAROLYN HUMPHREYS, OCDS
Francis of Assisi is known to have said: “Sanctify yourself, and you will sanctify society.” On the Christian map, there are many roads to sanctity. Whatever the road, there is only one major and very necessary guide for this journey. His name is Jesus Christ. Jesus is known by many fascinating titles. One of the most captivating titles is the Alpha and the Omega, which are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. The Alpha and Omega are familiar church symbols that we see on altars, candles, vestments and walls. Because Jesus is the incarnation of God, the Alpha and Omega are also used as a monogram for Christ.
During Jesus time, the Jewish rabbis commonly used the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet to signify the wholeness of anything from beginning to end. Because it was the common language of the Eastern Mediterranean people, the New Testament was first written in a form of Greek, and eventually translated into English.
The words alpha and omega are introduced to us in the New Testament in several places in the Book of Revelations. They symbolize the oneness in the divine nature of God the Father and Jesus his Son. Their divine nature is exactly and entirely identical. Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.” Because of the oneness of their divine nature, what is said about God the Father can also be said about God the Son. Their divinity is limitless and unbounded, transcending every human comprehension or description.
The Alpha and the Omega are a sign that the beginning and end of everything is God. Paul the apostle refers to Jesus as the first born of the new creation and the end or goal of our lives when all creation will be drawn up into him. In other words, God is the all; the first and the last, the beginning and the end of everything, and of everything in between. God is the source and the conclusion of life on earth.
Jesus is God incarnate. Because of his human nature, he is the only human being who can say he is the Alpha and the Omega. Jesus is the person who is, who was, and who always will be. Actually, he always is. Was and will be are descriptions of, and changing characters within, the past and future in time, as we know them to be. God, and his Son, however, are ever existing, and have neither a beginning nor will they ever have an end. Augustine describes God as “an infinite circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.”
When Jesus came to earth as man, he was born, lived for only thirty three years in Judea, showed us the way to God the Father and died. In the natural realm, we know about him through a time and in a place in history. However, there is so much more to Jesus than what we understand from a historical perspective. In the supernatural realm, he existed before and after his earthly life. Jesus, the infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent God became man for us to redeem us. Jesus is the beginning of all created temporal life and this will remain so until he comes again at the end of time. His second coming will be the beginning of the end of creation as we understand it on earth. Heaven is eternal and Jesus is as eternal as God the Father.
The middle space between alpha and omega indicates that Jesus encompasses all history.
He is historically present in the New Testament, and in the movements of grace, throughout all phases of history up to the present day. At the beginning of time, as God, he was the one through whom all the world, the universe and all its complex mysteries came into being. Jesus said that he existed before Abraham was born and identifies himself with other statements from the Old Testament. He is the “I am” of Exodus 3:14. He is the good shepherd of Psalm 23. He is the Lord of the Old Testament and will bring history to a close when he comes again on the last day.
The wholeness of the Alpha and the Omega refers to Jesus the Christ as the word of God, and the wholeness of God’s revelation, to all humankind in every era.
On a personal level, Jesus is the beginning and the end of a Christian’s spiritual journey in this life. Jesus is the fullness of truth, beauty, goodness, and wisdom. We need him throughout our faith journey while on earth, and will rejoice with him when we reach our heavenly goal. At the center of our hearts, Jesus is dynamic in the presentation and orchestration of all our good behavior, actions and pursuits. However, we must respond positively to what we believe he wants of us, both as a unique individual, and together with the people of God in his one, holy Catholic and apostolic Church. He is the head of his mystical body, the Church. Jesus is the reason why we live as we do, the master teacher in our Catholic Church, and the end for which we were made. This brings to mind the words of an old hymn by Samuel J. Stone: “The Church’s one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord. She is his new creation by water and the Word. From heav’n he came and sought her to be his holy bride. With his own blood he bought her and for her life he died.”
The Spectrum
The first and the last are two opposing points. In temporal terms, they can be seen as a spectrum. When experiencing daily feelings this connection is not a straight line, but rather a line that has many peaks and valleys. A phone call can bring grief to a happy day. Laughter can lighten a sad occasion. Ever changing feelings are a normal part of daily life. They can flare up when least expected and can change in an instant. Can we control the severity of our feelings? An old Native American story is told about a grandfather who said to his grandson: “I feel like I have two wolves fighting in my heart. One wolf is mean spirited, angry and attacks everything. The other wolf is forgiving, loving and kind.” “Which wolf will win the fight in your heart?” the grandson asked. “The one I feed,” said the grandfather. Which wolf do we feed?
Within sadness and joy, Henri Nouwen wrote:
Our life is a short time in expectation, a time in which sadness and joy kiss each other at every moment.
There is a quality of sadness that pervades all the moments of our life. It seems that there is no such thing as a perfectly unadulterated joy. Even in the happiest moments of our existence can be tinged with sadness. In every satisfaction, there is an awareness of limitations. In every success, there is the fear of failure. Behind every smile, there is a tear. In every embrace, there is loneliness. In every friendship, distance. And in all forms of light, there is the knowledge of surrounding darkness. . . . But this intimate experience in which every bit of life is touched by a bit of death can point us beyond the limits of our earthly existence. It can do so by making us look forward in expectation to the day when our hearts will be filled with perfect joy, a joy that no one shall take away from us.
And this perfect joy is only possible by being with Jesus. Therese of Lisieux understood this well: “Life is passing, Eternity draws nigh, soon shall we live the very life of God. After having drunk deep at the fount of bitterness, our thirst will be quenched at the very source of all sweetness.”
The Dove and the Serpent
Jesus asks us to be as wise as serpents and as simple as doves. If we go below the surface meaning of these words, they are more of a blending than a balancing act. The serpent and the dove can indicate when to stay put and when to fly away. We discern to stay or fly when we are able to judge our abilities and strength with the situation at hand. The wisdom of the serpent sustains us in seeing potential danger in people, events and situations that could weaken our friendship with God. The simplicity of the dove maintains a gentle but firm spiritual orientation that is evident in our goodness and kindness to all we meet. We aim to combine the shrewdness of the serpent with the sensitivity of the dove by cultivating a steadfast mind and a tender heart.
It is said that serpents are wise, have keen eyesight, and are quick to learn. Their tongue protects them from nearby predators, and is useful in following trails, identifying prey, and locating shelter. Serpents are crafty in their use of resources or skills. To be wise as a serpent means to have sound, basic knowledge of what areas we should and should not be. This helps us guard the most precious part of being, our soul. Serpents are quick to get out of the way of trouble. If someone or something evil lunges at us, we step aside. Like serpents, we must always be watchful for snares, traps and deceptions that can subtly take us away from God’s love. There are dark sides of people, and society, that can be inconspicuously present to us, and can take us off our course, or enslave us in dark areas, if we are not vigilant.
Doves are meek, innocent, gentle, harmless and are universal symbols of peace. Jesus said he was meek and humble of heart. Meekness draws from humility, the truth that reminds us from where we came, who we are, and where we are going. As doves, we avoid duplicity and keep our conscience clean. We maintain sound Catholic priorities in private and in public. We assume risks as vulnerable, non combative persons. We forgive easily. Difficulties are managed with patience and gentleness. If we are as simple as doves, our demeanor is soothing and has an approachable softness. We discover the splendor of God’s truth, beauty, and wisdom in humankind and all his creation.
As doves, we gently bring the peace of Christ to others and therefore infuse it into society. How are we signs of peace to those with whom we associate?
Because Jesus is our beginning and our end, he sustains us amid the ups and downs, gains and losses, clarity and confusion, comforts and hardships and, above all, the mysteries in life. He is our “lift” that transcends what is disturbing during dark times, and enhances the beneficence we find during times of light. A Christian way of life can be envisioned as a scale that keeps all things in balance with Jesus’s love and mercy. We let go of things that distance us from Christ and embrace the habits and experiences that bring us into union with Christ.
Jesus, Alpha and Omega,
God before the world began,
First and last,
beginning, ending,
Mighty Word and Son of Man,
Great Creator,
Liberator! Author of salvation’s plan!
You have loved us! You have freed us!
Made of us a chosen race, royal priesthood,
holy nation, your own people, born of grace!
Ever living King forgiving,
soon we’ll see you face to face!
With the clouds return in glory;
you have sworn it!
Come and stay!
God who was and is and will be,
Strengthen us to watch and pray!
Find us steady, faithful, ready!
Hasten, Jesus! Speed that Day!
Keith Landis
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769520851271631286.post-62836790314378713902024-02-07T22:45:00.000-08:002024-02-07T22:45:00.767-08:00 Archaeology on side with the Gospels<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzowlkOPx_nZOr2HAKEZ_LKp4U57y0dX_AEhfqHVh-KQoQtHYph4lHLRSi3nFHhh0cO09k-gp6iCjOLNeC2mlw-8LcecoC4DOpRTkmmZ8EsPzCNwUdSDmJ0OhK7K9mmBxE1hTLzZLY_lc6_3V1CQQzIm715tmMbTNX2vn-3aWQxoc5bzbTendEByHXSu30/s275/download.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="600" data-original-height="275" data-original-width="183" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzowlkOPx_nZOr2HAKEZ_LKp4U57y0dX_AEhfqHVh-KQoQtHYph4lHLRSi3nFHhh0cO09k-gp6iCjOLNeC2mlw-8LcecoC4DOpRTkmmZ8EsPzCNwUdSDmJ0OhK7K9mmBxE1hTLzZLY_lc6_3V1CQQzIm715tmMbTNX2vn-3aWQxoc5bzbTendEByHXSu30/s600/download.jpg"/></a></div>
“The University of Haifa announced a new discovery of an ancient synagogue in Migdal.
In biblical times this area was Magdala, home of Mary Magdalene”.
Greg Sheridan
Christianity’s purpose: the re-enchantment of life
GREG SHERIDAN
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/a-time-of-enchantment/news-story/8de29bce7208dd3e86cc1632a90a4008
This week our blighted age, challenged world and disenchanted civilisation received an enchanting Christmas present from the Holy Land.
The University of Haifa announced a new discovery of an ancient synagogue in Migdal. In biblical times this area was Magdala, home of Mary Magdalene.
Migdal is on the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee. The newly discovered synagogue dates from the first century, the time of Jesus. It is yet another archaeological discovery that bears out the historical accuracy of the Gospels and the New Testament generally.
The New Testament is primarily a religious testimony to the universal faith of Christianity, which is not limited to any one civilisation or culture. But the Bible is also the central book of Western civilisation. Establishing that the New Testament is true in everything about it which can be tested is a wonderful boon for our culture.
And our culture is in need of all the help it can get. Modern liberalism, cut off from the sustenance of its Christian roots, is running mad down every dead end, diving into every poison creek, of extreme identity politics, racial politics, gender politics and, if not the war of all against all, an increasing intolerance of almost all for anybody they disagree with.
The roots of our crisis are deep. After the Enlightenment, the righteous exuberance that celebrated reason and rationality as the heart of civic life, our culture took a bad wrong turn, based on two dreadfully mistaken propositions.
The first is that God is dead, that science has pronounced against God, that God never existed. The second is that the Bible is full of lies, and the New Testament is folklore and oral tradition at best, and does not describe historical reality. Neither of these propositions is true, or necessary to the Enlightenment.
Max Weber called this disenchantment. It has been the project of modernist ideology for the past 200 years, to rob the culture, and human beings, of the enchantment of life.
The intellectual object is to erase from life the element of mystery. The consequence emotionally is that it also strips life of its poetry. It strips the normal quotidian rank-and-file human being of the sense of magnificence and renders life tawdry and tedious. To escape that tedium, people seek intensity for its own sake, often courting oblivion and creating false transcendence through ever more neurotic politics.
During the past five years I’ve written two books attempting, feebly enough, to offer a thimble full of rebuttal to the two obnoxious propositions of disenchantment. The first, God is Good for You, asserts that God is alive. Belief in God is intellectually compelling (though not finally provable) and science has certainly taken no stand against God at all. It’s not qualified to do so, even if it wanted to. In reality good science has no such ambition.
Writing this book involved systematically reading the New Atheists – Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens etc. I was astonished at how lame and antique, how frowsty and loose and simultaneously logic-chopping and ramshackle, their arguments were. The Christianity they mock was a farcical caricature. The success of their books relied in part on the reading audience having no real knowledge in substance of Christianity.
Much of their effort sought a false glamour by association with real science. So an unprovable or even ridiculous argument would be sat next to a lot of irrelevant science. Dawkins argued, for example, that because the universe is 14 billion years old there can be no God, because God wouldn’t waste 14 billion years constructing a whole universe just for humanity to enjoy one planet in one tiny corner.
To which one thinks: how would Dawkins know what God might do? God’s generosity and grandeur might be beyond Dawkins. To the Christian, it seems characteristic of God that he would spend 14 billion years preparing a beautiful garden just for us.
My second book, Christians: The Urgent Case for Jesus in Our World, seeks to find Jesus in the New Testament and among his first friends, and again among his friends today. It asserts that the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith are the same person, whereas divorcing those two has been central to the brutalist machinery of the disenchantment project.
Re-establishing the credibility of the New Testament – not as the founding myth of Christianity but as the historical truth of Christianity, and indeed of human history, would help the human situation profoundly. It would also, incidentally, rescue Western civilisation.
Many of the objections to the idea that the New Testament involves witness testimony to real events comes from good-hearted folks whose knowledge of biblical scholarship doesn’t only incline them to an ultraliberal version of Christianity, with Jesus stripped of divinity, but whose sense of biblical scholarship is out of date.
Up until the 1960s or ’70s, it was fairly common to hear a popularised version of an ultraliberal interpretation of the New Testament that held it was the end point of a long process of oral tradition that changed radically over the years with the telling, and that much of the miraculous and divine stuff had been inserted, perhaps centuries later, by church authorities to suit their own agendas, sometimes moral agendas, more often power agendas. This interpretation was always wrong, but it was once semi-respectable in scholarly circles and widely and mistakenly held in popular culture.
In so far as it had a flickering half-life within Christianity, it often came to people through American celebrity Episcopalian bishop John Shelby Spong. Within Christianity it lingers in this way.
The real division within Christian churches now is not so much between denominations but within denominations, between those who believe Jesus rose from the dead and is the second person of the Holy Trinity of the Godhead, and those who take a view with less divine claims. In other words, between those who believe, say, in the Apostles Creed, and those who, for whatever reason, don’t.
At the wider social level, books and films such as The Da Vinci Code have popularised all manner of crazy conspiracy theories, based on the bedrock of the old modernist contention that the New Testament is all fiction, folklore or falsehood.
But high-quality modern scholarship is moving strongly to the view that the New Testament involves authentic testimony. This is a complex process and any generalisation about biblical scholarship has a thousand contrary examples.
But a series of interlocking dynamics has led to the validation of the New Testament as a historic source in the new scholarship. One is the ongoing process of archaeology. This process yields real, hard, new facts. It is less a process of inference. If archaeology discovers an object from the ancient world, all subsequent scholarship has to take it into account.
The second big factor is a vastly increased attention to the Jewishness of Jesus, of his first followers and of the context in which he lived. There are a thousand reasons Christian scholars neglected this in the past, even as they regarded the Old Testament, the Jewish scriptures, as an essential part of Christianity.
Historical work beyond biblical studies has now given us more knowledge of the Jewish context of Jesus than ever. And this, as much as anything, has tended to validate the New Testament.
Finally, Christian scholars themselves have become much more rigorous in their approach to historical research and this has been rewarding. Christian schol¬ars and leaders work more co-operatively across denominations than before. The previous pope, Benedict, himself a formidable scholar, was very scriptural in his intellectual approach and this endeared him to Bible-centred Protestants.
Two important caveats. Many biblical scholars who accept now that the New Testament involves important testimony, including witness testimony, do not embrace belief in Christianity. They still might hold that the resurrection did not happen, could not happen, was a mistaken account or a dishonest account. No one any longer seriously holds it was inserted a hundred years later by scheming church authorities.
Second, Christians themselves should not have their beliefs determined by biblical scholarship. Most biblical scholarship is inferential and a little speculative. It ought to have a certain becoming modesty about the certitude of its speculations. It is not because of a trend in scholarship that I believe in Christianity. But modern people, indoctrinated from birth with the hard disenchantment doctrine that the New Testament is all lies, should be aware of just how profound a revolution has taken place in biblical scholarship.
So back to the synagogue in Migdal. This is another important piece of evidence that has come out even since the publication of my modest effort, Christians. The background is this. Before 2008, some scholars held that there had been no synagogues in the Galilee area during Jesus’ time.
Until then, there had been no conclusive archaeological evidence of a Galilee synagogue in Jesus’ time. One theory was that Jews in the Galilee were so close to Jerusalem that they could travel there to the Jewish temple, the Second Temple, for important festivals. Around AD70, decades after Jesus’ death, the Romans destroyed the Second Temple. So the local Jewish community started to build local synagogues, some of which are well known archaeologically.
As so often, scholars were mistaking the absence of evidence for the evidence of absence. Thus some scholars argued that when the Gospels spoke of Jesus teaching at Galilee synagogues, this was an indication that the Gospels had been written long after AD70. Because there were synagogues by then, the Gospel authors were mistakenly assuming that the situation had been the same in the time of Jesus. If true this would indicate a late dating for the Gospels and that they were not written either by witnesses or by people who knew witnesses.
Then in 2008, in a routine excavation before the building of a new resort, the Israel Antiquities Authority discovered the ruins of a synagogue from the time of Jesus, also in Migdal. This was a revolutionary discovery and the site was riddled with historical treasures.
In the next few years two other synagogues from Jesus’ time were discovered. And now this week a second synagogue in Migdal.
Many visitors to Israel have been to the ruins of the synagogue at Capernaum, where Jesus also taught. This is a later synagogue, perhaps 4th century. but intriguingly it was built on the foundations of an earlier building. It was the custom to build sacred buildings where old ones had stood, so that may well be a fifth Galilee synagogue from Jesus’ time.
Doubtless more will be discovered. So in this matter, the scholars were wrong, the New Testament was right.
Let me offer a second example. The most important book of biblical scholarship in the past 20 years was Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham, especially the second edition in 2017. He takes advantage of a magnificent database that Jewish scholars have assembled of the distribution and popularity of Jewish names through the centuries. It turns out that the spread of the Jewish names across the whole New Testament – not in any one book but across the whole – matches more or less exactly with the preponderance of Jewish names of New Testament times.
This would have been impossible to fake. Imagine writing a historical novel now about Australia 200 years ago without access to such a database. Would you get the names right?
Many archaeological discoveries have validated the New Testament. A stone inscription showed the Gospels had Pontius Pilate’s official title right, Roman historian Tacitus got it wrong. A physical fragment of John’s Gospel found in Egypt put an absolute limit on the date of its composition. There are countless others.
So here is the good news. The New Testament is true. God is alive after all.
Meaning and transcendence reign. Enchantment is back.
Greg Sheridan is The Australian's foreign editor. His most recent book, Christians, the urgent case for Jesus in our world, became a best seller weeks after publication. It makes the case for the historical rel... Read more
Related stories
• The West may not survive its own woke madness
• Time to reassess Mary, the first Christian
• ‘I couldn’t function without my faith’
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769520851271631286.post-11785528086697333162024-02-04T11:49:00.000-08:002024-02-04T11:49:16.406-08:00 Birth of Christ a cosmic battle <div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1mbN1mpY_lzTHILlOWlb5P0YVpKYpQztTpoZS1k7nPZH3MIpQv9jF72adoskv6JALrEXuVqgXm3mv6VAN442mKdfIUgqT09CmfUCCyA8fhKqcsg-T37Gl4IxuyjkMlHFreTQZ9jcz3zTOGi7EyQzlY3AbY_-vM_iVVFJ9JHX0_fqHC49ggENRb-9uiY_z/s225/images.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1mbN1mpY_lzTHILlOWlb5P0YVpKYpQztTpoZS1k7nPZH3MIpQv9jF72adoskv6JALrEXuVqgXm3mv6VAN442mKdfIUgqT09CmfUCCyA8fhKqcsg-T37Gl4IxuyjkMlHFreTQZ9jcz3zTOGi7EyQzlY3AbY_-vM_iVVFJ9JHX0_fqHC49ggENRb-9uiY_z/s600/images.jpg"/></a></div>
“We celebrate Christmas—because the baby born in the manger has defeated
our greatest foe. We celebrate Christmas—because His life was the climax of
the Cosmic Drama, the very drama we find ourselves in today”.
Julianna Dotten
Julianna Dotten writes (2020):
Day 25: Advent, Christ’s Birth and Cosmic Battle – Julianna Writes
Day 25: Advent, Christ’s Birth and Cosmic Battle
Revelation 12 peels back the curtain and reveals the ‘rest of the story’ behind the nativity scene. What looks like an ordinary baby being born in a stable surrounded by an adoring mother and father and a few shepherds and perfectly-behaved sheep is actually the battle scene foretold in Genesis 3:
“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”
“The dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she bore her child he might devour it. She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron.”
The Christmas story embodied a key moment in cosmic battle unfolding between Christ and the spiritual forces of Satan. The birth of Christ was a key victory [won] in the conflict, for Christ’s “incarnation, obedience, sacrifice, and exaltation forever disqualify Satan from accusing believers.”[1]
Satan would recruit all the forces of the world against the rising climax of the redemptive plan, tempting Christ in the wilderness, setting up all the religious and secular authorities against him, causing even his own disciple to betray him, and finally crucifying him.
But just as Genesis 3:15 foretold, all of Satan’s efforts merely bruised Christ’s heel. His death itself was the final, complete victory, crushing the serpent’s head and forever declaring victory over sin, death, and hell.
We celebrate Christmas—because the baby born in the manger has defeated our greatest foe. We celebrate Christmas—because His life was the climax of the Cosmic Drama, the very drama we find ourselves in today. And we celebrate Christmas—because Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection offers the only gospel hope that can transform our souls.
________________________________________
[1] ESV Student Study Bible, Revelation 12:1-17.
See also my article:
“Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus”
(5) Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769520851271631286.post-22283937520353971802024-02-02T12:19:00.000-08:002024-02-02T12:19:03.339-08:00“Sacred Heart of Jesus, burning with love of us, inflame our hearts with love of Thee” <div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiou-LxiinZcg9Ac2U6rzVnM8kwPX8U8Ni-LiRmfmPCMAwNQt0FElgI8kucyKlvk6FE4BcXZAO9JtihZI9Q8SvEJ-EPS3XP4LQTBHTP-DZhMUbWKTfO5M_kgqYRy9CYl7_Mok2Nu8qBmw7anPTzL1K3t9D3UIfuNazUunnmcWnqBKJdmhaCb25pxBk9g8XH/s519/sacred-heart-1.jpeg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="389" data-original-width="519" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiou-LxiinZcg9Ac2U6rzVnM8kwPX8U8Ni-LiRmfmPCMAwNQt0FElgI8kucyKlvk6FE4BcXZAO9JtihZI9Q8SvEJ-EPS3XP4LQTBHTP-DZhMUbWKTfO5M_kgqYRy9CYl7_Mok2Nu8qBmw7anPTzL1K3t9D3UIfuNazUunnmcWnqBKJdmhaCb25pxBk9g8XH/s600/sacred-heart-1.jpeg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
“May we stand within the fire
Of your Sacred Heart, and raise
To our God in joyful choir
All creation’s song of praise”.
James P. McAuley
Professor James P. McAuley, the author of this great hymn to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, biblically symbolised in this stanza by king Nebuchednezzar’s Fiery Furnace (Daniel 3:8-38), was my teacher of English around 1970, when I was doing a Bachelor of Arts degree at the University of Tasmania.
I recall that professor McAuley was an extremely rigorous teacher, invariably returning one’s essays covered with his red inked, highly-critical comments. For more, see my article:
MEMORIES OF AUSTRALIAN POET, PROFESSOR JAMES P. MCAULEY
(5) Memories of Australian poet, professor James P. McAuley | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
His mystical hymn (Jesus, in Your Heart We Find, Gather Australia, 464) reads in full:
Jesus, in your heart we find
Love of the Father and mankind.
These two loves to us impart –
Divine love in a human heart.
May we stand within the fire
Of your Sacred Heart, and raise
To our God in joyful choir
All creation’s song of praise.
In our hearts from roots of pride
Deadly growths of evil flower;
But from Jesus’ wounded side
Streams the sacramental power.
To the depths within your heart
Draw us with divine desire,
Hide us, heal us, and impart
Your own love’s transforming fire.
The fiercely anti-Communist James McAuley, who was born in Sydney (Australia) in 1917 (my father William was born in Tasmania that very same year), moved to Hobart (Tasmania) in 1960, where his large family stayed for a time with our large family, in Lenah Valley.
This fact never gets mentioned in any of the biographies of the professor that I have read. However, I certainly recall the cramped accommodation endured at the time, and some of the incidents associated with it all.
The McAuley family became prominent musically (even including drums in the choir) in our local parish church, appropriately Sacred Heart, in New Town.
Here is one brief biography of “James McAuley (1917 - 1976)”:
https://www.poetrylibrary.edu.au/poets/mcauley-james
James McAuley was born in Lakemba, in the western suburbs of Sydney, in 1917, the son of grazier and real estate speculator, Patrick McAuley, and his wife Mary (née Judge). He spent most of his childhood at Homebush, where the family moved after his father’s retirement, and attended Homebush Public School. Displaying early literary and musical talents, McAuley was sent to the selective public school Fort Street Boys High School, where he became school captain and won prizes for his writing; a number of his earliest poems appeared in the school magazine, The Fortian. In 1935 he matriculated to the University of Sydney, where he studied English and philosophy.
At university he continued to hone his poetic craft, contributing poems to the student magazine Hermes, where he also became one of the editors. After graduating with a B.A. (Hons) in 1938, he went on to complete an M.A., writing a thesis on the influence of symbolism in English, French and German literature. From the late 1930s he supported himself in various tutoring and teaching positions, and in 1942 took up a teacher’s scholarship, completed a Diploma of Education and was appointed to Newcastle Boys Junior High School. In June 1942 he married a fellow teacher, Norma Elizabeth Abernethy.
In January 1943, McAuley was called up for national service in the Militia, and quickly transferred to the Australian Imperial Force. In January 1944 he was commissioned in the Melbourne-based Army Directorate of Civil Affairs, where he renewed his association with another Fort Street graduate, Harold Stewart. While working at the Army Directorate in 1944, McAuley and Stewart concocted the ‘Ern Malley’ hoax, intending to expose what they saw as a lack of meaning in modernist literature and art. The target of the hoax was Max Harris, the Adelaide-based editor of Angry Penguins magazine and champion of literary modernism. When Harris took the bait and published the poems of ‘Ern Malley,’ Stewart and McAuley were (eventually) revealed as the actual authors, and admitted having concocted a fictitious identity for ‘Ern’ and using partly random composition methods to produce the poems. While the hoax did cause significant embarrassment to Harris—and has been seen by some as inhibiting the development of literary modernism in Australia—the poems of ‘Ern Malley’ have remained in print and continue to be a subject of significant critical debate: a consequence Stewart and McAuley surely did not intend. In 1946, McAuley published his first collection of poetry (in his own name), Under Aldebaran.
After the war, McAuley became a lecturer at the Australian School of Pacific Administration, first in Canberra then Sydney, a position he retained until 1959. While at the School he became deeply interested in the then Australian administered Territory of Papua and New Guinea, and was profoundly influenced by the Roman Catholic missionary archbishop Alain Marie Guynot de Boismenu (1870–1953). In 1952, McAuley converted to Catholicism, which would henceforth have a defining influence on his intellectual life. Immersing himself in Cold War politics, he became associated with the radical Catholic ideologue B.A. Santamaria, and was instrumental in the anti-Communist agitation that split the Labor movement and resulted in formation of the Democratic Labor Party in the mid-1950s. In 1955, he joined the Australian branch of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a conservative, anti-Communist organisation, funded in part by the CIA, and became editor of its journal, Quadrant. McAuley’s reputation as a poet was furthered with the publication of his second collection, A Vision of Ceremony, in 1956, and his credentials as a conservative public intellectual were bolstered by the publication of a collection of critical essays, The End of Modernity: Essays on Literature, Art and Culture (1959).
In 1960 McAuley and his family moved to Hobart, where he took up a position at the University of Tasmania, and the following year he was appointed to the chair of English at the University.
Despite his academic duties he continued to write and publish poetry, including his epic poem Captain Quiros (1964), and the collection Surprises of the Sun (1969), which included a poem sequence ‘On the Western Line,’ based on McAuley’s childhood experiences in the Western suburbs of Sydney.
During the 1960s he also published a number of critical works, including a monograph on the work of Christopher Brennan (1963), a general introduction to poetics, A Primer of English Versification (1966), and a book-length study of Australian poetry entitled The Personal Element in Australian Poetry (1970). He did not abandon his interest in politics, publishing and organising in support of Australian involvement in the Vietnam War.
In 1970, McAuley was diagnosed with bowel cancer. After recovering from the illness, he devoted increased time and energy to ensuring his literary legacy. His Collected Poems appeared in 1971, and was a joint winner of the Grace Leven Prize in that year. In 1975, he published a second collection of his essays, The Grammar of the Real: Selected Prose, 1959–1974, and a collection of his critical work on Australian poetry, A Map of Australian Verse: The Twentieth Century. Two collections of his later poetry appeared in 1976: Time Given: Poems 1970–1976, and Music Late at Night: Poems 1970–1973. Early in 1976, McAuley was diagnosed with liver cancer; he died on 15 October that year, in Hobart. His posthumous publications included the poetry collection, ‘A World of its Own’ (1977), a collection of his writing edited by his long-time friend Leonie Kramer (James McAuley: Poetry, Essays and Personal Commentary, UQP, 1988), and a revised volume of his Collected Poems (1994).
A significant and often controversial figure in the Australian post-War literary landscape, McAuley’s achievement as a poet has in recent years often been overshadowed by debates over his role as a right-wing intellectual. While unquestionably seen as a major Australian poet in his own time, it is a lasting irony that critical interest in McAuley’s work since his death has been largely eclipsed by the interest in his short-lived creation ‘Ern Malley.’
[End of quote]
It is rumoured that McAuley, when told that he would need to have part of his colon removed, and ever the grammarian, quipped: “Better a semi-colon than a full stop!”
The Fiery Heart of Jesus
Catholics, particularly, like to see in king Nebuchednezzar’s Fiery Furnace, in which the three youths sang their hymns of praise to God the Creator, a symbol of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. For, those who choose to live mystically within the fiery Heart of Jesus are not harmed, but, instead, are filled with inexpressible joy and an exuberant praise of God.
There is a saying that we must either burn within the Heart of Jesus, or we burn outside of It. The latter is a most harmful and unpleasant burning. And it can be fully realised in Hell.
Stephen Beale has written an article (2018) for the purpose of “Explaining the strange symbolism of the Sacred Heart”:
https://aleteia.org/2018/06/08/explaining-the-strange-symbolism-of-the-sacred-heart/
What do the flames, light, arrows, and crown of thorns mean?
The Sacred Heart is among the most familiar and moving of Catholic devotional images. But its symbolism can also be strange. As we mark the Feast of the Sacred Heart early this month, here is a look at the explanation behind some of the features of the Sacred Heart.
The flames. The Sacred Heart most obviously brings to mind the Passion of Christ on the cross. There is the crown of thorns, the cross, usually atop the heart, and the wound from the spear that pierced His side. But why is the Sacred Heart always shown as if it’s on fire? That certainly did not happen at the crucifixion.
There are three reasons behind this. First, we have to remember that Christ’s self-offering on the cross was the one-time perfect consummation of all the sacrifices of the Old Testament. This necessarily includes burnt offerings, which were the highest form of sacrifices in ancient Israel, according to The Jewish Encyclopedia. An early form of such sacrifices was what Abraham set out to do with Isaac, hence the wood he had his son collect beforehand.
Second, fire is always associated with the essence of divinity in the Old Testament. Think back to the burning bush that spoke to Moses, the cloud of fire that settled on Sinai, and the flames from above that consumed the sacrifice of Elijah. This explanation fits with the gospel account of the crucifixion, in which the piercing of Christ’s side revealed His heart at the same time that the curtain of the temple was torn, unveiling the holy of holies where God was present.
Finally, the image of fire associated with heart represents Christ’s passionate love for us. One 19th-century French devotional card has these words arched above the Sacred Heart—Voilà ce Cœur qui a tant aimé les hommes, which roughly translates to: “Here is the heart that loved men so much.” One traditional exclamation is, “Sacred Heart of Jesus, burning with love of us, inflame our hearts with love of Thee.” We see this actually happen in the gospels, where the disciples on the road to Emmaus realized that their hearts had been “burning” after their encounter with Jesus. ….
The rays of light. Look closer at the image of the Sacred Heart. There is something else framing it besides the flames. They are rays of light. In John 8:12, Christ declares that He is the “light of the world.” In Revelation 21:23, we are told that in the new Jerusalem at the end of times there will be no light from the sun or moon because the Lamb of God—that is, Jesus—will be its source of light. Light, like fire, is a symbol of divinity. Think of the Transfiguration and the blinding light that Paul experienced on the road to Damascus. As the light of the world, Christ is also the one who “enlightens” us, revealing God to us.
The Sacred Heart constitutes the climax of divine self-revelation, showing us the depths of God’s love for us. ….
The arrows. The crown of thorns and the spear make sense. But sometimes the Sacred Heart is also depicted with arrows. Again, that’s not something we find in the gospels. One explanation is that the arrow represents sin. This is reportedly what our Lord Himself said in a private revelation to St. Mary of St. Peter. (See here for more.) The arrow could also draw upon an ancient Roman metaphor for love, which, according to ancient myth, occurred when the god Cupid shot an arrow through the hearts of lovers (as this author points out).
The crown of thorns. Unlike the arrows, the crown of thorns is reported in the gospels. But in traditional images it encircles the Sacred Heart, whereas in Scripture the crown was fixed to Jesus’ head. One traditional account offers this interpretation, describing those who are devoted to it: “They saw the crown transferred from His head to His heart; they felt that its sharp points had always pierced there; they understood that the Passion was the crucifixion of a heart” (The Heart of the Gospel: Traits of the Sacred Heart by Francis Patrick Donnelly, published in 1911 by the Apostleship of Prayer). In other words, wrapping the crown around the heart emphasizes the fact that Christ felt His wounds to the depths of His heart.
Moreover, after the resurrection, the crown of thorns becomes a crown of victory. Donnelly hints at this as well: “From the weapons of His enemy, from cross and crown and opened Heart, our conquering leader fashioned a trophy which was the best testimony of His love.” In ancient gladiatorial contests, the victor was crowned. In the Revelation 19:12, Christ wears “many crowns” and believers who are victorious over sin and Satan will receive the “crown of life” (Revelation 2:10).
Finally, according to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, the seventeenth French nun who helped start the devotion, the points of the thorns are the many individual sins of people, pricking the heart of Jesus. As she put it in a letter, recounting the personal vision she had received, “I saw this divine Heart as on a throne of flames, more brilliant than the sun and transparent as crystal. It had Its adorable wound and was encircled with a crown of thorns, which signified the pricks our sins caused Him.”
The cross. Like the thorns, the cross is both rooted in the gospels but also displayed in a way that does not follow them in every detail. There is almost an inversion of the crucifixion. In the gospels, Christ hung on the cross, His heart correspondingly dwarfed by its beams. But in images of the Sacred Heart, it is now enlarged and the cross has shrunk. Moreover, rather than the heart being nailed to the cross, the cross now seems ‘planted’ in the heart—as St. Margaret Mary Alacoque put it—if to say to us that the entire reality of the crucifixion derives its meaning from and—cannot be understood apart from—the heart of Jesus. As Donnelly wrote, “The Heart [is] … forever supporting the weight of a Cross.” Truly, it is the heart of Jesus that makes the cross meaningful for us today.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769520851271631286.post-40499880423352617632024-02-01T21:33:00.000-08:002024-02-01T21:33:00.411-08:00 ‘Leave her alone’. Gehazi and Judas
by
Damien F. Mackey
‘Leave her alone’, Jesus replied. ‘It was intended that she should save
this perfume for the day of my burial. You will always have the poor
among you, but you will not always have me’.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEfo4wajU58av4pwoqygJXmC8eTPK_WuxxQkvG9yBTcAd5CAztBBG93MsmafyUCiWTE05U30VEwfxIdAZBgwE3tECWqbdKQKXehcWHt1qmqixU8kJzSwEasIt2rIqjA4pK2XErWSvuJojU8m6oDk_SHdEf-vOrOg6j_GhKMFZsEyNAgwQdkVr3KANeOFya/s269/download.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="400" data-original-height="269" data-original-width="187" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEfo4wajU58av4pwoqygJXmC8eTPK_WuxxQkvG9yBTcAd5CAztBBG93MsmafyUCiWTE05U30VEwfxIdAZBgwE3tECWqbdKQKXehcWHt1qmqixU8kJzSwEasIt2rIqjA4pK2XErWSvuJojU8m6oDk_SHdEf-vOrOg6j_GhKMFZsEyNAgwQdkVr3KANeOFya/s400/download.jpg"/></a></div>
I have heard it suggested that Judas Iscariot was actually trying physically to push Mary Magdalene out of the way when Jesus ordered him: ‘Leave her alone’ (Gk: Ἄφες αὐτήν). There is also the view that - and perhaps it is compatible with this - Judas had been having, or had wanted to have, an affair with Mary Magdalene.
Compare this with what Reuven Chaim Klein has written about the encounter between Gehazi and the Shunammite woman, who, like Mary Magdalene, had, in anguish, fallen at (embraced) the prophet’s feet (cf. John 12:3).
Gehazi and the Miracle Staff of Elisha
(6) Gehazi and the Miracle Staff of Elisha | Reuven Chaim Klein - Academia.edu
[P. 105]
….
When the bereaved mother first came before Elisha to tell of her son’s death, she caught hold of his feet. And Gehazi came near to thrust her away; but the man of God said: 'Let her alone; for her soul is bitter within her…' (II Kgs. 4:27). In this instance, Gehazi is seemingly portrayed as his master’s loyal gatekeeper, protecting Elisha. However, in line with the assumption that Gehazi was overall a negative figure, TB Berakhot 10b attributes to Gehazi an ulterior motive in thrusting away the Shunammite woman: he wished to molest her. The Talmud exegetically explains that the word to thrust her away (le-hadfah) means that he grabbed her at “the glory of her beauty” (hod yafyah), i.e. he placed his hands upon her breasts.4 In this, the Talmud goes the extra mile to paint Gehazi in a decidedly negative light, finding a flaw in his character not explicit in the text of the Bible, in order to maintain consistency in the negative characterization of Gehazi.
[End of quote]
Judas and Mary are well contrasted in this short article: Two Sinners of Holy Wednesday: Judas Iscariot and Mary Magdalene by Johann Ernst von Holst (plough.com)
Two Sinners of Holy Wednesday
Judas Iscariot and Mary Magdalene
By Johann Ernst von Holst
MARCH 28, 2018
Twitter
It’s hard to imagine a greater contrast between these two sinners: Judas Iscariot and Mary Magdalene. While Mary wept for her sins, and then lavished Jesus with her love, Judas complained of her extravagance, and then went to betray his Lord.
Mary Is Justified
But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was about to betray him), said, “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” But Judas said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it.
John 12:4–6
There were some who said to themselves indignantly, “Why was the ointment wasted like that? For this ointment could have been sold for more than three hundred denarii and given to the poor.” And they scolded her. But Jesus said, “Leave her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you want, you can do good for them. But you will not always have me. She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for burial. And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her.”
Mark 14:4–9
Here for the first time we are given a glimpse into the dark abyss of Judas’s heart. The Lord’s repeated references to his suffering had gradually made it clear to Judas that this Jesus would not establish the dreamed-of messianic kingdom in worldly glory, that following him would not lead to the expected riches and honors. He walked beside his Master, brooding in silence, while within him the love of money grew to thieving avarice, and under the reproachful looks and words of the Lord, his selfishness hardened into hatred of Christ. It is true, he still wore the mask of discipleship, but he was incapable of understanding the love that urged Mary. Yet he felt judged in his heart for his stone-hard egotism by her act of dedication, and the poison of his malice burst forth. This attitude of Judas reveals for all time the mystery of the hatred of the world for the church of Christ. The Lord’s enemies feel rebuked by the behavior of his true disciples and so try to get rid of them.
Judas tried in vain to cover his rage with the cloak of cleverly calculated love to the poor. It is true that some of the disciples were thoughtless and foolish enough to agree with him, but the Lord saw through him. He brought Mary’s act of love into the brightest light by saying, “Leave her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done what she could; she has done a beautiful thing to me.” Oh that we might also receive his praise: “You have done what you could!” Truly, it is little that we can do, but who has really done even the little he can? Won’t our bitterest self-accusations one day be that we have not done what we could? But where perfect love is at work, it does everything it can. And where it does, the Lord himself adds to it far more than we can imagine or understand. He accepts Mary’s loving deed as the anointing of his holy body for its burial and resurrection, and declares that this will be proclaimed by every tongue as long as the world exists. When we refresh someone who is thirsty with a drink of cool water, he looks upon it as done to himself (Matt. 25:35, 40). When we try to do God’s will, urged by love, he says these efforts fulfill the law: “Love is the fulfilling of the law” (Rom. 13:10).
At the Last Judgment all calculating egotists (however hypocritically they still know how to cry, “Lord! Lord!”) will be ordered away with the words, “Depart from me, you cursed” (Matt. 25:41). But those who have lived and died in love will hear the gracious words: “You have done what you could. Enter into the joy of your master” (Matt. 25:23).
[End of quotes]
Judas Iscariot, who does not compare at all well with Mary Magdalene, does, however, appear to have much in common with the seriously flawed Gehazi.
Thus: Gehazi and Judas (testimony-magazine.org)
The Testimony, October 2004
P. 407
Gehazi and Judas
John Bliss
MORALLY EVIL ACTS begin with our desires. Desires in themselves are not necessarily evil. However, when by our desires we are drawn away and enticed to the point where they lead us to disobey God’s moral code, then we sin. Desires are not the only culprit, for will, reason and emotion also enter into the process. But James says that individual acts of sin ultimately stem from desires that go astray (Jas. 1:13-15).
Thus an individual has certain basic desires that are not evil in themselves. The person initially may not intend to satisfy those desires in a way that disobeys God’s moral code. However, a desirable object comes before him, and he is attracted to it. He forms the intention to have it, even though acquiring it is prohibited by moral precept. Then, when allurement becomes strong enough, he wills to acquire the thing he intends to have.
Next, action to carry out the decision occurs. Once the action is performed, the moral law has been broken. Some of the conditions surrounding the decision may involve God bringing about the state of affairs in which the decision is made. However, temptation to do wrong, and the actual willing of it, stem, not from God, but from the person. God created us with the capacity to act, but He neither creates our actions nor performs them.
Gehazi and Judas Iscariot
I would like now to look at how these principles applied to two men who lived centuries apart: Gehazi, the pupil of Elisha, and Judas Iscariot, the pupil of Jesus. Both were in close association with their teachers on a daily basis, yet they failed. The cause was a desire for material gain (greed). Both succumbed to the temptation to fulfil that desire, preferring the riches of the world to the riches of the spirit.
How could Gehazi and Judas, privileged to be in close association with such great teachers, succumb so easily to temptation? They failed to realise the importance of the position in which they were placed, to carry on the work of the Lord after their teachers died. The spirit that was on Elijah was passed on to Elisha and presumably would have been passed on to Gehazi in due course; and the spirit empowered Jesus’s pupils to preach the gospel of the Kingdom after his death. Both Gehazi and Judas had great potential, but they obviously were not sons of God.
Gehazi
Gehazi first appears in Scripture in 2 Kings 4. A wealthy woman lived in Shunem, and, whenever Elisha passed by, she would urge him to stop for refreshment. Perceiving him to be a holy man of God, she prepared for him a small room equipped with a bed, table, chair and lampstand.
Elisha sought to reward her for her kindness, but how? She was wealthy, relatively content, and among her own people. It was at this point that Gehazi showed his potential, for he perceived the thing that was lacking in her life—an heir. He said: “Well, she has no son and her husband is old” (v. 14, NIV). Elisha prophesied that she would bear a child, and within a year she bore a son.
When the child had grown, he died. Leaving the dead child upon Elisha’s bed in the upper room, the woman went in great distress to the prophet. On receiving the tragic news, Elisha sent Gehazi ahead in haste with instructions to lay his staff on the child’s face. On arrival, Gehazi laid the staff on the child’s face according to Elisha’s instructions.
There was no response, either sound or hearing. If laying the staff on the child’s face was to be instrumental in its revival, was the lack of response due to lack of faith? “A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good” (Lk. 6:45). What was in Gehazi’s heart? We are made aware in the next chapter that Gehazi’s heart lay elsewhere.
Where do our hearts lie? Jesus warned us that material things are a great temptation. “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Mt. 6:21). The rich farmer in Luke 12 thought he had it made. He said to himself: “Life! thou hast an Abundance of Good things laid up for many Years; rest, eat, drink, and enjoy thyself”. But God said: “Foolish man! This NIGHT they will demand thy LIFE from thee; and who then will possess what thou hast provided?”. The lesson Christ draws is: “Thus is HE who AMASSES TREASURE for himself, and is not rich with respect to God” (vv. 19-21, Diaglott).
Now enter Naaman the Syrian. Exhorted by the faith of a captive Israelite maiden, he came to Elisha carrying great wealth: ten talents of silver, six thousand shekels of gold, and ten changes of garments (2 Kgs. 5:5). This offering was commensurate with Naaman’s high expectation of a cure for his leprosy, and was a temptation of major proportions. Elisha had no problems with it; he was rich in spirit, and refused Naaman’s offering outright.
However, the temptation proved too much for Gehazi. Concocting a lie, he pursued the now cured Naaman and received a talent of silver and two changes of garments. Admittedly, he received less than Naaman had brought with him, but by his action he also devalued what Elisha had done for Naaman. Gehazi was caught in his own craftiness, and received Naaman’s leprosy as punishment for his folly.
Judas Iscariot
Turning now to Judas Iscariot, never has a New Testament personality been held in such contempt as Judas Iscariot, the man described by Jesus as “the son of perdition” (Jno. 17:12), apparently writing him off as being unredeemable. John 12:6 informs us that he had no compassion on the poor, was a thief, had the alms box, and stole the money that was deposited in it. Indeed, the description painted of Judas leaves little room for anything other than loathing, for he was instrumental in causing Jesus to suffer a humiliating and painful death.
However, there is Scriptural evidence to show that the love Jesus engendered in his disciples was not totally foreign to Judas. How could it be? We would expect the personality of Jesus to have had some effect on him, as a close pupil.
Jesus was aware of a serious aberration in Judas’s character, yet he allowed him to continue in fellowship. Having seen the miracles performed by Jesus, Judas, like most others, recognised that the power he exhibited could only have come directly from God. Having been present with Jesus during many heated exchanges with the scribes and Pharisees, in which Jesus made complete fools of them, Judas was also aware that they wanted to kill him.
It is not too difficult to see how a cunning mind like Judas’s, having noted these things, could conceive a plan that would do our modern-day con-men proud. For an agreed price he could assist the authorities to seize Jesus. This would place the teacher in no danger, for the providential hand that had kept him safe would not desert him. Even if it did, with his miraculous power Jesus would have absolutely no problem freeing himself. Judas would have the money, and it would not be his fault if the authorities could not hold Jesus.
Having brought his plan to fruition, and having received his reward, something happened that Judas never expected. Jesus did not free himself. In fact, as Judas saw the suffering that Jesus began to endure at the hands of his enemies, the uncompassionate heart we read about in John 12:6 actually repented: “Then THAT Judas who DELIVERED him up, perceiving That he was condemned, repented; and returned the THIRTY Shekels to the HIGH-PRIESTS and the ELDERS, saying, ‘I have sinned in betraying innocent Blood’” (Mt. 27:3,4, Diaglott).
Jesus’s character had indeed touched the heart of this cold, conniving person, but it was to no avail. From the picture painted of Judas we may wonder why he could not have passed off Jesus’s suffering and death with the same lack of feeling as did those who sought it. “What is that to us?”, they said (v. 4). Such was the burden of guilt and grief that he could not bear to live with it. The money was no consolation. Hurling it down in the temple, he withdrew, and, having gone away, hanged himself.
The Scripture indicates that without repentance there can be no forgiveness. But Judas confessed his remorse to the wrong people. Also, we read in the Scriptures that in one notable instance repentance was sought with tears, but with little effect. We are informed in Hebrews 12 that Esau was a profane person, and sold his birthright for one meal. Afterward, when he wished to inherit the blessing, “he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears” (vv. 17,18).
Judas sold his place beside Jesus for thirty pieces of silver, and, like Esau, found no place for a change of mind, though he showed great remorse. Like Gehazi, Judas was caught in his own craftiness, and suffered the consequences.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769520851271631286.post-17030212374093734252024-02-01T21:27:00.000-08:002024-02-01T21:27:13.187-08:00 ‘Instructed by Wisdom who designed it all’
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdKeKL-ArHqQ3Wc3NolaR6RxnupFprrQpdceqGkSSReQ7OsZRDRqD1JfD1IOLuUvwa30EwmE4Fcm5cENoqyCZ2OjGbhMdy7qkwsVZr5dm8D-iHtuY4__HhxS_p3kGJckaJaLQkJ13FN03igr6auZKxqQC4ew_GK2hrGy9BWqEJzgH_ZqF7pqTLLjBKQepP/s300/images.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdKeKL-ArHqQ3Wc3NolaR6RxnupFprrQpdceqGkSSReQ7OsZRDRqD1JfD1IOLuUvwa30EwmE4Fcm5cENoqyCZ2OjGbhMdy7qkwsVZr5dm8D-iHtuY4__HhxS_p3kGJckaJaLQkJ13FN03igr6auZKxqQC4ew_GK2hrGy9BWqEJzgH_ZqF7pqTLLjBKQepP/s600/images.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
Man is the measure of all things.
- Protagoras
God ought to be to us the measure of all things, and not man, as men commonly say: the words are far more true of Him.
- Plato
Attempting to push God right into the background
It is with the above quotations from the Greek sophist, Protagoras, and from Plato, that philosopher-scientist Dr. Gavin Ardley introduces his classic book, Aquinas and Kant - The Foundations Of The Modern Sciences (1950), that I personally would rate as the best book ever written on the philosophy of science. Ardley then gets to work to demonstrate that there are two orders of being, the real (or ontological) order and the categorial (or artifact) order, and that man can be the measure only of the latter order.
This distinction of the two orders was supposedly recognised and acknowledged by Cardinal (now Saint) Robert Bellarmine at the time of Galileo Galilei. The latter, himself a talented experimental scientist, did not make the necessary distinction. Thus John Paul II observed in his address on Galileo (text from L‘Osservatore Romano, 4 Nov 1992):
In the first place, like most of his adversaries, Galileo made no distinction between the scientific approach to natural phenomena and a reflection on nature, of the philosophical order, which that approach generally calls for. That is why he rejected the suggestion made to him to present the Copernican system as a hypothesis, inasmuch as it had not been confirmed by irrefutable proof. Such therefore, was an exigency of the experimental method of which he was the inspired founder. ….
[End of quote]
Still, John Paul II credited Galileo with being “more perceptive” than “most” of the then batch of “Theologians” in regard to “scriptural interpretation”. “If Scripture cannot err”, Galileo had written to Benedetto Castelli, “certain of its interpreters and commentators can and do so in many ways”.
But Galileo apparently got completely carried away with his experimental science, and now wanted the Scriptures to be interpreted in the light of the new scientific discoveries.
Dr. Ardley’s seemingly weak exhortation, “Above all, no zeal”! is meant to be understood, it seems, in the context of imprudent Galilean zealotry; a fault that Ardley claims did not affect some of the more common sense scientists of a later era, notably Sir Isaac Newton.
But it is certainly a common fault amongst many of today’s (third millennium) scientists, notably the confirmed atheistic ones, who, going much further than had Galileo – whom John Paul II accredits as being in fact “a sincere believer” – seek to elevate the inferior order, man’s, over the superior order, God’s – customarily now by completely denying the latter. In an article in The Daily Telegraph (a Sydney newspaper), an ailing Stephen Hawking, wheelchair-bound British physicist – a modern successor to Sir Isaac Newton as Cambridge’s Lucasian professor of mathematics (since 1979) – is quoted as stating as his goal “nothing less than “a complete understanding of the universe”.”
On this, see e.g. my article:
Hawking and Dawkins - science fiction cosmology
(3) Hawking and Dawkins - science fiction cosmology | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Now, in itself, the quest for total wisdom and knowledge is biblical, Solomonic. The great king of Israel claimed to have “come to the knowledge of everything”. But, not entirely by his own efforts, for in this he claimed to have been “instructed by Wisdom who designed it all” (Wisdom 7:21-22). Most modern sages, on the other hand, seek to acquire the ‘theory of everything’ without any reference at all to the Divine, which to them is an unverifiable hypothesis. That is, they act purely according to their own efforts. Hence they completely discard the Divine map or blueprint that King Solomon had so wisely followed, with such great success; until he, too, finally, and most tragically, succumbed to the folly of self-reliance (I Kings 11:1-11).
In “The Folly of Scientism” (2012), Austin L. Hughes writes on this:
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism
When I decided on a scientific career, one of the things that appealed to me about science was the modesty of its practitioners. The typical scientist seemed to be a person who knew one small corner of the natural world and knew it very well, better than most other human beings living and better even than most who had ever lived. But outside of their circumscribed areas of expertise, scientists would hesitate to express an authoritative opinion.
This attitude was attractive precisely because it stood in sharp contrast to the arrogance of the philosophers of the positivist tradition, who claimed for science and its practitioners a broad authority with which many practicing scientists themselves were uncomfortable.
The temptation to overreach, however, seems increasingly indulged today in discussions about science. Both in the work of professional philosophers and in popular writings by natural scientists, it is frequently claimed that natural science does or soon will constitute the entire domain of truth. And this attitude is becoming more widespread among scientists themselves. All too many of my contemporaries in science have accepted without question the hype that suggests that an advanced degree in some area of natural science confers the ability to pontificate wisely on any and all subjects.
[End of quote]
Since the Fall, mankind has been – with the exception of the few enlightened ones (such as Seth, Enoch and Noah, to name just the pre-Flood sages) – attempting to push God right out of the picture and to re-write the ‘theology’ of the world as purely human mythology. One who has written most interestingly on this is Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr., in “Athena and Eve” (Answers-in-Genesis TJ, 17 (3), 2003, http://creation.com/athena-and-eve), which article - while it may not necessarily give the intended raison d’être behind the Greek mythology - has certainly presented it well as an allegory of philosophical or theological intent:
Atlas pushes away the heavens and with them, the God of the heavens
The Greek poets placed a figure named Atlas in the ancient Garden of the Hesperides. Hesiod wrote in his Theogony:
‘And Atlas through hard constraint upholds the wide heaven with unwearying head and arms, standing at the borders of the earth before the clear-voiced Hesperides; for this lot wise Zeus assigned him.’10
His presence there clarified the Greeks’ religious viewpoint, for it was his job to put the authority of heaven at a distance from them.
In Figure 5 [left], we see part of a plate scene depicting Atlas pushing away the heavens. We can see where the artist has drawn stars. As Atlas pushes away the heavens, he also pushes away the God of the heavens—the very object of his efforts.
Victory for the Greek system means that the Creator is kept at bay, pushed out of the picture, and His influence nullified, so that men become free to believe and do what they will. The way of Greek religion, which is nothing less than the way of Kain (Cain) referred to in the Scriptures, is a life lived without God’s interference with mankind’s desires. The Creator must be pushed away and ignored if Zeus-religion is to succeed.
Yahweh cursed and condemned the serpent in Genesis 3:14: ‘On your torso shall you go, and soil shall you eat all the days of your lives’. As God is pushed out of humanity’s realm, the curse on the serpent becomes void. He rises up, as on the plate depiction, to take his place as the illuminator and enlightener of the race.
[End of quote]
John R. Salverda has also entered into this debate. According to him, the Fall of Atlantis was based upon the Genesis story, with Atlas representing Adam:
…. Then there was the story of that previous civilization on the Earth, from which our modern culture sprang, which was destroyed, engulfed, in a great aqueous catastrophe. This previous civilization, called, “Atlantis,” was named after Atlas, he was said to be their first king, and the flood which engulfed the place, is still known as the “Atlantic” Ocean. We learn the story of Atlantis from the Greek Plato, who explains why these ancient People were drowned away back then. He says that at first, their race was pure, but they earned their destruction because they had a racial fall, and had degenerated through mortal admixture. And that was that for Plato’s Atlantean civilization. So it was much like the Bible’s antediluvian civilization, where Adam’s daughters, bred with the giants, and this caused racial impurities, (His Spirit could not “strive with men indefinitely,”) precursing the intolerable state which lead to Yahweh’s flood.
[End of quote]
And for Catholic readers, German mystic Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, claiming to have been favoured from childhood with visions of the ancient world, gives this fascinating ‘window’ into the pre-diluvian world of the Giants descended from Cain; people of great technical skills, but, spiritually, completely bankrupt (The Life of Jesus Christ):
I saw Cain’s descendants becoming more and more godless and sensual …. Their children were very large. They possessed a quickness, an aptitude for everything, and they gave themselves up entirely to the wicked spirits as their instruments …
I have seen many things connected with the race of giants. They could with ease carry enormous stones high up the mountain [where they had congregated], they could accomplish the most stupendous feats …. They could effect the most wonderful things, they could do whatever they wished; but all was pure jugglery and delusion due to the agency of the demon. It is for that reason that I have such a horror of every species of jugglery and fortune-telling. These people could form all kinds of images out of stone and metal; but of the knowledge of God they had no longer a trace.
[End of quote]
Today’s ‘giants’ of science would of course laugh at the very notion of demons. The fact is, however, that there is a God and there is a devil, and we ourselves must be the slaves of either the One or the other.
So how did fallen man now, under demonic influence, come to explain things, without God any longer in the picture? Well, it seems that he simply followed the serpent’s propaganda from the Garden: ‘You will become like God’ (Genesis 3:5).
Man now took the place of God. Man became ‘the measure of all things’.
This transition is well explained again by Robert Bowie Johnson. He tells how the Book of Genesis was completely re-cast by the pagans in favour of fallen man. Johnson is here specifically discussing Greek mythology, which arose much later than the Fall, but Greek mythology (also Roman) borrowed from the far more ancient mythologies of the ancient Near East, and, presumably, from the original Cain-ism.
Here is Johnson’s account (“Athena and Eve”, p. 85):
There is no Creator-God in the Greek religious system. The ancient Greek religious system is about getting away from the God of Genesis, and exalting man as the measure of all things. You may think to yourself that the Greeks are exalting gods, not man; but haven’t you ever wondered why the Greek gods looked exactly like humans? The answer is the obvious one: for the most part, the gods represented the Greeks’ (and our) human ancestors. Greek religion was thus a sophisticated form of ancestor worship. You have no doubt heard of the supposedly great philosopher, Sokrates [Socrates]. In Plato’s Euthydemus, he referred to Zeus, Athena, and Apollo as his ‘gods’ and his ‘lords and ancestors’.
[End of quote]
Johnson continues, explaining how the Greeks appropriated Adam and Eve into their own mythology, as Zeus and Hera (Dione) (ibid., p. 86):
We are told in Chapter 2 of Genesis that Eve was created full-grown out of Adam. Before she was known as Hera, the wife of Zeus had the name Dione. The name relates to the creation of Eve out of Adam, for Dione is the feminine form of Dios or Zeus. This suggests that the two were once, like Adam and Eve, a single entity.
[End of quote]
The Greeks, Johnson goes on to explain, saw the capitulation to the serpent, not as a shameful Fall, but as a veritable enlightenment (ibid.):
From the Judeo-Christian standpoint, the taking of the fruit by Eve and Adam at the serpent’s behest was shameful, a transgression of [the Lord’s] commandment. From the Greek standpoint, however, the taking of the fruit was a triumphant and liberating act which brought to mankind the serpent’s enlightenment. To the Greeks, the serpent freed mankind from bondage to an oppressive God, and was therefore a saviour and illuminator of our race. The Greeks worshipped Zeus as both saviour and illuminator; they called him Zeus Phanaios which means one who appears as light and brings light. The light that he brought to the ancient Greeks was the serpent’s light that he received when he ate the fruit from the serpent’s tree. How utterly perverse!
[End of quote]
This explanation by Johnson I find most intriguing and even plausible since it is – as I intend to argue further on, as I progress from the ancient to the modern – something of a paradigm of how modern man, too, has operated from Galileo through the Enlightenment and Rationalism to the present day.
Johnson’s explanation might even change how one may regard this old Sumerian seal (next page), illustrating the Sumerian Adam and Eve and the serpent in the primeval garden.
Whereas I had always previously perceived this as being an ancient Mesopotamian recollection of early Genesis (after all, the early inspired texts were always available to these people), see my:
Tracing the Hand of Moses in Genesis
http://www.academia.edu/8175774/Tracing_the_Hand_of_Moses_in_Genesis
I am now more inclined to regard it differently, as Johnson does (see following quotes).
By contrast to atheist Joseph Campbell, who, says Johnson, “maintained that myths are ‘cultural manifestations of the universal need of the human psyche to explain, social, cosmological, and spiritual realities’ …”, which Johnson says “is really nothing more than a fancy way of saying that ‘myths are what they are’”, Johnson instead explains (“The serpent worshipers”, TJ, ibid., p. 67):
Contrary to Campbell’s disguised tautology, I maintain that myth is essentially history, and that many ancient myths and works of art tell the same story as the book of Genesis, but from the standpoint that the serpent is the enlightener of mankind rather than its deceiver. Campbell was blind to this simple truth as the following example of his errant thinking will show. On page 14 of his The Masks of God: Occidental Mythology, he features an illustration of a Sumerian seal [see above]…. Here we have a man, a woman, a tree, and a serpent. We think immediately of Eden. But Campbell writes that this ‘cannot possibly be, as some scholars have supposed, the representation of a lost Sumerian version of the Fall of Adam and Eve’ …. Why not? Because, he writes, there is no ‘… sign of divine wrath or danger to be found. There is no theme of guilt connected with the garden. The boon of the knowledge of life is there, in the sanctuary of the world, to be culled. And it is yielded willingly to any mortal, male or female, who reaches for it with the proper will and readiness to receive .’ ….
But this is exactly why it is Eden. This is the view of the events in the garden taken by … Cain … and those who embraced his way. They defied and ultimately dispensed with the angry God, so He and His wrath are not going to show up here. There is no guilt because there is no sin; there is no sin, or falling short of the ideal, because, according to the line of [Cain], Adam and Eve did the right thing in taking the fruit. In Genesis 3:14, [the Lord] condemned the serpent to crawl on its torso and eat soil. On the Sumerian seal, the serpent rises to a height above the seated humans. ….
[End of quote]
It is in this context, too, that Johnson explains the myth of Atlas (notice the serpent is behind him), ‘pushing away the heavens’, which Johnson takes as indicating that “[Atlas] pushes away the God of the heavens – the very object of his efforts” (“Athena and Eve”, p. 88). “The Creator must be pushed away and ignored if Zeus-religion is to succeed”.
As I say, I accept this as a philosophical point of view, if not necessarily what the myth writers had actually intended.
Complete Triumph of the New Adam and the New Eve
With the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ some millennia later than the Fall, the power of the serpent was greatly curtailed; his head being firmly crushed by the New Adam and the New Eve (cf. Genesis 3:15).
Mary, the Mother of God, was the new Paradise, created by God for himself alone, and for those to whom He would choose to grant admittance. “A garden locked is my sister, my bride, a garden locked, a fountain sealed” (Song of Solomon 4:12). Scott Hahn is typically humorous, yet profound, when discussing Mary’s complex relationship with God (http://www.ewtn.com/libraray/scriptur/maryark.TXT):
In Isaiah 62 we read in verse 11 about daughter Zion who is vindicated and glorified by God, “for as a young man marries a virgin, so shall your sons, daughter Zion, marry you”. Think about that. Kind of an odd image, isn’t it? Daughter Zion is God’s daughter. “As a young man marries a virgin, so shall your sons marry you”. I mean, you talk about an Oedipus complex, what is going on here? “Your sons, daughter Zion, marry you”. The Blessed Virgin Mary is Christ’s daughter because he is her creator, but he creates her to be his mother. But then, after he bestows his glory upon her and calls her to himself and makes her the Queen Mother of all, he fashions the New Jerusalem after her as the blueprint. She becomes the bride of Christ.
No wonder he calls her “woman”. He can’t decide. “Are you my daughter? Are you my mother or are you my bride?” Praise the Lord!
[End of quote]
Perhaps ‘Satan of the crushed head’ decided now to continue to diminish man and his place in the world.
The ‘Copernican Revolution’
Whilst being quite a legitimate scientific and mathematical experiment, Copernicanism, as a world view, completely destroyed the traditional cosmology, according to which the earth was the hub of the universe (so important from a salvific point of view), replacing it with heliocentrism. This was the new cosmology to which Galileo so ardently adhered, and for whose cause he was so great a propagandist. Gavin Ardley tells of the “violent” transition from the traditional view to the new cosmology as left us by Galileo and the French philosopher, Descartes, and beyond (Berkeley’s Renovation of Philosophy, pp. 124-125):
The universe undoubtedly appears to be anthropocentric (man-centred). This is most striking at the simple level of geometry: wherever we stood in the solar system, the heavens would appear to revolve around us. But our belief in centrality is not confined to geometry; in practice, in a thousand ways, we take it for granted that the world is made for us, that we are participants at the focus, not spectators who happen to be present.
Of the appearance of anthropocentricity there can be no dispute; the crucial question concerns its reality. That reality was defended by Plato and Aristotle against pre-Socratic detraction; it is implicit in the Judaeo-Christian tradition; it was taken for granted by almost all medieval philosophers. But it was subjected to violent assault in the Seventeenth Century in the name of the new astronomy and the new mathematical science of Nature.
The popular metaphysical philosophy, supposedly authenticated by the scientific revolution, passed through two stages with regard to man’s place in the world. In the first stage man was transferred from centrality to the role of spectator: spectator of an autonomous mechanical system quite different in nature from our sensory beliefs; anthropocentricity is a delusion. This was approximately the situation as Galileo and Descartes left it, with mind set over against matter.
In the second stage, man was reabsorbed into the system of nature; mind as a separate entity was depreciated; the human constitution in its totality was regarded as part of the one system, differing from other parts of that system only in the greater complexity of articulation and function. The reality of anthropocentrism continues to be denied ….
[End of quote]
Exalting Man’s Measure Over God’s Measure
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I thought it was more important for the theologians to listen to me
than for me to listen to them”. (Scientist Lawrence Krauss)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the extraordinary technological success of the scientific revolution, all men must now bow to their lord, Science, an idol of man’s very own creation. God is no longer merely pushed back into the distant universe (the Atlas myth as interpreted by Johnson), but has been “expelled … from the universe” by Charles Darwin (as novelist Samuel Butler wrote in 1901); or he no longer exists (Nietzche’s “God is dead”), or he is now just part of the evolutionary process (Teilhard de Chardin). On this, see e.g. my multi-part series:
The Sheer Silliness of Teilhard de Chardin
beginning with:
(3) The Sheer Silliness of Teilhard de Chardin | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
The philosophers and theologians, many of whom seem to have absorbed the spirit of Teilhard, have not been able, or even willing, to resist the tidal wave of science worship, but have instead themselves bowed to scientism. Thus Ardley wrote, in Aquinas and Kant:
Anxious theologians scan the latest scientific theories to see if they do or do not support the existence of God. Grave scientists issue their pontifical pronouncements. Sir James Jeans tells us that God is a great mathematician; Einstein says 'God is slick but not mean'; Laplace, answering Napoleon who taxed him with not mentioning God in his Mecanique Celeste, said: 'I have no need of that hypothesis.'
Even good Thomistic philosophers wrack their brains trying to reconcile purely scientific conundrums of ‘indeterminism’ (Heisenberg) and the ‘quantum enigma’ with the principles of the perennial philosophy, without appreciating (what St. Bellarmine already knew) that these two disciplines exist on two entirely different planes of being, one real, one conventional and ultilitarian.
[End of quote]
Because of the metaphysical malaise, perhaps similar to the inadequate response of ‘most Theologians’ at the time of the Galileo crisis (John Paul II), scientists now wax so bold as to consider themselves able to dictate the terms completely to Theology, when it should in fact be the other way round. Thus Lawrence Krauss, director of the Origins Initiative at Arizona State University in Phoenix, boasts (in “Science the Catholic church can’t ignore ‘New Scientist’,” 7 February 2009, p. 25) of his assault on Theology right within the confines of the Pontifical Academy of Science in the Vatican:
IN ONE of those accidental juxtapositions that make life interesting, in the same week I went from co-moderating a seminar on science and religion with a leader of the John Templeton Foundation, which funds research that aims to connect science and religion, to sharing a platform with Richard Dawkins at the annual conference of the American Atheists organisation.
These events got me thinking about the “culture wars” I had heard much about from my co-moderator. He used a term I have only heard over the past two to three years: “scientism”. It is often used pejoratively to describe a philosophical position that extends beyond the simple presumption of science that empirically verifiable physical effects have physical causes, to the more expansive claim that the empirical world reflects all of reality. It includes, by inference, the idea that because there is no evidence for either divine purpose or spiritual direction these do not exist.
These perceptions cause much of the strong reaction against the scientific community by even those who, like my co-moderator, are not religious fundamentalists. Presuming that all scientists advocate scientism also makes it easier for those who fear that science might undermine their faith to attack the basis of the scientific process.
In response, a participant in the seminar used the term “religionism”, which describes the philosophical position that God exists and therefore all progress in science, and everything else for that matter, must be interpreted in light of this reality.
Neither position accurately reflects the real relationship between science and religion, which, I believe, is really rather minimal. I once spoke at the Pontifical Academy of Science in the Vatican to a meeting that included theologians, biologists and cosmologists. I was discussing cosmology and I said, partly to be provocative, but also because it was true, that the theologians had to listen to me, but I didn’t have to listen to them. Indeed, for modern theology to make any sense, it must take into account what we have found to be true about the physical universe. But as a cosmologist, theological revelations are irrelevant. ….
[End of quote]
It is high time that metaphysicians recognise that they, having the superior discipline (meta, ‘beyond’ -physics), must take the upper hand again, and explain to empirical scientists the limitations of their man-made (albeit useful) research.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769520851271631286.post-28958137110391652112024-02-01T20:52:00.000-08:002024-02-01T20:52:00.369-08:00 ‘… there shall not be left one stone upon another’.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGhvnVVMU5LROT2oEqFF8Cd8IlFbdzgL4ixS94JNO8fY7UWt-VGJbPP__btcMAhQ3ngEhzy9gsJMLn8wET38dCnBjHz4s5GlPCq6MV9pUznjwxdN7b8s3Sw67NQbfT4elBnAXnTHVDsCnGsptJL5lYMHlxKk-WZaPv2XHnUP6ezgfWOSRInaUsYjP0zbvx/s516/1_ymNZDeM4UZ4BW80p6Husyw.gif" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="396" data-original-width="516" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGhvnVVMU5LROT2oEqFF8Cd8IlFbdzgL4ixS94JNO8fY7UWt-VGJbPP__btcMAhQ3ngEhzy9gsJMLn8wET38dCnBjHz4s5GlPCq6MV9pUznjwxdN7b8s3Sw67NQbfT4elBnAXnTHVDsCnGsptJL5lYMHlxKk-WZaPv2XHnUP6ezgfWOSRInaUsYjP0zbvx/s600/1_ymNZDeM4UZ4BW80p6Husyw.gif"/></a></div>
How to explain Jerusalem today?
by
Damien F. Mackey
“And as [Jesus] went out of the Temple [note that Jesus and the disciples were standing outside the Temple walls and looking back toward the Temple enclosure], one of his disciples saith unto him, ‘Master, see what buildings are here!’ And Jesus answering said unto him, ‘Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down’"(Matthew 24:1). Without the slightest doubt, when Jesus in his prophecy spoke about the destruction of the Temple, he was certainly including in his prophecy the stones of the outer walls that enclosed the Temple as well as the buildings of the inner Temple.”
Dr. Ernest L. Martin
I have so far, largely following the important geographical research of Dr. Martin in Jerusalem,
compiled the following relevant articles on the layout of ancient Jerusalem and its environs:
Massive Challenge to Standard Geography of Jerusalem-Temple
https://www.academia.edu/35705515/Massive_Challenge_to_Standard_Geography_of_Jerusalem-Temple
‘Pinnacle of the Temple’ where Satan took Jesus
https://www.academia.edu/28012556/Pinnacle_of_the_Temple_where_Satan_took_Jesus
Third Temple and the Red Heifer
https://www.academia.edu/15371207/Third_Temple_and_the_Red_Heifer
Golgotha Situated near Altar of the Red Heifer
https://www.academia.edu/26686122/Golgotha_Situated_near_Altar_of_the_Red_Heifer
Golgotha Situated near Altar of the Red Heifer. Part Two: Not Mount of Transfiguration
https://www.academia.edu/26733283/Golgotha_Situated_near_Altar_of_the_Red_Heifer._Part_Two_Not_Mount_of_Transfiguration
Mount Olivet as Mount Moriah
https://www.academia.edu/26907058/Mount_Olivet_as_Mount_Moriah
Only two Temples of Yahweh ever stood in City of Jerusalem. Part One: Sorting out the Temples
(4) Only two Temples of Yahweh ever stood in City of Jerusalem. Part One: Sorting out the Temples | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
and:
(5) Only two Temples of Yahweh ever stood in City of Jerusalem. Part Two: Sorting out Herod 'the Great' | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Dr. Ernest L. Martin has supplied a lot more fascinating historical and geologico-archaeological material - which seems to me to be generally irrefutable - in his brilliant article at: http://askelm.com/temple/t980504.htm
The Temple Mount and Fort Antonia
We all remember the proverb that a picture is worth a thousand words. This is so true. When we are able to view a site that we have been reading or hearing about, the historical and architectural information associated with the area becomes much more meaningful and the subject better understood. That is certainly the case with the Temple built by Herod the Great [sic] that existed in the time of Christ Jesus along with the adjacent fortress that dominated the landscape known as Fort Antonia. The truth is, no one in modern history (nor for the past 1900 years) has actually witnessed the complex of buildings that comprised the Holy Sanctuary and the fort that was built to protect it.
This is one of the reasons why I have wanted to present to all of you on the ASK mailing list the first general view of what the Temple and Fort Antonia looked like to the inhabitants of Jerusalem during the time of Jesus. Once we recognize the actual situation of the two structures that I show in the illustrations, and once you realize their dimensions, many points of teaching that we observe in the New Testament will make much better sense to us.
In a word, a true perspective of those two buildings that occupied the greater part of northeastern Jerusalem (west of the Mount of Olives and the Mount of Offense) will provide a panoramic view that will show the sheer beauty and majesty of the Mother City of the Jews in the early part of the first century. Without doubt, it was a splendid and awesome display of architectural grandeur at its best.
My new book "The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot" will present the full and interesting details.
What you are about the see in the illustrations at the conclusion of this Report is the description of the Temple and Fort Antonia as presented by Josephus, the Jewish historian. He was an eyewitness to the City of Jerusalem before the Romans destroyed it in A.D.70. I have had our artist draw both a horizontal aspect as though you would view the buildings from above (in outline form as an architect would draw the edifices), and also to show a vertical aspect that gives a three dimensional effect as seen from the east side of the buildings. The squared or rectangular stones that comprise both structures are very large but they are not drawn to exact scale. They represent an artist’s impression given with my directions in accord with the descriptions recorded by Josephus. If you will read Josephus yourself, you will find that our illustrations simply depict the eyewitness accounts of Josephus as he stated them in his literature.
The vertical sight will be that from the top of the southern part of the Mount of Olives known as the Mount of Offense which was directly east of the old city of David formerly located south of the Gihon Spring. This is the best place to view ancient Jerusalem. My new book will illustrate these points clearly.
A Panoramic View of Ancient Jerusalem
Let me start by mentioning a scene that usually occupies the attention of each person who visits Jerusalem for the first time (or who returns year after year to see the archaeological remains of the Jerusalem of Herod and Jesus). That particular scene is observed from the Mount of Olives just in front of the Seven Arches Hotel. This is where people can obtain the best over-all view of the ancient and modern City of Jerusalem. Before I present you with some details concerning this inspiring and unforgettable prospect, let me relate a little about myself for some of you who only recently have come on the A.S.K. mailing list through the Internet. This will allow you to understand my deep interest and my personal involvement with the City of Jerusalem over the past four decades.
My first visit to Jerusalem was in the year 1961. Since then I have returned to the city over thirty times from areas in Europe or America where I have lived. Though I am an American, I have professionally taught college in England where I lived for fourteen years (from 1958 to 1972). In Jerusalem, I worked personally on a daily basis with Professor Benjamin Mazar in the archaeological excavations at the western and southern walls of the Haram esh-Sharif. My working association with Professor Mazar on that site lasted for two months each summer during the years 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1973. Over that period of five summers, I was the academic supervisor for 450 college students from around the world who were digging at that archaeological excavation directed by Professor Mazar.
Time magazine in its Education Section for September 3, 1973 featured my academic program for granting college credits for students who worked under my superintendence at Professor Mazar’s archaeological excavation sponsored by the Israel Exploration Society and Hebrew University. Besides this particular professional association at the excavation, I have personally guided more than 800 people around all areas of Israel explaining its biblical and secular history.
Though I am not an archaeologist by profession (my M.A. is in Theology and my Ph.D. is in Education), I have written several books and other major studies on the history and geography of Jerusalem especially in the periods of Jesus, the Roman Empire and Byzantium. I mention these brief biographical points to show that I have had considerable opportunity to study and to know the history of ancient Jerusalem.
With this in mind, let’s return to the top of the Mount of Olives to be reminded of the splendid panoramic perspective depicting the remnants of ancient Jerusalem as well as witnessing the vibrant and bustling modern City of Jerusalem. For the 450 college students and the 800 persons I have guided in their visits to Jerusalem, I have always taken them to this spot on the Mount of Olives in order for them to visualize, as a beginning lesson, what ancient Jerusalem was really like.
Observing Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives
The view is spectacular. There is no scene from other areas of Jerusalem that can replicate the grandeur of the ancient archaeological remains of the city. What dominates the scene, as one looks westward, is a rectangular body of walls with gigantic stones perfectly aligned with one another in their lower courses. These four walls present to the observer a feeling of majesty and awe at what the ancients were capable of accomplishing by their architectural achievements. These walls surround the area presently known as the Haram esh-Sharif (the Noble Enclosure). The stones of the lower courses in those walls are in their pristine positions. They are still placed neatly on top of another without any major displacement from their original alignments. These lower stones are clearly Herodian in origin, and in some places in the eastern portion of the wall they are pre-Herodian. There are certainly more than 10,000 of these stones still in place as they were in the time of Herod and Jesus.
No archaeological authority has been able to count all the stones of the four walls surrounding the Haram esh-Sharif because many of the stones are still hidden from view. But at the holy site at the Western Wall (often called the "Wailing Wall") there are seven courses presently visible within that 197 feet length of the wall in the north/south exposure. That section contains about 450 Herodian stones. There are, however, eight more courses of Herodian stones underneath the soil down to the ground level that existed in the time of Herod and Jesus. Even below that former ground level, there are a further nine courses of foundation stones. If that whole section of the "Wailing Wall" could be exposed, one could no doubt count around 1250 Herodian stones (probably more) of various sizes. Most stones are about three to four feet high and three feet to twelve feet long, but there are varying lengths up to 40 feet (with the larger stones weighing about 70 tons). One stone has been found in the Western Wall that has the prodigious weight of 400 tons (Meir Ben-Dov, Mordechai Naor, Zeev Aner, "The Western Wall," pp.61, 215). If one could extend by extrapolating the number of stones making up the four walls surrounding the Haram, there has to be over 10,000 Herodian and pre-Herodian stones still very much in place as they were some 2000 years ago. All of these stones in those four walls survived the Roman/Jewish War of A.D.70-73.
The grand centerpiece within the whole enclosure is the Muslim shrine called the Dome of the Rock. It is centrally located in a north/south dimension within the rectangular area of the Haram.
To the south of the Dome and abutting to the southern wall is another large building called the Al Aqsa Mosque with its smaller dome. And though from the Mount of Olives modern Jerusalem can be seen in the background (and its contemporary skyline of buildings is interesting), the whole area is overshadowed and dominated by the Haram esh-Sharif with those ancient walls that impressively highlight the scene.
This is the view that modern viewers are accustomed to see. But let us now go back over 1900 years and imagine viewing Jerusalem from this same spot. It is from this vantagepoint that Titus (the Roman General) looked on the ruins of Jerusalem after the Roman/Jewish War in A.D.70. The description of what Titus saw is very instructive. We should read his appraisal in the accounts preserved by Josephus because Josephus and Titus were both eyewitnesses. Notice not only what Titus observed, but also what he left out of the narrative (War VII.1,1).
This omission will become of prime importance in our inquiry regarding the true location of the Temple. Titus commanded that only a part of a wall and three forts were to remain of what was once the glorious City of Jerusalem. Notice what is stated in War VII.1,1.
"Now as soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be the objects of their fury (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other work to be done), Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and Temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminence; that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne; and so much of the wall as enclosed the city on the west side. This wall was spared, in order to afford a camp for such as were to lie in garrison [in the Upper City], as were the towers [the three forts] also spared, in order to demonstrate to posterity what kind of city it was, and how well fortified, which the Roman valor had subdued; but for all the rest of the wall [surrounding Jerusalem], it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it [Jerusalem] had ever been inhabited. This was the end which Jerusalem came to by the madness of those that were for innovations; a city otherwise of great magnificence, and of mighty fame among all mankind" (Whiston trans., italics, bracketed words mine).
This eyewitness account about the total ruin of Jerusalem has given visitors to Jerusalem a major problem in relation to what we witness of ancient Jerusalem today. The fact is, Titus gave orders that the Temple was to be demolished. The only man-made structures to be left in Jerusalem was to be a portion of the western wall and the three fortresses located in the Upper City. This was Titus’ intention at first. But within a short time, even that portion of the western wall and the three fortresses in the west were so thoroughly destroyed that not a trace of them remained (unless the so-called "Tower of David" near the present day Jaffa Gate as scholars guess is a part of the foundation of Hippicus or Phasaelus). At the conclusion of the war, the Tenth Legion left Jerusalem a mass of ruins. Stones from those ruins were finally used in the following century to build a new city called Aelia. But by late A.D.70, there was nothing left standing of the Temple or the buildings of Jerusalem. Josephus stated:
"And truly, the very view itself was a melancholy thing; for those places which were adorned with trees and pleasant gardens, were now become desolate country every way, and its trees were all cut down. Nor could any foreigner that had formerly seen Judaea and the most beautiful suburbs of the city, and now saw it as a desert, but lament and mourn sadly at so great a change. For the war had laid all signs of beauty quite waste. Nor had anyone who had known the place before, had come on a sudden to it now, would he have known it again. But though he [a foreigner] were at the city itself, yet would he have inquired for it" (War VI.1,1).
What the Modern Visitor Observes
These descriptions by Josephus are what he and Titus saw from the Mount of Olives. But this is NOT what we observe today. We see something remaining from the period of Herod and Jesus that is quite different. Directly to the west, we view an awe-inspiring architectural relic of the past that is splendidly positioned directly in front of us. It dominates the whole western prospect of this panoramic view. That ancient structure is the Haram esh-Sharif. Its rectangular walls are so large in dimension that the Haram effectively obscures much of the view of the present old city of Jerusalem. And certainly, without the slightest doubt, the Haram (in its lower courses of stones that make up its walls) is a building that survived the Roman/Jewish War.
Indeed, it is an outstanding example of the early architectural grandeur that once graced the Jerusalem of Herod and Jesus that has withstood two thousand years of weathering, earthquakes, wars and natural deterioration.
What is strange, and almost inexplicable at first, is the fact that Josephus mentioned the utter ruin of the Temple and all the City of Jerusalem, but he gave no reference whatever to the Haram esh-Sharif or that Titus had commanded that those walls should remain intact. And through the centuries, up to our modern period, there are over 10,000 stones still in their original positions making up the four walls of the Haram. As a matter of fact, in Titus’ time there were probably another 5,000 stones that were left on the upper courses of the four walls that have been dislodged and fallen to the ground over the centuries since the first century. What must be recognized is the fact that Titus deliberately left the rectangular shaped Haram esh-Sharif practically in the state he found it when he first got to Jerusalem with his legions. Strangely, Titus must have ordered that those four walls be retained for all future ages to see.
Without doubt, the Haram esh-Sharif with its gigantic walls was a survivor of the war. But how could Josephus have failed to account for the retention of such a spacious and magnificent building that was clearly in existence in pre-war Jerusalem? The continued existence of those extensive remains of the Haram esh-Sharif seem (at first glance) to nullify the appraisal of Josephus and Titus. Remember, they said that nothing of Jerusalem was left. "It [Jerusalem] was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it [Jerusalem] had ever been inhabited."
What is even more strange is the modern belief that the Haram esh-Sharif must be reckoned as the site of the Temple Mount. If present scholarly opinion is correct, this means that Titus and the Roman legions did not destroy the outer walls of the Temple in its middle and lower courses. The Romans left over 10,000 stones in place around the Haram. This modern belief of scholars and religious authorities (whether Jewish, Muslim or Christian) that the retention of those 10,000 stones around the Haram represents the remnants of the walls of the Temple make the above descriptions of their demolition by Josephus and Titus as being outlandish exaggerations. And true enough, this is precisely how most modern scholars, theologians, religious leaders and archaeologists view the matter.
Professor Williamson, who translated Josephus, said this was the case. He remarked that the thorough desolation that Titus was supposed to have seen in front of him was: "An exaggeration. A great deal of the southern part of the Temple enclosure was spared. The whole of the south wall of its successor, the present wall round the Haram esh-Sharif, the southern section of the west wall (the ‘Wailing Wall’, where the fall of Jerusalem is still lamented) and a short stretch of the east wall running up from the southeast corner are Herodian to a considerable height" (The Jewish War, p.454, note 2).
We will see abundant evidence in my new book that Josephus was not exaggerating. This is because that enclosure known as the Haram esh-Sharif was NOT the Temple Mount, nor was the structure then officially reckoned as a part of the municipality of Jerusalem.
Our modern scholars and religious authorities consistently state that we cannot believe Josephus literally in his accounts concerning the important descriptions that he provides. We will discover, however, that it is the modern scholars and the religious leaders who are wrong and not Josephus. Josephus, the historian/priest, knew what he was talking about. Jerusalem and the Temple were totally destroyed and not a stone of them was left in place. The truth is, the Haram esh-Sharif was NOT the Temple Mount.
Josephus Was Not Exaggerating
It is time for us to realize that it is the modern scholars who are wrong, not the eyewitness accounts of Josephus and Titus. Jerusalem and the Temple were indeed destroyed to the bedrock just as they relate. Regarding this, there are other sections of Josephus’ accounts to show that he was not exaggerating. Josephus was keen on telling his readers that all the walls around Jerusalem were leveled to the ground. Note his observation: "Now the Romans set fire to the extreme parts of the city [the suburbs] and burnt them down, and entirely demolished its [Jerusalem’s] walls" (War VI.9,4.).
This reference shows that all the walls, even those enclosing the outskirts of Jerusalem, were finally leveled to the ground. To reinforce the matter, Josephus said elsewhere: "When he [Titus] entirely demolished the rest of the city, and overthrew its walls, he left these towers [the three towers mentioned above] as a monument of his good fortune, which had proved [the destructive power of] his auxiliaries, and enabled him to take what could not otherwise have been taken by him" (War VI.9,1).
These two accounts by Josephus, along with the previous observations given above, confirm that there was a literal destruction of all the walls surrounding Jerusalem (except the small section of the wall in the western part of the Upper City that was afterward destroyed because not a trace of it has been mentioned of its retention by later eyewitnesses or found by modern archaeologists). Indeed, after A.D.70 there is not a word by any historical record that even speaks of those three fortresses in the Upper City having a continuance that Titus at first thought to leave as standing monuments showing the power of Rome over the Jews.
But again, these descriptions of Josephus and Titus of total ruin seem to be at variance with what we witness today. Let’s face it. From the Mount of Olives we behold the four walls of the Haram still erect in all their glory, and they are prominently displayed with a majesty that dominates the whole of present-day Jerusalem. The lower courses of those walls clearly have 10,000+Herodian and pre-Herodian stones on top of one another. As a matter of fact, those rectangular walls are even functioning ramparts of Jerusalem today. They have been in constant use throughout the intervening centuries to protect the buildings that were built in the interior of that enclosure called the Haram esh-Sharif.
Again I say, if those rectangular walls are those which formerly surrounded the Temple Mount (as we are confidently informed by all authorities today), why did Josephus and Titus leave out of their eyewitness accounts any mention about this retention of this magnificent Haram structure? They spoke of the utter ruin and desolation of Jerusalem and of the Temple, not the survival of any buildings that the Jewish authorities once controlled. Be this as it may, Josephus and Titus were certainly aware that the walls of the Haram survived the war. Why did Josephus and Titus not refer to those walls of the Haram that remained standing in their time? My new book will explain the reason why, and very clearly.
A Quandary for Modern Christians
These facts present a major problem for Christians. If those rectangular walls of the Haram are indeed the same walls (in their lower courses) that formerly embraced the Temple Mount, why are these stones (more than 10,000 in number) yet so firmly on top of one another? The continued existence of those gigantic and majestic walls would show that Titus did not destroy the walls of the Temple, if those walls did surround the Temple. Why is this a difficulty for Christian belief? The reason is plain.
Christians are aware of four prophecies given by Jesus in the New Testament that there would not be one stone left upon another either of the Temple and its walls or even of the City of Jerusalem and its walls (Matthew 24:1,2; Mark 13:1,2; Luke 19:43,44; 21:5,6.).
But strange as it may appear, the walls surrounding the Haram esh-Sharif still remain in their glory with their 10,000+ Herodian and pre-Herodian stones solidly in place in their lower courses. If those stones are those of the Temple, the prophecies of Jesus can be seriously doubted as having any historical value or merit in any analysis by intelligent and unbiased observers.
Indeed, the majority of Christian visitors to Jerusalem who first view those huge stones surrounding the rectangular area of the Haram (and who know the prophecies of Jesus) are normally perplexed and often shocked at what they see. And they ought to be. The surprise at what they observe has been the case with numerous people that I have guided around Jerusalem and Israel. They have asked for an explanation concerning this apparent failure of the prophecies of Jesus. Why do those gigantic walls still exist? If those walls represent the stones around the Temple, then the prophecies of Christ are invalid.
The usual explanation, however, to justify the credibility to Jesus’ prophecies is to say that Jesus could only have been speaking about the inner Temple and its buildings, NOT the outer Temple and its walls that surrounded it. This is the customary and the conciliatory answer that most scholars provide (and it is the explanation that I formerly gave my students or associates). The truth is, however, this explanation will not hold water when one looks at what Jesus prophesied. One should carefully observe the prophecies of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. They plainly state that one stone would not rest on another of the Temple, its buildings, and his prophecies also embraced its outer walls. The Greek word Jesus used in his prophetic context to describe the Temple and its buildings was hieron (this means the entire Temple including its exterior buildings and walls). Notice what Vincent says about the meaning of hieron.
"The word temple (hieron, lit., sacred place) signifies the whole compass of the sacred enclosure, with its porticos, courts, and other subordinate buildings; and should be carefully distinguished from the other word, naos, also rendered temple, which means the temple itself — the "Holy Place" and the "Holy of Holies." When we read, for instance, of Christ teaching in the temple (hieron) we must refer it to one of the temple-porches [outer colonnades]. So it is from the hieron, the court of the Gentiles, that Christ expels the money-changers and cattle-merchants"( Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. I., p.50).
The exterior buildings of the Temple including its walls were always reckoned within the meaning of the word hieron that Jesus used in his prophecies concerning the total destruction of the Temple. There were several outer divisions of the Temple that were distinguished from the Inner Temple, and these outer appurtenances were accounted to be cardinal features of the Sanctuary. As an example, note the New Testament account stating that Satan took Jesus to the "pinnacle of the Temple" (Matthew 4:5). The pinnacle section was the southeastern corner of the outer wall that surrounded the whole of the Temple complex.
The wording in the New Testament shows that this southeastern angle belonged to the Temple — it was a pinnacle [a wing] "of the Temple." That area was very much a part of the sacred edifice to which Jesus referred when he prophesied that not one stone would remain on another.
There is an important geographical factor that proves this point. When Jesus made his prophecy that no stone would be left on one another, Matthew said that Jesus and his disciples had just departed from the outer precincts of the Temple. This means that all of them were at the time viewing the exterior sections of the Temple (the hieron) when he gave his prophecy (Matthew 24:1). The Gospel of Mark goes even further and makes it clear that the outside walls of the Temple were very much in the mind of Jesus when he said they would be uprooted from their very foundations.
"And as he [Jesus] went out of the Temple [note that Jesus and the disciples were standing outside the Temple walls and looking back toward the Temple enclosure], one of his disciples saith unto him, ‘Master, see what buildings are here!’ And Jesus answering said unto him, ‘Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down’"(Matthew 24:1). Without the slightest doubt, when Jesus in his prophecy spoke about the destruction of the Temple, he was certainly including in his prophecy the stones of the outer walls that enclosed the Temple as well as the buildings of the inner Temple.
The Whole City of Jerusalem Also to be Destroyed
Jesus went even further than simply prophesying about the destruction of the Temple and its walls. He also included within his prophetic predictions the stones that made up the whole City of Jerusalem (with every building and house that comprised the metropolis — including the walls that embraced its urban area). According to Jesus in Luke 19:43,44, every structure of Jewish Jerusalem would be leveled to the ground —to the very bedrock. "For the days shall come upon thee [Jerusalem], that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another."
So, in the prophecies of Jesus, not only the stones that made up the Temple and its walls were to be torn down, but he also included within that scope of destruction even the stones that comprised the totality of the City of Jerusalem. We are left with no ambiguity concerning this matter. The prophecies about the Temple and the City of Jerusalem either happened exactly as Jesus predicted or those prophecies must be reckoned as false and unreliable. There can be no middle ground on the issue. If one is honest with the plain meaning of the texts of the Gospels, Jesus taught that nothing would be left of the Temple, nothing left of the whole City of Jerusalem, and nothing left of the walls of the Temple and the City.
Josephus and Titus Agree With Jesus
Was Jesus correct in his prophecies? Was Jerusalem with its Temple and walls leveled to the ground? What is remarkable is the fact that the eyewitness accounts given by Josephus and Titus agree precisely with what Jesus prophesied. Note what these two men observed. "It [Jerusalem with its walls] was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it [Jerusalem] had ever been inhabited" (War VII.1,1).
All the land surrounding the city of Jerusalem was a desolate wasteland. Note Josephus’ account.
"They had cut down all the trees, that were in the country that adjoined to the city, and that for ninety stadia round about [for nearly ten miles], as I have already related. And truly, the very view itself was a melancholy thing. Those places that were before adorned with trees and pleasant gardens were now become a desolate country in every way, and its trees were all cut down. Nor could any foreigner that had formerly seen Judaea and the most beautiful suburbs of the city, and now saw it as a desert, but lament and mourn sadly at so great a change. For the war had laid all signs of beauty quite waste. Nor, if any one that had known the place before, and had come on a sudden to it now, would he have known it again. But though he were at the city itself, yet would he have inquired for it notwithstanding" (War VI.1,1, following the Whiston translation).
After A.D.70, people would have seen utter desolation in all directions.
Every stone of every building and wall in Jerusalem was dislodged from its original position and thrown down to the ground. Josephus provides reasonable accounts of later events after the war was over to show how this complete destruction was accomplished. Much of the destruction came after the war had ceased.
For six months after the war, Josephus tells us that the Tenth Legion "dug up" the ruins of the houses, buildings and walls looking for plunder. They systematically excavated beneath the foundations of the ruined buildings and houses (they had many of the Jewish captives do the work for them). They also had the whole area turned upside down looking for gold and other precious metals that became molten when the fires were raging. This caused the precious metals to melt and flow into the lower crevices of the stones. Even the foundation stones contained melted gold from the great fires that devoured Jerusalem. This plundering of every former building or wall in the municipality of Jerusalem resulted in the troops overturning (or having the remaining Jewish captives overturn for them) every stone within the city. We will soon see that this activity resulted in every stone of Jewish Jerusalem being displaced.
This continual digging up of the city occurred over a period of several months after the war. Indeed, after an absence of about four months, Titus returned to Jerusalem from Antioch and once again viewed the ruined city. Josephus records what Titus saw.
"As he came to Jerusalem in his progress [in returning from Antioch to Egypt], and compared the melancholy condition he saw it then in, with the ancient glory of the city [compared] with the greatness of its present ruins (as well as its ancient splendor). He could not but pity the destruction of the city…. Yet there was no small quantity of the riches that had been in that city still found among the ruins, a great deal of which the Romans dug up; but the greatest part was discovered by those who were captives [Jewish captives were forced by the Roman troops to dig up the stones of their own city looking for gold], and so they [the Romans] carried it away; I mean the gold and the silver, and the rest of that most precious furniture which the Jews had, and which the owners had treasured up under ground against the uncertainties of war."
Three Years After the War
We now come to the final appraisal of the complete desolation of Jerusalem. Note what Eleazar, the final Jewish commander at Masada, related three years after the war was finished at Jerusalem. He gives an eyewitness account of how the Romans preserved Fort Antonia (the Haram) among the ruins. What Eleazar said to the 960 Jewish people (who were to commit suicide rather than fall into the hands of General Silva who was on the verge of capturing the Fortress of Masada) is very important in regard to our present inquiry. This final Jewish commander lamented over the sad state of affairs that everyone could witness at this twilight period of the conflict after the main war with the Romans was over.
Jerusalem was to Eleazar a disastrous spectacle of utter ruin. There was only one thing that remained of the former Jerusalem that Eleazar could single out as still standing. This was the Camp of the Romans that Titus permitted to remain as a monument of humiliation over the Mother City of the Jews. Eleazar acknowledged that this military encampment had been in Jerusalem before the war, and that Titus let it continue after the war. The retention of this single Camp of the Romans, according to Eleazar, was a symbol of the victory that Rome had achieved over the Jewish people. His words are recorded in War VII.8,7. Several words and phrases need emphasizing, and I hope I have done so:
"And where is now that great city [Jerusalem], the metropolis of the Jewish nation, which was fortified by so many walls round about, which had so many fortresses and large towers to defend it, which could hardly contain the instruments prepared for the war, and which had so many ten thousands of men to fight for it? Where is this city that was believed to have God himself inhabiting therein? it is now demolished to the very foundations, and hath nothing left but THAT MONUMENT of it preserved, I mean THE CAMP OF THOSE [the Romans] that hath destroyed it, WHICH STILL DWELLS UPON ITS RUINS; some unfortunate old men also lie ashes upon the of the Temple [the Temple was then in total ruins — all of it had been burnt to ashes], and a few women are there preserved alive by the enemy, for our bitter shame and reproach."
What Eleazar said must be reckoned as an eyewitness account of the state of Jerusalem in the year A.D.73. This narrative is of utmost importance to our question at hand. This is because Eleazar admitted that the City of Jerusalem and all its Jewish fortresses had indeed been demolished "to the very foundations." There was nothing left of the City or the Temple. This is precisely what Jesus prophesied would happen.
Eleazar even enforced this. He mentioned the "wholesale destruction" of the city. He said that God had "abandoned His most holy city to be burnt and razed to the ground" (War VII.8,6 Loeb). And then, a short time later, Eleazar concluded his eyewitness account by stating: "I cannot but wish that we had all died before we had seen that holy city demolished by the hands of our enemies, or the foundations of our Holy Temple dug up, after so profane a manner" (War VII.8,7).
Yes, even the very foundation stones that comprised the Temple complex (including its walls) had been uprooted and demolished. They were then "dug up" and not even the lower courses of base stones were left in place. According to Eleazar, the only thing left in the Jerusalem area was a single Roman Camp that still hovered triumphantly over the ruins of the City and the Temple. He said that Jewish Jerusalem "hath nothing left." The only thing continuing to exist was the "monument" (a single monument) preserved by Titus. And what was that "monument"? Eleazar said it was "the camp of those that destroyed it [Jerusalem], which still dwells upon its ruins."
What could this Camp of the Romans have been? This is quite easy to discover when one reads the accounts of the war as recorded by Josephus. The main military establishment in Jerusalem prior to the war was Fort Antonia located to the north of the Temple (which is now the Haram esh-Sharif). In my new book "The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot," I will give an abundance of information to show that the Haram was considered Roman property even before the war. Because Antonia was the property of Rome, they had no reason to destroy those buildings that already belonged to the Romans. That is why Titus left Fort Antonia (the Haram esh-Sharif) and its walls in tact (as we see them today). ….
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769520851271631286.post-31495065722410575852024-01-30T11:04:00.000-08:002024-01-30T11:04:08.083-08:00Sacred Heart of Jesus and the King of France<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOj39BgM6kNrRThritQGJFvBPTJX7oAij6KDiS7vAxKrqb005jaWb3Ej5bBcpijcxWlb7nJ2CrJ4mnS6EriJRi1bK6sVKHgvaSvdYwzxLHcWYQjqwFe-ZsxDJPDG_UWGcJtOvyaU7u3BkFOE0MBF-WtCZSZgYSKadKYpStJGy9P9_MoKiNtt7zKQb_accU/s1014/sacred-heart.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="487" data-original-width="1014" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOj39BgM6kNrRThritQGJFvBPTJX7oAij6KDiS7vAxKrqb005jaWb3Ej5bBcpijcxWlb7nJ2CrJ4mnS6EriJRi1bK6sVKHgvaSvdYwzxLHcWYQjqwFe-ZsxDJPDG_UWGcJtOvyaU7u3BkFOE0MBF-WtCZSZgYSKadKYpStJGy9P9_MoKiNtt7zKQb_accU/s600/sacred-heart.jpg"/></a></div>
There is a real parallel between the calamitous rejection by King Louis XIV
to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and the effects of the
greatly delayed Consecration asked for by Our Lady of the Rosary at Fatima.
We read at:
https://athanasiuscm.org/2014/08/03/devotion-to-the-sacred-heart-a-historical-perspective/
of the terrible calamities for France of not listening to the request of Jesus Christ as manifested to Sister Margaret Mary Alacoque:
Devotion to the Sacred Heart: A historical perspective
… the message of Our Lady to the Fatima children explicitly included a reference to the Kings of France, who refused to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart, and warned that if the Popes followed their example, terrible wars and destruction would afflict humanity.
This centers around the revelations of the Sacred Heart to Margaret Mary Alacoque, beginning in the 1650’s. Now, although devotion to the Sacred Heart certainly preceded St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, Our Lord used her to popularize the devotion. The means he chose to popularize it, however, were not only apostolates, and the first Fridays, but also a king.
In 1689, St. Margaret Mary went to Versailles to see King Louis XIV, who at the time was the greatest Monarch in Europe. France had never seemed more glorious, and it was at the cusp of innovating its culture, technology and industry. It had the highest population in Europe (therefore the largest armies), and was undefeated on the battlefield. It had also solidified its Catholic identity, and escaped the Gallicanist heresy (Jansenism was not to come about publicly until 1725). What St. Margaret Mary came to present to Louis XIV was simple: that he consecrate the whole nation of France to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and build a chapel so that the Sacred Heart could be adored, and France’s glory would be magnified even more for the Catholic faith.
Many of Louis’ advisers warned, however, that if he did it and France suffered at all, it would not only be bad for him, but for religion also (note this point, it ties in with more modern events with Fatima). Moreover, Louis XIV, a well educated monarch who possessed untrammeled power, perhaps wondered why Christ would appear to this uneducated nun of low birth, rather than to him. Pius XI said the same thing when he refused to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart. So, the Rois-Soleil, the Sun King, flat out refused the request from heaven. Previously the very same year, when adjusted for calendar differences, a revolution rocked England.
James II, the last Catholic Stuart to sit on the throne, had an event which usually signifies the strength of a royal house, but in this case led to its downfall. It was the birth of his son, James Francis Edward, who was then baptized Catholic. James’ position as the Catholic king of Protestant England was tenuous, but he was a good administrator and at first he was able to maintain his position. For all that, he was a poor leader and not very astute about judging the political climate. The Seclusion Crisis in the last years of the reign of his brother, Charles II, was settled by the latter’s excellent sense of the political wind. He took advantage of the increasingly radical language of the faction that wanted James secluded from the succession on account of being Catholic, and the mood of the populace which was fearful of another civil war. Putting on his royal robes, Charles declared seclusion, and whigism, to be treasonous, and most of the country supported him, being willing to accept a Catholic monarch over a new war.
James when on the throne was less impressive than his brother, or than his heirs might have been if they had actually ruled (namely James III and Charles III, aka Bonnie Prince Charlie). The worldly suggest this is because he wasn’t willing to compromise his religion, or because he wasn’t as duplicitous as he might be. The real reason, however, is that he wasn’t very Catholic in practice (his affairs were as famous as his brothers’) and he was a poor leader. He picked his battles very poorly, and alienated his major support base, the Tories, over issues of law, and kept a standing army. Now his brother also had a standing army, with 20,000 Scots that could be called up at any time, but this was necessary on account of the fact that the restored Stuart Monarchy needed support, coming back after a major civil war which ended in their Father’s execution (Charles I).
This in itself wouldn’t have raised any more eyebrows than it did for Charles II, except that he filled command positions with Irish Catholics, and he was formally Catholic (whereas Charles II was a secret Catholic who converted on his deathbed). So the Protestants “whigged out” (pun intended), with the old propaganda of a Jesuit conspiracy to take over England and forcibly convert the country. James certainly was trying to liberate Catholicism in England, but he certainly had no program in mind to forcibly return Englishman to the faith. As poor a politician as he was, he was realistic.
Nevertheless, at the birth of his son, it was no longer a matter of biding time until James II’s daughter, Mary (a protestant and married William of Orange, the protestant champion of Holland), would reign as queen. Now the Protestants in the government and the London establishment faced the prospect of a long lived Catholic dynasty. So they decided to reach out to William of Orange, offering him the crown if he would invade England and depose James. Historians debate whether at this time William had any interest in the crown or simply wanted James to change his policy from French alliance to a Dutch alliance.
Either way, Louis XIV undertook a military campaign in the Holy Roman Empire, and as a result his troops were not available to assist James against the invasion. Thus commenced the so-called “Glorious Revolution”, where the Dutch, with the assistance of several Protestants in the Navy who cleared the channel for them, invaded England, and James, rather than leading his troops, escaped.
Historically this is curious. While, on the one hand, James had good reason to fear treachery in the army (as he had seen it in the Navy), he had two things at his disposal. Irish troops who were in positions of authority, and the natural English Xenophobia and loathing for the Dutch (England had fought 3 wars with the Dutch since Cromwell’s time, and though they were seen as co-religionists, it was largely felt that the Dutch had usurped English rights in the new world and the East Indies). If James had lead his army in person, he might have won the day and kept his throne. These might have been graces flowing to him from the consecration of the Sacred Heart, but it was not done. As a side note, St. Claude de la Colombiere, St. Margaret Mary’s confessor, was a preacher in England for James II’s wife, Mary of Modena, and at one point was imprisoned for missionary activity and ministering to Catholics in the north. He was spared execution because of his position in the Duchess of York’s household, but was exiled.
James fled England, and William, along with his wife Mary, were made joint monarchs. Now, William was related to the Stuarts, but through Charles and James II’s sister Mary, making the former a nephew of the latter. In the succession, however, he would have had to wait for James Francis Edward (an infant) and both of James daughters, Mary and Anne, to reign before he could have been considered for the succession, and that is if the former all died with no issue. Nevertheless, this is the only time England’s monarchy became elective, with parliament and the new William III and Mary II affirming that James was dead (which he wasn’t) and that he had no heirs (which he did). It was a total usurpation of common law, but it is endemic of the changes that the Glorious Revolution brought to English law. Parliament became supreme in its laws, which meant that the Constitution comprised of a series of parliamentary decisions. For instance, the right to gun ownership for Protestants, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights which was issued at William and Mary’s accession to the throne, was revoked by Parliament in 1998, because Parliament had given the right, and now it could be taken away without any reference to common law or natural law.
The Effects of this were at first a minor setback for Louis XIV. He lost a few thousand troops in Ireland at the battle of the Boyne, where James tried to raise support for himself, but all seemed well. He gave James and his family his summer palace of St. Germaine for their court in exile, and busied himself with other matters. Then came Margaret Mary Alacoque and the request to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart. As we noted, he rejected it firmly out of hand. What did he have to fear after all? The situation in England, however, soon turned into a major headache. William III, as king of England and the Staatholder of Holland, effected an alliance of England, Holland, Sweden, and the Hapsburgs against Louis XIV, in which France suffered its first major defeat. The ink was barely dry on the peace treaty, when a new war raised its head, over the Spanish Succession. Charles II, the last Hapsburg ruler of Spain, was dying with no heir, and his will, ratified by the Cortes, called for Louis XIV’s grandson, the count of Anjou, to ascend the throne of Spain, with the promise that France and Spain would not be united under one crown. The Hapsburgs would not tolerate losing the Spanish possessions from the family, and the Protestants of England and Holland would not tolerate the Bourbons jointly holding France and Spain, along with Spain’s vast new world possessions. All sides threatened war.
Again the revelations of Christ to St. Margaret Mary were brought to Louis XIV, promising victory if he would consecrate France to the Sacred Heart. One can imagine that Louis XIV took this a little more seriously after the war of the first coalition, but in the end he refused to do it. Charles II of Spain died, and Louis XIV decided he was in trouble no matter which way he went, so he decided on allowing his grandson to take the Spanish throne, beginning the war of the Spanish succession. Previous to this, James II died and France, Spain and the Pope all recognized his 18 year old son, James Francis Edward, as James III of England (though living in exile at Louis XIV’s palace of Saint Germaine, where an Elderflower liquor was concocted which today we know by the same name!). This made William even angrier, and greased the wheels for a new war.
Mary II died tragically young in 1693, and William III died just before the war got started, but Anne, James II’s other protestant daughter and the last protestant Stuart, carried out the war with the aid of good politicians and a gifted general in the person of Lord Churchill, the Duke of Marlborough (Winston Churchill’s ancestor). In a series of astounding victories by Marlborough, the Allied coalition had smashed the French, though they suffered major setbacks in Spain. The war, however, was bloodier and more horrendous than any seen in European history to that point save the Thirty Years war, and can properly be considered a World War, being fought at sea all over the world as well as on the European continent. The war waged on for 12 years, depleting France of resources, population, money and in general devastating the country. The debts from this war were still unpaid when Louis XVI came to the throne two generations later. It was an absolute disaster, and at the end of the war, all the issues over which it was fought came to pass anyway; Philip V (Louis XIV’s grandson) was acknowledged as King of Spain, and both France and Spain promised the crowns of the two countries would not be united in one sovereign. So hundreds of thousands of lives were lost for nothing, livelihoods were destroyed and millions impoverished: for nothing! And the consecration was still not done.
Interestingly, while in England it was 1688, on the continent it was already 1689, due to the fact that England was still on the Julian Calendar. 100 years after St. Margaret Mary first brought the request from heaven to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart, the French Revolution began with the assault on the Bastille in 1789. Death, famine, poverty, war, and a revolution which effaced tradition and the faith from the country. What will October 13 [now 2023] bring us? The signs are there to be read, and they’re not good.
[End of article]
Father Richard Hellman wrote (2019):
https://usgraceforce.com/the-sacred-heart-of-jesus-the-first-100-year-warning/
THE SACRED HEART OF JESUS: THE FIRST 100 YEAR WARNING
At Rianjo, Spain in August 1931, Our Lord communicated to Sister Lucy [of Fatima] His dissatisfaction with the Pope’s and the Catholic bishops’ failure to obey His command to consecrate Russia. He said:
Make it known to My ministers, given that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My requests, they will follow him into misfortune. It is never too late to have recourse to Jesus and Mary.
In another text Lucy wrote that Our Lord complained to her:
They did not wish to heed My request! Like the King of France they will repent of it, and they will do it, but it will be late. Russia will have already spread its errors in the world, provoking wars and persecutions against the Church. The Holy Father will have much to suffer.
The reference by Jesus to the King of France’s disobedience and punishment is as follows:
On June 17, 1689 the Sacred Heart of Jesus manifested to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque His command to the King of France that the King was to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart. For 100 years to the day the Kings of France delayed, and did not obey.
So on June 17, 1789 the King of France was stripped of his legislative authority by the upstart Third Estate, and four years later the soldiers of the French Revolution executed the King of France as if he were a criminal. In 1793 France sent its King, Louis XVI, to the guillotine. He and his predecessors had failed to obey Our Lord’s request that France be consecrated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and thus misfortune had befallen both the King and his country.
However, it would not be just France who would inherit this misfortune.
It is more than interesting to note that the so-called “Enlightenment Period,” generally known to have occurred from the 1690s to the 1790s, followed very closely to the same 100 year period of the initial request for the consecration of France to the French Revolution (see timeline here).
Central to the Enlightenment agenda was the assault on, what they held as, “religious superstition” and its replacement by rational religion, which is most commonly referred to as Deism. Deism is a heresy which holds that God became no more than the supreme intelligence or craftsman who had set the machine that was the world to run according to its own natural and scientifically predictable laws. In other words, God created it and then left it (It is believed that most of our founding fathers were Deists … a heresy which became entrenched around the time of the birth of our nation).
As our Lady was appearing in Fatima, it is important to note that in 1917, the same year the Communist Revolution in Russia was unleashed, Pope Benedict XV penned an encyclical entitled, Humani Generis Redemptionem. It would prove to be prophetic. In it he addressed an issue that had to be “looked upon as a matter of the greatest and most momentous concern.”
Up until 1917, Western Civilization had begun to drift away from the light of Gospel. The Reformation, the French Revolution and, as mentioned, the Russian Revolution, were highly instrumental in ushering in the era of secularism. Pope Benedict XV could not escape the conclusion that the world was changing. He wrote the following in the same encyclical:
“If on the other hand we examine the state of public and private morals, the constitutions and laws of nations, we shall find that there is a general disregard and forgetfulness of the supernatural, a gradual falling away from the strict standard of Christian virtue, and that men are slipping back more and more into the shameful practices of paganism.”
From 1917 to 2017, this is exactly what happened. I put it this way: “We removed our supernatural armor and dropped our supernatural weapons and stood naked on the battlefield, and Satan had his way with us.” In other words, we disregarded the power of supernatural grace – being in a state of grace – and we neglected the supernatural weapons of devotions, especially the rosary.
Yet, here we are in the days following the 100 year unbinding of Satan. So, what happened? While some argue that the Consecration of Russia was imperfect, it is clear that God has granted some level of pleasure in this Consecration. More importantly, God is witnessing a growing number of His children, once again, don their supernatural armor (believing, once again, in the power of grace) and lay hold of their supernatural weapons.
Now, with the power of grace and our weapons in hand, God is “lighting up the battlefield.” Possibly at no other time in history, we are witnessing evil exposed at such an alarming rate.
It is clear that we are now in a period of “purification.” God is calling, every one of us, to get in the fight and “clean up this mess.”
Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, give us the supernatural strength and courage to accept this call and enter the battle.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769520851271631286.post-72212223534526372562022-09-08T16:18:00.002-07:002022-09-08T16:18:23.590-07:00A History of the Fertile Crescent. Volume One: From Creation to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmMb8cNTNJf3MadWxz4tpSVbdJNbfH8EFx-psiZV5mmD_hNmGuY_5K1WfQbylFmmwOVXzNkJQLBn_pG9FmH2ehu-nlsCFMcmESQuwsmE-SomX9IO3kw3HbktEOhya60EQ8qwVPyxdEsG_E_rJYWZB9JIZ2TejwVmGttySCONOYaEy1b6FqBh2-9Ql-yw/s1600/Saviour.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="1067" data-original-width="1600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmMb8cNTNJf3MadWxz4tpSVbdJNbfH8EFx-psiZV5mmD_hNmGuY_5K1WfQbylFmmwOVXzNkJQLBn_pG9FmH2ehu-nlsCFMcmESQuwsmE-SomX9IO3kw3HbktEOhya60EQ8qwVPyxdEsG_E_rJYWZB9JIZ2TejwVmGttySCONOYaEy1b6FqBh2-9Ql-yw/s400/Saviour.jpg"/></a></div>
A History of the
Fertile Crescent
Volume One:
From Creation to
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
Dedicated to:
Jesus Christ,
The Lord of History.
‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,
the Beginning and the End’
A History of the Fertile Crescent
Contents:
Part One: Creation to the Flood
Creation ……………………………………………. p. 4
Eden …………………………………………………. p. 4-5
The Fall …………………………………………….. p. 5
First City (Enoch) ………………………………. pp. 5-7
The Flood ………………………………………….. pp. 7-12
Part Two: Ark Mountain and Proto Sites
Noah’s Ark Mountain …………………………. p. 13-15
Where was the Ark built? ……………………. p. 16-19
Traces of the Flood …………………………….. p. 19-27
The Proto-Cities …………………………………. p. 27-36
Part Three: People movement and Babel
Out of Anatolia ……….…………………………. p. 37-42
Babel reconsidered ……………………………. p. 43-51
Plain in Land of Shinar ………………………. p. 52-57
Part Four: Dispersion of Nations
The main ethnic streams .……………………. p. 58-64
Shinarian-Akkadian Culture ……………….. p. 65-74
Part Five: Kingdom of Akkad
Nimrod as Sargon ..……………………………. p. 75-81
Nimrod and Abram legends ..………………. p. 82-83
Abraham’s contemporaries ……………..….. p. 84-93
Part Six: Patriarchs and Egypt
Abram and Egypt …..…………………………… p. 94-96
Isaac and Egypt ………………....………………. p. 97-103
Jacob and Egypt ……………….……………..…. p. 104-125
A History of the
Fertile Crescent
by
Damien F. Mackey
The term “Fertile Crescent” was coined in 1914 by the American Egyptologist James Henry Breasted in his popular high-school textbook “Outlines in Human History”. He used it to describe a roughly crescent-shaped region encompassing modern-day Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Egypt, and parts of Turkey and Iran.
https://history.howstuffworks.com/european-history/fertile-crescent.htm
The Fertile Crescent, also rightly known as “The Cradle of Civilisation”, will be the geographical focus of this article. I believe that it, with the inclusion of Nubia (see map on p. 8), corresponds nicely with the riverine system as outlined in Genesis 2:10-14.
Part One: Creation to the Flood
Contents:
Creation ……………………………………………. p. 4
Eden …………………………………………………. p. 4-5
The Fall …………………………………………….. p. 5
First City (Enoch) ………………………………. pp. 5-7
The Flood ………………………………………….. pp. 7-12
CREATION
God created the entire universe:
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/creation-ex-nihilo-is-in-the-bible
• Psalms 33:6 (RSV) By the word of the LORD [i.e., not by existing matter] the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath of his mouth.
• Isaiah 44:24 . . . “I am the LORD, who made all things . . . “
• Wisdom 1:14 For he created all things that they might exist, . . .
• John 1:3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.
• Romans 11:36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. . . .
• 1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
• Ephesians 3:9 . . . God who created all things;
• Colossians 1:16 for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities — all things were created through him and for him.
• Hebrews 2:10 . . . he, for whom and by whom all things exist . . .
• 2 Peter 3:5 . . . by the word of God [i.e., not by existing matter] heavens existed long ago . . .
• Revelation 4:11 “. . . our Lord and God, . . . didst create all things, and by thy will they existed and were created.”
which He must have created ex nihilo, that is, “out of nothing” - though preferably, “not out of anything” - “because no thing (nothing) existed initially if there was no thing that he did not create” (ncregister). The ‘Big Bang’ is rejected as pure fantasy.
EDEN
God created the Garden of Eden in Paradise, this latter being the vast riverine land, whose four rivers were watered by the one flowing out of Eden (Genesis 2:10).
Eden was an icon of the universe, and on it would be modelled the Tent of Meeting (Moses), and later, the Temple of Yahweh (built by King Solomon).
Eden, which was situated in the ‘middle’ of this ancient Fertile Crescent world, was the same site as Jerusalem later on (Ezekiel 5:5): ‘This is Jerusalem, which I have set in the centre of the nations, with countries all around her’.
See also: https://www.icr.org/article/the-center-of-the-earth
Thus I totally disagree with the likes of Dr. Rohl, and those who follow him, who would locate ancient Eden in Kusheh Dagh, in Iranian Azerbaijan, in the vicinity of Tabriz.
One would expect, with a vast riverine system, that boats, and trading by water, would have been early developments. Also astronomy (for agriculture, religion, navigation).
THE FALL
After the Fall and expulsion from Eden, the children of Adam, such as Cain and Abel twins (?), would continue to bring their sacrifices to the holy place in the Garden, as the Jews would later do, to the Temple of Yahweh there.
Dr. Ernest L. Martin (“The Temple Symbolism in Genesis”) is a must-read on all this:
https://www.askelm.com/temple/t040301.htm
Because Cain slew the holy Abel at this site, Jesus could later pin on the Jerusalemites the blood of the prophets from Abel to Zechariah (i.e., the Maccabean elder, Eleazer), who was murdered in the Temple (2 Maccabees 6:12-31; cf. Matthew 23:35).
I John 3:12: “Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous”. The Greek word here for “murdered” (ἔσφαξεν) literally means to “cut his throat” and could be translated “slaughtered” or “butchered”, as in ritually sacrificed. And for John that murder was evidence that Cain was of the evil one. Cain, shared the disposition of the devil, who, according to Jesus in John 8:44, “was a murderer from the beginning”.
FIRST CITY (ENOCH)
We do not need to go all the way to Mesopotamia to locate the city of Enoch and the other Cain-ite cities. The first so-called city was right on the fringe of Eden, to the east (Genesis 2:8). Though Hebrew miqqedem (מִקֶּ֑דֶם) can also mean e.g. “in ancient times”.
Originally titled "The Land of Eden Located" 1964
by David J. Gibson
Now that we have arrived at what seems to be a reasonable opinion as to the location of the Land of Eden, the identification of the four river-heads and the approximate site of the Garden of Eden, it should be possible from this to know where to look for the next-door region, that is, the Land of Nod to which Cain went after he was revealed as the murderer of his brother Abel. The Scripture account states:
"And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the Land of Nod, on the east of Eden." --Genesis 4:16.
It is to be noted that "the presence of the Lord" was in Eden. Here, in the infancy of the human race the Lord's presence is connected with a place. Many think the place was the entry to the Garden, where the Cherubim stood with a Flaming sword. It is generally assumed that to this sacred spot the people brought their sacrifices, as we read of the offerings of Cain and Abel. At this place God spoke directly to the worshippers and the worshippers spoke to Him. From this place Cain was driven and cut off for life.
Cain dwelt thereafter in the Land of Nod.
It was "on the east of Eden," an expression which seems to mean adjoining it. Therefore, it was not far away. Here in due time Cain's son Enoch was born. As Adam's family increased in Eden, and Cain lived in fear that "everyone" there sought his life for slaying Abel, he hit upon an idea. He enclosed and "fortified" his residence, for self protection. This is the primary meaning of the word, "city" in Hebrew.
It did not at first denote size, but an enclosed, fortified place. Cain may merely have erected a wooden palisade about a few huts, but this was new, it was novel, it deserved a name. He named it after his son, "Enoch." The record runs:
"And he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch." --Genesis 4:17.
[End of quote]
With this in mind, it may be futile to look for any archaeological remains of such a basic enclosure, given the ravages afterwards of the Noachic Flood. And Gibson has made this very point: “Now obviously the city which Cain builded and named after his son Enoch must have been destroyed by the Flood so that the physical entity itself probably disappeared, though it was subsequently re-founded”.
Admittedly, there is a collection of most ancient settlements in Sumer (southern Iraq) that bear names that might remind one of Cain’s descendants. William W. Hallo points to “… Irad”, for instance, “reminiscent of the first Sumerian city Eridu … ”. (The World's Oldest Literature: Studies in Sumerian Belles-Lettres, 2010, p. 669). These may perhaps be attributable to Cain-ites who later spread to this region before the Flood. But some of these names, at least, seem to emerge also in Syria, which region would likely have been settled by humanity before the more distant Sumer was. Duplication of place names, W to E, and N to S, will become a source of immense confusion.
Humanity began as intelligent, cultured and incorrupt, but later, corrupted, devolved.
Still, from most rudimentary beginnings, humankind developed to a degree of technology and animal husbandry that we today would call Neolithic and Chalcolithic.
Not to mention the introduction of Cain-ite polygamy. Genesis 4:19-22:
Lamech married two women, one named Adah and the other Zillah. Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock. His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all who play stringed instruments and pipes. Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron. Tubal-Cain’s sister was Naamah.
Legend has it that Lamech became blind, and that he mistakenly slew Cain, and also a young Tubal-cain (v. 23):
‘I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for injuring me’.
The gods of the ancient world derive largely, I suggest, from antediluvian Cain-ites. The Roman smithy god, Vulcan, for instance, is clearly the metal-worker, Tubal-cain (Greek Hephaestos; Egyptian Ptah). Osiris may be like Adam (Egyptian Atum?), but Osiris has also been likened, in part, to Cain, and even to Noah.
Technological innovation is nowhere attributed to the leading Seth-ites, though, whose focus appears to have been more upon the pursuit of Godliness.
For example, Genesis 5:22, 24:
“Enoch walked faithfully with God 300 years … then he was no more, because God took him away”. And, 2 Peter 2:5: “Noah … a preacher of righteousness”.
That does not mean that the Seth-ites were technologically inept. Noah built an Ark.
Regarding the Nephilim Genesis 6:4), this is about Seth-ites falling into apostasy (like King Solomon did). Angelic beings, even fallen ones, do not procreate with humans (cf. Matthew 22:30). Giants will perish in the Flood, so Solomon tells us (Wisdom 14:6): “For in the beginning, when arrogant giants were being destroyed, the hope of the world took refuge on a raft [the Ark] and, guided by Your hand, bequeathed to the world the seed of a new generation”.
I follow Dr. Jack Cuozzo’s work (Buried alive: the startling truth about Neanderthal Man, 1999) in which the author argues that Neanderthals were “humans who lived for hundreds of years, and that their distinctive skull features were caused by extrapolating the changes which normally occur in modern human skulls as they age”.
Perfervid palaeontologists in museums are wont to saw off Neanderthal jaws to make them appear ape-like. Evolution is entirely fake. The missing link is still missing. And palaeontologists can exhibit acute devolutionary tendencies, homo sapiens fading away into simius insipiens. (G. K. Chesterton is well worth reading on such matters).
Neanderthals, too, faded away - although we still see throwbacks - when God decided to reduce the length of human existence. Here is Noah’s account of it (Genesis 6:1-3):
When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, ‘My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years’.
It is generally estimated that the duration from Creation to the Flood was 1656 years.
THE FLOOD
For the time being I rest content with a date of c. 2300 BC (Dr. John Osgood’s estimate) for the Genesis Flood. However, this date will need to be lowered significantly as a revision of biblico-history begins to take its full effect.
How much of the world was flooded (Genesis 6-9)?
- Some say the flooding was global.
- Some say it was local, like one of those large Mesopotamian floods.
Saint Peter tells us (2 Peter 3:6): “… the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished”.
What was this “world that then was”?
Well, the only world to which the reader has been introduced up until Genesis 6 (the beginning of the Flood account) is the riverine world of Genesis 2: our Fertile Crescent.
We read about it in Adam’s family history, or toledôt.
I follow P. J. Wiseman (Clues To Creation In Genesis, 1977), and against JEDP theory.
According to Wiseman, the Book of Genesis is composed of ancient patriarchal family histories (toledôt), from Adam to Jacob (afterwards Joseph), to which editor Moses (and one might allow for other inspired editors, too) later added explanatory details.
Now, in Adam’s toledôt history we have mention of the riverine system, but without any of the rivers being named (Genesis 2:10): “A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters”.
To which most rudimentary antediluvian account editor Moses will add some important postdiluvian names and directional detail. Thus (vv. 11-14):
The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
The Tigris and Euphrates are well known, as is the city of Ashur alongside the Tigris, named after Ashur (Assur), a descendant of Abraham (Genesis 25:1-2).
By “Cush”, editor Moses would only have meant Nubia (often also called Ethiopia), and not the far distant Kusheh Dagh.
This hydrological reconstruction means that, whilst the Noachic Flood was far less vast than would be a global flood, it was far more vast than would be a mere local flood. King Ashurbanipal of Assyria (C7th BC, conventional dating), a keen antiquarian who would most certainly have known about local Mesopotamian floods, refers to the flood: ‘I had the joy of reading inscriptions on stone from the time before the flood’.
This tells us, too, that writing was in use already in antediluvian times.
And we have the written family histories (toledôt) of Adam, Noah, and Noah’s sons, embedded in the first part of the Book of Genesis:
Tablet 2: Gen. 2:5–5:2: The origins of mankind. Tablet 3: Gen. 5:3–6:9a: The history of Noah. Tablet 4: Gen. 6:9a–10:1: The history of Noah’s sons.
We are therefore talking about an eyewitness account of the great Flood.
JEDP theory rightly recognises multiple sources comprising the Flood account, but sadly identifies these as being far later than the time of Moses, instead of being, as they are, pre-Mosaïc accounts as narrated (compiled/owned) by Noah’s three sons.
Against Creationists, I would argue:
That the Flood was not global. Nor did it destroy every single vestige of the pre-Flood world.
The four rivers of Genesis, for instance, were identifiable again after the Flood. They were still there in the days of Sirach (24:25-27), and are even so today.
That sediment on earth was caused by the Flood. It was not.
Thus Carol A. Hill (“The Garden of Eden: A Modern Landscape”):
https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF3-00Hill.html
What most Christians do not realize is that this biblical identification of Eden on a modern landscape is in direct conflict with Flood Geology, a premise promoted by Creation Science. The basic tenet of Flood Geology is that all (or almost all) of the sedimentary rock on the planet earth was formed during Noah's flood. But modern geologic study has shown (by oil drilling) that the landscape of southern Iraq is underlain by six miles of sedimentary rock. Thus the question can be asked: How could the Garden of Eden, which existed on a pre-flood landscape existing before the flood, have been located over six miles of sedimentary rock created during the flood? ….
That there were dinosaurs in the Ark.
I have never yet read about prehistoric animals being in the Fertile Crescent.
This map does not appear to have them there either.
That there were only eight persons aboard Noah’s Ark.
This is what I would consider not to be a properly common sense interpretation of I Peter 3:20: “Those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water”.
The “eight” here surely refer to Noah and his wife, his three sons and their wives, from which primogenitors all of the human race, post-flood, would arise.
Many of these were already alive and were having offspring of their own, and so the Ark would have been equipped with a decent-sized crew, as would have been absolutely necessary given the tasks and challenges that lay at hand.
I am sure that DNA and genetic studies will bear this out, as they have done so tellingly already in the case of the first woman on earth, the mitochondrial Eve.
That Noah’s Ark was verging on the size of the Queen Mary.
The Chalcolithic technology that we learned was the peak of material achievement prior to the Flood could not possibly have fostered a ship of this incredible magnitude nor sophistication. To insist that it could have is quite nonsensical.
However, I would basically agree with them regarding the difficult matter of Ice Ages, at least insofar as Creationists would streamline the evolutionary multiple Ice Ages.
Was the aridity after the Fall (Genesis 3:17-19) due to the onset of the Ice Age?
There is a vast literature by Creationists on the subject of the Ice Ages which includes some highly significant contributions. Henry M. Morris, for instance, has written, in “The Ice Age” (Creation 11(2):10–12, March 1989): https://creation.com/the-ice-age
…. Most evolutionary geologists believe that the Ice Age involved at least three advances and retreats of the ice, with warm periods in between. However, the evidences for the earlier advances are of an entirely different sort than the moraines and striations of the last one, the so-called Wisconsin stage. The former consist of certain dense clay soils, old river terraces and other phenomena that can be interpreted as water-laid formations more easily than they can as earlier glaciations.
Human Occupation
It should also be noted that the ice never covered the entire earth. Some Bible teachers have mistakenly equated the glacial period with an imagined world-wide cataclysm which left the earth ‘without form and void’ (Genesis 1:2) and covered with water, but this interpretation is impossible. The ice never covered more than a third of the earth’s surface, even at its greatest suggested extent. As a matter of fact, there was probably a ‘pluvial period’—a period of much rain —in the lower latitudes at the same time as there was a ‘glacial period’ in the upper latitudes. ….
And again:
…. With the Flood, however, all this changed.
The vapour canopy condensed and fell to the ground in violent torrents for five long months, and waters and magmas burst forth all over the earth through ‘the fountains of the great deep’ (Genesis 7:11; 8:2) for the same period.
Tremendous earth movements accompanied and followed the Flood, and catastrophic phenomena of all kinds continued on a lesser scale after the Flood.
In particular, the precipitation of the vapour blanket at the outset of the Flood gradually dissipated the greenhouse effect, and the Arctic and Antarctic zones grew bitterly cold. During and immediately after the Flood the tremendous heat energy released from the depths continued to evaporate great quantities of water, much of which was transported to the polar regions by the newly developing post-Flood atmospheric circulation, where it fell as great quantities of snow. Soon the accumulating snow pack became an ice sheet, radiating out from its centre. There seem to be certain references to this Ice Age in the ancient book of Job (37:9-10; 38:22-23; 38:29-30), who perhaps lived in its waning years. ….
Creationists will ask a very valid question of those who do not believe in a global Flood. Why did Noah not just move to safer ground? I can only make suggestions at this stage. Were Ice sheets a barrier? Fierce dinosaurs, too? Hostile, violent clans (Genesis 6:11).
Was the first world surrounded by an encircling Ocean (the Okeanos of Greek legend)?
As for Job, referred to by Henry M. Morris as co-existing with the Ice Age - a view that many Christians support (Job, they say, may have been an Edomite patriarch, Jobab) - I would insist, quite differently, that we shall have to wait almost a millennium and a half yet to encounter the real prophet Job of the Bible and history.
The view of Morris that there was both a ‘pluvial’ and a ‘glacial’ period together seems to fit with New Zealander Terry Lawrence’s argument (“Has Velikovsky Correctly Placed the Ice Age?”, Chronology and Catastrophism Workshop, SIS, May 1988, Number 1, p. 41) that “the ice age struck these lands at the same time as the Noachian Deluge”:
…. Pick up a copy of Kummel’s History of the Earth and glance at pp.447-455 and you will see the fallacy of this time-gap. The maps on these pages clearly show that during the Tertiary Age Europe, North Africa and Asia Minor were in a state of complete ruin, being mostly under water. Note in particular the Great Tethys or Central Sea which stretches 9000 miles from Spain to India and is up to 2000 miles wide. On p.453 the map for the Oligocene subdivision of the Tertiary shows that the sea invasion of Europe plainly stops at the boundary of the area covered by the ice age in Scandinavia. This is curious because under the conventional scheme the ice age does not occur for another 23 million years. During the Eocene subdivision of the Tertiary the sea covered the south of England up to a point where the later ice age reached, supposedly 38 million years later. During the whole period of these disastrous sea invasions and large scale fresh water floodings the northern part of the British Isles along with Scandinavia was not touched. In North America it is a similar story for the Canadian Shield. While the rest of the continent was subject to sea incursions, rain storm flooding in the mid-west and volcanic eruptions in the Rockies and Central America all was tranquil in north-east Canada.
It is absolutely impossible that while the rest of the world was drowning, most of the British Isles, Scandinavia and Canada escaped.
There can only be one solution, i.e. the ice age struck these lands at the same time as the Noachian Deluge.
Conventional geologists have therefore reconstructed the ages of the past incorrectly by placing too much time between the end of the Tertiary and the ice age.
If either follows immediately or happens at the same time as the subdivisions of the Tertiary i.e. the Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene and Pliocene periods are all contemporary with one another). Failing to grasp this, Velikovsky while at least cutting the time period down from millions of years to about 2000, has accordingly overrated the scale of the Exodus catastrophe.
There is a slim possibility that Velikovsky might place the Flood at the time of the dinosaurs. This can easily be discounted. Stone Age Man could not possibly have survived in a world of flesh-eating dinosaurs like the 18 foot tall Tyrannosaurus Rex. Besides, in Kummel’s book on p. 37 we find a chart that clearly shows the dinosaurs drowned because of massive invasions of shallow seas upon the continents. The actual figures are 75% sea water drownings and 25% continental rain water and river delta drownings. For the Age of Mammals the figures are reversed: 20% are drowned by shallow sea invasions and 80% by lowland continental and upland fresh water. The book of Genesis makes it clear that the Deluge drownings were caused by forty days and nights of rainstorms. Once more this favours the Cenozoic era and not the Mesozoic or Dinosaurian era.
A possible new sequence of the geological ages might be:
Cenozoic
Holocene – Neolithic. Bronze, Iron
Pleistocene. Tertiary – Noachian Deluge – many giant forms of today’s mammals become extinct (cf. Genesis 6:4)
Palaeocene – period of change between dinosaurs and mammals
Mesozoic. Palaeozoic – Land and sea creatures of the Dinosaurian era. They are contemporary and not separated by hundreds of millions of years as under the conventional scheme. ….
[End of article]
One thing I think is certain about this most complicated of subjects.
The Noachic Flood and its aftermath - when properly interpreted - will enable for a massive overhaul and revision of the Geological Ages, just as it has enabled Creationist, Dr. John Osgood, to make progress towards developing a necessary revision of the Stone Ages (“A Better Model for the Stone Age”, EN Tech. J., vol. 2, 1986, pp. 88–102):
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j02_1/j02_1_88-102.pdf
We shall be encountering the experienced Dr. John Osgood again when we come to consider the archaeologies of the patriarch Abram (Abraham), of the Exodus Israelites, and of the Judges, all as so brilliantly identified by him.
Lawrence: “… 23 million years … 38 million years … hundreds of millions of years”. Evolutionary-based figures such as these are totally ridiculous and no human mind can possibly countenance them. Take an entire four zeros from 38 million, for 3,8oo, and that would be an approximate time-span estimate from Creation to Jesus Christ.
And no one has been able to account properly for this relatively short period of time.
Part Two: Ark Mountain and Proto sites
Contents:
Noah’s Ark Mountain …………………………. p. 13-15
Where was the Ark built? ……………………. p. 16-19
Traces of the Flood …………………………….. p. 19-27
The Proto-Cities …………………………………. p. 27-36
NOAH’S ARK MOUNTAIN
The combined research of Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White has caused me to move away from my former acceptance of Judi Dağ as the Mountain of Noah’s Ark landing in preference for their choice of Karaca Dağ in eastern Turkey (see map on p. 14). The pair have strongly argued for the validity of this latter site in their excellent new article:
JOURNAL OF CREATION 35(3) 2021 | https://dl0.creation.com/articles/p149/c14993/j35_3_50-63.pdf
A Candidate Site for Noah’s Ark, Altar, and Tomb
(2) (PDF) A Candidate Site for Noah's Ark, Altar, and Tomb. | Kenneth Griffith and Darrell K White - Academia.edu
My main reason for entertaining this switch is that the latter site appears to have been the place, unlikely as it may appear, for the world’s first agriculture, including grapes, and for the domestication of what we know as farmland animals.
For example, Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White write:
This mountain, Karaca Dag, is where the genetic ancestor of all domesticated Einkorn wheat was found by the Max Planck Institute.1 The other seven founder crops of the Neolithic Revolution all have this mountain near the centre of their wild range.2 This was so exciting that even the LA Times remarked how unusual it is that all of the early agriculture crops appear to have been domesticated in the same location:
“The researchers reported that the wheat was first cultivated near the Karacadag Mountains in southeastern Turkey, where chickpeas and bitter vetch also originated. Bread wheat—the most valuable single crop in the modern world—grapes and olives were domesticated nearby, as were sheep, pigs, goats and cattle.”3
….
Manfred Heun was the botanist who followed the DNA of domesticated wheat back to its source on Karaca Dag:
“We believe that the idea is so good—the idea of cultivating wild plants—that we think it might be one tribe of people, and that is fascinating,” said Manfred Heun at the University of Norway’s department of biotechnological sciences, who led the research team. “I cannot prove it, but it is a possibility that one tribe or one family had the idea [emphasis added].”3
A 2004 DNA study of wild and cultivated grapevine genetics by McGovern and Vouillamoz found the region where grapevines were first domesticated. Vouillamoz reports:
“Analysis of morphological similarities between the wild and cultivated grapes from all Eurasia generally support a geographical origin of grape domestication in the Near East. In 2004, I collaborated with Patrick McGovern to focus on the ‘Grape’s Fertile Triangle’ and our results showed that the closest genetic relationship between local wild grapevines and traditional cultivated grape varieties from southern Anatolia, Armenia and Georgia was observed in southern Anatolia. This suggests that the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in the Taurus Mountains is the most likely place where the grapevine was first domesticated! ... . This area also includes the Karacadağ region in the northern part of the Fertile Crescent.” ….
Remember Noah and his vineyard cultivation, and drunkenness (Genesis 9:20-23),
Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside.
But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s naked body. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father naked.
as narrated in the (eyewitness) family histories (toledôt) of Noah’s three sons (10:1): “This is the account of Shem, Ham and Japheth, Noah’s sons, who themselves had sons after the Flood”.
Due to Ham’s having intercourse with Noah’s wife (not necessarily Ham’s mother?), here, Noah cursed the fruit of that union, Canaan (9:24-29):
When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, he said,
‘Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers’.
He also said, ‘Praise be to the LORD, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem.
May God extend Japheth’s territory;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth’.
After the flood Noah lived 350 years. Noah lived a total of 950 years, and then he died.
That the Canaanites were an accursed race from the beginning is attested also by the wise King Solomon (Wisdom 12:3-11):
Those who lived long ago in your Holy Land you hated for their detestable practices, their works of sorcery and unholy rites,
their merciless slaughter of children,
and their sacrificial feasting on human flesh and blood.
These initiates from the midst of a bloody revelry,
these parents who murder helpless lives,
you willed to destroy by the hands of our ancestors,
so that the land most precious of all to you
might receive a worthy colony of the children of God.
But even these you spared, since they were but mortals,
and sent wasps as forerunners of your army to destroy them little by little, though you were not unable to give the ungodly into the hands of the righteous in battle or to destroy them at one blow by dread wild animals or your stern word.
But judging them little by little you gave them an opportunity to repent, though you were not unaware that their origin was evil
and their wickedness inborn and that their way of thinking would never change.
For their offspring were accursed from the beginning,
and it was not through fear of anyone that you left them unpunished for their sins.
“… sheep, pigs, goats and cattle” (p. 14).
These, rather than lions, tigers, elephants, hippos, rhinos, giraffes, kangaroos, and dinosaurs, were the sorts of animals that were led in pairs on board Noah’s Ark.
WHERE WAS THE ARK BUILT?
By now, some 500 Flood legends are known of throughout the world:
https://www.bible.ca/ark/noahs-ark-flood-creation-stories-myths-sumerian-kings-list-sumerian-eridu-genesis-kings-list-instructions-of-shuruppak-atra-hasis-epic-of-“Today we know of over 500 ubiquitous flood stories from every culture in every corner of the globe from the present dating back to the dawn of writing”.
Where did Noah and his assistants build the Ark?
Whilst I cannot definitively answer this question, and I find precious little in the way of any legend upon which to draw for it, I am intrigued by the ancient reverence shown for the true Mount Sinai (Har Karkom), as identified by professor Emmanuel Anati.
He wrote intriguingly (Kar Karkom. The Mountain of God, Rizzoli, NY, 1986):
Among the many unsolved problems concerning this holy mountain, one is likely to be the most challenging: Why this mountain? What did people find on this mountain which is not found elsewhere? Similar things may have attracted there the Palaeolithic and BAC [Bronze Age] tribes. Perhaps the material evidence has not yet been found or, if it has, it is not yet understood. After forty years from the first discoveries and after fourteen years of survey, we may not yet have discovered enough details to fully understand this high-place. The mountain is likely hiding still other messages”.
Among the taunts that professor Emmanuel Anati and his colleagues had received regarding Har Karkom, he tells: “We became used to sarcastic comments such as ‘Did you find the broken Tablets of the Law?’, or, ‘Next you should look for Noah’s Ark’.”
That last question has set me wondering if the reason for the apparent holiness of this mountain may have been because it was there where a previous Ark, Noah’s Ark, had been erected - long before the Ark of the Covenant was built there by the Israelites.
There would indeed be a nice symmetry to all this (without trying to pre-empt what God himself had decided to do) given, too, the realisation of certain scholars, such as I. Kikawada and A. Quinn, that the Exodus story of Moses was a miniature Flood story (Before Abraham Was, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1985).
Moses wrote the Exodus account in terms of ‘a miniature Flood story’, portraying himself as the new Noah.
Exodus 3:1: “Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God”. The question is, did Moses refer to Horeb (Mount Sinai) as “the mountain of God” only because of what it would later become, or was it already known as that when he was exiled in Midian, and perhaps because Noah had once lived there?
What would add further intrigue to any Noah-Moses parallelism would be if there were truth in a very slim legend that Noah had (like Israel) been an exile in Egypt – whatever that land was then called, and whatever it looked like, back in those antediluvian times.
Moses, who compiled Genesis from the series of family histories (toledôt) written by his illustrious forefathers, was apparently also very conscious - when writing his own story in the rest of the Pentateuch - of the content, language and structure of Genesis.
Simple examples of this are given, followed by a more profound, structural example.
• Just as God saw His creative works as ‘good’ (Genesis 1:31), so did Moses’ mother see that her son ‘was a goodly child’ (Exodus 2:2).
• The ‘Ten Words’ or creative commands of God in Genesis 1: ‘And God said’, have been found to parallel the ‘Ten Commandments’ of Exodus 20.
• Moreover, both series of ten are referred to in the context of the Six Days and a Seventh (cf. Genesis 1:5-31; 2:2 and Exodus 20:9-11).
• The new Pharaoh who began the oppression of the Israelites is portrayed by Moses as something of a Nimrod figure, as found in Genesis 10 and 11, a megalomaniacal builder of cities. At Babel, the inhabitants use a phraseology: ‘Come, let us make bricks .... Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens ...’ (cf. Genesis 10:8-9 & 11:3,4) that Moses would copy in Exodus: ‘... the new king over Egypt’ said ‘Come, let us deal shrewdly with [the Israelites], lest they multiply ...’. So the Egyptians ‘made their lives bitter with hard service, in mortar and brick’ (Exodus 1:10,14). The stated purpose … was to build a city ‘... lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth’ (11:4). Moses used a kind of ‘rival operation’ to this, for ‘... the more they were oppressed, [the Israelites] the more they multiplied and … spread abroad’ (1:12).
• Abram was ordered by God to leave the land of his birth and sojourn in the foreign land of Canaan (Genesis 12:1). Moses, for his part, fled his native home, of Egypt, and sojourned in the foreign land of Midian (Exodus 2:15).
• Pharaoh begged Abram to leave Egypt once God had begun to inflict plagues upon that country, because of Abram’s wife (Genesis 12:17-19). Likewise, the Pharaoh of the Exodus begged Moses to leave Egypt because of the Ten Plagues (Exodus 12:31-32).
Innumerable other simple comparisons may be found but there is also a more far-reaching similarity between Genesis and the other Pentateuchal books. I. Kikawada and A. Quinn (op. cit., p. 115) have discerned a five-part structure shared by Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch, as well as multiple chiasms, pointing to a striking unity of thought throughout the entire Pentateuch. This similarity of structure is further compelling evidence in favour of Mosaïc (and later editorial) compilation of Genesis as well as substantial Mosaïc authorship of the last four books.
Most striking of all, however, is the similarity between the lives of these two great Patriarchs - so much so that we find Moses portraying himself as a second Noah, his story being ‘a miniature flood story’.
As we read above, nations throughout the world share legends of a universal Flood and of a righteous man being saved with his family in a boat of some kind. Surely this points to a common ancestry amongst even the most diverse and far-flung peoples!
Given the prominence in early Egypt of Joseph and Moses, with their toledôt records, we should expect to find Flood legends in the mysterious Egyptian mythology as well. Strangely, ancient Egypt is thought to have been one of the few nations where memory of a universal Flood has not been preserved. David Fasold (The Discovery of Noah's Ark, Sidgwick and Jackson, 1990, pp. 16-17) thinks otherwise, however, pointing out that the begetter of the ‘gods’ of Egypt was Nu, a name not dissimilar to Noah.
Moreover, the original gods of the Egyptian pantheon were 8 in number; 8 was also the number saved in Noah’s Ark (cf. Genesis 7:13 and 2 Peter 2:5).
According to Fasold:
A closer approximation to the Noah of the Genesis account is hard to imagine. In this regard Noah was the preserver of the seed of mankind .... Noah, or Nu, being one with the original eight gods of the Egyptian pantheon also accounts for Nu being the progenitor of the father of their civilization. These eight were viewed as gods by having passed through the judgment and survived as well as their longevity, which their offspring did not inherit to the same extent.
In light of Sir Wallis Budge’s view that Nu represented the watery mass from which the gods evolved, Fasold added: “It takes little imagination to view Nu as directly connected with the watery mass of the Flood, and the ‘bark of millions of years’ as the Ark from ancient times, with the ‘company of gods’ as the survivors”. The ‘goddess’ Nut, mother of all the living, who accompanied her husband Nu on the voyage, must then stand for Noah's wife. Nut was also held in high esteem among the gods.
This, moreover, is not the only Egyptian version of the Flood. For another example, see A. S. Yahuda (The Language of the Pentateuch in its Relation to Egyptian, Oxford UP, 1933, 219-211). Professor’s Yahuda’s information that Genesis’s uses an Egyptian-based word, tebah, תֵּבָה (Egyptian db.t, ‘box, coffer, chest’), and not a Babylonian one, for Noah’s Ark, is shattering for the common view that Genesis was written in a Babylonian environment.
Interestingly, the noun is only ever used to describe just two objects:
• Noah's ark - the great ship, 26 places in Gen 6-9
• Moses' ark of reeds line with pitch in Ex 2:3, 5
Was not Moses, to all appearances, “an Egyptian”?
Exodus 2:19: “An Egyptian rescued us from the shepherds. He even drew water for us and watered the flock”. (Cf. Acts 7:22).
Professor A. S. Yahuda’s evidence for Egyptian language and literary elements right throughout the Pentateuch is a perfect complement to Wiseman’s toledôt structure, it having shock value as being quite unknown to JEDP proponents of a Babylonian origin.
Creationist Gavin M. Cox, too, is currently doing some very worthwhile research on tracing early Genesis into Egypt. For instance, he tells:
https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/icc_proceedings/vol7/iss1/36/
A survey of standard Egyptian Encyclopedias and earliest mythology demonstrates Egyptian knowledge of Creation and the Flood consistent with the Genesis account.
The Table of Nations (Genesis 10-11) describes how Noah's sons populated the earth after the Babel dispersion. We are told in Genesis 10:6 that Ham was the father of four sons (Cush, Mizraim, Put, Canaan). The MT Text of Scripture does not contain the name 'Egypt' but refers to this territory using the names of Mizraim and Ham. Scripture's first reference to Mizraim as the Eponymous ancestor of Egypt occurs at Gen. 13:1, and following, refers to Egypt as 'Mizraim' 652 times in the OT (cf. Genesis 50:10-11). Ham is referred to poetically as the Eponym of Egypt in Psalms (78:51; 105:23, 27; 106:22) describing Egypt as the 'land of Ham'. Has Scripture revealed that Ham founded Egypt, and his son Mizraim succeeded him, as the first of Egypt's Pharaohs? Gen. 9:28 reveals that Noah lived 350 years after the Flood, and Gen. 11:10-11 reveals Shem lived 502 years after the Flood (even outliving Abraham), and presumably Ham and Japheth lived to great ages also. Could it be that the Flood Patriarchal family were 'deified', and became the first gods of the pagan nations? ….
If so, would Egypt's hieroglyphic language preserve a knowledge of the Patriarchs as ancient, deified ancestors, Egypt's creators, who handed on their knowledge after the Great Flood? And is the Bible's account of the Flood, the Ark, and Noah and his descendants, preserved in plain sight? The Creationist Flood Model would predict this, and I will attempt to demonstrate this to be so. My search will start with Scripture and continually be guided by Scripture. Firstly, the Egyptian language should be a more consistent and enduring guide compared to Egyptian mythology. MT preserves the meanings of Noah's family's names. Could it be that the onomatology of each name is preserved within Egypt's hieroglyphs as a kind of linguistic footprint? In other words Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Creationism. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship phonetically similar Egyptian words, carrying the same range of meanings as the MT would demonstrate consistency and deep linguistic connections with Genesis as real history.
I will review Egypt's earliest creation myths to find any points of contact that may reveal consistency with the Genesis account, and Egypt's preservation of it.
I will show that Egyptian mythology has suffered 'theological compression', whereby the Creation and Flood accounts have been conflated. Once the connections are recognized, and teased apart, more evidence will quickly follow. ….
Another tradition (for what this particular one is worth) has Noah remaining on the mountain of Ark landing for some one hundred years after the Flood, which would take us to c. 2200 BC.
TRACES OF THE FLOOD
Whilst I have no intention of trying to account for the alleged mechanisms of the Flood, such as plate tectonics, volcanoes, magma burst flows, uplift, earthquakes, and so on, I think it most likely that one ought to factor in the Black Sea Flood.
It, dated variously to c. 7000 BC but also to c. 5500 BC, comes surprisingly close within range of our approximately 2300 BC Flood (especially when allowing for the usual necessary time reduction of revisionism). And it was catastrophic!
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2000/sep/14/internationalnews.archaeology
Evidence found of Noah's ark flood victims
Ship probes land below Black Sea submerged 7,000 years ago and linked to biblical disaster
Marine archaeologists have found the first evidence of a people who perished in a great flood of the Black Sea that has been linked with the story of Noah's ark.
Using robot underwater vehicles more than 300ft below the sea's surface, they have begun to map a rolling landscape, fed by meandering streams and marked with wattle and daub houses, that was flooded more than 7,000 years ago.
The discovery was announced yesterday by Robert Ballard, the scientist who discovered the wrecked Titanic.
The Black Sea was once a freshwater lake, well below sea level. About 7,000 years ago, according to geological evidence, the rising Mediterranean sea pushed a channel through what is now the Bosphorus, and then seawater poured in at about 200 times the volume of Niagara Falls.
The Black Sea would have widened at the rate of a mile a day, submerging the original shoreline under hundreds of feet of salty water.
Nearly 100,000 square miles were inundated. Sea shells on the beaches of the modern Black Sea are of marine origin, but deep below the surface there are layers of shells of freshwater molluscs, mute witnesses to the shoreline of the ancient lake.
There are many myths concerning a great flood in the region. There was a first mention [sic] in the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Babylonian work. The Romans and Greeks had the legend of Deucalion and Pyrrha, who saved their children and animals by floating away in a giant box.
The Hebrew book of Genesis most famously tells the story of Noah, who found grace in the eyes of the Lord, when all around him were wicked. Noah was warned of a forthcoming flood, and built a huge "ark" to hold his family and all the animals in pairs. Noah survived when all perished. Tradition has it that his ark came to rest on the slopes of Mount Ararat in Turkey [sic].
Dr Ballard began exploring the Black Sea in the Hull registered ship Northern Horizon, and used side-scanning sonar to look for interesting shapes on the seabed over a 200-sq-mile area, 12 miles off the Turkish coast, near Sinop.
The instruments detected "targets" worth a closer look, so video cameras mounted on underwater robot submarines were put to use. "We found two ancient ships last night," said Dr Ballard speaking by phone from his research vessel yesterday. "What we were trying to do in our wildest dreams - which is exactly what happened - was find a structure that was evidence, not a sunken ship, not trash and not geology, but characteristic of human habitation."
They found it. Above an area submerged too deeply for human divers, the sonar instruments revealed details of the landscape. On September 9 they sent robot scouts down to objects which looked like beams and branches, debris that might have been the stiffening for wattle and daub homes.
They found a rectangular area up to 12ft by 25 ft, over which an ancient mud and wooden house had collapsed, and they found tools of highly polished stone, together with fragments of ceramics. ….
Something needs to be said here about the Epic of Gilgamesh, which, along with various other Mesopotamian flood-type myths (e.g., Atrahasis), is considered to have influenced the biblical account. However, the epic is late and actually borrows from a series of biblical stories (including Ecclesiastes as late as the era of King Solomon), as do a multitude of other pagan myths (e.g., the Assyro-Babylonian epic, Enuma Elish, Creation account). Thus Shawna Dolansky has written about this:
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/places/related-articles/gilgamesh-and-the-bible
Gilgamesh and the Bible
….
The Epic of Gilgamesh, a literary product of Mesopotamia, contains many of the same themes and motifs as the Hebrew Bible. Of these, the best-known is probably the Epic’s flood story, which reads a lot like the biblical tale of Noah’s ark (Gen 6-9).
But the Epic also includes a character whose story bears even more similarities to stories in the Hebrew Bible: Gilgamesh’s possession of a plant of immortality is thwarted by a serpent (compare Gen 3), he wrestles in the night with a divinely appointed assailant who proclaims the hero’s identity and predicts that he will prevail over all others (compare Gen 32:23-32), and he is taught that the greatest response to mortality is to live life in appreciation of those things which make us truly human (compare Eccl 9:7-10).
The Gilgamesh Epic was familiar in the biblical world: copies have been found at Megiddo, Emar, Northern Anatolia, and Nineveh. It shares many motifs and ideas (such as the Flood) with other ancient Near Eastern texts.
Because of this, it is difficult to state with any certainty that the Epic directly influenced the stories of the Bible. For example, it was widely believed that dreams could be divinely inspired, cryptic forecasts of the future. So when Joseph dreamed of sheaves of corn and bowing stars (Gen 37:5-11), the author was probably not copying Gilgamesh’s oracular dreams. Likewise, the idea that it is mortality—the impetus behind Gilgamesh’s quest—that separates gods and humans is found in other Mesopotamian and Egyptian writings, as well as in Gen 3:22.
In the Epic, the gods create Enkidu, who runs wild with the animals in the open country, as a companion for Gilgamesh. There are particularly interesting similarities between the Garden of Eden story in Genesis and the story of Enkidu’s movement from nature to culture and civilization. In both stories, a woman is responsible for the transition of a man who had once eaten and drunk with the animals to a state of estrangement from nature. Once Enkidu is rejected by the animal world, the woman Shamhat gives him clothing and teaches him to drink beer and eat bread—all technological developments that separate humans from animals.
In Genesis, once Adam has eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge, he covers his nudity and is sentenced to a life of cultivating food by harsh labor. This is the cost of divine knowledge. In Gilgamesh, when Enkidu becomes estranged from the animals, Shamhat tells him that he has become “like a god.” Later, on his deathbed, Enkidu laments his removal from a state of nature, only to be reminded by the god Shamash that while civilized life is more fraught with difficulty and the knowledge of one’s own mortality, it is a worthwhile price for cultural knowledge and awareness.
The closest parallel between a biblical text and the Epic of Gilgamesh is seen in the wording of several passages in Ecclesiastes, where a strong argument can be made for direct copying. The author of Ecclesiastes frequently laments the futility of “chasing after the wind” (for example, Eccl 1:6, Eccl 1:14, Eccl 1:17, Eccl 2:11, Eccl 2:17, Eccl 2:26, Eccl 5:16, etc.), a notion reminiscent of Gilgamesh’s advice to the dying Enkidu: “Mankind can number his days. Whatever he may achieve, it is only wind” (Yale Tablet, Old Babylonian Version). Earlier in the story, Gilgamesh persuaded Enkidu that two are stronger than one in a speech containing the phrase, “A three-stranded cord is hardest to break” (Standard Babylonian Version, IV, iv). Similarly, Ecclesiastes tells us, “Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their work…. Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken” (Eccl 4:9-12). These may simply be common sayings picked up by both authors, but Eccl 9:7-9 seems to directly quote the barmaid Siduri’s advice to Gilgamesh on how to deal with his existential angst:
When the gods created mankind,
They appointed death for mankind,
Kept eternal life in their own hands.
So, Gilgamesh, let your stomach be full,
Day and night enjoy yourself in every way,
Every day arrange for pleasures.
Day and night, dance and play,
Wear fresh clothes.
Keep your head washed, bathe in water,
Appreciate the child who holds your hand,
Let your wife enjoy herself in your lap.
(Meisner Tablet)
This advice sums up the message of both the Epic of Gilgamesh and Ecclesiastes, two texts that wrestle with the search for meaning in the face of human mortality. ….
Not only did the great Flood about which we read in the Book of Genesis really occur, but evidence of it is still archaeologically, hydrologically and geomorphologically discernible.
Moreover, as already noted, written records of the Flood were provided by those who had actually experienced it, namely, Noah, and his three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth. Shem would go on, after the Flood, to become a most lauded and significant character, the great Melchizedek, King of Salem (which is not Jerusalem, incidentally).
Dr. John Osgood has, as a ‘Creationist’, espoused a global model for the biblical Flood, with a consequent radical tabula rasa effect – likely no previous artefacts remaining (“A Better Model for the Stone Age”):
A better model - Bibilical chronology of the stone age
In order to arrive at a terminus for the so-called stone age against the biblical narrative a number of new details must be taken into consideration.
Firstly, there should be the fact that the biblical chronology inserts a catastrophic world-wide flood of momentous proportions that was so devastating that it is unlikely that any artifacts of the world before that flood would be likely to be found on the surface of the earth today. They would be buried deep within the rock strata of the earth. Therefore, the assumption must be made that all the surface artifacts of civilization with which the archaeologist deals must relate to mankind's history after the great Flood of Noah which has been dated by this writer to be circ. 2,300 B.C.3 This allows us a starting point at 2,300 B.C.
The end of the stone age has been accordingly determined in the preceding article ('The Times of Abraham', this volume) at approximately 1,870 B.C. during the early days of Abraham's life in Palestine. The reader is warmly referred to the discussion in that paper.
Dr. Osgood’s revision of the Stone Ages, though extremely radical, is, in my opinion, far closer to the mark than are the text book versions of the Stone Age progression. Someone needed to start bringing a healthy dose of common sense to bear on the matter, and Osgood is the one who has stepped up to do just that.
That does not mean, though, that his pioneering model is perfect.
Future modifications will no doubt be necessary.
Whatever about all of that, Dr. Osgood’s new outlook has emboldened him to continue on with this confident statement, the stone age terminating at the time of Abram:
So we are left with the period from 2,300 B.C. through to 1,870 B.C. [Abram] for the period of mankind's history that the evolutionist would call the stone age. This is obviously significantly shorter than that proposed by those who hold the former evolutionary chronology. Such a reduction in time seemingly defies the imagination. However, the writer wishes to demonstrate in this paper that all that is known of these earlier ages of man can in fact be satisfactorily interpreted within that framework of time.
None of this should be ignored.
Here, though, I am more interested in Dr. Osgood’s evidencess for the Flood, rather than the degree to which he believes the Stone Ages ought to be trimmed down. And I am quite happy to let him do the expert teaching on this issue. Osgood continues:
A wet middle east and heavy strata build-up
The biblical model implies that there would have been much more water left over in land basins as a result of the great Flood than would necessarily be present today, and so we would look for evidence of large lake-like accumulations in such possible basin areas. The biblical model certainly does not insist on any particular weather conditions immediately after the Flood, but wet conditions would certainly be logical in God's planning for the habitation of the post-Flood earth, and would be logical in terms of the necessary rapid build-up of plant and animal life again after the Flood. As a result of the Flood, there would have been much salt left on the land, so wet conditions would have caused a washing off of some of this salt from the land and a faster ability of non-salt-loving plants to grow adequately, allowing for quick afforestation, an abundance of plant life, and hence a multiplication of animal life after the great Flood. Wet conditions would have increased the breakdown of mud-brick buildings, increasing therefore the build-up of strata in tells during the early days in the Middle East and causing more rapid build-up in caves, particularly in dolomite and limestone caves.
There is strong evidence for a very wet climate in the Middle East and for left-over basins of water over many areas of the Middle East in the early days which the biblical model would allow to be called post-Flood, but which the evolutionary model would call the stone age.
Palestine in those early days showed evidence of great areas of water, particularly filling in the north of the Huleh Basin [= Hula. See map I have added on p. 24]:
‘It is currently accepted that during the period of Acheulean occupation of the north-eastern tip of Upper Galilee, a large lake filled the entire Huleh Basin while the mountains were covered by oak forests incorporating several northern elements. such as Fagus. The surroundings were rich in various animals, including a number of large species. The Acheulean site was apparently located close to the ancient lake, in the vicinity of streams descending from the Hermon (Stekelis and Gilead, 1966; Nir and Bar-Yosef, 1976; Horowitz 1975-1977).’9
Also in south-central Sinai:
‘Strikingly thick accumulations of sediments occur in Wadi Feiran and its tributaries in south central Sinai (Fig. 1). Over the past three decades these have been the subject of discussion with reference to their origin (fluvial verses lacustrine) and their climatological and chronological significance. In this note we describe an in situ Upper Paleolithic site, the first known from south central Sinai, which places these deposits in a firmer chronological context of about 30,000 to 35,000 B.P. and lends support to previous climatological interpretations of a former wetter climate.'’10:185
And:
‘Nevertheless, the widespread occurrence of Upper Paleolithic sites throughout the central Negev and down to the very arid southern Sinai would suggest a regionally wet climate, which enabled the Upper Paleolithic people to exploit an area which today is hyper-arid.’10:189
Furthermore, in east Jordan:
‘Briefly, the stratification in the north, west, and south trenches reflects the existence of a Pleistocene pluvial lake that shrank until a widespread marsh formed during the Early Neolithic.’11:28
And again:
‘During the Late Acheulian period of the Late Pleistocene, the scene around Ain el-Assad was quite different: an immense lake, roughly five times the size of the present Dead Sea (Rollefson 1982; Garrard and Price 1977) stretched to the northern, eastern, and southern horizons.
Once again, animals would have been attracted to the lakeshore, yielding opportunities for Neanderthal hunters to fulfill their needs.’11:33,34
Similarly, Alison Betts has suggested that in the Black Desert just close to the same area in eastern Jordan there was once lush growth and a large population of animals:
‘As far as hunting is concerned, the desert once supported large herds of game, particularly gazelle, and evidence for the wholesale exploitation of these herds is demonstrated by the complex chains of desert 'kites' lying across what were once probably migration routes.’12
Next Dr. Osgood turns to consider Egypt:
In Egypt also, wet conditions prevailed:
‘Naqada I and II are very remote times, and it is now known that conditions in Egypt were then completely different from what they are today. At Armant, for instance, south of Luxor, large trees had been growing sparsely all over the low desert at a height of 20 or more feet above the present cultivation level and, therefore, probably about 40 feet above in pre-Dynastic times. The workmen told Mr. Myers that trees like this were to be found in every part of the Nile Valley. Some of these trees at any rate were earlier than either the Late or the Middle pre-Dynastic periods, for graves of these dates had been cut through their roots. Again, a small Wadi had been silted up and trees had been growing in it. This was all on the low desert, and similar wet conditions are found to have prevailed on the high.’13
The testimony seems uniform that in those early days, by whatever scheme they may be dated, conditions were wetter and large areas of water-filled geographical basins, a picture that is thoroughly consistent with the biblical model.
Such conditions, Osgood thinks, account for the widespread use of the hand-axe:
Wet conditions and afforestation may well be one of the explanations for the earliest type of culture found in many parts of the Middle East and Europe, that is the Acheulian, the most characteristic tool of which was the hand-axe. The need to clear land, to chop trees, and to build shelter from wet conditions, as well as to shape tools such as spears for hunting in that early survival culture, may well explain the ubiquity of the Acheulian hand-axe, a fairly basic tool. But then, the conditions also were very basic, and survival was the name of the game.
Most ancient sites of Çatal Hüyük and Jericho betray evidence of multiple rebuilding:
The wet conditions may also explain the very large number of stone-age, particularly Neolithic strata, in such places as Mersin, Catal Huyuk and Jericho, where the main building materials were sun-dried mud bricks. In north-eastern Iraq the Jarmo expedition found that the average expectation for a 'casually built house with some dried mud bricks and mud finished roof' was only 15 years.14 In much wetter conditions of earlier days the life of a building may well have been considerably shorter, even half that time, making rapid build up of strata with rebuilding of levels in tells a very highly likely proposition.
Even the layers at the Carmel Caves, Osgood suggests, may be explainable according to a Flood scenario:
Furthermore, the deep layers found in some of the caves, such as the Carmel Caves, which are dolomite, may well be explained by the wetter conditions which would give rise to the more rapid breakdown of rock from the roof. Such cave-ins, which were evident in some of the Carmel Caves, along with the increased trampling in of soil, dirt and mud as the people came home from hunting, would have led to a rapid build-up of strata in such caves. It is impossible at this point in time to give an accurate assessment of the time taken for the build-up of these strata. Long periods of time that have artificially been assigned to them simply cannot be sustained on any present evidence. For these reasons, the biblical model stands as a reasonably good scientific model on which to test the evidence.
In summary Osgood writes:
The Model: A Preliminary Hypothesis
From the dispersion of Babel into the virgin forested lands of Palestine came the families of Canaan - Genesis 10:15-19. The initial number of families is unknown, but they are represented culturally by the Palestinian Acheulean artifacts. Their culture was consciously adapted to their new environment of heavily forested country and wet climate with large lakes in land basins, much of the water being left-over from the great Flood. The wet climate would have produced heavy sedimentation of the open land and friable conditions in many caves, which nonetheless were good protection from the climate. From the Acheulian background two different developments came - the Mousterian and Aurignacian of Palestine.
At Carmel the Mousterian shelters suffered collapse, possibly from earthquake … ending Mousterian habitation in them. Geographically at least, the Aurignacian appears to have given rise to Kebaran culture.
Further evidence of the massive Flood waters - apart from the possibility already suggested of the Black Sea Flood - may be implicit in what we read from the piece by Terry Lawrence in Part One (pp. 11-12).
I refer to the “Great Tethys or Central Sea” and also the “Eocene” Sea.
In the evolutionary scheme, millions of years can separate phenomena that were, in reality, either only hundreds to thousands of years apart, or were even simultaneous. The traces of the Eocene Sea in the Negev desert of southern Israel, as discussed by professor Emmanuel Anati in connection with Har Karkom (= Mount Horeb/Sinai), I would also attribute to the Genesis Flood.
Did the so-called Eocene Sea gently lift the Ark off the top of Har Karkom, and carry it northwards to “the mountains of Ararat [ancient Urartu]” (Genesis 8:4)?
Just a thought. Professor Anati writes (op. cit., p 339):
The record of sedimentation on Har Karkom has a gap after the Middle Eocene. Although we cannot reconstruct the ensuing interval of geological history [from] evidence on Har Karkom alone, studies in other areas show that deposition of marine sediments took place throughout southern Israel up until the end of the Eocene, approximately 36 million years ago, at which time the seas overlying the Negev began to recede. We can now imagine the area of present-day Har Karkom emerging slowly from a shallow sea and being uplifted during the course of the Oligocene epoch until it was high above sea level.
….
The sea never reached Har Karkom again ….
THE PROTO-CITIES
With humankind originating in Eden, which later became (a no doubt much morphologically modified) Jerusalem, it would be expected that the first ‘cities’, in whatever early form these may have been, lay not too far away from that central site.
And we discovered that the first city, Cain’s “Enoch”, was situated very close to there.
Sumer (southern Iraq), in whatever form it may have been in those antediluvian days - the Persian Gulf Delta, like the Nile Delta, would have been a post-Flood feature - would have been settled significantly later in antediluvian times, if at all.
Now, with humankind re-commencing its epic journey, after the Flood, this time from its base on Karaca Dağ in eastern Turkey (pp. 13-15), then we might expect that the first major settlements, known as proto-cities, would have been in that region – and not, once again, in far-off Sumer as according to the usual view.
And so we find, for instance, the surprisingly sophisticated Neolithic proto sites of Göbekli Tepe, about 30km from Karaca Dağ, and, somewhat further to the NW (distance figures vary wildly), Çatal Hüyük (pronounced something like chartle hooyek).
Inflated estimated settlement figures for Göbekli Tepe: 9,500 to 8,000 BC; and for Çatal Hüyük (Çatalhüyük): 7,500 BC to 6,400 BC, are notably close to those for the Black Sea flood to the north (7,000-5,500 BC).
Following the oldest cultural distribution, Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (map taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Pottery_Neolithic), we find ourselves tracing a pattern for most of the Fertile Crescent. Egypt and, note, southern Mesopotamia (Sumer), are not yet included. The latter region, at least, would still be under flood.
Area of the fertile crescent, circa 7500 BC, with main Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites. The area of Mesopotamia proper was not yet settled by humans.
The site of Jericho, considered to be one of the oldest settlements on earth, its Natufian level (c. 10,ooo-9,000 BC, conventional dating) perhaps just preceding the more settled PPNA (8,500 BC, conventional dating), is included at the SW extremity (map).
Natufian, which Dr. Osgood suggests may possibly have been Hivite/Hittite, was probably just a forerunner to the more settled PPNA.
Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White, again, have written well on Pre-Pottery Neolithic A:
JOURNAL OF CREATION 35(2) 2021 | https://dl0.creation.com/articles/p149/c14993/j35_3_50-63.pdf
An Upper Mesopotamian location for Babel
(6) An Upper Mesopotamian location for Babel | Kenneth Griffith - Academia.edu
The oldest cultural layers of Sumer and Akkad are defined by archaeologists as the Ubaid, Uruk, and Jemdet Nassar Periods. These were the earliest urban periods in lower Mesopotamia. However, they are not the oldest urban settlements on the planet. That distinction belongs to a culture that Kathleen Kenyon defined as the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A, or PPNA.7
The Neolithic is defined as being younger than the Paleolithic and Mesolithic cultures, which did not build permanent settlements or practise agriculture. However, this seems to be an unfounded assumption of evolutionary thinking. The unquestionable premise of evolution is that man was a hunter gatherer before he became a farmer. Therefore, the widespread campfires and burial caves of the Paleolithic hunter gatherers must be older than the Neolithic, including the PPNA.
However, ceramics including pottery have been found at Paleolithic sites on the Adriatic, as well as in China, and Japan. In the biblical narrative we see farming and city building with fired bricks immediately after the Flood. Therefore, a biblicist might conclude that Paleolithic and Mesolithic hunter-gatherers were actually a parallel culture or mode of living that was mostly after the Dispersion, and therefore concurrent with or after the PPNA.
The Bible states that Noah was the first farmer after the Flood (Genesis 9:20). In archaeology the ‘Neolithic’ are considered the first farmers, and the PPNA is the oldest known Neolithic culture. Therefore, we expect that the PPNA is a good place to look for the Tower of Babel.
The PPNA sites are located in the mountains and valleys of upper Mesopotamia figure 1). There are no known PPNA sites in lower Mesopotamia where Babylon lies. This poses a major problem for the conventional understanding of Babel. However, there are intermediate settlements called the Hassuna and Samara cultures going down the Tigris River from the PPNA toward the later Ubaid culture of Uruk (figure2). Smith asserted that Çatal-höyük, a PPNA site, was one of the first cities built after Babel,8 which agrees well with our thesis that the PPNA represents the culture of Babel and the two centuries immediately after the dispersion. ….
I think, though, that the Babel incident and Dispersion therefrom, may belong somewhat later than PPNA.
It might be possible to co-ordinate in approximate time the Acheulean Stone Age culture, after the Flood (Dr. Osgood), with the PPNA, at Göbekli Tepe.
For, according to Pietro Gaietto: “Regarding the topic of evolution in general I am of the opinion that the strong tendency towards the dressing of large stones at Göbekli Tepe had its origin in the Acheulean tradition of the Mousterian culture”.
“History is Wrong” declares one site regarding “The Mystery of Gobekli Tepe” (2018): https://coolinterestingstuff.com/the-mystery-of-gobekli-tepe
…. many have proposed that Gobekli Tepe can even be a temple inside the Biblical Eden of Genesis.
Is it possible that what we know about the ‘uncivilized and primitive’ prehistoric men is not at all true? Is it possible that advanced civilizations existed before 6000 BCE and their tracks are simply lost in time? Or is it possible that extra-terrestrials interfered and helped men to build monuments throughout the history of humanity? The questions are certainly compelling.
Man was supposed to have been a primitive hunter-gatherer at the time of the sites’ construction. Gobekli Tepe’s presence currently predates what science has taught would be essential in building something on the scale such as those structures. For instance, the site appears before the agreed upon dates for the inventions of art and engravings; it even predates man working with metals and pottery but features evidence of all of these. ….
which site finds it all so incomprehensible as to have to resort to this extreme suggestion:
Ancient Aliens
If ancient aliens visited Earth, can evidence of their existence be found in the mysterious structures that still stand throughout the world? Inexplicably, megalithic structures found on different continents are strikingly similar, and the cutting and moving of the massive stones used to build these magnificent feats would be a struggle for modern day machinery, let alone ancient man. Ancient astronaut theorists suggest that the standing stones in Carnac, France were used as an ancient GPS system for ancient flying machines. The recently discovered Gobekli Tepe in Turkey, which has been dated back 12,000 years, has finely chiseled pillars that experts describe as a Noah’s Ark in stone. Is it possible that extraterrestrials assisted primitive man in constructing these unexplained structures? If so, what was the purpose of these grand projects?
The truth is that so-called Stone Age man was nowhere near as primitive as proponents of evolutionary development imagine.
As said earlier: Humanity began as intelligent, cultured and incorrupt, but later, corrupted, devolved.
Pietro Gaietto has well written (Intelligent Cells and their Inventions, 2014, p. 42):
To my knowledge, the most ancient civilization that we might define as modern post-Paleolithic, was discovered at an archeological site called Göbekli Tepe, an area which includes the south-eastern region of present day Turkey. The Göbekli Tepe site is a peculiar cultic locale, without habitations, although they exist just a few miles away. A large number of geometric stelae-statues in limestone have been found, decorated with bas-reliefs and engravings of animals ….
Anthropometric free-standing tall squared stones, and pilaster in a T-shape, carry representations, in high or low relief, of animals such as foxes, lions and scorpions; and vultures flying or not; deer, bovids, spiders, snakes, cranes, ducks, ostriches, crocodiles, herons, leopards and wildcats. Regarding the topic of evolution in general I am of the opinion that the strong tendency towards the dressing of large stones at Göbekli Tepe had its origin in the Acheulean tradition of the Mousterian culture. I believe that the Göbekli Tepe civilization may well have been the end result of a mixing of two different cultures, although we know nothing at this point regarding the commingling of different populations in those archaic periods of time. ….
Göbekli Tepe, which represents one of humanity’s first attempts at Stonehenge type astronomical calculation, offers us some welcome insight into the degree of culture and knowledge that would have emerged from those aboard the Ark.
Even if the legend is true that Noah remained on the mountain for a hundred years, others would presumably have left there earlier in search of more favourable locales.
Andrew Curry (2008) tells us something about this extraordinary site, Göbekli Tepe, whose origins he badly mis-dates, however:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gobekli-tepe-the-worlds-first-temple-83613665/#:~:text=The%20megaliths%20predate%20Stonehenge%20by,of%20the
Gobekli Tepe: The World’s First Temple?
Predating Stonehenge by 6,000 years [sic], Turkey’s stunning Gobekli Tepe upends the conventional view of the rise of civilization
….
Six miles from Urfa, an ancient city in southeastern Turkey, Klaus Schmidt has made one of the most startling archaeological discoveries of our time: massive carved stones about 11,000 years old, crafted and arranged by prehistoric people who had not yet developed metal tools or even pottery. The megaliths predate Stonehenge by some 6,000 years. The place is called Gobekli Tepe, and Schmidt, a German archaeologist who has been working here more than a decade, is convinced it's the site of the world's oldest temple.
"Guten Morgen," he says at 5:20 a.m. when his van picks me up at my hotel in Urfa. Thirty minutes later, the van reaches the foot of a grassy hill and parks next to strands of barbed wire. We follow a knot of workmen up the hill to rectangular pits shaded by a corrugated steel roof—the main excavation site.
In the pits, standing stones, or pillars, are arranged in circles. Beyond, on the hillside, are four other rings of partially excavated pillars. Each ring has a roughly similar layout: in the center are two large stone T-shaped pillars encircled by slightly smaller stones facing inward. The tallest pillars tower 16 feet and, Schmidt says, weigh between seven and ten tons. As we walk among them, I see that some are blank, while others are elaborately carved: foxes, lions, scorpions and vultures abound, twisting and crawling on the pillars' broad sides.
Schmidt points to the great stone rings, one of them 65 feet across. "This is the first human-built holy place," he says.
From this perch 1,000 feet above the valley, we can see to the horizon in nearly every direction. Schmidt, 53, asks me to imagine what the landscape would have looked like 11,000 years ago, before centuries of intensive farming and settlement turned it into the nearly featureless brown expanse it is today.
Prehistoric people would have gazed upon herds of gazelle and other wild animals; gently flowing rivers, which attracted migrating geese and ducks; fruit and nut trees; and rippling fields of wild barley and wild wheat varieties such as emmer and einkorn. "This area was like a paradise," says Schmidt, a member of the German Archaeological Institute.
Indeed, Gobekli Tepe sits at the northern edge of the Fertile Crescent—an arc of mild climate and arable land from the Persian Gulf to present-day Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and Egypt—and would have attracted hunter-gatherers from Africa and the Levant.
And partly because Schmidt has found no evidence that people permanently resided on the summit of Gobekli Tepe itself, he believes this was a place of worship on an unprecedented scale—humanity's first "cathedral on a hill."
….
Unlike the stark plateaus nearby, Gobekli Tepe (the name means "belly hill" in Turkish) has a gently rounded top that rises 50 feet above the surrounding landscape. To Schmidt's eye, the shape stood out. "Only man could have created something like this," he says. "It was clear right away this was a gigantic Stone Age site." The broken pieces of limestone that earlier surveyors had mistaken for gravestones suddenly took on a different meaning.
Schmidt returned a year later with five colleagues and they uncovered the first megaliths, a few buried so close to the surface they were scarred by plows. As the archaeologists dug deeper, they unearthed pillars arranged in circles. Schmidt's team, however, found none of the telltale signs of a settlement: no cooking hearths, houses or trash pits, and none of the clay fertility figurines that litter nearby sites of about the same age. The archaeologists did find evidence of tool use, including stone hammers and blades. ….
At least part of the explanation for the megalithic structures of Göbekli Tepe, I would suggest, has to do with astronomy, as some have already pointed out. So far, though, attempts to align the figures with the ancient sky must needs be vitiated by the notion that the Göbekli Tepe site be dated to c. 11,ooo BC.
For seafaring people these structures would have served as vital navigational aids. Gavin Menzies, a most experienced expert on such matters, wrote a fascinating book that I highly recommend: The Lost Empire of Atlantis: History's Greatest Mystery Revealed (HarperCollins, 2011). Though the ex-submariner, Menzies, sometimes becames a bit ‘airborne’ - or, should I say, ‘went a bit overboard’ (and don’t we all?) - he is often highly informative and is always eminently readable.
The Cretans, known from DNA research to have hailed from Anatolia (which fits perfectly with this reconstruction), Menzies would date to an impossible 100,000 BC. Menzies also followed Sir Arthur Evans in labelling as “Minoans” the great sea-faring and trading nation that is the very focal point of his fascinating book. “Minoans”, however, is a mythical concept, based on the popular legend of King Minos, son of Zeus.
Excitingly, the long undeciphered Cretan Linear A script has now been worked out by Dr. Peter Revesz (University of Nebraska):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiLyN9T2stY
as, indeed, has been, even more recently, the Linear Elamite script:
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-near-eastern-world/linear_elamite_deciphered/
Gavin Menzies has likely attributed too much of sea-faring achievement to the Cretans, without factoring in sufficiently, I think, the Levantines, wrongly called “Phoenicians”, another non-real people, who would have been, instead, Canaanites/Hebrews/Syrians.
(See Josephine Quinn’s recent book, In Search of the Phoenicians, Princeton, 2018).
By the Bronze Age Era, as Menzies has conclusively shown, these Mediterranean sailors were absolutely despoiling places like the distant Lake Michigan (USA) of pure copper – Mediterranean supplies having thinned out – in order to produce precious bronze. According to the brief summary of the book that we find at Menzies’ own site: http://www.gavinmenzies.net/lost-empire-atlantis/the-book/
... the Minoans. It’s long been known that this extraordinary civilisation, with its great palaces and sea ports based in Crete and nearby Thera (now called Santorini), had a level of sophistication that belied its place in the Bronze Age world but never before has the extent of its reach been uncovered.
Through painstaking research, including recent DNA evidence, Menzies has pieced together an incredible picture of a cultured people who traded with India and Mesopotamia, Africa and Western Europe, including Britain and Ireland, and even sailed to North America.
Menzies reveals that copper found at Minoan sites can only have come from Lake Superior, and that it was copper, combined with tin from Cornwall and elsewhere, to make bronze, that gave the Minoans their wealth. He uses knowledge gleaned as a naval captain to explore ancient shipbuilding and navigation techniques and explain how the Minoans were able to travel so far. He looks at why the Minoan empire, which was 1500 years ahead of China and Greece in terms of science, architecture, art and language, disappeared so abruptly and what led to her destruction. ...
Alessandro De Lorenzis and Vincenzo Orofino present their Abstract to the article “New Possible Astronomic Alignments at the Megalithic Site of Göbekli Tepe, Turkey” (Vol.03 No.01(2015), Article ID:53506,10 pages) as follows:
Göbekli Tepe is the oldest and one of the most important among the megalithic sites in the world. Its archaeoastronomical relevance has been recently evidenced by Collins (2013) , according to whom the central pillars in four of the enclosures discovered in the site are oriented toward the setting point of the star Deneb (α Cyg), as this point moves in the course of the time, due to the equinox precession and the proper motion of the star. Taking into account these effects, Collins (2013) obtained an astronomical dating for the various enclosures which agrees rather well with the one obtained by Dietrich (2011) with the technique of carbon-14. In the present paper the careful evaluation of the effects caused by atmospheric extinction has enabled us to verify that the central pillars of the studied enclosures are in fact turned to face the setting point of Deneb, but these alignments occurred in epochs, still in agreement with the ones obtained by Dietrich (2011) , but different from those proposed by Collins (2013) . We have also individuated, for the first time, the probable astronomic alignments of two other enclosures at Göbekli Tepe, i.e. enclosures F and A.
In particular, the first one seems to be oriented towards the rising point of the Sun on the day of the Harvest Festival, a day approximately halfway between the summer solstice and the autumn equinox. The second one, instead, shows an orientation towards the rising point of the Moon at its minor standstill. The positions of both celestial bodies have been obtained by extrapolating their declination to the date of the presumed construction reported by Dietrich (2011) . A short discussion about the putative cultural motivations of these alignments is also presented.
This approach accords with the fact that the ancients were most earnest about erecting their cultic megalithic monuments wherever they went, in order to determine seasons and solstices, and also, no doubt, as a necessary aid to navigation.
Thus predynastic Egypt has its famous Nabta Playa in what is now the Sahara Desert:
https://www.google.com/search?q=megalith+astronomy+early+predynastic+egypt&
“An assembly of huge stone slabs found in Egypt’s Sahara Desert that date from about 6,500 years to 6,000 years ago has been confirmed by scientists to be the oldest known astronomical alignment of megaliths in the world.
Known as Nabta, the site consists of a stone circle, a series of flat, tomb-like stone structures and five lines of standing and toppled megaliths. Located west of the Nile River in southern Egypt, Nabta predates Stonehenge and similar prehistoric sites around the world by about 1,000 years, said University of Colorado at Boulder astronomy Professor J. McKim Malville”.
While Egypt and Ethiopia would soon be trading in the waters fronting the great city of Akkad, the Cretans and Levantines would be developing their own shipping skills, eventually trading throughout the entire Mediterranean, and beyond, where astronomical megaliths begin to emerge everywhere: Africa, Spain, France, Britain.
It seems that everyone wants to claim precedence for their local megalithic site, be it Göbekli Tepe in Turkey; Nabta Playa in the Sahara; and even France in the following instance: https://www.bradshawfoundation.com/news/world_heritage.php?id=The-
The data showed that the very earliest megaliths come from north-western France, including the Carnac stones, a dense collection of rows of standing stones, mounds, and covered stone tombs - dolmens (below). These date to about 4700 B.C.E., when the region was inhabited by hunter-gatherers.
Northwestern France is also the only megalithic region that also features gravesites with complex earthen tombs that date to about 5000 B.C.E., which she says is evidence of an "evolution of megaliths" in the region. That means megalith building likely originated there and spread outward.
Dolmen Sa Coveccada on northeastern Sardinia in the Mediterranean Sea. Image: Bettina Schulz Paulsson
By about 4300 B.C.E., megaliths had spread to coastal sites in southern France, the Mediterranean, and on the Atlantic coast of the Iberian Peninsula. Over the next few thousand years, the structures continued to appear around Europe's coasts in three distinct phases. Stonehenge is thought to have been erected around 2400 B.C.E., but other megaliths in the British Isles go back to about 4000 B.C.E. The abrupt emergence of specific megalithic styles like narrow stone-lined tombs at coastal sites, but rarely inland, suggests these ideas were being spread by coast. If so, Schulz Paulsson believes it would push back the emergence of advanced seafaring in Europe by about 2000 years. ….
I would nominate Göbekli Tepe first over any of the other above-named locations.
At a far later time, the Roman era, we have the highly impressive Baalbek megalith: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baalbek_Stones#:~:text=The%20Baalbek%20Stones%20are%20six,megalithic%20gigantism%20unparallelled%20in%20antiquity.
The Baalbek Stones are six massive Roman[1] worked stone blocks in Baalbek (ancient Heliopolis), Lebanon, characterised by a megalithic gigantism unparallelled in antiquity.
Dr. John Osgood has, in his far more satisfactory arrangement of the Stone Ages, greatly lowered on the timescale the Acheulean (and Mousterian) phase (“A Better Model for the Stone Age”):
The Model: A Preliminary Hypothesis
….
The Natufian appears to have been invasive, probably from the north, but possibly having a memory of a riverine background:
‘All that may be said at present is that the Natufian settlers came from an Alluvial environment and brought with them a tradition of building in clay or pise.’18
Moore affirms that Natufian to PPNA then PPNB formed one cultural continuity.
A new invasion from the north came with the PNA culture, continuous with PNB. But against the biblical model, this also must have been a Canaanite culture,5:23 as was all before it.
Proto-Urban possibly followed, contemporary with Ghassulian culture (North8) and possibly had a relationship with the Esdraelon culture of the North Palestine area. But with it came rock-hewn tomb burials, suggesting a possible connection with the Hittites of Genesis 23:9.
We seem to be on surer ground when identifying Ghassul with the Amorites (see ‘The Times of Abraham’, this volume), a wave of Canaanites which came down through southern Syria. They were perhaps related to the defunct Hassuna culture driven out by Halafian expansion, which enveloped Hassuna and Syria, and more particularly, Aram-Naharaim. ….
Part Three: People movement and Babel
Contents:
Out of Anatolia ……….…………………………. p. 37-42
Babel reconsidered ……………………………. p. 43-51
Plain in Land of Shinar ………………………. p. 52-57
OUT OF ANATOLIA
Not surprisingly, the first inhabitants of that most fertile and alluring island of Crete are thought to have been Anatolian farmers – (in other words, Noah’s early descendants): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ahg.12328
The population history of Crete can be traced to the early Neolithic when the island was colonized by farmers from Anatolia who established in Knossos, at about 7000 B.C.E. [sic], one of the first Neolithic settlements in Europe (Evans, 1994); other Neolithic settlements were subsequently established all over Crete (Tomkins, 2008). These Neolithic settlers and subsequent waves of Neolithic migrants (Broodbank & Strasser, 1991; Cherry, 1981; Nowicki, 2008; Weinberg, 1965) established the first advanced European civilization, the Minoan [sic] civilization, which flourished in Crete from 3000 [sic] to about 1450 B.C.E.
The Neolithic Cretans are known from DNA research to have come from Anatolia.
The earliest Neolithic sites of Europe are located in Crete and mainland Greece. A debate persists concerning whether these farmers originated in neighboring Anatolia and the role of maritime colonization. To address these issues 171 samples were collected from areas near three known early Neolithic settlements in Greece together with 193 samples from Crete. An analysis of Y-chromosome haplogroups determined that the samples from the Greek Neolithic sites showed strong affinity to Balkan data, while Crete shows affinity with central/Mediterranean Anatolia. Haplogroup J2b-M12 was frequent in Thessaly and Greek Macedonia while haplogroup J2a-M410 was scarce. Alternatively, Crete, like Anatolia showed a high frequency of J2a-M410 and a low frequency of J2b-M12. This dichotomy parallels archaeobotanical evidence, specifically that while bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) is known from Neolithic Anatolia, Crete and southern Italy; it is absent from earliest Neolithic Greece.
It follows, therefore, that vital connections can be established between the first ancient places in Anatolia, like Çatal Hüyük, and early Crete.
J. G. Macqueen, for instance, has, in the article “Secondary Burial at Çatal Hüyük” (Jstor, Vol. 25, Fasc. 3, Dec., 1978, p. 226), pointed out some religious commonality between Çatal Hüyük and Crete: “… a good deal of the Çatal Hüyük material can be linked with what we know of Cretan religion”.
Dr. Donovan Courville (The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, Loma Linda CA, 1971), will make the important connection of the ancient Cretans with the biblical Philistines, tracing the distinctive pottery of the latter all the way back to Neolithic Knossos (Crete). And this, despite J. C. Greenfield’s assertion: “There is no evidence for a Philistine occupation of Crete, nor do the facts about the Philistines, known from archaeological and literary sources, betray any relationship between them and Crete” (IDB, 1962, vol. 1, p. 534). The distinctive type of pottery that Courville has identified as belonging to the biblical Philistines is well described in this quote that he has taken from Kathleen Kenyon:
The pottery does in fact provide very useful evidence about culture. The first interesting point is the wealth of a particular class of painted pottery …. The decoration is bichrome, nearly always red and black, and the most typical vessels have a combination of metopes enclosing a bird or a fish with geometric decoration such as a “Union Jack” pattern or a Catherine wheel. At Megiddo the first bichrome pottery is attributed to Stratum X, but all the published material comes from tombs intrusive into this level. It is in fact characteristic of Stratum IX. Similar pottery is found in great profusion in southern Palestine … Very similar vessels are also found on the east coast of Cyprus and on the coastal Syrian sites as far north as Ras Shamra. [Emphasis Courville’s]
By contrast, the pottery of the ‘Sea Peoples’ (c. 1200 BC, conventional dating) - a maritime confederation confusingly identified sometimes as the early biblical Philistines, their pottery like, but not identical to, the distinctive Philistine pottery as described above - was Aegean (Late Helladic), not Cretan.
The indispensable “Table of Nations” (Genesis 10), toledôt of Shem, informs us that the Philistines were a Hamitic people, descendants of Ham’s “son”, Mizraim (or Egypt) (v. 6).
Genesis 10:13: “Mizraim was the father of the Ludites, Anamites, Lehabites, Naphtuhites, Pathrusites, Kasluhites (from whom the Philistines came) and Caphtorites”.
These earliest Philistines would be represented by the users of this distinctive pottery at Neolithic I level Knossos, presumably a stage of the Neolithic somewhat later than PPNA. Thus Dr. Courville writes:
With the evidences thus far noted before us, we are now in a position to examine the archaeological reports from Crete for evidences of the early occupation of this site by the Caphtorim (who are either identical to the Philistines of later Scripture or are closely related to them culturally). We now have at least an approximate idea of the nature of the culture for which we are looking ….
… we can hardly be wrong in recognizing the earliest occupants of Crete as the people who represented the beginnings of the people later known in Scripture as the Philistines, by virtue of the stated origin of the Philistines in Crete. This concept holds regardless of the name that may be applied to this early era by scholars.
The only site at which Cretan archaeology has been examined for its earliest occupants is at the site of the palace at Knossos. At this site deep test pits were dug into the earlier occupation levels. If there is any archaeological evidence available from Crete for its earliest period, it should then be found from the archaeology of these test pits. The pottery found there is described by Dr. Furness, who is cited by Hutchinson.
“Dr. Furness divides the early Neolithic I fabrics into (a) coarse unburnished ware and (b) fine burnished ware, only differing from the former in that the pot walls are thinner, the clay better mixed, and the burnish more carefully executed. The surface colour is usually black, but examples also occur of red, buff or yellow, sometimes brilliant red or orange, and sometimes highly variegated sherds”.
A relation was observed between the decoration of some of this pottery from early Neolithic I in Crete with that at the site of Alalakh ….
Continuing to cite Dr. Furness, Hutchinson commented:
Dr. Furness justly observes that “as the pottery of the late Neolithic phases seems to have developed at Knossos without a break, it is to the earliest that one must look for evidence of origin of foreign connections”, and she therefore stresses the importance of a small group with plastic decoration that seems mainly confined to the Early Neolithic I levels, consisting of rows of pellets immediately under the rim (paralleled on burnished pottery of Chalcolithic [predynastic] date from Gullucek in the Alaca [Alalakh] district of Asia Minor). [Emphasis Courville’s]
While the Archaeological Ages of early Crete cannot with certainty be correlated with the corresponding eras on the mainland, it would seem that Chalcolithic on the mainland is later than Early Neolithic in Crete; hence any influence of one culture on the other is more probably an influence of early Cretan culture on that of the mainland. This is in agreement with Scripture to the effect that the Philistines migrated from Crete to what is now the mainland at some point prior to the time of Abraham. ….
Late Chalcolithic, we are going to find, pertains to the era of Abram (Abraham), when the Philistines were apparently in southern Canaan.
Dr. Courville continues, distinguishing early and later Philistine pottery:
The new pottery found at Askelon [Ashkelon] at the opening of Iron I, and correlated with the invasion of the Sea Peoples, was identified as of Aegean origin. A similar, but not identical, pottery has been found in the territory north of Palestine belonging to the much earlier era of late Middle Bronze. By popular views, this is prior to the Israelite occupation of Palestine. By the altered chronology, this is the period of the late judges and the era of Saul.
… That the similar pottery of late Middle Bronze, occurring both in the north and in the south, is related to the culture found only in the south at the later date is apparent from the descriptions of the two cultures. Of this earlier culture, which should be dated to the time of Saul, Miss Kenyon commented:
The pottery does in fact provide very useful evidence about culture. The first interesting point is the wealth of a particular class of painted pottery …. The decoration is bichrome, nearly always red and black, and the most typical vessels have a combination of metopes enclosing a bird or a fish with geometric decoration such as a “Union Jack” pattern or a Catherine wheel. At Megiddo the first bichrome pottery is attributed to Stratum X, but all the published material comes from tombs intrusive into this level. It is in fact characteristic of Stratum IX. Similar pottery is found in great profusion in southern Palestine … Very similar vessels are also found on the east coast of Cyprus and on the coastal Syrian sites as far north as Ras Shamra. [Emphasis Courville’s]
Drawings of typical examples of this pottery show the same stylized bird with back-turned head that characterized the pottery centuries later at Askelon.
… The anachronisms and anomalies in the current views on the interpretation of this invasion and its effects on Palestine are replaced by a consistent picture, and one that is in agreement with the background provided by Scripture for the later era in the very late [sic] 8th century B.C.
There have been many valiant efforts to trace the progress of the Table of Nations of Genesis 10, geographically, ethnically, and genetically.
A most recent comprehensive effort is Dr. John Osgood’s book, Over the Face of All the Earth (2015). The author’s erudite treatment of the descendants of Cush in this book is taken up, too, in his You Tube video, Into Africa - The True History of Man - John Osgood (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgAeRFNOOhM).
As I say, it is comprehensive, including his attempt to trace even Australian aborigines.
What fascinates me as an Australian, though, is an apparent connection - not picked up by Dr. Osgood - of Australian aboriginality with Göbekli Tepe. Certain art-works and symbols found at Göbekli Tepe are common to far-away Australian Aboriginals.
The link is so striking that it has led one writer, Bruce Fenton - following the typical evolutionary view of things, which requires much time for the human development from ape-man - to locate the origins of the Göbekli Tepe culture down south in Australia, before its having supposedly arrived at the degree of sophistication enabling for the spread of that culture in the far north (e.g. Turkey).
The reality was, of course, the other way around, the human migration going from north to south, as in Dr. Osgood’s system.
Forget evolutionary development and those large palaeontological numbers (12,000, 10,000) variously suggested for the BC age of Göbekli Tepe. These people play with, and throw away, 100’s and 1,000’s, like reckless gamblers.
Australia’s ancient Mungo Man, for instance, was initially dated to 60,000 BC, but then as I recall, in the space of a week, dropped down to 40,000 BC.
Nobody seemed to raise a Neanderthalian eyebrow.
A biblical view, instead, would have cultures like Göbekli Tepe emanating at a stage not long after the Flood from an already fairly sophisticated antediluvian world (Genesis 4:20-22) – Tubal-Cain, for instance, having forged implements of copper and iron.
Those who later became the Australian Aboriginals - who were not just one people, but many tribes/nations with different languages - would have absorbed this, and other northern cultures (e.g. some Aboriginal art appears to connect with the ‘Ubaid culture in Mesopotamia), and carried the vestiges of these in their long journeys southwards, inevitably losing much of that knowledge over time and distance. Contrary to Bruce Fenton, then, Australian aboriginality is a cultural devolution, rather than evolution.
Ian Wilson, exploring the Lost World of the Kimberley (2006), the northernmost of the nine regions of Western Australia, has pointed out striking similarities between art figures of the Mesopotamian ‘Ubaid culture and the Kimberley’s aboriginal art figures.
The Australian Aboriginal languages apparently have some affinity with ancient Sumerian: http://www.hungarianhistory.com/lib/cser.pdf
Hungarian language belongs to the family of agglutinative languages. Officially it is a member of the Finno-Ugric language family. Structurally similar – although in a very distant relationship with it – are the Turkish, the Dravidian groups of languages, the Japanese and the Korean in the Far-East and the Basque in Europe. A large portion of ancient languages were agglutinative in their nature, such like the Sumerian, Pelagic, Etruscan, as well as aboriginal languages on the American and Australian continents. ….
Many articles connect Australian aborigines with the Indian Dravidians and Tamils.
An important point needs to be made about contemporary cultures, and it is one that Dr. John Osgood himself is at pains to illustrate in his revisions of the Stone Ages, the Era of Abraham, and so on. While evolutionary theory tends generally to arrange timelines - be it the Geological Ages or the Stone Ages - in an ‘Indian file’ type sequence, the reality often is that various of these cultures were contemporaneous, or at least partly overlapped the one with the other. And Dr. Osgood will provide examples of this, supported by palaeontologists and archaeologists.
So, while the further away humankind roamed from Eden, in antediluvian times, and, in postdiluvian times from the Ark mountain (the Noachic civilization), the less refined it would likely have become, either in terms of its spirituality or of the available technology. Or both.
The Neanderthals who migrated into Ice bound Europe, for instance, or those who headed south, into Egypt and Ethiopia, or the Australian aborigines, would of necessity have had to live in primitive conditions at first, until having become properly settled and established. That does not mean that they were any less intelligent, or less evolved (though palaeontologists would jump to such conclusions) than those who had long settled in more central sites, and who thus exhibited more empirical sophistication.
The Neanderthals with their incredible eyesight in pitch-dark caves were able to draw highly accurate star maps in animal pictures (e.g. the Lascaux caves in SW France), and they may, thus, have had just as sophisticated astronomical knowledge as those who had inscribed their star maps on monolithic pillars at Göbekli Tepe.
By the same token, those who stayed close to the centres of civilisation, frequently apostatised, and came to forget the lessons of wisdom that they had once been taught by their erudite ancestors, the likes of Enoch and Noah, “a preacher of righteousness” (2 Peter 2:5).
BABEL RECONSIDERED
Creationist reconstructions of timelines invariably progress from the Ark landing almost immediately into the Babel incident.
And that is how I, too, would once have viewed humanity’s progression.
Now, though, I have not a few problems with such a sequence, as I hope to explain.
Still in the family history (toledôt) of Shem (or Melchizedek), we read (Genesis 11:2): “… they found a plain in the land of Shinar …” (וַיִּמְצְאוּ בִקְעָה בְּאֶרֶץ שִׁנְעָר)
Now, we have all generally presumed, based upon archaeological ‘wisdom’, that the biblical “land of Shinar” was the same as Sumer, in southern Iraq. Some early opinion, however, did not favour that view, but, instead, had opted for the region of Singara, as explained by W. F. Albright in his article, “Shinar-Šanḡar and Its Monarch Amraphel” (AJSLL, Jan., 1924, Vol. 40, No. 2 (Jan., 1924), pp. 125-126):
Until recently no one seems to have suspected that the biblical Shinar might not have been identical with Southern Mesopotamia - using this in its wider sense, following a classical usage which has now become a universal. This view was only natural, since the identification of Shinar with Babylonia was practically required by the LXX translations of Is. 11 Zech. 5:11, to say nothing of the direct equivalence in Dan. 1:2. Until the decipherment of the cuneiform inscriptions most scholars associated the name with that of the classical district of Singara, modern Jebel Sinjâr, though the geographical equivalence appeared to be only approximate, since Singara is west of Assyria and considerably to the north of Babylonia. The discovery of the native Babylonian term Šumer, "Southern Babylonia," altered the situation, especially since Šumer was then believed to stand for an older *Sungir, for *Sugir, assumed to be the more correct form of Girsu, the name of a town near Lagaš (if not a quarter of the latter). The combination of Singara was now given up in favor of that with Šumer, hardly anyone attempting the paradoxical identification with both. It is the writer's purpose here to point out that the old identification with Singara is not only correct so far as the name is concerned, but also geographically.
In the Amarna correspondence of the king of Cyprus with the Pharaoh (EA, No. 35, 49 f.) the former warns the latter to avoid entangling alliances with the king of the Hittites and the king of Šanḫar. While most scholars have agreed with Weber's view that Šanḫar is Šinᴄar, "Babylonia”, the recent tendency has been to accept his later view (WA 1082) that it represents Mitanni. ….
In a paper in the Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society, I, 72-4, the writer has endeavored to show that Šanḡar represents the land known to its own sovereigns as Ḫana, on the Middle Euphrates. The capital of Ḫana was situated at Tirqa, which has been located at a mound just south of the mouth of the Ḫâbûr.
Now, since ancient territorial divisions were remark ably persistent, the process of gerrymandering not having been discovered, we should expect to find the state of Ḫana or Šanḡar perpetuated as an Assyrian province. Nor are we mistaken. Forrer, in his valuable work on Die Provinzeinteilung des assyrischen Reiches, 15-7, shows that the largest single province in the Assyrian Empire was that of Singâra or Raṩappa, in Central Mesopotamia. Singâra, pronounced, of course, Šingâr -the writing being Assyrian, not Babylonian - is the name of the province, inherited from that of the older state, and Raṩappa is that of its capital, located in the Jebel Sinjâr. Ragappa is the Rezeph … of the Old Testament, hitherto located erroneously at Ruṩâfeh, between Palmyra and the Euphrates. The province of Singâra was bounded on the west and southwest by the Syrian Desert, so it included all the towns on the Middle Euphrates, south of the junction of the Euphrates and Ḫâbûr. Among these towns are expressly mentioned in Assyrian documents Sûḫi (Šûḫ of the OT), Laqe, Ḫindanu and Sirqu, which Forrer has plausibly identified with the old capital of Ḫana, Tirqa. In other words, the whole of the old state of Ḫana was included within the bounds of the new province of Singâra - Šanḡar. ….
Some Creationists are now beginning to support the view that the biblical Shinar ought to be located away from southern Iraq, to its NW in the Singar, Sinjar, or Çinar regions.
A major problem for the old Sumer identification is that, despite many long years of archaeological research there, the famous city of Akkad (Agade) has not, to this day, been discovered. This city, likely built by Nimrod (cf. Genesis 10:10), received trading vessels from far away Egypt and Ethiopia, giving the lie to the view of Egyptians (Magan) not being seafarers. For, according to an inscription of King Sargon of Akkad: “Ships from Meluhha, Magan and Dilmun docked at the quay of Akkad”:
http://www.salut-virtual-museum.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Land_of_Magan.pdf
Ancient historians have real problems with this statement, thinking it to be an anachronism. In Sargon’s day Magan and Meluhha could not be meant to indicate, respectively, Egypt and Ethiopia, as they most surely did in neo-Assyrian times.
Thus we read this sort of ‘correction’ (loc. cit.):
During the Early Bronze Age, the Oman peninsula was known in Mesopotamia with the name of Magan. In the cuneiform sources Magan frequently appears in connection with two other important toponyms: Dilmun and Meluhha, identified by the scholars respectively with the Bahrain islands and adjacent coasts, and the coasts of the Indus valley (civilisation of Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa). Moreover, some Mesopotamian documents designate the countries facing the Arabian Gulf with the more generic expression of ‘Lower Sea’.
Regarding Dilmun (as Bahrain), we read at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilmun
As of 2022, archaeologists have failed to find a site in existence during the time from 3300 BC (Uruk IV) to 556 BC (Neo-Babylonian Era), when Dilmun appears in texts. According to Hojlund, no settlements exist in the Gulf littoral dating to 3300–2000 BC.
Dr. John Osgood (in Over the Face of All the Earth) has not made what I consider to be a necessary geographical shift for biblical Shinar away from southern Mesopotamia. Moreover, he adheres to the conservative view that Babel followed hard on the descent from the Ark mountain – {a view that seems to go counter to the biblical sequence of, firstly, “The Table of Nations” and dispersion (Genesis 10), then followed by the Babel incident (Genesis 11)} – and that, therefore, all of humanity, virtually, had migrated to, and then from, Babel.
Creationists thus will be forced to say that Genesis 10-11 is not following the precise chronological-historical sequence here.
Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White specifically have ‘Genesis 10 describing the spreading out of the tribes after Babel’ (in “An Upper Mesopotamian location for Babel”, p. 72):
Territories of the Table of Nations
Genesis 10 describes the spreading out of the tribes after Babel, but it specifically describes the territories of one of the descendants of each of the three sons of Noah, as if these tribes were representatives of the larger group. The representative of Shem was Joktan, Ham is represented by Canaan, and Japheth by Javan. We know that not all the Japhethite tribes went west, and not all the Shemite tribes went East. This suggests that this list was made at a moment in time when Javan, Joktan, and Canaan were the first movers from their respective groups. The remainder of the tribes may have still been lingering in the central area before migrating out behind them. Another possibility is that the author of Genesis 10, living near Haran, only recorded the territories of tribes that were personally known to him. ….
However, despite Dr. Osgood’s having his dispersion of nations all emanating from the one geographical place, and, in fact, the wrong place (Sumer), his tracing of the nations throughout the world is still quite masterful, serving as a most useful reference work.
Typically Creationist is the ‘global’ interpretation according to which the whole of humanity was congregated at Babel, and that everyone on earth spoke the same language. Genesis 11:1: “And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech”.
וַיְהִי כָל-הָאָרֶץ, שָׂפָה אֶחָת, וּדְבָרִים, אֲחָדִים
Here we have that highly problematical, for Creationists, Hebrew word, kol (כָל), “all”, “whole”, that had already occurred in the Flood account (e.g. Genesis 7:19, 21-23) which, there, they render as intending a global scenario.
Yet, in that reversal of Babel, the Pentecost event, not even the Creationists would consider “every nation under heaven” (in Greek, but probably intending Hebrew kol again) to mean the whole of humanity. In fact, the nations here are specified, and they basically hail from our region of the Fertile Crescent and its environs (Acts 2:5-11):
Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. Utterly amazed, they asked: ‘Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!’
The “whole earth”, in the Babel account, might better be translated, the “whole land [of Shinar]”.
One reason why I do not think that Babel - unlike Creation; Paradise; the Fall; the Flood - had affected all of humanity is because there are not such widespread Babel-like traditions that we have for those earlier Genesis events.
Take the Australian aborigines, once again. There are multiple creation, flood and rainbow (their famous Rainbow Serpent) tales amongst them.
Reminiscences of the Babel incident, however, are (to my knowledge) more limited.
Though Dirk Harfield may be underestimating matters somewhat when he writes: “Unlike creation myths and flood myths, there aren’t any comparable ancient Near Eastern myths about the Tower of Babel”. For, according to New World Encyclopedia there were plenty of Babel reminiscences, and these were widespread – though one would need to determine which of these might have been taught later by missionaries: https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Tower_of_Babel
Various traditions similar to that of the tower of Babel are found in Central America. One holds that Xelhua, one of the seven giants rescued from the deluge, built the Great Pyramid of Cholula in order to storm Heaven. The gods destroyed it with fire and confounded the language of the builders. The Dominican friar, Diego Duran (1537-1588), reported hearing this account from a hundred-year-old priest at Cholula, shortly after the conquest of Mexico.
….
Another story, attributed by the native historian Don Ferdinand d'Alva Ixtilxochitl (c. 1565-1648) to the ancient Toltecs, states that after humans had multiplied following a great deluge, they erected a tall zacuali or tower, to preserve themselves in the event of a second deluge. However, their languages were confounded and they went to separate parts of the earth.
Still another story, attributed to the Tohono O'odham Indians, holds that Montezuma escaped a great flood, then became wicked and attempted to build a house reaching to heaven, but the Great Spirit destroyed it with thunderbolts.
According to Dr. Livingstone, the Africans whom he met living near Lake Ngami in 1879, had such a tradition, but with the builders' heads getting "cracked by the fall of the scaffolding" (Missionary Travels, chap. 26). James George Frazer has identified Livingston's account with a tale found in Lozi mythology, wherein the wicked men build a tower of masts to pursue the Creator-God, Nyambe, who has fled to Heaven on a spider-web, but the men perish when the masts collapse. He further relates similar tales of the Ashanti that substitute a pile of porridge pestles for the masts. Frazer, moreover, cites such legends found among the Kongo people, as well as in Tanzania, where the men stack poles or trees in a failed attempt to reach the moon.[6]
Traces of a somewhat similar story have also been reported among the Tharus of Nepal and northern India (Report of the Census of Bengal, 1872, p. 160), as well as the Karbi and Kuki people of Assam (Frazer). The traditions of the Karen people of Myanmar, which Frazer considered to show clear "Abrahamic" influence, also relate that their ancestors migrated there following the abandonment of a great pagoda in the land of the Karenni 30 generations from Adam, when the languages were confused and the Karen separated from the Karenni. He notes yet another version current in the Admiralty Islands, where humankind's languages are confused following a failed attempt to build houses reaching to heaven.
There have also been a number of traditions around the world that describe a divine confusion of the one original language into several, albeit without any tower.
Aside from the ancient Greek myth that Hermes confused the languages, causing Zeus to give his throne to Phoroneus, Frazer specifically mentions such accounts among the Wasania of Kenya, the Kacha Naga people of Assam, the inhabitants of Encounter Bay in Australia, the Maidu of California, the Tlingit of Alaska, and the K'iche' of Guatemala. ….
We have already encountered two Genesis references to the east, in Cain’s city to the east of Eden (2:8), and likewise in relation to the land of Nod (4:16).
I had noted that the Hebrew word miqqedem (מִקֶּ֑דֶם), translated as “[from the] east”, can also mean “in ancient times”.
While that latter variation may serve one well if it be a case of a Sinjarian location of “a plain in the land of Shinar” (בִקְעָה בְּאֶרֶץ שִׁנְעָר) (Genesis 11:2), it would appear to be unnecessary for my version (to be explained) for which a migration “from the east” would appear to be quite applicable.
More on geographical locations later.
But who actually came to the land of Shinar, presuming that humanity had already begun its spreading (‘increasing and multiplying and filling the earth’, Genesis 9:1), north, south, east and west?
The clue may be in the toledôt.
Shem, who records the account (Genesis 11:1-11:9), may thus have been there as an eyewitness with his family.
He was no longer compiling family histories with his two brothers, Ham and Japheth, who must already have dispersed around the time of the Genesis 10 phase.
Genesis 10:1: “This is the account of Shem, Ham and Japheth, Noah’s sons, who themselves had sons after the Flood”.
At Babel, as in the Pentecost event of Acts 2:5-11, translations might superficially convey the impression of a global event, “whole world” (Genesis 11:1), to be compared with Acts 2:5’s “every nation under heaven”. A pairing of Babel with Pentecost is relevant insofar as the sin of pride and rebellion against God (Genesis 11:4, 7-9), is Divinely undone by the miraculous phenomenon of “tongues” at Pentecost (Acts 7:11): “… we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”
With the benefit of such a comparison it may be suggested that the Babel incident was, just as was the Flood, only local in geographic extent.
Matt Lynch, however, has a somewhat different take on Babel and Pentecost (2016):
http://theologicalmisc.net/2016/05/pentecost-reversal-babel/
Pentecost — A Reversal of Babel?
....
Once, when I was teaching a church class, two people started speaking to each other in German. It made things easier for them because it was their native language. But it didn’t make things easier for Margaret (name changed). With deep frustration she exclaimed, ‘Can we just speak English here!’
The experience of linguistic diversity leads many to wish for unity—or rather, homogeneity. Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone just spoke normal (i.e., English)? That desire for intelligibility is understandable, but the desire for that language to be English can also betray ethnocentrism. Especially from where I come in the U.S., which has no national language, the fight to retain English can easily slide into a fear-driven attempt to keep ‘our’ culture and ‘our’ language dominant.
Confusion over Babel
Yesterday the church celebrated its founding linguistic event—Pentecost—an event that many hail as the definitive reversal of Babel. Whereas at Babel, God confused languages, at Pentecost, God brought people of all languages together and united them. At Babel tongues were confused. At Pentecost, tongues were understood. You get the idea.
However, Pentecost may not be anti-Babel in the way some suppose. For starters, the reversal idea assumes that a unified language was a good idea gone wrong, and that eschatological unity would somehow involve a return to one language—a Spirit language.
But Genesis never states that the confusion of languages was a bad thing. The only downside was for the Babelites, who couldn’t finish their Manhattan project.
On the positive side, language diversification enabled humanity to get on with the task of ‘filling the earth,’ something they were meant to do but didn’t because of their big hero project. Notice the language in Gen 11:4:
Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
God had wanted humans to ‘fill the earth’ (Gen 1). Babel was in direct contravention of God’s intended vision of teeming diversity.
At Pentecost, God embraces language diversity. He doesn’t destroy it. So yes, the Spirit reverses the imperial unification of Babylon, but not the multiplication of languages.
Empires and Language
To see why the preservation of multiplication is important, it’s important to grasp the imperial function of language unification. Joel Green helps us here:
The wickedness of this idolatrous plan [to build Babel] is betrayed in the opening of the Babel story, with its reference to ‘one language’—a metaphor in the ancient Near East for the subjugation and assimilation of conquered peoples by a dominant nation. Linguistic domination is a potent weapon in the imperial arsenal, as people of Luke’s world themselves would have known, living as they did in the wake of the conquest of ‘the world’ by Alexander the Great and the subsequent creation of a single, Greek-speaking linguistic community. ….
By confusing languages God was merciful, not punitive. He already recognized that ‘this is only the beginning of what they will do’ (11:6). Who knows what WMDs the Babelites would’ve created? Middleton writes, ‘Babel thus represents a regressive human attempt to guarantee security by settling in one place and constructing a monolithic empire, with a single language, thus resisting God’s original intent for humanity.’ ….
So God gave humanity a push toward its original purpose, to fill the world, cultivate it, build cultures, and grow. Linguistic diversity is a natural outgrowth of this process, and one which the Spirit rubber stamps at Pentecost.
Israel & the Nations
But before we land on Pentecost, it’s important to look at a few snapshots of Israel’s ‘universal’ vision in Isaiah:
In days to come the mountain of the LORD’s house shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be raised above the hills; all the nations shall stream to it. … For out of Zion shall go forth instruction, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. (Isa 2:2-3)
I am coming to gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come and shall see my glory…
And I will also take some of them as priests and as Levites, says the LORD. … From new moon to new moon, and from Sabbath to Sabbath, all flesh shall come to worship before me, says the LORD. (Isa 66:18, 21, 23)
In the first vision, the nations come to receive instruction from Israel. In the second, they come to worship, and some even becomes priests. They come as nations, with all their diversity of languages (‘nations and tongues’). And, they retain their identity as nations. They neither dissolve into one gigantic Israelite world empire nor isolate themselves completely.
Israel’s worship system includes foreigners and receives the nations’ offerings, while the nations receive teaching from Israel.
Pentecost—Preservation and Unification
When we turn to Pentecost, we see that the Spirit is similarly uninterested in unifying language: ‘Jews … from every nation under heaven … each one heard them speaking in the native language of each’ (Acts 2:5-6).
Things were getting out of hand, so Peter stood up to interpret the event. He did so by drawing on Joel 2, which anticipated a work of the Spirit that obliterated a different sort of division. Here’s Peter quoting from Joel 2:28-29:
In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy. (Acts 2:17-18)
The point couldn’t be clearer—the Spirit gave without regard for status, sex, or nationality. In giving, the Spirit unified the people of God (‘tearing down the dividing wall of hostility’ Eph 2:14), but in a way that preserved their cultural diversity. One Spirit, many gifts. One Spirit, many languages. The Spirit doesn’t negate difference, but cultivates and leverages that difference in service of God’s mission toward all nations.
So yes, Pentecost reverses the homogeneity of Babel. And yes, Pentecost reverses any hostility that may have arisen in the wake of linguistic confusion. Yet, the Spirit puts the diversity of cultures (preserved in their languages) on display and empowers each for the proclamation of a de-centered Good News. This was a profoundly anti-imperial move. The point isn’t that the Spirit speaks one language. Instead, the Spirit speaks your language—no matter who you are. ....
Prior to Babel, humanity already had multiple ethnicities, cultures and languages (e.g. Genesis 10:20), “… clans and languages, in their territories and nations”.
The Babel-onians (the city of Babylon in Sumer had by no means yet been built), living under an apparently dictatorial regime, traditionally that of Nimrod (Genesis 10:8), either spoke only one language or were being autocratically enforced to do so.
So the Triune God (‘Come, let us go down …’) intervened, and caused them to do what they had been meant to do, to spread out.
Shem’s history narrates the saga (11:3-9):
They said to each other, ‘Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly’. They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. Then they said, ‘Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth’.
But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. The LORD said, ‘If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other’.
So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel—because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.
Unlike what we might have imagined - what I, indeed, have previously imagined - God did not simply intervene amongst the people of the entire world, who spoke just the one single, original language, and affect their hearing, or tongue, or whatever, so that all of a sudden the world languages burst into being.
Nothing is beyond God, of course.
But all He apparently intended to do was to make the people scatter, to give up their megalomaniacal project, thereby forcing them to become intermingled with the other peoples of the world who had multiple languages. So, ultimately, those at Babel, would have inherited all sorts of different languages, dialects, customs.
I have no problem with the notion in Jewish legend that the Lord intervened with some sort of catastrophism, to upset the plans of the Babel-onians:
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2279-babel-tower-of
The mighty Tower was blown down by winds (Sibyllines l.c.; Josephus, l.c.; Mek., Beshallaḥ, 4, ed. Weiss, 37); according to the opinion of others, one-third of the building was consumed by fire, one-third sank into the earth, and one-third remained standing (Sanh. l.c.; Gen. R. l.c. 8).
Further on, I shall be quoting Dr. John Osgood as to his evidence that the early Mesopotamians, for instance, may well have started off with the notion of just a one supreme God, which outlook later became corrupted to the embracing of many gods. And I would suggest that the same pattern would have followed with the other most ancient nations as well. On this, see e.g: https://pravoslavie.ru/87308.html
Now, that information from Dr. Osgood may go a long way towards explaining the meaning of the Babel-onian revolt.
The people had had one language, or tongue, in praise of a supreme deity, with few words (cf. Matthew 6:7): ‘And when you pray, do not babble on like pagans, for they think that by their many words they will be heard’. But they decided to embrace polytheism, and so the people of Babel began to Babble - like pagans do.
PLAIN IN LAND OF SHINAR
If we follow a SW movement of people away from Karaca Dağ (the Ark mountain), we come across, in quick succession, Göbekli Tepe, Urfa, and Harran, all three most ancient sites, and the latter two situated in the Harran plain.
Here, I believe, we have two, if not three, of the places named in Genesis 10:10, with the Harran Plain being the “plain in the land of Shinar” (11:2).
Obviously this region is far from Sumer, the conventional Shinar, but it is also well removed from those NE Syrian regions with names like Sinjar.
The Harran plain would have been a most attractive prospect for those early Ark-ites:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-location-of-the-Harran-plain-on-GAP-reg
The Harran Plain has the largest groundwater resources of the Middle East (Bilgili et al. 2018;Yapıcıoglu et al. 2020). ….
... Harran Plain is the largest plain within the area administered under the Southeastern Anatolia Project (known as the GAP project in Turkey), covering an area of 1500 km².
While some were migrating in this direction, others would have been following the PPNA trail (Part Two, pp. 28-29), westwards (towards Çatal Hüyük), in Anatolia, and on to the Aegean, and eastwards, towards what would become Assyria (map, p. 28).
As we found, PPNA did not extend into (the probably swampy) Sumer. Hence, the level of the flood at Ur in Sumer, found by Sir Leonard Woolley, sandwiched as it was “between remains of the Al Ubaid cultural phase, the last purely prehistoric period of southern Mesopotamia, and a layer of debris from the early Protoliterate period” (https://ncse.ngo/flood-mesopotamian-archaeological-evidence), could not possibly be direct evidence of the Noachic Flood.
Jericho was an early settlement. Syrian Ebla and Mari would have been other ones.
My long-held view has been - no doubt along with most others who consider the matter - that the four named cities of Nimrod in Genesis 10:10 would all have been located in the land (plain) of Shinar. And indeed those who look to shift Shinar from Sumer to the NE Syrian region will inevitably search for four appropriate sites for these cities.
I now believe that that is not going to work. And what follows below will show why I am saying this.
For one, Isaiah 10:9 informs us that Calneh, one of Nimrod’s cities, is to be paired with Carchemish: ‘Is not Calno [Calneh] as Carchemish? Is not Hamath as Arpad? Is not Samaria as Damascus?’
That means, at least, that Calneh would unlikely be found as far eastwards as Sinjar, or, a fortiori, in Sumer.
Secondly, what we know of another of Nimrod’s cities, Akkad, is that, as according to one of his inscriptions:
‘The ships from Meluhha the ships from Magan the ships
from Dilmun he made tie-up alongside the quay of Akkad’.
Historians, finding both Calneh and Akkad (both unknown in Sumer) to be difficult propositions according to their own pre-conceived view of things, can try to make some ill-advised ‘corrections’, leading to no end of confusion.
W. F. Albright, for instance, had attempted to translate Calneh right out of existence, by turning the Hebrew word (כַלְנֵ֑ה) into meaning “all of them”. According to his view, Babel, Erech and Akkad, three cities only, were all in the land of Shinar.
As we are now going to find, though, Akkad was not in the land (plain) of Shinar.
Sargon’s Inscription actually makes it fairly apparent where Akkad approximately lay.
Some of the ships (reed boats) that were docking in at the port of Akkad were arriving from the far-away lands of Egypt (Magan) and Ethiopia (Meluḫḫa).
That that is what Magan and Meluḫḫa obviously stood for is confirmed by a statement made by the neo-Assyrian king, Ashurbanipal: “In my first campaign I marched against Magan, Meluhha, Tarka, king of Egypt and Ethiopia …”.
But, because this does not fit in with a wrong geography, and with a wrong timetable, conventional historians are unable to make the obvious connection.
Presumably Dilmun (or Telmun), famous for, among other things, its ivory and dates, will need to be sought for anew in the approximate region of Magan and Meluḫḫa.
Now, it is clear from all of this that the important, but long lost, city of Akkad, lay on the Mediterranean coast, where the Egyptians were wont to trade with NW Syria, etc.
The fairly obvious candidate for Nimrod’s Akkad, then, in reasonable geographical relationship with Carchemish, would be the ancient port of Ugarit (see map, p. 52).
What may serve to confirm this unexpected identification is that the Egyptian name for Ugarit is believed to have been IKAT:
https://www.academia.edu/41484046/Further_Observations_on_Ugarit_and_Egypt_in_the_Early_New_Kingdom
“This new observation of both old and new transcription systems in the Amenhotep II texts fully supports the reading of IkAT as Ugarit …”.
The name IKAT is as close to Akkad as one could possibly want!
Claude F. A. Schaeffer believed that Sargon, Naram-Sin, of Akkad had used the port of Ugarit for conquest of the lands ‘beyond the Upper Sea’ (CRAI, 1962, p. 202).
By now I have identified two sites for Genesis 10:10, namely: (i) the plain of the land of Shinar as the Plain of Harran, and (ii) Akkad as Ugarit (IKAT).
The remaining cities of Nimrod I would locate in the Plain of Harran.
Urfa and Harran in that plain each have been claimed as the first city built after the Flood. They are indeed most ancient. They (particularly Harran) now become central.
“Then shall he say, ‘Have I not taken the country above
Babylon and Chalanes, where the Tower was built?’”
Isaiah 10:9 LXX
Chalanes here would appear to correspond adequately with the Chalanne (Χαλαννη) of Genesis 10:10 (LXX), as one of the cities of Nimrod.
Wherever else the cities of Nimrod may have been located, it appears at least that “Chalanne [was] in the land of Senaar [Shinar]”.
Chalanne, otherwise known as Calneh (10:10 KJV): “And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar”, was actually quite far distant from Akkad, which I have determined to have been Ugarit (var. IKAT).
So we know that Chalanne, or Calneh, was in Shinar.
Harran was also in Shinar, as was Urfa “… is 24 miles (39 km) northwest of Haran …”.
(Harran was also a land “of the Chaldees”).
Harran, as I have argued elsewhere, was where King Belshazzar was slain.
The Jerusalem Temple of God treasures in Daniel 1:1-2 need to be connected up with the gold and silver vessels in Daniel 5, the account of King Belshazzar’s Feast:
Daniel 1:1-2
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. And the Lord delivered Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, along with some of the articles from the temple of God.
These he carried off to the temple of his god in Babylonia and put in the treasure house of his god.
Daniel 5:1-4
King Belshazzar gave a great banquet for a thousand of his nobles and drank wine with them. While Belshazzar was drinking his wine, he gave orders to bring in the gold and silver goblets that Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken from the temple in Jerusalem, so that the king and his nobles, his wives and his concubines might drink from them. So they brought in the gold goblets that had been taken from the temple of God in Jerusalem, and the king and his nobles, his wives and his concubines drank from them. As they drank the wine, they praised the gods of gold and silver, of bronze, iron, wood and stone.
Whilst one might expect that these sacred vessels of silver and gold had been taken by King Nebuchednezzar to his beloved Babylon, to the temple of his god, Marduk, there - and, indeed, “Babylonia” has been inserted into the NIV version above (with “Hebrew Shinar” as a footnote) - the fact is that King Nebuchednezzar had taken these Jerusalem vessels to “the temple of his god in Shinar”.
And Shinar was not Babylonia!
Since Shinar, then, is quite a long distance from Akkad-as-Ugarit, the latter being in the country known anciently as Nuhašše, then I have had to abandon my long-held view that all of Nimrod’s cities as referred to in Genesis 10:10 were in the land of Shinar.
We are going to find that Lugalzagesi of Uruk (c. 2358-2334 BC, conventional dating), whom Sargon of Akkad (to be identified as Nimrod) is reputed to have defeated, had already extended the kingdom “as far west as the Mediterranean”.
The lands in those days were made up of many small states.
The land of Shinar itself may not have been a terribly large one.
The question now needs to be asked: With Chalanne in Shinar, and with Harran in Shinar, could Nimrod’s city of Chalanne have been Harran?
One point in favour of such a conclusion would be the great antiquity of Harran:
http://quicksilver899.com/Bible_Mysteries/Harran/Harran.html
… the Muslim geographer, Yaqut al-Hamawi (1179–1229 CE), says that some believe that Harran was the first city built after the flood. ["Mu'jam al-Buldan" (Dictionary of Countries) ….
Moreover, the two names may be comparable.
The Vulgate version of the Book of Tobit helps to orient the geography of the journey of Tobias and the archangel Raphael by its insertion in 11:1 of Charan (Harran): “And as they were returning they came to Charan, which is in the midway to Ninive …”.
Charan and Chalann[e] are most similar names, and seem perfectly interchangeable (the common r and l interchange), a potential identification between the pair being bolstered by their common location in Shinar.
An intriguing possible indication that Nimrod’s “Babel” may actually have been in Syria-Turkey, and not in Sumer, is the testimony of the Septuagint version of Isaiah 10:9, where the Great King of Assyria boasts, as he knocks over one strong Syro-Palestine city after another: “Isn’t Calneh like Carchemish? Isn’t Hamath like Arpad? Isn’t Samaria like Damascus?”.
According to the LXX:
καὶ ἐρεῖ οὐκ ἔλαβον τὴν χώραν τὴν ἐπάνω Βαβυλῶνος καὶ Χαλαννη
οὗ ὁ πύργος ᾠκοδομήθη καὶ ἔλαβον Ἀραβίαν καὶ Δαμασκὸν καὶ Σαμάρειαν
Babylon (Βαβυλῶνος), not Carchemish, is here coupled with Calneh (Χαλαννη), “where the Tower was built” (οὗ ὁ πύργος ᾠκοδομήθη).
At http://biblehub.com/commentaries/isaiah/10-9.htm we get this account:
The LXX. version, which instead of naming Carchemish, gives “Calanè, where the tower was built,” seems to imply a tradition identifying that city with the Tower of Babel of Genesis 11:4.
(2) Carchemish. Few cities of the ancient world occupied a more prominent position than this. Its name has been explained as meaning the Tower of Chemosh, and so bears witness to the widespread cultus of the deity whom we meet with in Biblical history as the “abomination of the Moabites” (1 Kings 11:7).
Assisted by such information, I can attempt to solve once and for all the problem of the location and identification of Babel, and the identification and location of each one of the various cities of Nimrod as named in Genesis 10:10.
For the location of Babel, two cities had been uppermost in my mind, namely:
• Carchemish, for one, based on the Septuagint reading above.
Its very name seemed to suggest a Tower (Carchemish = Tower of Chemosh?).
• Harran, for the other, based largely on a You Tube video:
Harran, Tower Of Babel, Tarot, Gobekli Tepe and The Watchers
We read that a ‘solution’ proposed by W. F. Albright was that “Calneh” did not actually qualify as one of Nimrod’s cities - was not even a place at all - meaning that only three locations, not four, comprised Genesis 10:10.
My own solution will be a little bit similar to that.
I, too, would reduce the number to just the three cities (including a duplication).
Genesis 10:10 may be one of those helpful editorial additions (a gloss) by Moses, or by a later editor, to an ancient document – in this case the (toledôt) family histories of Noah’s three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth.
As in the case of the Septuagint’s “Babylon and Calane where the Tower was built”, Babel and Calneh, just the one place, may have been stretched (a waw consecutive?) into two names.
I have already ascertained that Akkad was Ugarit, and that it was likely situated beyond the land of Shinar; and that Calneh might be Harran, in the land of Shinar.
And now I think it most likely that ‘Calneh where the Tower was’, must also have been “Babel”, an apparent nick name due to what had occurred there (Genesis 11:8-9).
Even “Harran” may have been a late name for the site, if it was named after Abram’s brother, Harran (cf. Genesis 10:27), or was he named after Harran?
A strong possibility for the third site, Uruk, would be Urfa (Ur of the Chaldees), or Sanliurfa, of which Harran is said to be a district (see below).
On the other hand, an ancient table from Ebla refers to “Ur in Harran”:
https://truthonlybible.com/2015/02/13/ur-of-the-chaldees-abrahams-original-home/
The site of Urfa (Uruk?) would be as ancient as was Harran, and of it, too, has it been said that it was the first city to have been built after the Flood.
Urfa | Buildings | EMPORIS
URFA, ancient EDESSA, is - according to Biblical accounts - the first city in the world that was found after the Great Flood which destroyed humanity. HARRAN, where Prophet ABRAHAM lived for several years after leaving the ancient city of Ur, is a district of Urfa.
In conclusion, I would explain Genesis 10:10 as:
“And the beginning of [Nimrod’s] kingdom was Akkad [Ugarit],
and [the place nick-named] “Babel”, namely Calneh [Harran],
and Erech [Urfa?], in the land of Shinar”.
Part Four: Dispersion of Nations
Contents:
The main ethnic streams ……………………. p. 58-64
Shinarian-Akkadian Culture …..……….…. p. 65-74
THE MAIN ETHNIC STREAMS
Whatever the Triune God had done to cause the Shinarites to go their various ways, the Dispersion, as it is called, is thought to have occurred close to the birth of Peleg (Genesis 10:25): “Two sons were born to Eber: One was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided; his brother was named Joktan”.
Now, I have no intention here of trying to follow the paths of all of the families referred to in Genesis 10’s Table of Nations. Others have already attempted to do this in detail, one of these being Dr. John Osgood (Over the Face of all the Earth). This sort of thing is his specialty, and I already referred to his most interesting tracing of the Cush-ites. However, as already noted, too, Dr. Osgood (i) takes as his base a supposed Babel in Sumer, and he also (ii) has the Babel incident following Genesis 10.
Here is a simplified version of “The Table of Nations in Genesis 10” taken from:
https://bible-history.com/old-testament/table-of-nations-genesis-10
According to the Bible the sons of Noah were Shem, Ham, and Japheth... these three sons of Noah represented the three great races of mankind. ….
Map of the Descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth ….
Genesis 10:32 - These [are] the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.
Shem (Asia)
Shem (Heb. "Name") … bore a son at 110 years of age. He was father to five sons who became the fathers of the five Semitic nations as shown below. Shem was actually the father of the nations of the ancient Near East including the Israelites and the Jewish religion, and therefore Judaism, Islam, and Christianity sprang from the line of Shem. The Semites were particularly known for their religious zeal.
The Five Semitic Nations:
1. Elam (The Persians) settled northeast of the Persian Gulf.
2. Asshur (The Assyrians) the Biblical name for Assyria, settled between the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers.
3. Arphaxad … settled in Chaldea.
4. Lud (The Lydians) settled in Asia Minor, but some of them sailed across the Mediterranean and settled in northern Africa.
5. Aram (The Syrians) the Biblical name for Syria, located north and east of Israel.
Ham (Africa)
Ham (Heb. "hot" or "Black") … and his wife bore 4 sons who became the fathers of the nations of Africa. Ham's fourth son Canaan was prophetically cursed because he gazed at [sic] his fathers nakedness while he was drunk. This curse would mean later that Canaan would lose his land to the Hebrews and would be subservient to the descendants of Shem. The Hamites were known for their physical endurance.
The Four Hamitic Nations:
1. Cush (The Ethiopians) settled in Ethiopia south of Egypt, also early in their history some of them migrated to an area north of the Persian Gulf (Gen. 10:8-10).
2. Mizraim (The Egyptians) the Bible name for Egypt, settled in northeastern Africa.
3. Phut (The Libyans) sometimes translated Libya, settled in northern Africa.
4. Canaan (The Canaanites) settled above Africa east of the Mediterranean (Later was given to the Hebrews).
Japheth (Europe)
Japheth (Heb. "God will Enlarge") … and Shem were both greatly blessed for respecting their father Noah.
Noah's blessing on Japheth was far reaching for all of his descendants being the European (Caucasian) nations that were mentioned in Genesis 10. The Japhethites were known for their intellectual activity.
The Seven Japhetic Nations:
I. Gomer (The Cimmerians) settled north of the Black Sea, but afterwards his descendants probably occupied Germany, France, Spain and the British Isles.
2. Magog (The Scythians) lived north of the Caspian Sea.
3. Madai (The Medes) settled south of the Caspian Sea.
4. Javan (The Ionians or Greeks) Javan is the Hebrew name for Greeks, they settled in Greece.
5. Tubal (The Turks) lived south of the Black Sea.
6. Meshech (The Slavs) lived between the Black and Caspian Seas,
7. Tiras (The Etruscans) located west of the Black Sea.
Genesis 10:32 - These [are] the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.
It has been suggested that Ham’s son, Cush, who gave his name to Nubia (Ethiopia), the land through which wound the primeval Gihon river (Genesis 2:13), may have had Kish in Sumer also named after him. And perhaps, too, Urkish (Urkesh) in NE Syria.
What I do find here is (as already mentioned) a repetition of place names from one region to another. Apart from Kish, potentially, the land of Sumer also has an Uruk (as I claimed Shinar had), and a Babel (or Babylon).
This could mean either that a person, say Cush, had dwelt in several different places that were named after him, or that descendants of such a notable person had later named a place, or places, after that person.
Might both Ur of the Chaldees, and also Arpachiyah, have been named after Arphaxad, the son of Shem (Genesis 10:22)?
Moreover, some of the biblical names of peoples, such as the Canaanite Hittites (Genesis 10:15), were later applied to peoples who bore no likely relationship to the original ones. The Anatolian so-called ‘Hittites’, for instance, were Indo-European.
Dr. David Rohl has identified the biblical Cush with the semi-legendary king of Uruk, Meskiagkasher (kash standing for Cush).
He was the father of Enmerkar, Rohl’s hopeful Enmer “the hunter” (kar), thus Nimrod (Genesis 10:9): [Nimrod] was a mighty hunter before the LORD; that is why it is said, ‘Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the LORD’.”
While I find these connections to be quite plausible, I would estimate (based on what has been discussed) that it may yet have been somewhat too early for Uruk in Sumer. The following piece basically follows Rohl’s various identifications of Nimrod:
Nimrod is credited with building the Tower of Babel in order to establish his own cult. Historians have linked the Biblical name with Ninnu (with the epithet Enmersi) of the city of Lagash and subsequently also to EnmerKar of Uruk; Ningirsu of the early dynastic Sumerians; Asar son of Enki of The Sumerians of Eridu and subsequently the Egyptian Osiris Asshur and Phoenician Rashap & Canaanite Reshpu (thus also the constellation Orion); Baal; and the Assyrian Ninurta -while the Babylonians obviously linked him with the Mesopotanian deity Marduk the Sumerian Dumuzi and the Mesopotamian king Ninus of Greek legend husband of Semiramis.
As Enmerkar the simplified New Age understanding of the story surrounding Nimrod is as follows. Following his father's fate, his grandfather Hor Meskiagkasher brought Nimrod's mother to Sumerian-Asar in Uruk where his people built a settlement. Intrigued by the prospect for gold in the west Hor Meskiagkasher led his Afroasiatic followers as Mizraim "from Asar" along the Puntian sea routes to the Nile valley heavily equipped to conquer. While there an opportunist band of Noahites followed general Seth to destroy unsuspecting Sumerian-Asar before turning to take over Mizraim's Egyptian campaign. Hor-Meskiagkasher sent his grandson EnmerKar back to Asar whereupon finding the destruction EnmerKar saved the throne of Asar from extinction. Hearing of the Sethian plan to ambush Mizraim's conquest of the Nile Valley Enmerkar enlisted help from Elam and sent troops to help Mizraim defeat the Sethians. A wedding between Mizraim and a princess from amongst the followers of Seth burried the hatchet.
As reward Meskiagkasher left Sumerian-Asar under the total command of EnmerKar as the hero king of that land. Integral to his claim in Asar was the repair of the sacked temple of Asar's patroness Innana. To this end EnmerKar proceeded to carve out a great empire for himself starting with Nun.Ki then Erech, Accad, Calneh, and expanding Asar out to Nineveh and Calah building the canal between them. Conquering Aratta he brought wat was required to his city but encouraged by the submitted Sethians Enmerkar planned a new cult temple in Nun.ki but opposition from different tribes of the area led to its incompletion and the eventual disintegration of the empire he had carved out for himself. In time however groups of grateful Kiengi-Sumerians at Eridu & Lagash redeemed the Afroasiatic not only as the continuation of their own Sumerian ancestor Asar but also child of Enki once more despite his opposition to Enki to whom was attributed the disruption of his Temple plans. Thus it was that the Egyptians became known as "Masri" or those "From Asar" and Nimrod became known as Asar and the mystery cults came to survive amongst the Babylonian Amorite Canaanites. ….
Some of this, of course, is quite fanciful.
Ninus and Semiramis belonged to, as we are going to find later, the neo-Assyrian era, more than a millennium after the time of Cush and Nimrod – despite the efforts of over-zealous revisionists to force an identification of the Akkadians with the Assyrians.
Sargon of Akkad (see next section) may have arisen in Kish. But which Kish?
I would have to fancy, not Sumerian Kish - which is too far distant from the Shinarian kingdom of Akkad, and may not yet have been but founded - but, say, for instance, the geographically closer Urkish (Tell Mozan).
Sargon I, or ‘the Great’, as he is known, is thought to have influenced the Exodus account (2:1-10) of the baby Moses afloat in a basket (tebah), with this tale:
https://evidenceforchristianity.org/how-do-you-respond-to-the-claim-that-the-story-of-moses-being-placed-in-a-basket-is-borrowed-from-the-story-of-sargon-i-from-2400-bc/
“My mother was high priestess, I did not know my father. My father’s brothers loved the hills. My city is Azupiranu, which is located on the banks of the Euphrates. My mother high priestess conceived me, secretly gave birth to me. She left me In a reed basket, he sealed the lid with bitumen. He threw me into the river, which rose above me. The river carried me and carried me to Akki the water carrier. Akki the water carrier took me as his son and raised me. Akki the water carrier named me his gardener. Although I was a gardener, Ishtar granted me his love, and for four and […] years I have held the monarchy.”
Now, I have found consistently that pagan legends that are supposed to have influenced the Hebrew scriptures actually turn out to be later in time than the latter when the revision of ancient history is applied as it will be throughout this book.
Hammurabi of Babylon’s so-called Law Code, for instance, did not influence the Torah of Moses, as is claimed, because Hammurabi belonged (as we shall find later) to the era of King Solomon of Israel, roughly half a millennium after Moses.
Pharaoh Akhnaton’s Hymn to Aton did not influence Psalm 104, as is believed, because King David, its author, reigned more than a century before Akhnaton. And so on.
The case of Sargon of Akkad (c. 2334–2279 BC, conventional dating) is somewhat different, though, inasmuch as he does indeed have historical precedence over Moses.
However, the legend about him as a baby floating in a reed basket is actually a very late tale (neo-Assyrian literature) that post-dates the era of Moses by almost a millennium.
It is one of ancient literature’s many copycat stories based on the Exodus account of baby Moses, with elements even of the New Testament thrown into the Indian version. https://triangulations.wordpress.com/2013/12/19/basket-cases-moses-sargon-and-
Basket Cases: Moses, Sargon, and Karna
Introduction: Founder Stories
Many, many religions and nations have founder stories where the founder has some unique beginning so as to tell the listeners, “Look, this guy/gal is special!”. Below I describe three basket cases (smile): stories of three important religious/political figures which started with a basket: Sargon, Krishna and Moses
Moses — Judaism & Christianity
Moses in Basket
In Jewish Bible (embraced also by Christians), the book of Exodus tells the myth about how the Jews were exiled to Egypt and then later Moses led them out of captivity. Very few scholars would doubt this story is fictionalized, the question is how fictional is any part of the story. See my “Jesus, myth or fact” post to see the various percentages of fiction in bible stories — or any story.
Part of Exodus myth is the part about Moses being put in a basket. Moses was born to a Jewish woman (Levite) in Egypt at a time that the Pharaoh supposedly commanded all Jewish male babies be killed. So that Jewish woman, hid her child then three-months old, but when she could no longer hide him, she put him in a basket and sent him down a river.
The daughter of the Pharaoh apparently saw the child Moses in the basket and adopted it as her own. Eventually, after baby Moses grew up in the Pharaoh’s house hold, he had a powerful position in the court and later help his people (Jews) to escape from the Pharaoh. (Exodus 2).
Sargon the Great — King of Akkadian Empire
Sargon the Great
Sargon the Great, was the King of Akkadian around 2,300 BCE and had a similar basket beginning to the Jewish Moses.
Sargon was born as the illegitimate son of a priestess or low-class woman. In shame she secretly hid her child and then placed in a basket of reeds and floated him down a river where baby Sargon was found by a man and raised as his own son — only later to become a great King and leader. The similarities to the Moses story are uncanny.
But which story came first? The earliest copy of the Sargon story we have is from the 600s BCE found in the Library of Ashurbanipal. But the original story is much earlier, of course, passed on in oral tradition. Likewise, the oldest Hebrew Bible we have are the Dead Sea Scrolls with texts dated from 150 BCE to 70 CE but the stories were likely also written in the 600s. Due to all these stories being passed on orally for most likely centuries before their recording, and not knowing when the original recording took place, dating these events is very difficult. So, did they borrow from each other, or just use an obvious literary technique or, and this is unlikely, all just tell the truth about their founders. See my post illustrating models for how Greeks and Jews shared similar stories ….
Karna — Hindu Hero
My daughter and I are now reading the Mahabharata were a similar basket story came up. I copied the page with the picture on it for you.
• Karna
In this story, a virgin is impregnated by the sun god (sound Christian?). In shame the child is sent down a river and found by a charioteer (low caste) who found him a famous teacher of war. This child was Karna who would become major warrior in the Mahabharata.
https://ztevetevans.wordpress.com/2016/07/27/world-folklore-the-child-cast-adrift/
Many myths and legends from many cultures around the world revolve around the theme of a child deliberately abandoned in the wilds or cast adrift on the ocean or a river. The story involves a helpless and defenseless baby committed by adults to take their chances of survival but against all odds and often with the help of divine intervention the baby survives to grow up and play a significant part in the culture of a society. More often than not they become great leaders saving or inspiring their people.
Usually, those that cast the helpless babe adrift are not doing so with the intention of actually killing the child but are offering up for the chance of divine intervention, or luck, in the hope that the baby will survive the ordeal. Sometimes it is the only chance the baby will have of survival because it has been rejected in some way by those who have power over it or others who wish it harm. Presented here are four ancient examples from folklore and mythology around the world concluding with an example from modern fiction. ….
SHINARIAN-AKKADIAN CULTURE
Following PPNA, and PPNB, which “shows evidence of a northerly origin, possibly indicating an influx from the region of northeastern Anatolia”, from which approximate region we would expect influxes at this time to emanate, we arrive at the more significant Halaf culture.
This culture is wildly mis-dated to anywhere from 6,500-5,100 BC.
In my scheme, however, Halaf would be far closer to 2,000 BC, and would basically represent the Shinarian-Akkadian culture.
Dr. John Osgood, in his articles, attributes Halaf to the Arameans – with whom there may be an overlap, anyway. We know that the Arameans- Chadeans lived in Shinar.
My own estimation is that the mighty Akkadian kingdom is represented by the sophisticated Halaf culture, currently dated to approximately (a massive) four millennia before King Sargon of Akkad. This Sargon I, ‘the Great’, may most likely be Nimrod himself, to be considered further on.
As we are now going to find, the conventional picture regarding the archaeology for the famous Akkadian and also Ur III kingdoms is hopelessly inadequate.
Here is what I have previously written on this subject:
Uncertainty in identifying exclusively Akkadian pottery has made it impossible to reconstruct Akkadian settlement patterns with any confidence” (Nissen 1993: 100).
… geographical re-location of the Babel incident:
… finds a most significant and sophisticated ancient culture to accompany it: namely, HALAF.
…. The long Akkadian empire phase of history … so admired by subsequent rulers and generations, is remarkably lacking in archaeological data. I noted this [before] ….
“The Akkadian kings were extensive builders, so why, then,
so few traces of their work?
Not to mention, where is their capital city of Akkad?
The Ur III founder, Ur-Nammu, built a wall at Ur. Not a trace remains”.
…. here I want to highlight the enormity of the problem.
Archaeologists have actually failed to identify a specific pottery for the Akkadian era!
This is, of course, quite understandable given that they (indeed, we) have been expecting to discover the heart of the Akkadian kingdom in Sumer, or Lower Mesopotamia.
We read of this incredible situation of a missing culture in the following account by Dr. R. Matthews, from his book, The Archaeology of Mesopotamia: Theories and Approaches (2003):
(https://books.google.com.au/books?id=9ZrjLyrPipsC&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=uncer):
The problems of fitting material cultural assemblages, especially pottery, into historical sequences are epitomised in the ongoing debate over what, if anything, characterises Akkadian material culture in Lower Mesopotamia (Gibson and McMahon 1995; Nissen 1993; J. G. Westenholz 1998).
Uncertainty in identifying exclusively Akkadian pottery has made it impossible to reconstruct Akkadian settlement patterns with any confidence (Nissen 1993: 100). The bleakest view has been put thus: ‘If we didn’t know from the texts that the Akkad empire really existed, we would not be able to postulate it from the changes in settlement patterns, nor … from the evolution of material culture’ (Liverani 1993: 7-8). The inference is either that we are failing to isolate and identify the specifics of Akkadian material culture, or that a political entity apparently so large and sophisticated as the Akkadian empire can rise and pass without making a notable impact on settlement patterns or any aspect of material culture. ….
Obviously, that “a political entity apparently so large and sophisticated as the Akkadian empire can rise and pass without making a notable impact on … any aspect of material culture” is quite absurd.
The truth of the matter is that a whole imperial culture has been almost totally lost because - just as in the case of so much Egyptian culture, and in its relation to the Bible - historians and archaeologists are forever looking in the wrong geographical place at the wrong chronological time. ….
It is my view now, regarding an archaeology of the Akkadian empire, that one needs to look substantially in the direction of Turkey-Syria and the Mosul region, and on to the Mediterranean, rather than to “Lower Mesopotamia”, the Halaf culture to be fused with that of the Akkadians.
The potentate Nimrod had, as one might now expect, begun his empire building, not in Sumer, but in the Shinar region of Harran, and extending westwards (following Lugalzagesi of Uruk?) even as far as the Mediterranean coast, the port of Ugarit (IKAT).
He had then moved eastwards on to northern Assyria (as it would later become). Thus Genesis 10:10-11: “The beginning of [Nimrod’s] kingdom was Babel and Erech and Accad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. From that land he went forth into Assyria, where he built Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Calah and Resen, which is between Nineveh and Calah—which is the great city”.
And, as can be seen on the map on p. 65, these are basically the regions where we find that the spectacular Halaf culture had arisen and had chiefly developed.
Understandably once again, in a conventional context, with the Halaf cultural phase dated to c. 6100-5100 BC, there can be no question of meeting these dates with the Akkadian empire of the late C3rd millennium BC. That is where Dr. Osgood’s “A Better Model for the Stone Age” (http://creation.com/a-better-model-for-the-stone-age) becomes so vital, with its revising of Halaf down to the Late Chalcolithic period in Palestine, even to the time of Abram (Abraham):
…. In 1982, under the title 'A Four-Stage Sequence for the Levantine Neolithic', Andrew M.T. Moore presented evidence to show that the fourth stage of the Syrian Neolithic was in fact usurped by the Halaf Chalcolithic culture of Northern Mesopotamia, and that this particular Chalcolithic culture was contemporary with the Neolithic IV of Palestine and Lebanon.5:25 ....
….
This was very significant, especially as the phase of Halaf culture so embodied was a late phase of the Halaf Chalcolithic culture of Mesopotamia, implying some degree of contemporaneity of the earlier part of Chalcolithic Mesopotamia with the early part of the Neolithic of Palestine, Lebanon and Syria ….
This finding was not a theory but a fact, slowly and very cautiously realized, but devastating in its effect upon the presently held developmental history of the ancient world. This being the case, and bearing in mind the impossibility of absolute dating by any scientific means despite the claims to the contrary, the door is opened very wide for the possible acceptance of the complete contemporaneity of the whole of the Chalcolithic of Mesopotamia with the whole of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic of Palestine. (The last period of the Chalcolithic of Palestine is seen to be contemporary with the last Chalcolithic period of Mesopotamia.) ….
Dr. Osgood himself, however, regards the Halaf people as the biblical “Aramites” [Arameans]. (“A Better Model for the Stone Age Part Two”: http://creation.com/a-better-model-for-the-stone-age-part-2).
Since the Arameans, though, tended to be a wandering nomadic people (Deuteronomy 26:5), I would not expect their existence to be reflected in a culture so sophisticated as Halaf. Though they themselves may have absorbed much of it.
My preference, therefore, would be for Halaf to represent the Akkadians.
It apparently preceded the Jemdat Nasr culture with which Dr. Osgood will equate Chedorlaomer, the Elamite king of Genesis 14.
This is how Dr. Osgood sees the spread of the Halaf culture.
But he may have it going in the wrong direction, westwards, from Mosul to Sinjar:
Now if we date Babel to approximately 2,200 B.C. (as reasoned by implication from Noah's Flood 3) and if Abraham came from Mesopotamia (the region of Aram) approximately 1875 B.C., then we would expect that there is archaeological evidence that a people who can fit the description generally of the Aramites should be found well established in this area .... What in fact do we find? Taking the former supposition of the Jemdat Nasr culture being identified with the biblical story of Genesis 14 and the Elamite Chedarloamer,4 we would expect to find some evidence in Aram or northern Mesopotamia of Jemdat Nasr influence, but this would only be the latest of cultural influences in this region superseding and dominant on other cultures.
The dominant culture that had been in this area prior to the Jemdat Nasr period was a culture that is known to the archaeologist as the Halaf culture, named after Tell Halaf where it was first identified. One of the best summaries of our present knowledge of the Halafian culture is found in the publication, 'The Hilly Flanks'5. It seems clear from the present state of knowledge that the Halaf culture was a fairly extensive culture, but it was mostly dominant in the area that we recognise as Aram Naharaim.
It is found in the following regions. First, its main base in earliest distribution seems to have been the Mosul region. From there it later spread to the Sinjar region to the west, further westward in the Khabur head-waters, further west again to the Balikh River system, and then into the middle Euphrates valley. It also spread a little north of these areas. It influenced areas west of the Middle Euphrates valley and a few sites east of the Tigris River, but as a general statement, in its fully spread condition, the Halaf culture dominated Aram Naharaim ….
The site of Arpachiyah just west of Nineveh across the Tigris River appears to have been the longest occupied site and perhaps the original settlement of the Halaf people. This and Tepe Gawra were important early Halaf towns.
The settlement of the Halaf people at these cities continued for some considerable time, finally to be replaced by the Al Ubaid people from southern Mesopotamia. When Mallowan excavated the site of Tell Arpachiyah, he found that the top five levels belonged to the Al Ubaid period. The fifth level down had some admixture of Halaf material within it. He writes:
‘The more spacious rooms of T.T.5 indicate that it is the work of Tell Halaf builders; that the two stocks did not live together in harmony is shown by the complete change of material in T.T.l-4, where all traces of the older elements had vanished.
Nor did any of the burials suggest an overlap between graves of the A 'Ubaid and Tell Halaf period; on the contrary, there was evidence that in the Al 'Ubaid cemetery grave- diggers of the Al 'Ubaid period had deliberately destroyed Tell Halaf house remains.’6
He further comments the following:
‘It is more than probable that the Tell Halaf peoples abandoned the site on the arrival of the newcomers from Babylonia; and with the disappearance of the old element prosperity the site rapidly declined; for, although the newcomers were apparently strong enough to eject the older inhabitants, yet they appear to have been a poor community, already degenerate; their houses were poorly built and meanly planned, their streets no longer cobbled as in the Tell Halaf period and the general appearance of their settlement dirty and poverty stricken in comparison with the cleaner buildings of the healthier northern peoples who were their predecessors.’7
He further writes:
‘The invaders had evidently made a wholesale destruction of all standing buildings converted some of them into a cemetery.’8
It is clear from the discussion of Patty Jo Watson9 that the later periods of the Halaf people were found in the other regions, particularly in a westward direction across the whole area of Aram Naharaim, namely the Sinjar region, the Khabur head-waters, the Balikh River system and the middle Euphrates”.
[End of Osgood’s article]
Dr. Osgood’s reconstructions necessitate earliest humanity in southern Iraq (Sumer), whereas the main movement of the peoples seems to have been the other way around, not SE to NW, but vice versa.
The earlier Halaf culture of the Shinarians was later replaced in southern Iraq by the lesser ‘Ubaid culture, the beginnings of Sumerian civilisation. It is apparent from this that Sumer was far from being the Cradle of Civilisation as so long has been thought.
The first city built in Sumer was, traditionally, Eridu (a name that has been associated with Cain’s grandson, Irad – a not uncommon ancient type of place name (also Irridu and Arad). Eridu was built and re-built many times, which might indicate, as we found with regions affected by the Flood, and by subsequent heavy rain – also marshiness.
https://www.britannica.com/place/Eridu
Eridu, ancient Sumerian city south of modern Ur (Tall al-Muqayyar), Iraq. Eridu was revered as the oldest city in Sumer according to the king lists, and its patron god was Enki (Ea), “lord of the sweet waters that flow under the earth.” The site, located at a mound called Abū Shahrayn, was excavated principally between 1946 and 1949 by the Iraq Antiquities Department; it proved to be one of the most important of the prehistoric urban centres in southern Babylonia. Founded on sand dunes probably in the 5th millennium BC, [sic] it fully illustrated the sequence of the preliterate Ubaid civilization, with its long succession of superimposed temples portraying the growth and development of an elaborate mud-brick architecture. ….
Dr. Osgood will make three fascinating observations regarding ancient Mesopotamian gods, such as Enki, An, and Ea, that he thinks indicate that humanity after the Flood initially worshipped just the one supreme God. This: “The whole universe, the people in unison, To Enlil in one tongue give praise…..’, may perhaps have ramifications for interpreting the Babel incident.
In his book, Over the Face of All the Earth, on pp. 53-55, Dr Osgood thus writes:
On reading the average archaeological textbook, one is given the impression that ancient man started off with polytheistic notions and gradually came to the idea of one God. However as one follows the actual historical records, evidence emerges that in fact the opposite occurred. Man had the true knowledge of God and turned from it.
This fact is confirmed in the records of ancient Sumer where there are at least three clear examples. To see this, the first example is a passage from the poem ‘Enmerkar and the lord of Aratta’ (we will see later that Enmerkar is in fact the Biblical Nimrod), where we have the following quote: ‘Once upon a time, the lands Shubur and Hamazi, Many(?) tongued Sumer, the great land of princeship’s; divine laws, Uri, the land having all that is appropriate. The land Martu, resting in security, The whole universe, the people in unison, To Enlil in one tongue give praise….. (The Sumerians, Kramer, p. 285).
The people gave united praise to the god they called Enlil prior to the dispersion of languages. Now whilst it is granted that the latter ideas of this deity were quite different, we find that the original concept was as follows: ‘Enlil was the most important deity of the Sumerian pantheon, ‘the father of the gods’, ‘the king of heaven and earth’, the king of all the lands’. According to the myth ‘Enlil and the creation of the Pickax’, he was the god who separated heaven from earth, brought up ‘the seed of the land’ from the earth, brought forth ‘whatever was needful’, fashioned the pickax for agricultural and building purposes and presented it to the ‘black-heads’ - ie. the Sumerians, or perhaps even mankind as a whole. According to the disputation ‘Summer and Winter’, Enlil was the god who brought forth all trees and grains, produced abundance and prosperity in ‘the land’, and appointed ‘Winter’ as the ‘Farmer of the Gods’ in charge of the life-producing waters and of all that grows.’ (The Sumerians, p. 145)
Now the name Enlil is Sumerian. In the semitic Akkadian he was called Elllil. This is equivalent in the Semitic Hebrew to El (the mighty one), the abbreviated general name of God. The Hebrew full singular would be Elohh, but is most commonly met with in the scriptures in the plural form Elohym. The Chaldean is Elahh. In the book of Daniel, when Daniel talks to Nebuchadnezzar he uses Elahh but at other times he uses Elohym. Clearly the Sumerians had the knowledge of the true God – the Almighty – but later turned their concept into an anthropomorphic god with sinful human characteristics (Rohl, Legend, p. 221). The second example is found in relation to Enmerkar’s (Nimrod) city Uruk (Biblical Erech). Uruk was originally known as Eanna - the house of An, who was originally known as the God of Heaven. ‘There is good reason to believe that An, the heaven-god, was at one time conceived by the Sumerians to be the supreme ruler of the pantheon. An continued to be worshipped in Sumer throughout the millenniums, but he gradually lost much of his prominence. He became a rather shadowy figure in the pantheon, and he is rarely mentioned in the hymns and myths of later days, and by that time most of his powers had been conferred upon the god Enlil’. (The Sumerians, p. 118).
Instead if the city being referred to as the house of An, it appears that the name was changed to Uruk, and its worship was changed to the worship of Inanna, a goddess of sexual love, fertility and procreation, and associated with a ritual in the temple called ‘holy marriage’ (but no doubt the forerunner of temple prostitution). Inanna in Semitic is Ishtar, later Astarte, and Ashteroth known from the Bible in association with Baal worship which was considered an abomination by God. The Sumerians turned from the true God of heaven.
The third example is even more interesting. This involves the god known to the Sumerians as Enki. He was the god of Eridu which was the same people that built Ur – a Chaldean city where Abraham came from. [Mackey: I believe that Abram came from Ur (Urfa) near Harran]. This is highly significant. Now Enki in the semitic Akkadian is Ea (Rohl, Legend, p. 206-207). Apparently this is pronounced Eya. The Hebrew equivalent is Eyah – the name God said Moses was to call Him to the Israelite people – the I AM (Exodus 3:14). Then revealing Himself in the expanded name Jahweh (Exodus 3:15). He declares that he was known by this name by the Patriarchs – the name of the covenant-making God, as he asks the rhetorical question in Exodus 6:3 ‘… by my name Jehovah (Jahweh) was I not known to them?’ (sadly most versions misinterpret this question and turn it into a negative statement). It however brings great significance to the statement in Genesis 9:26, ‘Blessed be Jahweh, the God of Shem’.
The root behind the name Eyah and thus Jahweh is a root that means ‘to exist’, and thus the self-existent God, the eternal God, is the God that the people of Ur rejected in favour of the moon god Nanna and turned the idea behind Enki into an anthropomorphic being like sinful man. ….
[End of quotes]
Perhaps the same sort of early tendency to monotheism may be discernible in Egypt, with the first god there, Atum (a name arising from Adam?).
Dr. Osgood had estimated the Halaf culture as having spread from east (Assyria) to the west: “First, its main base in earliest distribution seems to have been the Mosul region. From there it later spread to the Sinjar region to the west, further westward in the Khabur head-waters, further west again to the Balikh River system …”. Most likely, it was the other way around, with Nimrod (= Sargon of Akkad/Halaf culture) firstly having established his kingdom in the “Shinar region” (Genesis 10:10): “The first centers of his kingdom were Babylon, Uruk, Akkad and Kalneh, in Shinar. From that land he went to Assyria, where he built Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir, Calah and Resen, which is between Nineveh and Calah—which is the great city”.
Andrew Moore had, as we read before, argued for a contemporaneity of the Chacolithic phase of Halaf culture with the Neolithic IV of Palestine and Lebanon ….
Archaeologically, we are now on the eve of the city building phase (inspired by Nimrod?) that will be a feature of Syro-Palestine’s Early Bronze Age. Presumably the Canaanites were heavily involved in all of this work (Genesis 10:18): “… the Canaanite clans scattered and the borders of Canaan reached from Sidon toward Gerar as far as Gaza, and then toward Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboyim, as far as Lasha”.
Ham himself, though, a son of Noah and the father of Canaan, would give his name to the land of Egypt (e.g., Psalm 78:51): “He struck down all the firstborn of Egypt, the firstfruits of manhood in the tents of Ham”.
(http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/T2OTBS4EEA84MJ67P/p2):
“According to the Bible the ancient Egyptians were descended from Ham through the line of Mizraim. Ham had four sons: Cush, Mizraim, Phut, and Canaan (Genesis 10:6). The name "Mizraim" is the original name given for Egypt in the Hebrew Old Testament. Many Bibles will have a footnote next to the name "Mizraim" explaining that it means "Egypt." The name "Egypt" itself actually comes to us from the Greeks who gave the Land that name (i.e. "Aegyptos" from the Greek). In addition to the name "Mizraim," the ancient Egyptians also referred to their land as "Kemet" which means "Land of the Blacks." Western historians, however, say that the word "Kemet" refers to the color of the soil of the land rather than its people. But, the word "Kemet" is actually an ethnic term being a derivative of the word "Khem" (Cham or Ham) which means "burnt" or "black." Ham, who was one of the three sons of Noah and the direct ancestor of the Egyptians, was black”.
Some have suggested that the ancient site of Carchemish was named after Ham (Cham). Chemosh, however, is a whole name, it referring to one of the ancient gods.
More likely, I think, Ham’s son, Cush (Genesis 10:6), is considered to have been the father of the Cushite Ethiopians, who were (are) black.
Ham’s brother, Japheth, became the god-Father of the Indo-European peoples such as the Greeks, who would identify him as Iapetos, the Titan, and the Indians, who called him Prajapti, “Father Japheth”.
Regarding Shem, I follow the Jewish tradition that Shem was the great Melchizedek - which view is chronologically acceptable. Genesis 10:10-11: “Two years after the flood, when Shem was 100 years old, he became the father of Arphaxad. And after he became the father of Arphaxad, Shem lived 500 years [long enough to have been able to meet Abram] and had other sons and daughters”.
Jerry Beasley has written recently (2021) about “The Halaf Generation …”:
https://thinkingandpraying.com/2021/the-halaf-generation-g5/
Several quality pottery styles took the world by storm. They were named after settlements in the Fertile Crescent, as seen on the map below: Tell Halaf, Tell Hassuna, and Samarra. These three types of pottery were so popular that they were adopted by surrounding localities. The reason why this happened is highly debated, but a Biblical explanation would include family ties and tribal traditions. Of these three, Halaf was by far the most widespread. “The most remarkable aspects of these cultures are their wide geographical coverage and their long-distance contacts. Keeping in mind the fact that these were small communities without any organization beyond the village level, the spread of a cultural assemblage such as that of Halaf from the central Zagros to the Mediterranean coast is astonishing.”(1) In other words, Halaf pottery was used throughout most of the Fertile Crescent… [Refer back to map on p. 64]
Secular archeology places great importance on pottery, since it’s one of the few keys it has to link sites together and create a chronology. Conventional history imagines that there were between 4 and 20 million people scattered across all the continents when a few of them came to the Middle East and invented pottery.
After using stone for millions of years [sic], this would have truly been revolutionary. A better explanation is that Noah’s children were very creative and were able to make pottery as soon as they found clay. Cayonu, for instance, didn’t have clay, so they built with stone there. Tell Halaf and Samarra had the right resources. Pottery breaks easily, so it was only desirable for people who lived in permanent settlements throughout the year. Migrating tribes did not use pottery until they settled. The map below depicts the care and detail that went in to decorating pottery in different regions.
….
How much do we really know about pottery? Sadly, great conclusions have been draw from limited facts. Most sites only have a small portion that is excavated or archeologists just examine what is lying on the surface. Much work remains unpublished or the interpretation may be contested. For instance, an entire Halaf village has never been excavated, even though it’s the key to an entire period. Very few sites really show a clear record of change over time, so the knowledge of many sites does not necessarily mean we have great certainty. The average person can’t get to the facts, which is why we need to make the facts more accessible.
The first thing thrown in our face is that the first settlements are dated to 9000 BC and pottery to 6000 BC, which are both before the Flood even happened. We’re expected to accept these dates without question and reject the Bible or adjust it accordingly. Carbon dating, however, is not conclusive, but that’s an entirely different discussion. When we forego rate-based dating methods, there is nothing else that prevents pottery from having begun almost immediately after the Flood. The key pottery sites do not have significant building layers without pottery. Many begin with pottery, and they are close to the Middle Euphrates where we believe Noah started farming [sic].
Tell Halaf, Tell Aqab, Tell Brak, Tell Arpachiya, Tepe Gawra, Tell Sotto, and Yarim Tepe all began with pottery. Tell Hassuna began as a campsite and then produced pottery, but it’s the exception.
The map below gives the impression that every settlement had pottery, but it is based on only a limited number of sites. Still, why would any town want to copy another town’s artwork instead of creating their own? The rapid spread of culture was truly amazing. ….
….
Part Five: Sargon of Akkad as Nimrod
Contents:
Nimrod as Sargon ……………………. p. 75-81
Nimrod and Abram legends ………. p. 82-83
Abraham’s contemporaries …..….. p. 84-93
NIMROD AS SARGON
I consider Halaf as likely to have been the culture of the world’s first great potentate, Nimrod, about whom Shem’s history advises us (Genesis 10:8-12):
Cush was the father of Nimrod, who became a mighty warrior on the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; that is why it is said, “Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the LORD.” The first centers of his kingdom were Babylon, Uruk, Akkad and Kalneh, in Shinar. From that land he went to Assyria, where he built Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir, Calah and Resen, which is between Nineveh and Calah—which is the great city.
I would consider Halaf also to be the missing archaeology of the great Akkadian kingdom (c. 2350-2150 BC, conventional dating), Sargon of Akkad being my favoured historical candidate for Nimrod.
Yigal Levin, when referring to “… “The Table of Nations” recorded in Genesis x”, has described as “arguably the most fascinating passage in the Table – the Nimrod story recounted in verses 8-12” (“Nimrod the Mighty, King of Kish, King of Sumer and Akkad”, VT, Vol. 52, Fasc. 3, July 2002, p. 350).
Historical candidates who have been proposed for the imposing character of biblical Nimrod are Enmerkar (Uruk, c. 4500 BC); Gilgamesh (Early Dynastic, Uruk, c. 2900 BC); Sargon of Akkad (c. 2330 BC) and Naram-Sin of Akkad (c. 2250 BC).
The biblical Nimrod may perhaps encompass, all in one, some two, or more, of these.
Enmerkar (Enmer “the hunter”) is Dr. David Rohl’s choice for Nimrod; whilst Dr. David Livingston, for his part, favours the semi-legendary Gilgamesh for Nimrod.
David Rohl has also linked the famous Narmer, perhaps of non-Egyptian origins, with Nimrod – a connection I, too, would seriously consider as being a possibility.
Sargon of Akkad is, again, Dr. Douglas Petrovich’s choice for Nimrod; whilst, regarding Naram-Sin, Dr. Yigal Levin has - as I, too, have recently favoured - identified Nimrod with a combined Sargon/Naram-Sin, though, in Levin’s case (not in mine), Sargon and Naram-Sin remain separate historical entities. Thus he has written:
After surveying previous attempts to identify an “historical” Nimrod, the author then suggests that the biblical figure is modeled after the combined traditions about Sargon of Akkad and his grandson, Naram-Sin. Nimrod is the son of “Cush”; Sargon began his royal career at Kish right after the flood. The Sargon-Naram-Sin traditions reached the Levant during the second millennium BCE, being combined by time and distance into a composite personality.
[End of quote]
Or, perhaps “time and distance” have caused, to be split in twain - into presumed grandfather and grandson - he who was originally just the one Akkadian potentate. For instance: https://www.britannica.com/place/Ebla
The prosperity of Ebla caught the attention of the Akkadian dynasty (c. 2334–2154 BC). Although Sargon of Akkad’s claim to have conquered Ebla was cast in doubt by the discoveries in the excavations, the fire that destroyed the city was probably the result of an attack by Sargon’s grandson Naram-Sin (c. 2240 BC).
From a combination of intriguing data (some of this has yet to be discussed) such as Dr. John Osgood’s archaeology for Abram (Abraham); the tradition of Abram’s having been a contemporary of Menes of Egypt; Dr. W. F. Albright’s argument for this same Menes having been conquered by Naram-Sin of Akkad; Narmer (possibly = Naram-Sin) being archaeologically attested in Palestine at this time; my location of Akkad on the Mediterranean coast (as Ugarit); biblical Amraphel of Shinar a contemporary of Abram’s; and the tradition of Nimrod’s having accompanied Chedorlaomer of Elam against Palestine at the time of Abram, then I can ultimately arrive at only this one conclusion:
Sargon of Akkad (in Shinar) = Naram-Sin (= Nimrod) = Narmer (?)
must be the biblical “Amraphel … king of Shinar” (Genesis 14:1).
The name “Amraphel” may, or may not, be a Hebrew name equating to a Shinarian one. Abarim Publications appears to have trouble nailing this name, Amraphel:
http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Amraphel.html#.XQmBvuQ8R9A
Meaning
Unclear, but perhaps: One That Darkens Counsel, or The Commandment Which Went Forth
Etymology
Unclear, but perhaps from (1) the verb אמר (amar), to talk or command, and (2) the verb אפל ('pl), to be dark.
Before concluding: “The name Amraphel can mean One That Darkens Counsel, or in the words of Alfred Jones (Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names): One That Speaks Of Dark Things”.
There may be needed at least one further Akkadian addition to my equation above: Sargon of Akkad = Naram-Sin = Nimrod, relating to my identification between:
Sargon and Shar-Kali-Sharri
given the same apparent meaning of these two names, but more especially that the name “Sargon” (Shar-Gani) is actually included in a presumed version of the name, Shar-kali-sharri.
E.g. compare this: https://dinromerohistory.wordpress.com/tag/sargon
“Sargon of Akkad (also known as Sargon the Great, Shar-Gani-Sharri, and Sarru-Kan, meaning “True King” or “Legitimate King”) …”.
with this: https://nl.qwerty.wiki/wiki/Shar-Kali-Sharri
“Shar-Kali- Sharri (shar-Gani-Sharri; rc 2217-2193 BC …”.
Here is some of what I had written previously on the need to recognise alter egos:
The biblical Nimrod has, at least as it seems to me, multi historical personae, just as I found to have been the case with the much later (Chaldean) king, Nebuchednezzar.
The historical Nebuchednezzar - as he is currently portrayed to us - needs his other ‘face’, Nabonidus of Babylon, for example, to complete him as the biblical “King Nebuchadnezzar” (or “Nebuchadrezzar”); Nabonidus being mad, superstitious, given to dreams and omens, statue-worshipping, praising the god of gods (ilani sa ilani); having a son called “Belshazzar”. [Cf. Baruch 1:11, 12]
The biblico-historical Nebuchednezzar also needs Ashurbanipal to fill out in detail his 43 years of reign, to smash utterly the nation of Egypt – Ashurbanipal also having a fiery furnace in which he burned people.
But Nebuchednezzar also needs Esarhaddon (conquering Egypt again) whose mysterious and long-lasting illness is so perfectly reminiscent of that of Nebuchednezzar in the Book of Daniel; Esarhaddon especially being renowned for his having built Babylon.
Nebuchednezzar has other ‘faces’ as well, he being the so-called Persian king, Cambyses, also named “Nebuchednezzar”, again quite mad, and being a known conqueror of Egypt.
Extending matters yet still further, our necessary revisionist folding of ‘Neo’ Babylonia with ‘Middle Kingdom’ Babylonia has likely yielded us the powerful (so-called) Middle Babylonian king Nebuchednezzar I as being another ‘face’ of the ‘Neo’ Babylonian king whom we number as Nebuchednezzar II.
In similar fashion, apparently, has our conventional biblico-history sliced and diced into various pieces, Nimrod the mighty hunter king.
I have already ventured to re-attach Nimrod to his Akkadian personae as:
Sargon of Akkad; the deified Naram-Sin; and Shar-kali-sharri.
And to the biblical “Amraphel … king of Shinar” (Genesis 14:1).
Other possibilities being Narmer, and those semi-legendary names, Enmerkar and Gilgamesh.
Regarding my thesis (2007) identification of Sargon II with Sennacherib, I wrote:
Other factors seemingly in favour of the standard view that Sargon II and Sennacherib were two distinct kings may be, I suggest, put down to being ‘two sides of the same coin’.” And I went on to liken that situation to Sargon of Akkad and Naram-Sin, two sides of the same coin.
[End of quote]
My tentative view is that the Akkadian dynasty needs to be reduced from the customary seven kings, to just five, or even to three, with Sargon himself duplicated in Naram-Sin and Shar-kali-sharri, followed by his two sons, Rimush and Manishtusu. Perhaps Dudu and Shu-turul followed as separate kings (or may, too, be duplicates).
On the other hand, whilst the Akkadian kings were greatly celebrated down through the centuries (ibid., p. 68): “There was no doubt in the public imagination that Sargon and Naram-Sin had been the greatest kings who ever ruled. They became the paradigms of powerful rulers and were the subjects of numerous detailed stories, created and preserved for almost two millennia”, this was by no means the case with the Ur III names.
On this, I have written, contrastingly: “…. as M. Van de Mieroop tells (A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000 – 323 BC, p. 72):
Virtually no period of ancient Near Eastern history presents the historian with such an abundance and variety of documentation [as does Ur III]. Indeed, even in all of the ancient histories of Greece and Rome, there are few periods where a similar profusion of textual material is found”.
Yet (ibid., p. 72): “Remarkable is the lack of interest in this period by later Mesopotamians when compared to how the Akkadian kings were remembered. …. In later centuries, only a handful of references to the Ur III kings are found”.
And this, despite the massive volume of Ur III documentation!
Obviously, the Ur III dynasty needs to be subsumed into a viable alter ego dynasty.
Dr. Stephanie Mary Dalley - {who showed that the legendary Hanging Gardens were actually situated in Nineveh, not in Babylon (The Mystery of the Hanging Garden of Babylon: An Elusive World Wonder Traced, 2015)} - here is writing for Britannica on the “Sargon ruler of Mesopotamia”: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Sargon
Sargon, byname Sargon of Akkad, (flourished 23rd century BCE) [sic], ancient Mesopotamian ruler (reigned c. 2334–2279 BCE) who was one of the earliest of the world’s great empire builders, conquering all of southern Mesopotamia [sic] as well as parts of Syria, Anatolia, and Elam (western Iran).
He established the region’s first Semitic dynasty and was considered the founder of the Mesopotamian military tradition.
Life
Sargon is known almost entirely from the legends and tales that followed his reputation through 2,000 years of cuneiform Mesopotamian history, and not from documents that were written during his lifetime. The lack of contemporary record is explained by the fact that the capital city of Agade (Akkad), which he built, has never been located and excavated. It was destroyed at the end of the dynasty that Sargon founded and was never again inhabited, at least under the name of Agade.
Damien Mackey’s comment: Some of Dr. Dalley’s article will need geographical correction if I am on the mark in my re-setting of the Shinarian-Akkadian kingdom. For example, Sumer would be irrelevant. Also Kish and Uruk below (and possibly even Elam above) are most unlikely, I think, the well-known sites of those names in Sumer.
And Akkad (Agade) is now to be recognised as Ugarit (IKAT).
Just like Nimrod, as we shall read further on, Sargon of Akkad was “of humble origins”:
According to a folktale, Sargon was a self-made man of humble origins; a gardener, having found him as a baby floating in a basket on the river, brought him up in his own calling. His father is unknown; his own name during his childhood is also unknown; his mother is said to have been a priestess in a town on the middle Euphrates. Rising, therefore, without the help of influential relations, he attained the post of cupbearer to the ruler of the city of Kish, in the north of the ancient land of Sumer [sic]. The event that brought him to supremacy was the defeat of Lugalzaggisi of Uruk (biblical Erech, in central Sumer). Lugalzaggisi had already united the city-states of Sumer by defeating each in turn and claimed to rule the lands not only of the Sumerian city-states but also those as far west as the Mediterranean. Thus, Sargon became king over all of southern Mesopotamia [sic], the first great ruler for whom, rather than Sumerian, the Semitic tongue known as Akkadian was natural from birth, although some earlier kings with Semitic names are recorded in the Sumerian king list. Victory was ensured, however, only by numerous battles, since each city hoped to regain its independence from Lugalzaggisi without submitting to the new overlord. It may have been before these exploits, when he was gathering followers and an army, that Sargon named himself Sharru-kin (“Rightful King”) in support of an accession not achieved in an old-established city through hereditary succession. Historical records are still so meagre, however, that there is a complete gap in information relating to this period.
Not content with dominating this area, his wish to secure favourable trade with Agade throughout the known world, together with an energetic temperament, led Sargon to defeat cities along the middle Euphrates to northern Syria and the silver-rich mountains of southern Anatolia.
He also dominated Susa, capital city of the Elamites, in the Zagros Mountains of western Iran, where the only truly contemporary record of his reign has been uncovered. Such was his fame that some merchants in an Anatolian city, probably in central Turkey, begged him to intervene in a local quarrel, and, according to the legend, Sargon, with a band of warriors, made a fabulous journey to the still-unlocated city of Burushanda (Purshahanda), at the end of which little more than his appearance was needed to settle the dispute.
As the result of Sargon’s military prowess and ability to organize, as well as of the legacy of the Sumerian [sic] city-states that he had inherited by conquest and of previously existing trade of the old Sumerian city-states with other countries, commercial connections flourished with the Indus Valley, the coast of Oman, the islands and shores of the Persian Gulf, [sic] the lapis lazuli mines of Badakhshān, the cedars of Lebanon, the silver-rich Taurus Mountains, Cappadocia, Crete, and perhaps even Greece.
During Sargon’s rule Akkadian became adapted to the script that previously had been used in the Sumerian language, and the new spirit of calligraphy that is visible upon the clay tablets of this dynasty is also clearly seen on contemporary cylinder seals, with their beautifully arranged and executed scenes of mythology and festive life. Even if this new artistic feeling is not necessarily to be attributed directly to the personal influence of Sargon, it shows that, in his new capital, military and economic values were not alone important.
Because contemporary record is lacking, no sequence can be given for the events of his reign. Neither the number of years during which he lived nor the point in time at which he ruled can be fixed exactly; 2334 BCE is now given as a date on which to hang the beginning of the dynasty of Agade, and, according to the Sumerian king list, he was king for 56 years.
The latter part of his reign was troubled with rebellions, which later literature ascribes, predictably enough, to sacrilegious acts that he is supposed to have committed; but this can be discounted as the standard cause assigned to all disasters by Sumerians and Akkadians alike. The troubles, in fact, were probably caused by the inability of one man, however energetic, to control so vast an empire without a developed and well-tried administration. There is no evidence to suggest that he was particularly harsh, nor that the Sumerians disliked him for being a Semite. The empire did not collapse totally, for Sargon’s successors were able to control their legacy, and later generations thought of him as being perhaps the greatest name in their history.
Legacy
Attributing his success to the patronage of the goddess Ishtar, in whose honour Agade was erected, Sargon of Akkad became the first great empire builder. ….
Although the briefly recorded information of his predecessor Lugalzaggisi shows that expansion beyond the Sumerian homeland had already begun, later Mesopotamians looked to Sargon as the founder of the military tradition that runs through the history of their people. ….
Two older contemporaries of Sargon are known, Lugalzaggisi (Lugalzagesi), as met above, and Ur-Zababa. Thus: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Ur-Zababa
According to the King List, Ur-Zababa was a son of King Puzur-Suen. His mother is unknown.[1][2] His grandmother was the famous Queen Kubaba.
Sargon legend
The Sargon legend is a Sumerian text purporting to be Sargon's biography. In the text, Ur-Zababa is mentioned, who awakens after a dream.
For unknown reasons, Ur-Zababa appoints Sargon as a cupbearer. Soon after this, Ur-Zababa invites Sargon to his chambers to discuss a dream of Sargon's, involving the favor of the goddess Inanna. Ur-Zababa was deeply frightened. In an attempt to kill him, Ur-Zababa sends an unwitting Sargon to deliver his bronze mirror to the E-sikil, where the chief smith, Belic-tikal, will receive it. Ur-Zababa instructed the smith to throw Sargon and the mirror into the statue molds upon arrival. However, on his way to the E-sikil the goddess Inanna instructs Sargon to not enter into the E-sikil, but only meet Belic-tikal at the gate of the E-sikil. This ruins Belic-tikal's chance to kill Sargon, and five to ten days later Sargon reappears in the courts of Ur-Zababa.
When Sargon returns to Ur-Zababa, the king becomes frightened again, and decides to send Sargon to Lugal-zage-si of Uruk, with a message on a clay tablet asking him to slay Sargon.[3][4] ….
Note the (north) westerly thrust of many of Sargon of Akkad’s conquests: Syria, Anatolia, Agade (Akkad), Crete, Greece, (one can include) Ebla, suggesting that Sargon’s empire was not likely based in the SE, in Sumer.
NIMROD AND ABRAM LEGENDS
Nissan Mindel tells about this in “Nimrod and Abraham. The Two Rivals”, at:
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/112333/jewish/Nimrod-and-Abraham.htm
Nimrod's Humble Heritage
Nimrod the mighty hunter was one of the sons of Kush. Kush was the son of Ham, the lowest and least important of Noah's three sons. Nimrod came from a line which was cursed by Noah: "Cursed be Canaan, a slave of slaves shall he be unto his brothers."
By birth, Nimrod had no right to be a king or ruler. But he was a mighty strong man, and sly and tricky, and a great hunter and trapper of men and animals. His followers grew in number, and soon Nimrod became the mighty king of Babylon, and his empire extended over other great cities.
As was to be expected, Nimrod did not feel very secure on his throne. He feared that one day there would appear a descendant of Noah's heir and successor, Shem, and would claim the throne. He was determined to have no challenger. Some of Shem's descendants had already been forced to leave that land and build their own cities and empires. There was only one prominent member of the Semitic family left in his country. He was Terah, the son of Nahor. Terah was the eighth generation removed, in a direct line of descendants from Shem. But Nimrod had nothing to fear from Terah, his most loyal and trusted servant. Terah had long before betrayed his family, and had become a follower of Nimrod. All of his ancestors were still living, including Shem himself, but Terah left his ancestral home and became attached to Nimrod. Terah, who should have been the master and Nimrod his slave, became the slave of Nimrod. Like the other people in that country, Terah believed that Nimrod received his kingdom as a gift from the "gods," and was himself a "god." Terah was prepared to serve Nimrod with all his heart. Indeed, he proved himself a very loyal and useful servant. Nimrod entrusted into his hands the command of his armies and made Terah the highest minister in his land.
Terah was short of nothing but a wife. So he found himself a wife, whose name was Amathlai. They looked forward to raising a large family, but they were not blessed with any children. The years flew by, and Terah still had no son. His father was only twenty-nine years old when he, Terah, was born. But Terah was getting closer to seventy than to thirty, and yet there was no son! He prayed to Nimrod and to his idols to bless him with a son, but his prayers were not answered. Little did he know that Nimrod felt happy about Terah's misfortune. For although Nimrod had nothing to fear from Terah, he could not be sure if Terah's sons would be as loyal to him as their father. Therefore, he was inwardly very pleased that his servant Terah had no children, and probably would never have any. But he could not be, sure, and Nimrod was not taking chances. He ordered his stargazers and astrologers to watch the sky for any sign of the appearance of a possible rival.
Damien Mackey’s comment: The next part reads suspiciously like the Nativity, Magi, and King Herod:
The Rise of Abraham
One night the star-gazers noticed , a new star rising in the East. Every night it grew brighter. They informed Nimrod.
Nimrod called together his magicians and astrologers. They all agreed that it meant that a new baby was to be born who might challenge Nimrod's power. It was decided that in order to prevent this, all new-born baby-boys would have to die, starting from the king's own palace, down to the humblest slave's hut.
And who was to be put in charge of this important task? Why, Terah, of course, the king's most trusted servant.
Terah sent out his men to round up all expectant mothers. The king's palace was turned into a gigantic maternity ward. A lucky mother gave birth to a girl, and then they were both sent home, laden with gifts. But if the baby happened to be a boy, he was put to death without mercy.
One night, Nimrod's star-gazers watching that new star, saw it grow very bright and suddenly dart across the sky, first in one direction then in another, west, east, north and south, swallowing up all other stars in its path.
Nimrod was with his star-gazers on the roof of his palace, and saw the strange display in the sky with his own eyes. "What is the meaning of this?" he demanded.
"There can be only one explanation. A son was born tonight who would challenge the king's power, and the father is none other than Terah."
"Terah?!" Nimrod roared. "My own trusted servant?"
Nimrod's Rage
Nimrod had never given a thought to Terah as becoming a father at the age of seventy. However, if he did become a father, he would surely be glad to offer his first-born son to his king and god! Nimrod dispatched a messenger to Terah at once, ordering him to appear together with his newly born son.
That night Terah and his wife Amathlai had indeed become the happy parents of a baby boy, who brought a great light and radiance into their home. Terah had hoped it would be a girl, and he would have no terrible decision to make. Now he could not think of giving up this lovely baby, born to him at his old age after such longing. He had managed to keep his wife's expectancy a secret. None of his servants knew about the birth of his son. There was a secret passage leading from his palace to a cave in the field. He took the baby to that cave and left it there. As he was returning to the palace, past the servants' quarters, he suddenly heard the cry of a baby. What good fortune! Terah cried. It so happened that one of his servants had given birth to a boy about the same time as his own son was born. Terah took the baby and put him in silk swaddling and handed him to his wife to nurse. Just then the king's messenger arrived.
When Terah with the baby in his arms appeared before Nimrod, Terah declared: "I was just about to bring my son to you, when your messenger came."
Nimrod thought it was mighty loyal of Terah to give up his only son, born to him in his old age. Little did he know that it was not Terah's son who was brought to die, but a servant's.
Abraham Emerges
For three years little Abraham remained in the cave, where he did not know day from night. Then he came out of the cave and saw the bright sun in the sky, and thought that it was G d, who had created the heaven and the earth, and him, too. But in the evening the sun went down, and the moon rose in the sky, surrounded by myriads of stars. "This must be G d," Abraham decided. But the moon, too, disappeared, and the sun reappeared, and Abraham decided that there must be a G d Who rules over the sun and the moon and the stars, and the whole world.
And so, from the age of three years and on, Abraham knew that there was only one G d, and he was resolved to pray to Him and worship Him alone. A life full of many and great adventures began for Abraham ….
Abram (Abraham) was indeed, I believe, a younger contemporary of Nimrod.
ABRAHAM’S CONTEMPORARIES
From Genesis 14, a most important historical document, the toledôt or family history of Terah, father of Abram - who would become Abraham - we learn that Abram’s northern contemporaries were (14:1): “… Amraphel … king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Kedorlaomer king of Elam and Tidal king of Goyim …”.
In the next verse (14:2), we learn of five contemporaneous kings in (what we know today as) Palestine, the kings of Pentapolis, against whom the northern kings “… went to war [against] Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar)”.
Even though this incident will occur after Abram’s sojourn in Egypt, due to a famine (Genesis 12), I have addressed it first because of its historical and archaeological importance, it thereby serving as a firm base for establishing the true era of Abraham.
Dr. John Osgood, who has not succeeded in identifying any of the four invading kings, nor really cares about that:
“The problem is not so much one of identification of the kings,
for they are named in the narrative and their nations are given”,
has nevertheless wonderfully established the foundations for all of this by anchoring, archaeologically, the invasion event, and hence the era of Abram. We find this set out in his article, “The Times of Abraham” (EN Tech. J., vol. 2, 1986, pp. 77–87), and, more recently, in his book, They Speak with One Voice (2020).
This is so important that I must take the relevant section from the article (pp. 79-82):
A NEW PLACEMENT OF ABRAHAM'S TIME AGAINST THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD
In order to arrive at an approximate guide as to where we should look for the times of Abraham we start with the biblical dates from the Flood to Christ, as years B.C., and attempt to reinterpret all the archaeological data against that time scale.
This has been done before in “The Times of the Judges — the Archaeology” (see Osgood, EN Tech. J., this volume). The resultant chronological table is reproduced here in Figure 3 with the area of Abraham pin-pointed.
It can be seen against this archaeological table that Abraham fits somewhere towards the end of the Neolithic of Jericho passing into the Chalcolithic of Jericho. It is around that approximate area we will now look in the archaeological record to see if we can make positive identification of the times of Abraham. The reader will no doubt appreciate the huge difference in time on the accepted scale between the Chalcolithic of Palestine and the MB I of Palestine. What I am insisting here is that the whole archaeological chronology must be re-evaluated against the biblical record. Let us begin that reevaluation.
In order to make positive identification of the period of Abraham we will begin with a narrative in the life of Abraham as taken from Genesis 14.
Genesis 14 is a narrative which begins with a confederation of four Mesopotamian kings:–
(1) Amraphel, king of Shinar
(2) Arioch, king of Ellasar
(3) Chedorlaomer, king of Elam
(4) Tidal, king of Goiim (Genesis 14:1)
These extended their empire to include Palestine, or at least the Jordan valley, and in particular they brought under their suzerainty the kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim and Bela — the five cities of the plain. For twelve years (verse 4) this 79 Times of Abraham Figure 3. Composite archaeological table. continued, but in the thirteenth year the kings of the plain rebelled, so in the fourteenth year the four kings of Mesopotamia, apparently with Chedorlaomer as chief, came and attacked the whole region.
Now many have been the attempts to identify these kings, for most have realised that if they can be identified in the archaeological record, then the times of Abraham can be found for certain. As R.K. Harrison has put it:
“The chronology of the patriarchal period would be stabilized if a reliable identification of the four invading Mesopotamian kings could be made. This may emerge as the result of future excavations in the area, but in the meantime the chronology of the period under consideration must be placed between the twentieth and the late seventeenth centuries B.C.”4
The problem is not so much one of identification of the kings, for they are named in the narrative and their nations are given. Rather it is a problem of identifying the period from which these kings came in an archaeological context. So far this has defied success. However, it is my hope that the discussion here will lay to rest that search as we identify the only period when such a confederation could conceivably have existed.
In order to achieve this we will continue the narrative and the search for the details of this narrative in the life of Abraham.
When the four kings of Mesopotamia attacked, they followed a particular course which can be seen on the maps in Figures 4 and 5. They came down through Syria into the Bashan area where they attacked the Rephaim in Ashteroth Karnaim (Genesis 14:5). Then they proceeded southwards into Trans Jordan to the later Ammonite area and attacked the Zuzim in Ham. (These are later mentioned in Deuteronomy 2:20.) Moving further south into the region later identified as Moab, they attacked the Emim (Deuteronomy 2:10), and then on they went down into the region which later became Edom, where they attacked the Horites in Mt Seir (see Deuteronomy 2:22). Having completed their conquest of Trans Jordan, they crossed the Arabah into the Negev of later Israel and attacked both En Mishpat (Genesis 14:7) (most likely Kadesh Barnea), and the area later inhabited by the Amalekites which was westward of Kadesh Barnea. Having completed that, they then headed northwards again along the Jordan valley and attacked the Amorites in Hazezon-tamar. Continuing further north, they met in battle the kings of the five cities of the plain, defeated them, took captives and headed north. They were then pursued by Abram with his own private army allied with Aner, Eshcol and Mamre, the Amorite chieftains (Genesis 14:24). They overtook the Mesopotamian kings in Syria, defeated them, and returned with the spoils to Canaan.
As is often the case, the positive clue comes from the most insignificant portion of this passage. In Genesis 14:7 we are told that the kings of Mesopotamia attacked “the Amorites who dwelt in Hazezon-tamar”. Now 2 Chronicles 20:2 tells us that Hazezon-tamar is En-gedi, the oasis mentioned in Scripture a number of times on the western shore of the Dead Sea.
The passage in Genesis chapter 14, therefore, allows us to conclude that in the days of Abraham there was a civilization in En-gedi on the western shore of the Dead Sea, a civilization of Amorites, and that these were defeated by Chedorlaomer in his passage northward.
FOCUS ON EN-GEDI
Happily for us, En-gedi has been excavated.5,6 The excavations found only three major periods of settlement at En-gedi:–
1. The Roman period — not relevant here
2. During the Kingdom of Israel — not relevant here
3. During the Chalcolithic of Palestine — the largest and most prolific settlement period.
In fact, a building complex was discovered situated on a hill terrace above the spring of En-gedi approximately 150 metres north. This appeared to be a sacred enclosure, similar to the Chalcolithic sanctuary discovered in Stratum XIX at Megiddo. Notably, the enclosure at En-gedi was not destroyed, but was abandoned with the people apparently taking their cult furniture with them.
I believe it is more than coincidental that corresponding to our new match on the archaeological table we find that there was in fact a civilization in En-gedi during this archaeological period. The picture becomes even more illuminated when we are led into the various caves around the En-gedi region, and particularly to one called the Cave of the Treasure.
In 1960 an expedition of urgency into the Judean desert was conducted by the Hebrew University, the Department of Antiquities, and the Israel Exploration Society with help from the armed forces of Israel.
The precipitating motive was to rescue antiquities, such as finds like the Dead Sea Scrolls, from destruction, and to do a complete search of the caves of the Judean desert to look for antiquities for preservation (see Figure 6).
Many caves were found and finds were such that it was clear that the greatest time of occupation was the Chalcolithic period. Although the caves themselves were apparently occupied for only a brief period, they testified to prolific civilization and a significant population density in this area greater than for any later one. The conclusion can almost certainly be drawn that the sanctuary at En-gedi was the focal point for their worship.
One of the most remarkable caves was the cave of the treasure in Nahal Mishmar. Details have been fully published in ‘The Cave of the Treasure’ by Pessah Bar-Adon.7 A significant treasure of cult artifacts and weapons was found, testifying to a wealth of culture at this period.
Bar-Adon comments:
“It took us three hours to remove the articles, which were wrapped in a straw mat, from their hiding place — four hundred and twenty nine in all. Apart from six of haematite, six of ivory and one of stone, all the rest are of metal. They were all of a surprisingly high technical standard of workmanship.”8
And he goes on:–
“The hoard comprised the following: axes and chisels; hammers; ‘mace heads’; hollow stands decorated with knobs, branches, birds, and animals such as deer, ibex, buffalo, wild goats, and eagle; ‘horns’ [in one of which there was still a piece of thread running through the perforations at the edge); smooth and elaborately ornamented ‘crowns’; small baskets; a pot; a statuette with a human face; sceptres; flag poles; an ivory box; perforated utensils made — as subsequently determined by Prof. Haas — from hippopotamus tusks; and more.”8
They dated it to the Chalcolithic period.
Bar-Adon queried the reasons for the articles in this context as if somebody had left them there and intended to return but was not able to. He continues on:–
“What induced the owners of this treasure to hide it hurriedly away in the cave? And what was the event that prevented them from taking the treasure out of its concealment and restoring it to its proper place? And what caused the sudden destruction of the Chalcolithic settlements in the Judean Desert and in other regions of Palestine” 8:226
The remarkable thing about this culture also was that it was very similar, if not the same culture, to that found at a place in the southern Jordan Valley called Taleilat Ghassul (which is the type site of this culture), and also resembles the culture of Beersheba. The culture can in fact be called ‘Ghassul culture’ and specifically Ghassul IV.
The Ghassul IV culture disappeared from Trans Jordan, Taleilat Ghassul and Beersheba and the rest of the Negev as well as from Hazezon-tamar or Engedi apparently at the same time. It is remarkable when looked at on the map that this disappearance of the Ghassul IV culture corresponds exactly to the areas which were attacked by the Mesopotamian confederate of kings. The fact that En-gedi specifically terminates its culture at this point allows a very positive identification of this civilization, Ghassul IV, with the Amorites of Hazezon-tamar.
If that be the case, then we can answer BarAdon’s question very positively. The reason the people did not return to get their goods was that they had been destroyed by the confederate kings of Mesopotamia, in approximately 1,870 B.C. in the days of Abraham.
Now as far as Palestine is concerned, in an isolated context, this may be possible to accept, but many might ask: What about the Mesopotamian kings themselves? Others may ask: What does this do to Egyptian chronology? And still further questions need to be asked concerning the origin of the Philistines in the days of Abraham, for the Philistines were closely in touch with Abraham during this same period (Genesis 20). So we must search for evidence of Philistine origins or habitation at approximately the end of the Chalcolithic (Ghassul IV) in Palestine. All these questions will be faced. ….
[End of quotes]
According to Dr. Osgood’s most invaluable biblical-archaeological synchronisations, Abram belongs to Late Chalcolithic En-geddi, which was synchronous with Ghassul IV in Palestine’s southern Jordan Valley; Stratum V at Arad; and the Gerzean period in Egypt.
To this approximate stratigraphical phase belongs as well the enigmatic Narmer.
It was the time of the four kings of Genesis 14, who raided Palestine, both east and west of the Jordan, and who successfully made war upon the kings of Pentapolis.
The northern coalition was eventually harried and discomforted (unlikely defeated) by Abram and his band, recovering nephew Lot and his possessions (Genesis 14:14-16).
The great priest Melchizedek then makes an appearance before the victorious Abram (vv. 18-20). As already noted, he is Noah’s son, Shem, priest and king of Salem.
Salem is not Jerusalem, though, as is widely thought. It is clearly a northern town, identified as Shiloh by Fr. John Wijngaards in his article (pp. 2-3):
An alternative location for the ancient sanctuary of Shiloh?
(1) (PDF) Alternative location for the ancient sanctuary of Shiloh? An alternative location for the ancient sanctuary of Shiloh | John N M Wijngaards - Academia.edu
In this essay (1) I will first elaborate how and why topographic information about biblical sites has been lost. (2) I will spell out my reasons for doubting Shiloh's identification with Khirbet Seiloun. (3) I will, from biblical sources, add a brief reconstruction of what Shiloh’s sanctuary must have looked like. (4) I will explain why biblical texts seem to favour a location of Samuel’s Shiloh in the valley of Shechem. (5) I will then proceed to illustrate why Ta'anath Shiloh, i.e. present-day Khirbet et-Tana or Kirbet el- Fauqain the valley of Shechem, could have been the location of early Shiloh.
My view on the identification of the biblical Nimrod, as expressed earlier, is that:
Sargon of Akkad (in Shinar) = Naram-Sin (= Nimrod) must be
the biblical “Amraphel … king of Shinar” (Genesis 14:1).
And this is only strengthened by what follows, the legend of Nimrod as a contemporary of Chedorlaomer, with whom, he invaded Palestine. The leader of the invasive force, though, appears to have been the Elamite, Chedorlaomer (Kedorlaomer). And that would accord with what we read in the JewishEncyclopedia article, “Nimrod”: https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11548-nimrod
… Nimrod came to wage war with Chedorlaomer, King of Elam, who had been one of Nimrod's generals, and who after the dispersion of the builders of the tower went to Elam and formed there an independent kingdom. Nimrod at the head of an army set out with the intention of punishing his rebellious general, but the latter routed him. Nimrod then became a vassal of Chedorlaomer, who involved him in the war with the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, with whom he was defeated by Abraham ("Sefer ha-Yashar," l.c.; comp. Gen. xiv. 1-17). ….
Whilst our composite Nimrod, the tyrant, was indubitably a Great King, the Elamite, Chedorlaomer, apparently had once been merely his ‘general’.
And quite possibly the two other coalitional kings, Tidal and Arioch, may also have been more governors, or generals, than actual emperors.
While Chedorlaomer (Kudur lagamar) certainly appears to be an Elamite name, I have had cause to wonder if a king from so far away as Elam could have held Palestine in subjugation for twelve long years, as according to the Genesis 14 account.
And we have noted that the region of Sumer, and so, likely Elam to some degree (although PPNA did penetrate there), was not highly settled at this particular stage of history. Could there be - given our findings of names duplicated, W to E - another Elam, one closer to Palestine?
Furthermore, the Awan with which Elam was then associated has not been identified.
King David fought at a Helam (Elam?), for instance (2 Samuel 10:15-18), across the Jordan, but on his side of the Euphrates River, against the Syrians under Hadadezer.
We shall meet Hadadezer later in this book as the ‘Assyrian’ potentate Shamsi-Adad I (c. 1800 BC, conventional dating).
This Helam, whose “exact location is unknown”, is variously placed, and unhelpfully, either N or S of Damascus. I would favour the latter, S of Damascus in Transjordanian Hauran (the traditional home of the prophet Job = Tobias).
https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/helam
HELAM (hē'lăm, Heb. hēlām). A place in the Syrian desert east of the Jordan where David defeated the forces of Hadadezer, king of Zobah (2Sam.10.16-2Sam.10.17). The exact location is unknown.
________________________________________
HELAM he’ ləm (חֵילָ֑ם). The place to which the Syrians under Hadadezer retreated and were defeated by David (2 Sam 10:16, 17), after Joab initially beat them before the city of the Ammonites. The location is uncertain, although Ezekiel 47:16 LXX, would indicate its location was N of Damascus toward Hamath. It is possibly identical with Alema (modern ’Alma), mentioned in 1 Maccabees 5:26 and the Egyp. Execration texts (c. 1850 b.c.), S of Damascus, in Hauran.
In this case, Genesis 14’s “Elam” (if Helam) would be situated far more conveniently than the Elam in far-distant Iran, for Chedorlaomer to have subdued Palestine (14:4): “For twelve years they [the kings of Pentapolis] had been subject to Chedorlaomer, but in the thirteenth year they rebelled”.
Note, also, that the invasion of coalitional kings begins approximately in the Hauran region, at Ashteroth Karnaim against the Rephaïtes (vv. 5-7):
In the fourteenth year, Chedorlaomer and the kings allied with him went out and defeated the Rephaites in Ashteroth Karnaim, the Zuzites in Ham, the Emites in Shaveh Kiriathaim and the Horites in the hill country of Seir, as far as El Paran near the desert. Then they turned back and went to En Mishpat (that is, Kadesh), and they conquered the whole territory of the Amalekites, as well as the Amorites who were living in Hazezon Tamar.
This region of Hauran, with Ashteroth [and] Karnaim, was directly south of Damascus (refer to map).
In the Book of Tobit, as we now have it, Damascus is wrongly called “Rages” (Rhages), whilst Bashan is given as “Ecbatana”, thereby confusingly suggesting a Median geography. I have corrected this as follows:
… I had specifically claimed that “Rages”, a city in the mountains, must be the city of Damascus that dominated the province of Batanaea”. Damascus, almost 700 m above sea level, is actually situated on a plateau. Secondly, I gave very specific geographical details in order to identify this “Rages” in relation to “Ecbatana” (Tobit 5:6), which I had in turn identified (following the Heb. Londinii, or HL, fragment version of Tobit) with “Bathania”, or Bashan (possibly Herodotus’ Syrian Ecbatana as opposed to the better known Median Ecbatana).
According to Tobit, “Rages is situated in the mountains, two days’ walk from Ecbatana which is in the plain”.
Now Damascus is precisely two days’ walk from Bashan in the Hauran plain, as according to Jâkût el-Hamawi who says of Batanaea’s most central town of Nawâ …: “Between Nawa and Damascus is two days’ journey”. What further consolidates the fact that Tobit’s ‘Ecbatana’ was in a westerly direction, rather than an easterly one, is that his son Tobias, leaving Nineveh, arrived at the Tigris river in the evening; an impossibility were he heading for Median Ecbatana in the east. And, according to the Vulgate version of Tobit, Charan, that is, Haran, is situated “in the halfway” between Nineveh and Ecbatana. The traveller is clearly journeying towards the west. Whilst Bible scholars today tend to dismiss the whole geography of the Book of Tobit as nonsensical, a simple adjustment based on a genuine version (Heb. Londinii), makes perfect – even very precise (“two days walk”) – sense of it. ….
With Chedorlaomer’s Elam now potentially Helam, conveniently situated in N Transjordan, we may be in a position to identify the so far unlocated Awan that is associated with Elam. W.F. Albright refers to a Kefr ‘Awân in the region, in his article, “The Jordan Valley in the Bronze Age” (The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 1924 - 1925, Vol. 6): https://www.jstor.org/stable/3768510
The Mut-ba‘lu named here will re-emerge later in this book as the oldest son of the notorious King Ahab of Israel.
Albright explains it geographically (pp. 40-41):
… Mut-ba‘lu suddenly mentions a certain Šulum-Marduk, with a Babylonian name, and proceeds to say that Aštarti (‘Aštarôt of the Bible), modern Tell ‘Aštarah in western Haurân, has been rescued, but that seven (other) towns of the land of Gari have become hostile, while the towns of Ḫawini and Yabiši have been captured - by whom is not clear. The latter two towns are apparently not in Gari, and may be identified with Jabesh-gilead not yet identified, but situated on the Wâdī Yâbis six miles southeast of Pella … with Kefr ‘Awân, situated two or three miles north of the neighborhood indicated for Jabesh. ….
If the geography of the four invading kings has need to be shifted further westwards (as indeed I have done already in the case of Amraphel’s “Shinar”), then Arioch’s “Ellasar” could perhaps be the important Mediterranean port of Ullaza; whilst Tidal’s “Goiim” might have been as close to Abram as Harosheth-Ha Goiim (Judges 4:13), where Tidal perhaps served as a general for Chedorlaomer – just as Sisera would later serve there for king Jabin of Hazor (4:2): “So the LORD sold them into the hands of Jabin king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor. Sisera, the commander of his army, was based in Harosheth Haggoyim”.
With Amraphel identified potentially as a composite Nimrod (Sargon/Naram-Sin/ Shar-kali-sharri), then we find that there was indeed a time here of prominence (and sometimes dominance) by a state (or fort?) called Elam.
In the case of Naram-Sin, for instance, there was a treaty with Elam (or Awan):
https://cdli.ox.ac.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=the_old_elamite_treaty_of_naram-sin
The Treaty of Naram-Sin
This royal treaty between Old Akkadian king Naram-Sin and an unnamed Elamite ruler is one of the oldest and most important witnesses for Old Elamite language, written in an Old Akkadian ductus.
The document begins by invoking the names of Elamite gods, and includes also a few Sumerian and Akkadian deities. Old Elamite is poorly understood, and the text presents many difficulties, but since Scheil’s initial publication, one particularly important line has been often quoted:
“L’ennemi naramsinien est mon ennemi, l’ami naramsinien est mon ami!” (Scheil 1911: 6)
On top of this text’s linguistic and paleographic interest, it also offers a rare look at regional diplomacy during the Old Akkadian period, the presumed Sargonic ‘state archives’ never having been found (Westenholz: p 102). While Cameron suggested in 1936 that “the Elamite is obviously admitting his vassalage to the ruler of Agade”, Hinz (and following publications) later argued that the document does not represent one party’s submission to the other, but rather records an alliance between the two kings and the exchange of gifts presented by envoys (Hinz 1967: 95). Since Cameron (1936 pp. 34) it has been generally maintained that Hita, 11th king of Awan, is the most likely ruler represented by the text (though see comments by Lambert 1991: p 54). Naram-Sin is not deified in the text, perhaps suggesting that the agreement was concluded early in his reign, before his traditional scribal deification, or that the writing is a function of political posturing with respect to the Elamites (Hinz: 96).
This document is also a rare representative of an Elamite-speaking elite at Old Akkadian Susa, providing for a different characterisation of the city than the otherwise traditionally Old Akkadian administrative texts from the same site would have allowed (Lambert 1991: 54). It stands as an important early witness to a long history of cultural and political tension and interaction between Mesopotamia and the various entities associated with the name Elam.
And Van de Mieroop likewise tells (op. cit., p. 63. My emphasis):
Naram-Sin concluded a treaty with an unnamed ruler or high official of Susa, a document written in the Elamite language. The agreement specified no submission to Akkad, only a promise by the Elamite to regard Naram-Sin's enemies as his own. The autonomy of Elam should not be underestimated.
In the case of Shar-kali-sharri, Elam may have conquered Akkad. And we know the name of the Elamite king at the time, who would now become my favoured candidate for the biblical Chedorlaomer: namely, Puzur-Inshuhinak.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puzur-Inshushinak
Puzur-Inshushinak (Linear Elamite: Puzur Šušinak, Akkadian: 𒌋𒌋𒀭𒈹𒂞, puzur3-dinšušinak, also 𒅤𒊭𒀭𒈹𒂞, puzur4-dinšušinak "Calling Inshushinak"), also sometimes thought to read Kutik-Inshushinak in Elamite,[3] was king of Elam, around 2100 BC,[4] and the last from the Awan dynasty according to the Susa kinglist.[5] He mentions his father's name as Šimpi-išhuk, which, being an Elamite name, suggests that Puzur-Inshuhinak himself was Elamite.[6]
In the inscription of the "Table au Lion", he appears as "Puzur-Inshushin(ak) Ensi (Governor) of Susa, Shakkanakku (Military Governor) of the country of Elam" (𒅤𒊭𒀭𒈹𒂞 𒑐𒋼𒋛 𒈹𒂞𒆠 𒄊𒀴 𒈣𒋾 𒉏𒆠 puzur-inshushinak ensi shushiki skakkanakku mati NIMki), a title used by his predecessors Eshpum, Epirmupi and Ili-ishmani as governors of the Akkadian Empire for the territory of Elam.[2][7] In another inscription, he calls himself the "Mighty King of Elam", suggesting an accession to independence from the weakening Akkadian Empire.[8]
His father was Shinpi-khish-khuk, the crown prince, and most likely a brother of king Khita. Kutik-Inshushinak's first position was as governor of Susa, which he may have held from a young age.
About 2110 BC, his father died, and he became crown prince in his stead.
Elam had been under the domination of Akkad since the time of Sargon, and Kutik-Inshushinak accordingly campaigned in the Zagros mountains on their behalf. He was greatly successful as his conquests seem to have gone beyond the initial mission.
In 2090 BC, he asserted his independence from king Shar-Kali-Sharri of the Akkadian Empire, which had been weakening ever since the death of Naram-Sin, thus making himself king of Elam.[9] He conquered Anshan and managed to unite most of Elam into one kingdom.[9]
According to the inscriptions of Ur-Nammu, Puzur-Inshushinak conquered numerous cities in central Mesopotamia, including Eshnunna and Akkad, and probably Akshak.[10] His conquests probably encroached considerably on Gutian territory, gravely weakening them, and making them unable to withstand the Neo-Sumerian revolt of Utu-hengal.[11]
The Elamite name of Puzur-Inshushinak:
Pu-zu-r Šu-ši-na-k
in the Linear Elamite script (right to left).[12]
He built extensively on the citadel at Susa, and encouraged the use of the Linear Elamite script to write the Elamite language. This may be seen as a reaction against Sargon's attempt to force the use of Akkadian. Most inscriptions in Linear Elamite date from the reign of Kutik-Inshushinak.
….
Elam fell under control of the Shimashki dynasty (also Elamite of origin).[14]
Surely, now, this “Shimashki” must refer to – in my revised geographical context – the ancient city (state) of Damascus, of which the Arabic Dimašq (Dimashk) is almost a perfect transliteration.
I shall have cause, later in this book, to reject the new idea that the reign of the Elamite, Puzur-Inshuhinak, overlapped into the Ur III dynasty:
It is now known that his reign in Elam overlapped with that of Ur-Nammu of Ur-III,[15] although the previous lengthy estimates of the duration of the intervening Gutian dynasty and rule of Utu-hengal of Uruk had not allowed for that synchronism. Ur-Nammu, who styled himself "King of Sumer and Akkad" is probably the one who, early in his reign, reconquered the northern territories that had been occupied by Puzur-Inshushinak, before going on to conquer Susa.[16]
As Nimrod (Sargon) later expanded eastward, to Nineveh, so it appears that Chedorlaomer (if Puzur-Inshuhinak), apparently quite a cultured individual, began the real civilisation of Susa in eastern Elam.
The Akkadian dynasty is supposed to have been ended by the Guti, a people Dr. Osgood has associated with the Elamites, Kassites and Lullubi. The King List records twenty or twenty-one Gutian kings ruling Sumer and Akkad, totalling 125 years, although it is uncertain whether at the time of the invasion they had a king or were still barbarian hordes. One suspects that these Guti, too, may be in need of a dynastic alter ego.
Part Six: Patriarchs and Egypt
Contents:
Abram and Egypt .……………………. p. 94-96
Isaac and Egypt ……………….………. p. 97-103
Jacob and Egypt …………………..….. p. 104-125
ABRAM AND EGYPT
The era of Abram in Egypt, and during the raid of the four kings, is to be located archaeologically in Late Chalcolithic En-geddi, as we have found.
This corresponds to the Gerzean period in Egypt.
(Abram) Abraham’s very long life (Genesis 25:7): “Abraham lived a hundred and seventy-five years”, will continue on into the Early Bronze I Age of city building.
I like Dr. Osgood’s neat arrangement of:
Abraham (Early Bronze I)
Jacob (Early Bronze II)
Moses (Early Bronze III
It is not going to be far from the mark.
Tradition has Egypt’s first dynastic king, Menes, as the Egyptian contemporary of Abraham – a view that I would be inclined to support.
The rulers of Egypt were not known that far back as “Pharaoh”, a Greek word from the Egyptian Per-aa, meaning “Great House”. Scribal editors have obviously inserted a title that would actually have been quite anachronistic at the time of the Patriarchs, this usage not having come into effect until Egypt’s New Kingdom (Eighteenth Dynasty). We are currently almost a millennium before that (in revised terms).
Matters historical begin to co-ordinate rather well now, because it seems that we can know who was Menes’ Akkadian contemporary.
Menes’ Akkadian contemporary was apparently Naram-Sin who boasted of having subdued Manium, or Mannu (Dannu = the Great), of Magan, which, as we learned, was Egypt. Mannu the Great was Menes of Egypt’s First Dynasty.
Here we must thank W. F. Albright for making this vital connection even in the face of the accepted 3100 BC for Menes and the beginning of Egyptian dynastic history.
(“Menes and Narâm-Sin”, JEA, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Apr., 1920), pp. 89-98)
Albright can be like that, a rigorous conventionalist who sometimes makes a startling push beyond the textbook envelope.
Narmer, generally presumed to have been a pre-dynastic Egyptian ruler, and who may be accepted so by Dr. Osgood, is archaeologically located by the latter in “late Gerzean” (“A Better Model for the Stone Age”, EN Tech. J., vol. 2, 1986, p. 100):
The supersedure of Gerzean culture seems to indicate a pre-Dynastic Northern dominance. …. It would be against this that the South fought in the wars that finally led to unification and the Dynastic history of Egypt, firstly under Scorpion then under Narmer, and then under Menes/Hor-aha. Narmer was apparently late Gerzean — Chalcolithic, and was contemporary with Arad I … or the end of Ghassul IV in Palestine, the end of which has before been dated at around 1870 B.C. during the days of Abraham.
For the archaeology of Abram, I have been indebted to Dr (Medical) John Osgood, a Creationist, and his vital research in “The Times of Abraham”, Ex Nihilo TJ, Vol. 2, 1986, pp. 77-87: https://creation.com/the-times-of-abraham
Regarding the location of Narmer, Osgood explains as follows:
We have placed the end of the Chalcolithic of the Negev, En-gedi, Trans Jordan and Taleilat Ghassul at approximately 1870 B.C., being approximately at Abraham’ 80th year. Early Bronze I Palestine (EB I) would follow this, significantly for our discussions. Stratum V therefore at early Arad (Chalcolithic) ends at 1870 B.C., and the next stratum, Stratum IV (EB I), would begin after this.
Stratum IV begins therefore some time after 1870 B.C.. This is a new culture significantly different from Stratum V.112
Belonging to Stratum IV, Amiram found a sherd with the name of Narmer (First Dynasty of Egypt),10, 13 and she dates Stratum IV to the early part of the Egyptian Dynasty I and the later part of Canaan EB I. Amiram feels forced to conclude a chronological gap between Stratum V (Chalcolithic) at Arad and Stratum IV EB I at Arad.12:116 However, this is based on the assumption of time periods on the accepted scale of Canaan’ history, long time periods which are here rejected.
The chronological conclusion is strong that Abraham’s life-time corresponds to the Chalcolithic in Egypt, through at least a portion of Dynasty I of Egypt, which equals Ghassul IV through to EB I in Palestine. The possibilities for the Egyptian king of the Abrahamic narrative are therefore:-
1. A late northern Chalcolithic king of Egypt, or
2. Menes or Narmer, be they separate or the same king (Genesis 12:10-20).
[End of quote]
The beginnings of Egyptian dynastic history, once Sothically dated to 4240 BC, but now to 3100 BC, need to be lowered even further to c. 1900 BC, based on the synchronism of the first dynastic king, Menes, with Abram. Dr. (as he then was) Albright, leaving convention right behind him for a moment, made Menes a contemporary of Naram-Sin of Akkad, who will correspondingly need to be lowered to c. 1900 BC, but not as far down as Menes (3100 BC, conventional) has to be lowered, because Naram-Sin is conventionally dated to c. 2250 BC.
Given the archaeological presence in Canaan at this time of Narmer - he showing, perhaps, certain non-Egyptian characteristics - then this Narmer now, I think, becomes a prize candidate for either Naram-Sin, or his ally, Chedorlaomer.
Abram lived at a time of, as we are finding, some extremely famous and influential biblico-historical characters.
A Note: During the Covid lockdown I was in the process of writing a highly ambitious history of the world which included the AD era as well, I being aware that that, too, was in need of a radical revision.
This ‘book’ I had entitled: From Genesis to Hernán Cortés.
Some of AD so-called ‘history’ is actually non history, BC history projected into an alleged AD world.
Now here is an example of this BC to AD projection pertaining to Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, of Genesis 14. Previously I have written about this:
“… Chlodomer shared in the fourfold partition of his father’s kingdom in 511 …”.,
Encyclopaedia Britannica
The name of the supposed C6th AD Frankish king, Chlodomer (Clodomir or Clodomer, c. 495 - 524 AD), immediately hit me - on first hearing of it - as being almost identical to the biblical name, Chedorlaomer.
And the belief that the kingdom which Chlodomer “shared” involved, as in the above quote, a “fourfold partition”, has not done anything to diminish this first impression.
For Chedorlaomer, too, was part of a fourfold coalition of kings (Genesis 14:1-11):
Chlodomer, like Chedorlaomer, attacked in an easterly direction, with the assistance of three other kings (Chlotar I, Childebert I and Theodoric I):
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Chlodomer
…. The eldest son of Clovis I by Clotilda, Chlodomer shared in the fourfold partition of his father’s kingdom in 511, receiving lands in western and central France; his was the only one of the four kingdoms to form a single geographical unit on both sides of the Loire River. ….
ISAAC AND EGYPT
Upon close examination, the Book of Genesis appears to provide us with
several vital clues about the “Pharaoh” encountered by Abram and Sarai,
and, later, by Isaac and Rebekah.
There may be such clues from a study of the structure of the relevant Genesis passages, from toledôt and chiasmus, as can assist us in determining just who was, in the Egyptian records, this enigmatic ruler.
Toledôt and chiasmus, the keys to the structure of the Book of Genesis,
may lead us to a real name for this “Pharaoh”.
1. The Toledoth Guide
Since it was common in ancient Egyptian documents for the ruler of Egypt to be referred to therein simply by a title, not by a personal name, critics are not correct, therefore, in their claim that the lack of an Egyptian name (such as e.g. a “Khety”, “Thutmose”, or “Ramesses”) for the ruler in the case of the Abram and Joseph narratives of Genesis (cf. 12:15 and 39:1) is a further testimony, as they think, to these texts being unhistorical.
Since these texts refer to the ruler of Egypt only as “Pharaoh” (an anachronistic term with regard to pre-New Kingdom Egypt, as noted on p. 95), it is argued that we ought not to take them as being serious histories.
It appears, however, from a consideration of the structure of the Book of Genesis, that the Holy Spirit may have a trick for us all, at least in the case of Abram’s history.
From the now well-known theory of toledôt (a Hebrew feminine plural), we might be surprised to learn that so great a Patriarch as Abram (later Abraham), did not sign off the record of his own history (as did e.g. Adam, Noah, and Jacob).
No, Abram’s story was recorded instead by his two chief sons, Ishmael and Isaac.
“These are the generations of Ishmael ...” (Genesis 25:12).
“These are the generations of Isaac ...” (Genesis 25:19).
So, there were two hands at work in this particular narrative, and this fact explains the otherwise strange repetition of several famous incidents recorded in the narrative.
And it is in the second telling of the incident of the abduction of Abram’s wife, Sarai (later Sarah), that we encounter the name of the ruler who, in the first telling of it, is called simply “Pharaoh”. He is “Abimelech” (20:2).
Admittedly, there are such seeming differences between the two accounts, as regards names, geography and chronology, as perhaps to discourage one from considering them to be referring to the very same incident; and that despite such obvious similarities as:
- the Patriarch claiming that his beautiful wife was his “sister”;
- the ruler of the land taking her for his own;
- he then discovering that she was already married (underlined by plagues);
- and asking the Patriarch why he had deceived him by saying that the woman was his sister;
- the return of the woman to her husband, whose possessions are now augmented.
The seeming contradictions between the two accounts are that, whereas the first narrated incident occurs in Egypt, and the covetous ruler is a “Pharaoh”, the second seems to be located in southern Palestine, with the ruler being “King Abimelech of Gerar”, and who (according to a somewhat similar incident again after Isaac had married Rebekah) was “King Abimelech of the Philistines” (26:1).
Again, in the first narrated account, the Patriarch and his wife have their old names, Abram and Sarai, whereas in the second account they are referred to as Abraham and Sarah, presumably indicating a later time.
In the first narrated account, the “Pharaoh” is “afflicted with great plagues because of Sarai”, whereas, in the second, “God healed Abimelech, and also healed his wife and female slaves so that they bore children” (20:17).
The differences can be explained fairly easily.
Ishmael understandably wrote his father’s history from an Egyptian perspective, because his mother, Hagar, was “an Egyptian slave-girl” in Abram’s household, and she later “got a wife for [Ishmael] from the land of Egypt” (cf. 16:1 and 21:21). Ishmael names his father “Abram” because that is how he was known to Ishmael. Moreover, the incident with “Pharaoh” had occurred while the Patriarch was still called Abram.
Isaac was not even born until some 25 years after this incident. His parents were re-named as Abraham and Sarah just prior to his birth. So, naturally, Isaac refers to them as such in the abduction incident, even though they were then Abram and Sarai.
Again, there is no contradiction geographically between Egypt and Gerar because we are distinctly told in Ishmael’s account that it was just before the family went to Egypt (12:11) that Abram had told his wife that she was to be known as his sister.
Gerar is on the way to Egypt.
Finally, whether the one whom Isaac calls “Abimelech” was still, in Isaac’s day, “Pharaoh” of Egypt - as he had been in former times - he most definitely was, at least, ruler over the Philistines at Gerar. Perhaps he ruled both lands, Egypt and Philistia.
Be that as it may, the Holy Spirit has apparently provided the name of Abram’s “Pharaoh”. But one needs to respect His literary structures to discover that name.
We now know his personal name: “Abimelech”.
In Hebrew (אֲבִימֶלֶךְ) this name means “Father is King”, or “Father of the King”.
Since Abimelech is not an Egyptian name, and since the other designation that we have for him is simply “Pharaoh”, that data, in itself, will not take us to the next step of being able to identify this ruler in the Egyptian historical (or dynastic) records. But that our Abimelech may have - according to the progression of Ishmael’s and Isaac’s toledôt histories - ruled Egypt and then gone on to rule Philistia, could well enable us to locate this ruler archaeologically.
Dr. John Osgood has already done much of the ‘spade work’ for us here, firstly by nailing the archaeology of En-geddi at the time of Abram (in the context of Genesis 14) to the Late Chalcolithic period, corresponding to Ghassul IV in Palestine’s southern Jordan Valley; Stratum V at Arad; and the Gerzean period in Egypt (“The Times of Abraham”, Ex Nihilo TJ, Vol. 2, 1986, pp. 77-87); and secondly by showing that, immediately following this period, there was a migration out of Egypt into Philistia, bringing an entirely new culture (= Early Bronze I, Stratum IV at Arad). P. 86: “In all likelihood Egypt used northern Sinai as a springboard for forcing her way into Canaan with the result that all of southern Canaan became an Egyptian domain”.
2. The Chiasmus Guide
Kenneth Griffith (his co-written articles have previously been quoted), in an e-mail, came up with the very interesting proposal of chiasmus that he thought might even verify my view, Abimelech = Pharaoh. He wrote:
…. Though men can write chiastically, only God can write historical chiasmus by causing events to happen in a symmetrical manner.
I am quite open to the idea that Abimelech might have been the [Pharaoh]. However, you need to deal with the literary structure of the passage in question. I think chiasmus is a far better explanation in this case than having two authors. ….
Kenneth has thus further confirmed my merging of “Pharaoh” with “Abimelech” by kindly providing the following chiastic structure for this part of the Book of Genesis:
Genesis 12-
A - Promise, Test (leave father's house), Worship
Promise of Blessing
Leave and go to another land.
Abraham and Lot Depart
Promise of Land
Builds Altar
B - Crisis, Attack, Conflict, Child
1 - Attack on Woman (Pharoah)
Famine
Goes down to Egypt
Call yourself my sister
Plagues
Abram leaves with wealth
2 - Crisis with Lot and Canaanites (Sodom plundered)
Abraham "comes up" from Egypt
Great Wealth
Parts the land with Lot
God promises all the Land he can see.
dwelt by Terebinth trees of Mamre
Amraphel 4 kings invade
Abram Rescues Lot
Melchizedek blesses Abram
Bread and Wine
Plunderestored
3 - Promise Hagar Sarah Conflict I
Vision "I am your shield and reward"
Abram - I have no children
Your descendants shall be as stars
Proof of giving land
Covenant with halved animals
Prophesy of Egyptian bondage
God goes between pieces
Promise of land from Nile to Euphrates
Sarai No children
Gives Hagar in 10th year
Child Conceived
Hagar offends Sarai
Hagar flees pregnant, prophecy of Ishmael
Hagar returns, bears Ishmael, Abram 86
C.
Abram 99, God makes new covenant
Abram – and Abraham, father many nations, very fruitful
Circumcision
Sarai – and Sarah, will have son
Abraham circumcised Ishmael, and household
B' – Crisis, Attack, Conflict, Child (Sodom destroyed)
2'. Crisis with Lot and Canaanites
Lord appears by terebinth trees of Mamre, judgment on Sodom
Son will appear in a year
Sarah laughs, his name shall be laughter (Isaac)
Abraham intercedes for Sodom
If there were 50 I would save it.
If there are 10 I would save it.
God and Abraham depart
Angels enter Sodom
Lot gives lodging
Men of City demand men
Angels blind them
Angels say, collect your family
Son in laws don't listen
Lot flees with family
Lot escapes to Zoar
God overthrows cities
Lot's wife turned to vapor
Abraham goes to where he had met with God
Sodom and Gomorrah and plain smoking like furnace
God remembered Abraham and delivered Lot
Lot with his daughters
Birth of Moab and Ammon
1' - Attack on Woman II leading to Child (Abimelech – and Isaac)
Abraham journeys South (goes down), dwelt between Kadesh and Shur
"she is my sister"
Abimelech King of Gerar sends for Sarah
God warns in dream
Abimelech judges Abraham sends him away with money.
Lord visits Sarah as promised,
Sarah conceived and bore Abraham a son, at set time.
Abraham calls his son Isaac.
Abraham circumcised Isaac.
Sarah rejoices.
3.' [ Promise + Sarah – and Hagar conflict II ] (This time Hagar gets the promise.)
Child weaned and feasted.
Ishmael scoffed and sent away.
Hagar meets God again in desert.
God promises great nation to Ishmael
Hagar finds water and gets a wife for her son from Egypt.
Abraham makes a covenant with Abimelech
Abraham finds his own well of water at Beersheeba.
Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba, in land of Philistines.
A' Promise, Test, Worship
God calls Abraham, tells him to go to Land of Moriah
Abraham goes.
God tests him with Isaac.
Builds Altar
Abraham obeys.
God promises many descendants, stars of heaven and seashore, possess gates of enemies. Blessing.
Abraham returns to Beersheba and dwelt there.
[End of Kenneth’s chiasmus]
Note how B. 1 and B’. 1’ merge beautifully with “Pharaoh” in B. 1 reflecting “Abimelech in B’. 1’.
We have thus learned that the biblical “Pharaoh”:
Was the same as the Abimelech of Gerar, ruler of the Philistines, contemporaneous with both Abram (Abraham) and Isaac.
Which means that:
This particular pharaoh must have reigned for at least 60+ years (the span from Abram’s famine to the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah).
The era of Abram also closely approximated, we have found - as archaeologically determined by Dr. John Osgood - the time of Narmer.
Now, while some consider this Narmer to have been the father of Egypt’s first pharaoh, Menes, my preference is for Narmer as the invasive Akkadian king, Naram-Sin, or, alternatively, as the Elamite, Chedorlaomer.
I am also inclined to accept the view that the classical name “Menes” arose from the nomen, Min, of pharaoh Hor-Aha (“Horus the Fighter”).
Most importantly, according to Manetho, Hor (“Menes”) ruled for more than 60 years (http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn01/01menes.html).
Moreover, Emmet Sweeney has provided a strong argument for a close convergence in time of the Patriarch Abraham and Menes (http://www.emmetsweeney.net/article-directory/item/70-abraham-and).
My tentative estimation would be that Abram came to Egypt at the approximate time of Narmer, and right near the beginning of the long reign of Hor-Aha ‘Min’ (Menes), who in his youthfulness had fancied Sarai.
However, by the end of the Pharaoh’s long reign, at the time when Isaac had married Rebekah, the Pharaoh (as Abimelech) no longer sought personal involvement with the young woman, but rather commented (Genesis 26:10): ‘What if one of the men had taken Rebekah for himself?’
Now, I cannot help noticing that (and it may be just a coincidence) the presumably Hebrew name, Abimelech, is virtually a perfect anagram for Lehabim, one of the sons of the Hamitic Mizraim, who is variously known as Egypt (Genesis 10:6, 13):
The sons of Ham: Cush, Egypt [Mizraim], Put, and Canaan.
….
Egypt fathered Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, Pathrusim, Casluhim (from whom the Philistines came), and Caphtorim.
This could have significant ramifications.
The father of Hor-Aha (Menes) is not known for certain – though Narmer is often presumed to have been that father. This would not be the case, of course, if Narmer were to be found, as I have suggested, amongst the four invading kings of Genesis 14.
The father could well be Mizraim himself, the legendary founder of dynastic Egypt, who, though, can also be identified as Menes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizraim
However, according to George Syncellus, the Book of Sothis, attributed to Manetho, identified Mizraim with the legendary first Pharaoh Menes, who is said to have unified the Old Kingdom and built Memphis. Mizraim also seems to correspond to Misor, who is said in Phoenician mythology to have been the father of Taautus, who was given Egypt, and later scholars noticed that it also recalls Menes, whose son or successor was said to be Athothis.
If the biblical Abimelech were Hor-Aha ‘Min’ (Menes), as I favour, then Mizraim, potentially his father, would possibly be the last pre-dynastic king, say, Scorpion (“the Scorpion King”).
In our reconstruction of ancient Egyptian history - along with that of Mesopotamia, and other regions - we are going to find that kings, dynasties, and even major Kingdoms and Intermediate periods, can overlap, can be synchronous, and with much duplication of rulers and locations going on.
The First Dynasty of Egypt, for instance, may well be contemporaneous with, at least in part, the Second Dynasty of Egypt.
Now, there is a king’s name in the Second Dynasty, namely Raneb, that may translate with at least the same meaning as Abimelech.
Previously I have written on this:
Abimelech (אֲבִימֶלֶךְ) is a Hebrew name comprising two elements, “father” and “king”, and it is generally translated as “Father is king”.
But the first element of the name can also mean “Creator”, hence: “Creator is king”.
Now let us compare this, “Creator is king”, with the meaning of Raneb.
Raneb (or Nebra) means “Ra is lord”, or “Ra is king”.
But who was Ra?
“Ra … represents sunlight, warmth and growth. It was only natural that the ancient Egyptians would believe him to be the creator of the world …”.
http://www.ancient-egypt-online.com/egyptian-god-ra.html
Basically, then, the two names, “Abimelech” and “Raneb”, can be translated broadly as:
“[THE] CREATOR IS KING [LORD]”.
So it is encouraging to find at least that during the approximate era of Abraham and Isaac the structure and meaning of the name of the one I have proposed as being Abram’s “Pharaoh” are mirrored by the name of a known pharaoh of the Archaïc dynastic era of Egypt.
JACOB AND EGYPT
Most interesting that Jacob went to relatives in Harran (my “Babel”), or Paddan Aram, to get a wife for himself, and, on the way, had a vision of a Ladder, or a Stairway to Heaven (perhaps something like Nimrod had envisaged, but for devious purposes).
Genesis 28:1-5:
So Isaac called for Jacob and blessed him. Then he commanded him: ‘Do not marry a Canaanite woman. Go at once to Paddan Aram, to the house of your mother’s father Bethuel. Take a wife for yourself there, from among the daughters of Laban, your mother’s brother. May God Almighty bless you and make you fruitful and increase your numbers until you become a community of peoples. May he give you and your descendants the blessing given to Abraham, so that you may take possession of the land where you now reside as a foreigner, the land God gave to Abraham’. Then Isaac sent Jacob on his way, and he went to Paddan Aram, to Laban son of Bethuel the Aramean, the brother of Rebekah, who was the mother of Jacob and Esau.
The advice that Isaac gives to his son, Jacob, would be repeated by Tobit to his son, Tobias (= Job), who recalls “Isaac and Jacob” (Tobit 4:12):
‘Above all, marry a woman of our tribe, because we are descendants of the prophets. Do not marry anyone who is not related to us. Remember that Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, our earliest ancestors, all married relatives. God blessed them with children, and so their descendants will inherit the land of Israel’.
Jacob got more than he expected, returning home with four wives, many children, “large flocks, and female and male servants, and camels and donkeys” (Genesis 30:43).
The name Bethel, “House of God”, was given to more than one location in Israel.
It was the name Jacob gave to the place where he had the vision of the Ladder-Stairway (Genesis 28:10-19):
Jacob left Beersheba and set out for Harran. When he reached a certain place, he stopped for the night because the sun had set. Taking one of the stones there, he put it under his head and lay down to sleep. He had a dream in which he saw a stairway resting on the earth, with its top reaching to heaven, and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. There above it[c] stood the LORD, and he said: I am the LORD, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. I will give you and your descendants the land on which you are lying. Your descendants will be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west and to the east, to the north and to the south. All peoples on earth will be blessed through you and your offspring. I am with you and will watch over you wherever you go, and I will bring you back to this land. I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you’.
When Jacob awoke from his sleep, he thought, ‘Surely the LORD is in this place, and I was not aware of it’. He was afraid and said, ‘How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God; this is the gate of heaven’.
Early the next morning Jacob took the stone he had placed under his head and set it up as a pillar and poured oil on top of it. He called that place Bethel, though the city used to be called Luz.
The northern Bethel, where King Jeroboam of Israel (much later) would set up one of his golden calves (I Kings 12:29), was the important Shechem, where Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, would be raped by a Canaanite prince called Shechem, leading to the mass execution of the Shechemites by Jacob’s fiery sons, Simeon and Levi (Genesis 34). Though Jacob was horrified by his two sons’ violent action (34:30): ‘You have brought trouble on me by making me obnoxious to the Canaanites and Perizzites, the people living in this land. We are few in number, and if they join forces against me and attack me, I and my household will be destroyed’, they quipped back (v. 31): ‘Should he have treated our sister like a prostitute?’
About a millennium later, the Simeonite heroine, Judith, residing at Shechem (“Bethulia”), will praise her ancestor Simeon’s defence of Dinah (Judith 9:2-3):
‘O Lord God of my ancestor Simeon, to whom you gave a sword to take revenge on those strangers who had torn off a virgin’s clothing[a] to defile her and exposed her thighs to put her to shame and profaned her womb to disgrace her, for you said, ‘It shall not be done’—yet they did it, so you gave up their rulers to be killed …’.
Tradition has Dinah as the mother of Asenath, whom Jacob’s son Joseph would marry in Egypt (Genesis 41:50).
By age seventeen, this Joseph, loved more by his father Jacob than any of his brothers, and given an ornate coat by his father, had become an object of jealousy for Jacob’s other sons (Genesis 37:1-4).
Joseph is very much of a Daniel figure, a perfect youth, who dreams and has the power to interpret dreams. But his interpretations only further rankled his brothers (37:5-11).
Joseph had a dream, and when he told it to his brothers, they hated him all the more. He said to them, ‘Listen to this dream I had: We were binding sheaves of grain out in the field when suddenly my sheaf rose and stood upright, while your sheaves gathered around mine and bowed down to it’.
His brothers said to him, ‘Do you intend to reign over us? Will you actually rule us?’ And they hated him all the more because of his dream and what he had said. Then he had another dream, and he told it to his brothers. ‘Listen’, he said, ‘I had another dream, and this time the sun and moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me’.
When he told his father as well as his brothers, his father rebuked him and said, ‘What is this dream you had? Will your mother and I and your brothers actually come and bow down to the ground before you?’ His brothers were jealous of him, but his father kept the matter in mind.
Cf. Luke 2:19
Those interested in the Scriptures can be fascinated, I have found, by astronomy - the zodiac, and its relation to the twelve tribes of Israel (Jacob).
There is a false astrology, condemned by the Bible (e.g. Deuteronomy 18:10-12; cf. Leviticus 19:26; Isaiah 47:13-14; Jeremiah 10:2), and a true astrology based on God’s structural design - from the beginning - of the heavenly bodies for “signs and seasons” (Genesis 1:14).
Since everything that God has created through his Wisdom has been effected with marvellous precision and meaning, there must be a profound significance to the structure of the universe.
Wise souls down through the ages have sought to make sense of it all, with the wisest - those prepared to be instructed by the Designer - such as King Solomon, being able to claim, as Solomon did, a ‘sure knowledge’ and an ‘understanding of the structure of the universe’, and of more besides (Wisdom 7:17-21):
He it was who gave me sure knowledge of what exists, to understand the structure of the universe and the action of the elements,
the beginning, end and middle of the times, the alternation of the solstices and the succession of the seasons,
the cycles of the year and the position of the stars,
the natures of animals and the instincts of wild beasts, the powers of spirits and human mental processes, the varieties of plants and the medical properties of roots.
And now I understand everything, hidden or visible, for Wisdom, the designer of all things, has instructed me.
Dr. Ernest L. Martin had concluded, from scrutinising the biblical data, that there was a common Divine pattern regarding the structure of the universe; the Garden of Eden; the Hebrew camp in the wilderness; and the Temple built by King Solomon.
Others have attempted to do the same.
What I like about this sort of approach regarding the universe - whether any given effort be actually correct, or not - is that it is at least a search for a meaning that must surely be there, rather than one’s simply considering the universe as a vast and unintelligible mass. (And the Sun, 93 million miles away).
We read of Dr. Martin’s particular view in Roger Waite’s “The Lost History of Jerusalem” (pp. 37-38):
http://www.rogerswebsite.com/articles/TheLostHistoryofJerusalem.pdf
Another way we see this pattern between what is on earth and what is in the heavens is in the comparison between the three general compartments within the Temple and the three heavens noted in scripture.
….
This is what Ernest Martin writes about the similarities between the three compartments of the Temple and the three heavens:
The Temple and its environs were further patterned after God's heavenly palace and its celestial surroundings that existed in the north part of the heavens…The Bible shows these "three heavens."
Numerous texts show that the "first heaven" is the atmosphere where the birds fly and where all weather phenomena take place.
The "second heaven," however, was beyond the earth's atmosphere and embraced all the visible planets and stars, including the sun and the moon.
The "third heaven," that the apostle Paul referred to in 2 Corinthians 12:1-4 that he called Paradise, was that of God's official residence in his heavenly region which was separate from the other two heavens.
These "three heavens" were symbolically pictured in the Temple at Jerusalem. In fact, the three main sections of the Temple were designed to show these three heavens.
When an Israelite entered the main Temple from the east, he or she would first be within the Court of the Israelites. This first section of the Temple (which continued westward up to the eastern portion of the priests' court in which was the Altar of Burnt Offering) was not covered with a roof. The first section was open to the sky and to all weather phenomena. Birds could also fly within it. This area of the Temple answered in a typical manner with the "first heaven," which was like our atmosphere surrounding the earth.
The "second heaven" in the Temple in a symbolic sense began at the eastern curtain in front of the Holy Place. Josephus tells us this curtain had the principal stars of the heavens displayed on it in tapestry form. It represented the entrance into the starry heavens beyond our atmosphere.
Josephus tells us that west of this curtain, one could witness the center of the zodiacal circle with the seven [visible] planets displayed on the south side in the form of the Menorah (the seven lamps) with the twelve signs of the Zodiac denoting the twelve months displayed on the north side by the twelve loaves of the Table of Shewbread. This second court of the priests represented all the starry heavens above the earth's atmosphere. But beyond this "second heaven," there was yet a "third heaven."
This "third heaven" was the Heaven of Heavens, or in Temple terminology, the Holy of Holies, which equaled God's celestial abode where his palace and divine precincts were located which the apostle Paul called Paradise (Temples, p.253).
“Jesus was born of Judah … Leo the Lion … and the first sign in a counterclockwise direction that anyone within the camp would encounter would be Virgo, the Virgin … . And certainly, Jesus was accepted by Christians as being born of a virgin”.
We read the following in Roger Waite’s “The Lost History of Jerusalem” (p. 28): http://www.rogerswebsite.com/articles/TheLostHistoryofJerusalem.pdf
In fact, the design of the biblical Zodiac that the tribes of Israel displayed in their encampment prefigured the history of the Messiah of Israel as certainly interpreted by the early Christians…
Jesus was born of Judah (Leo the Lion, the month of Ab) and the first sign in a counterclockwise direction that anyone within the camp would encounter would be Virgo, the Virgin (Elul, the 6th Hebrew month). And certainly, Jesus was accepted by Christians as being born of a virgin.
Then, in the New Testament narrative, Jesus at the start of his ministry then met Satan for his temptation as shown by Dan (the sign of the venomous serpent or scorpion). He later came into deep waters (e.g. Psalm 124:4) through his apprehension, trial and crucifixion at Jerusalem (which is symbolized by Reuben, the sign of the Water Bearer a man carrying water).
But then comes the Springtime (as indicated by the Joseph tribes, particularly Ephraim, Taurus the Bull) and this represented the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.
Finally, one returns in this circular (or celestial) journey within the camp to the first part of the tribe of Judah (Leo the Lion, back to the first fifteen degrees of the month of Ab) where the chief star called Regulus the King Star is located (which happens to be the closest star in the heavens to the ecliptic, the path of the Sun), and this represents the Christ being crowned King of Kings and sitting on the right hand of the Father, whom the Sun represents (Malachi 4:2).
The four cherubim which represent the four seasons (and the four principal tribes) are the primary actors in this zodiacal or celestial design of the fortunes of the Messiah within the Camp of Israel. It is reflected in the story found in Psalm 19 where the Sun comes forth as a bridegroom and begins to tell a prophetic history that Israel can understand. Indeed, the apostle Paul quoted Psalm 19 (Romans 10:18) and referred it to Jesus and his message as going forth like the messages in the sun, moon and stars into all the world. The early Christians saw the astronomical message found in the zodiacal arrangement of the tribes of Israel within their encampment as giving highlights of the career of Jesus in his role as the Christ of God (Secrets of Golgotha [referred from here on as Golgotha], p.53-60).
E.W. Bullinger in his book “Witness of the Stars” has gone into much detail about how the plan of God can be seen in the various constellations in the heavens. One can't help but wonder about that and the evidence of design in the heavens when one sees the Southern Cross. Two of the brightest stars, Alpha and Beta Centauri, point to it and seem to highlight how Christ died on the cross to pay for our sins.
Each one of the twelve tribes of Israel had a zodiacal sign associated with it. “Moses positioned each of the twelve tribes of Israel as representing a particular zodiacal sign in its regular astronomical order”.
We read the following in Roger Waite’s “The Lost History of Jerusalem” (p. 28): http://www.rogerswebsite.com/articles/TheLostHistoryofJerusalem.pdf
In addition to the symbolism of the three compartments of the tabernacle and Temples, according to Ernest Martin, there was also an astronomical pattern in the design of the camp in the wilderness and where each of the tribes of Israel were placed in relation to the tabernacle. This pattern was also established around the environs of Jerusalem itself. Ernest Martin writes the following about the position of the tribes around the tabernacle:
Though the Holy Scriptures in other areas utterly condemn the use of Astrology as conceived by the Gentiles and when the celestial motions are used for wrong purposes (Isaiah 47:11-13), the placement of the twelve tribes of Israel around the Tabernacle was intended by Moses to provide the authorities in Israel with a knowledge of God's plan for the nation of Israel .…The Gentiles actually corrupted the prophetic teaching found in the design of the "Camp of Israel" and placed on it a hodgepodge of heathen interpretations that completely obliterated the true prophetic meaning that God gave to Moses…
So, what about this astronomical design of the "Camp"?
The outer boundary of this zodiacal design was an imaginary circle positioned by the Jewish authorities to be 2000 cubits (a radius of about 3000 feet) from that central point in the Holy Place of the Temple. It is important to realize that the outer boundary of this circle denoted the limits of the "Camp."
Moses positioned each of the twelve tribes of Israel as representing a particular zodiacal sign in its regular astronomical order.
The tribe of Judah was given the prime position in this zodiacal design by being located directly east of the entrances to the Tabernacle and the later Temples. Let me explain. Four principal tribes were selected to denote each of the four seasons of the year. Judah was first, Dan was second, Reuben was third and Ephraim was fourth. The positions of these four prime tribes were arranged 90 degrees from each other (within a 360 degrees circle) to accord with those four seasons of the year. Judah was selected to be the tribe directly east of the Tabernacle and it was given first place...
The zodiacal story is a prophetic account that actually centers on the Messiah of Israel who was destined to come from the tribe of Judah. For this reason, Judah was reckoned as the chief tribe and it was located in Moses' arrangement of the "Camp" directly east of the Temple.
The tribe of Judah had for its tribal symbol the Lion (called Leo today). Judah had a subsidiary tribe of Israel located on each of its sides. As the chief tribe, Judah (Leo) and its sign was positioned to dominate the summer season in prophetic and calendar matters…The twelve tribes in their arrangement in the encampment also represented the twelve months of the year.
The next pivotal tribe proceeding counterclockwise around this zodiacal design of this "Camp of Israel"… was Dan with a subsidiary tribe of Israel located on each of its sides. It was positioned on the north side of the Temple and Jerusalem as a venomous creature, sometimes displayed as an eagle with a snake in its talons (called Scorpio, the venomous scorpion today). It dominated the autumn season in the prophetic calendar of Israel.
Reuben…with a subsidiary tribe of Israel located on each of its sides was placed on the west side of the Temple and Jerusalem in the original arrangement. Reuben was connected with water, as a Man bearing water (called Aquarius today), and it dominated the winter season in the original prophetic calendar….
And finally there is Ephraim…with a subsidiary tribe of Israel located on each of its sides. He was on the south side of the Temple and Jerusalem as a bullock (called Taurus today). It was positioned to dominate the spring season in a prophetic and calendar sense. And, of course, if one continued…another 90 degrees, one would then return to Judah (Leo) for the start of another calendar or prophetic year…
Another form of this astronomical arrangement surrounding the Temple and Jerusalem (and patterned after God's abode in heaven) was the four sides of the cherubim mentioned by Ezekiel (1:4-14) and the Book of Revelation (4:6-7). The cherubim were reckoned by the biblical writers as encompassing the throne of God in heaven. These angelic cherubim also had the four zodiacal signs representing the seasons of the year associated with them (Lion, Eagle, Man, Bullock which are today called Leo, Scorpio, Aquarius, Taurus and they were analogous to the four principal tribes of Israel: Judah, Dan, Reuben and Ephraim)….
The above view may be supported by what we read in the following intriguing article (http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2005/12sons.html):
Twelve Sons, Twelve Constellations
by John P. Pratt
There is a strong Hebrew tradition that each of the twelve tribes of Israel was associated with one of the twelve constellations of the zodiac. The precise identification of which constellation goes with which of Jacob's sons has only been known with certainty for four of the tribes. Each of the twelve carried a banner or flag, and the many of those flags are believed to have displayed one of the zodiac symbols. Thus, those figures came to symbolize the entire tribe to a large degree, much as the eagle represents the United States. This article proposes a correspondence of each of those tribes to one of the zodiac emblems, based on proposed dates for the birth of each. Knowing those dates then leads to greater understanding of the holy days on the Hebrew Calendar, and testifies of the Lord's foreknowledge of all things and of his great plan of salvation.
What does the zodiac have to do with the twelve tribes of Israel? Aren't the zodiac signs the basis of astrology, and isn't that a false belief system? Wasn't Israel admonished over and over not to worship the hosts of heaven? Why would Israel put zodiac figures on their flags?
It is not surprising if these are your first questions as you read this article, especially if this is the first you've read on the subject. As has been pointed out in numerous earlier articles,[1] the Book of Enoch records that an angel revealed the constellation figures to the prophet Enoch some 5,000 years ago, and many scholars claim they symbolize the key features of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Last month's article proposed that each of the twelve constellations of the zodiac, through which the sun appears to travel during the year, represents one of the twelve principal roles of the Savior.[2]
Satan twists truth and perverts it for his own purposes, which he has clearly done with the zodiac signs. That causes many to avoid the entire subject, but the symbolism of these figures is so rich that it would be a tragedy not to learn of the beauty of their meaning, and the clarity of their symbolism. So my articles on the subject attempt to ignore the perversions and focus on the good. My position is that the sun, moon, and planets are like the hands on a huge clock, with the twelve zodiac constellations through which they move being the 12 numbers on the clock face. The Lord uses his clock to time key events in world history. But when Israel began to worship the hands on the clock, as did the pagan nations, then they were told they had missed the whole point, and to desist. Similarly today, if someone believes the planets are controlling his life, rather than merely keeping time, then Satan could falsely convince him that he is not responsible for his actions.
Having that disclaimer in mind, let us look at the evidence, even from the Bible itself, that the twelve sons of the prophet Jacob were each identified with a different sign of the zodiac.
First, consider the dream of Jacob's son Joseph, of the sun, moon and 11 stars (11 constellations?). He dreamed that they all bowed down to him (Gen. 37:9).
When he told the dream to his family, they immediately knew that the 11 stars referred to his 11 brothers. Was that just because of the number eleven, or what it also because they already knew that each was associated with a different zodiac constellation? Evidence for answering this question affirmatively comes from noting that most of their names have close ties to the zodiac constellations, as discussed below.
Secondly, when the tribes received blessings under the hands of their father Jacob and many years later by Moses, many unmistakable references were made to zodiac constellations. Moreover, visions such as those of Ezekiel and John, describe figures with the heads of a man, lion, ox, and eagle, which just happen to match the four "cornerstone" constellations (Ezek. 1:10, Rev. 4:7).[3] It is precisely these four key figures which are the most easily matched with the four principal sons of Israel because each is mentioned in the blessings. Reuben is compared to a man and to water, Judah is compared to a lion, Dan to a serpent (counterpart of the eagle), and Joseph's two sons to the horns of the wild ox. Those link to the constellations of the Water Bearer, the Lion, the Scorpion, and the Bull, respectively (Gen. 49: 4, 9, 17; Deut. 33:17). Those four sons are each also assigned to four directions (Num. 2:3, 10, 18, 25), and those four constellations are evenly spaced around the circle, as are the four points of a compass. And even non-Israelite prophets, such as Balaam, have used the same figures to represent the tribes (Num. 24:7-9). All of this has been discussed in detail in earlier articles, and is summarized here only as review and to make it clear that the Lord himself uses the symbolism. There is something very profound going on here, and it is certainly seems worth investigating.
Until now, the identification of the constellations associated with the other eight tribes has not been known with any degree of confidence. The other references to the zodiac are sketchy, and different scholars have proposed a variety of associations based on scriptural clues. But historical evidence of exactly what emblems were shown on which flags has been weak, and is based mostly on tradition. Thus, the information about the zodiac associations has been lost. This article proposes a correlation based on the "brute force" method of actually determining the birth dates of the twelve sons, and then looking at which constellation the sun was in at their birth. ….
“So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak”.
Genesis 32:4
Wrestling with a young man was also a feature of the ancient Egyptian Heb-Sed festival, as is apparent from the case of pharaoh Zoser, builder of the Step Pyramid, which I have held to be a ‘material icon’ of Jacob’s dream of a Stairway to Heaven.
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=wLUjtPDyu-
Celebrating the rejuvenation of the king's powers every 30 years, the heb-sed festival was a demonstration of a king's strength and prowess. During the festival the king ran around a heb-sed court performing feats of strength to demonstrate his ability to continue to rule Egypt. In doing so he experienced rebirth, maintaining his position as a god on Earth.
The heb-sed court of King Zoser at Saqqara is a long rectangular open court where the king performed the heb-sed ritual, part of which was to wrestle with a young man in order to prove he was strong enough to continue ruling Egypt. A limestone relief in a chamber under the Step Pyramid shows King Zoser during his heb-sed festival running between the markers representing Upper and Lower Egypt. On the east and west sides of the open courtyard are several symbolic chapels—the interiors were filled with rubble—and only the platforms in front of the chapel were used. Statues of the king and the gods were placed in niches along the wall, and the platforms may have been used for ceremonies during the festival. ….
[End of quote]
King Zoser’s vizier, Imhotep, is thought by many to have been Jacob’s son, Joseph.
We located the patriarch Abram to the very beginning of Egypt’s dynastic history, to its First Dynasty, and perhaps also, at least in part, the Second Dynasty.
The era of the substantial Third Dynasty pharaoh, ZOSER (c. 2670 BC, conventional dating) has been favoured by some revisionists - myself included - as being the most likely time for Jacob and Joseph in Egypt, with Zoser’s vizier, Imhotep, thereby accepted as Joseph.
That would necessitate a lowering of Pharaoh Zoser on the time scale by about a millennium.
Among the “patterns of evidence” for this scenario are the highly important reference to a seven-year famine; the Step Pyramid, reminding one of Jacob’s dream of a Stairway to Heaven; and, with reference to Genesis 32:4, Jacob’s wrestling with the man (angel): “wrestling with a young man was also a feature of the ancient Egyptian Heb-Sed festival, as is apparent from the case of pharaoh Zoser”.
http://www.arabworldbooks.com/egyptomania/sameh_arab_sed_heb.htm “One of the more remarkable signs of the Heb Sed can be found at the Djoser (3rd Dynasty) Step Pyramid complex at Saqqara, where remnants of the Heb Sed court were found, as well as an inscription on a false doorway inside the pyramid”.
A further potential “pattern of evidence” is the testimony of the Papyrus Chester Beatty IV (British Museum ESA 10684) that Imhotep, among others, could tell the future with certainty:
(http://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/literature/authorspchb.html):
Is there another like Imhotep?
….
Those who knew how to foretell the future,
What came from their mouths took place ….
Joseph, of course, knew the future and accurately interpreted the pharaoh’s dream (Genesis 41:38-44):
And Pharaoh said to his servants, ‘Can we find a man like this, in whom is the Spirit of God?’ Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘Since God has shown you all this, there is none so discerning and wise as you are. You shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command. Only as regards the throne will I be greater than you’. And Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘See, I have set you over all the land of Egypt’. Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his hand and put it on Joseph’s hand, and clothed him in garments of fine linen and put a gold chain about his neck. And he made him ride in his second chariot. And they called out before him, ‘Bow the knee!’ Thus he set him over all the land of Egypt. Moreover, Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘I am Pharaoh, and without your consent no one shall lift up hand or foot in all the land of Egypt’.
Included in Papyrus Chester Beatty IV is Ptahhotep, a legendary seer, who, like Joseph, lived to be 110 years old (Genesis 50:26): “So Joseph died at the age of a hundred and ten. And after they embalmed him, he was placed in a coffin in Egypt”.
Some of what follows has been suggested to me by John R. Salverda. See also his:
The Hebrew Origins of Argolian Mythology
https://www.academia.edu/4065204/The_Hebrew_Origins_of_Argolian_Mythology
Interestingly, the wise Imhotep was said to have been the son of Ptah. The Greeks recognized the Egyptian god Ptah as their “Hephaestus,” who had a permanent limp as a result of contending with the chief god, Zeus (cf. Genesis 32:24-32).
The image of Ptah is a mummified man (Jacob was mummified. See Genesis 50:2).
Ptah is the main god of the city of Memphis, where the “Theology of Memphis” shows a remarkable affinity to the theogony of Genesis.
As Professor Yahuda explained, Egyptology failed to provide a solution [to the era of composition of the Pentateuch], not because the Egyptian element was lacking but
"only because after the rise of the Graf-Wellhausen school some of the leading Egyptologists accepted its theories without having sufficient knowledge of Hebrew and the Bible
to enable them to take any initiative in these questions".
According to what two colleagues and I wrote more than three decades ago, in an article entitled “A Critical Re-appraisal of the Book of Genesis”, Part Two (SIS C and C Workshop, 1987, No. 2, p. 3):
….
The Graf-Wellhausen system has dominated the field of Biblical research for more than a century, as was explained in Part One. Consequently the entire Pentateuch is considered by scholars to be a late product - even those parts which deal with the "Egyptian Epoch" of Israelite history (i.e. from the Patriarch Joseph to the Exodus). Biblical critics today claim that those narratives which deal with the sojourn of Israel in Egypt were the work of authors who had very little knowledge of Egypt and matters Egyptian [1]. As Professor Yahuda explains, Egyptology failed to provide a solution, not because the Egyptian element was lacking but "only because after the rise of the Graf-Wellhausen school some of the leading Egyptologists accepted its theories without having sufficient knowledge of Hebrew and the Bible to enable them to take any initiative in these questions" [1].
Due to the fact that the average Egyptologist could find no more than occasional connections between Hebrew and Egyptian because of a lack of expertise in Hebrew, they simply took it for granted that Egyptology had very little to yield for the study of the Bible, as Yahuda points out [1]. Professor Adolf Erman, a renowned Egyptologist, went so far as to affirm that "all that the Old Testament had to say about Egypt could not be regarded with enough suspicion" [2].
Yahuda explains that such a statement and others like it, coming as they did from Egyptologists of established authority, brought about a situation where students who perhaps might have undertaken to penetrate more deeply into a study of Egyptian-Hebrew relationships were intimidated and deterred from approaching the matter [3]. On the other hand, he says, Biblical critics could always refer to such statements by renowned Egyptologists as being highly authoritative in support of their views on the late origin of the Pentateuch, and the unreliable character of those parts which deal with Egypt.
The endeavours of those few scholars who dared to go beyond "the limits prescribed by the official view," as Yahuda puts it, "were either ignored altogether or only condescendingly considered, the results of their research being contemptuously rejected as unscientific and even fantastic" [3]. But fortunately for Biblical scholarship Professor Yahuda was not only prepared to be numbered amongst those few daring scholars who did break the bonds of the stifling "official view" of representative Egyptologists, but he was also qualified to do so. He was one of those extremely rare Egyptologists who had a masterful knowledge of classical Hebrew and the Bible as well. ….
Notes and References
1. A. S. Yahuda, The Language of the Pentateuch in its Relation to Egyptian (Oxford U. P., 1933), p. i.
2. A. Erman, Agypten und agyptisches Leben im Altertum (1885), p. 6.
3. Yahuda, op. cit., ibid.
Whilst I may not now agree with professor Yahuda’s explanation afterwards of “The Evolution of the Hebrew Language”, nor of the degree of Egyptian influence upon it - because some of this apparent influence may actually have been from the Hebrew side, instead - his detection of Egyptian idioms in the Joseph history is compelling (“A Critical Re-appraisal”, p. 4):
Of course the very thought that anything like a literary language or literary activity existed before the complete conquest of Canaan by Joshua and his forces (after the death of Moses) is scoffed at by modern Biblical critics. They cannot accept any view point which does not accord with their notions about the religious evolution in Israel. Thus, as Yahuda writes, everything leads these critics "to a conclusion diametrically opposed to every Biblical statement about the composition of any part of the Pentateuch, and to rank it on linguistic and literary-historical grounds as quite a late product" [4].
Professor Yahuda throws out a challenge to critics of this sort. If by comparison with the Egyptian it could be proved that the Egyptian influence on Hebrew was "so extensive that the development and perfection of this language can only be accounted for and explained by that influence," then it would be quite clear that it can have happened only in "a common Hebrew-Egyptian environment"! [5]
Now there was only one period in Israelite history during which the sort of close intimacy necessary for that degree of influence of Egyptian on the Hebrew language prevailed: this was the "Egyptian Epoch" of Israelite history. Yahuda is convinced, therefore, that only in this epoch, from the time of Joseph to Moses, would Hebrew have begun to develop gradually into a literary language, "until it reached the perfection which we encounter in the Pentateuch" [5]. Let us then turn towards Egypt.
As we are told in the Joseph (Genesis) and Exodus stories, the Israelites spent a long time in Egypt (Exodus 12:40) - in excess of 200 years by any view - as a tribe apart (Exodus 1:8); with their own manners and specific customs (Genesis 43:32); with their own worship (Exodus 5:17); living in a separate area assigned to them in the Delta near the Asiatic border (Genesis 47:6); with their own organisation (Exodus 4:29); as a self-contained entity in the midst of an Egyptian environment [5].
In this long period between Joseph and the Exodus, the Israelites "cannot possibly have escaped the influence of Egyptian culture and Egyptian life," Yahuda claims [5]. On the contrary, he believes, in spite of their segregation, that they must have adapted themselves from the start to Egyptian conditions, conceptions and customs [6].
Moreover, Yahuda submits that the dialect which they brought with them from their Canaanite home could not but have absorbed Egyptian elements in the course of this lengthy period [7], "and in adaptation to the Egyptian have continued to develop, to extend, and even to modify its original grammatical form and syntactical structure" [7]. But, he adds, any attempt to decide these questions, however, depends upon the following points:
(a) those constituents of the language which reveal a higher cultural level must reveal the spirit and style of Egyptian if it is to be taken as conclusive that it was under the influence of Egyptian that "Hebrew soared from a primitive Canaanite dialect into a literary language" [7].
(b) this influence must also be extensive and distinctly traceable in all matters dealt with in Genesis so that there can be no question of mere accident or of a faint influence reminiscent of a dim past [7].
Professor Yahuda goes on to explain that in a more special sense the dependence of one language upon another is revealed chiefly in the following phenomena:
(1) In the adoption of loan-words,
(2) In the coinage of new words and expressions, technical terms, turns of speech, metaphors, and phrases quite in the spirit of, and even in literal accordance with, the other language, "in which case the characteristic of such new formations is that they are alien to the spirit of the adopting language and to the conceptions and institutions of the people speaking it - but reflecting throughout the spirit of the other language and the conditions of the alien environment" [7].
(3) In the adoption of grammatical elements and adaption to some syntactical rules of the alien language, so that even in structure and style there is a close assimilation in many respects [7].
Notes and References
4. Ibid., p. xxxi.
5. Ibid., p. xxxii.
6. Ibid. Note: see Genesis 50:2f and 11, also Exodus 1:16.
7. Ibid., p.xxxiii.
With Yahuda’s thesis well in mind, the question then needed to be asked (“A Critical Re-appraisal”, pp. 4-5):
But What of the Akkadian Influence?
One of the main reasons why modern Biblical scholars cling to the theory that the Book of Genesis, in the main, was written around the period of the Babylonian Exile [9], hundreds of years after Moses' death, is because parts of the book contain clear Assyrian and Babylonian elements. Assyriologists have rightly concluded that some parts of Genesis must have originated in a period when the Israelites (or Hebrews) were connected closely with Mesopotamia. As is well known, according to the Bible there were two periods during which the Israelites were in immediate contact with Mesopotamia:
• the first in the time of the Patriarchs (e.g. Noah to Jacob), before the time of Moses, and
• the second during the Babylonian Exile of the 6th and 5th centuries B.C.
Pp. 4-6:
Now the point which we wish to emphasise as regards this - and it is a very important point - can be seen in the following passage written by Yahuda:
“Whereas those books of Sacred Scripture which were admittedly written during and after the Babylonian Exile reveal in language and style such an unmistakable Babylonian influence that these newly-entered foreign elements leap to the eye, by contrast in the first part of the Book of Genesis, which describes the earlier Babylonian period, the Babylonian influence in the language is so minute as to be almost non-existent." [10]
It is an amazing fact that where there are similar details in the Genesis account of Creation and in the Akkadian myths, almost without exception the Akkadian uses different words and expressions from the Hebrew. Yahuda notes that, whilst some Akkadian words and expressions are used in the Hebrew, they do not occur in the Genesis story [11]. Therefore, any attempt to argue for a so-called strong literary or linguistic "dependence" of the Genesis stories on the Akkadian myths can have no convincing proof to support it. If such a close dependence actually existed, Yahuda argues, one would expect such Akkadian words which are frequent in all Akkadian creation and flood stories, "to be preferentially and in a much higher degree represented in the Genesis stories" [11].
But it is quite another matter when we come to consider the dependence of the Genesis narratives on Egyptian. Whilst, perhaps, we may have expected a strong Egyptian influence in that part of the Book of Genesis which deals with Joseph and the "Egyptian Epoch" of Israel (i.e. Genesis chapters 39-50), we find that the entire book is saturated with Egyptian elements. The Egyptian influence is to be found even in the pre-Egyptian Epoch (i.e. Genesis chapters 1-38), though it builds up to a crescendo in the Joseph narrative. In the pre-Egyptian part of Genesis, Egyptian loanwords occur, as do idioms and phrases considered by Biblical scholars as being typical of this portion of Genesis, but which can be explained only from Egyptian.
Added to these, according to Yahuda, are "other highly significant Egyptian influences on the composition, style and mode of narration," and on many conceptions concerning the well-known stories of Genesis such as the Creation, the Flood, and even the Tower of Babel. One can only conclude, he says, "that the whole pre-Egyptian narrative, too, was written from an Egyptian perspective" [12].
The Egyptian Elements
… In the Creation Story
The Hebrew word 'bereshith' with which the Creation story begins, is found on closer examination to be an exact adaptation to the Egyptian expression 'tpy.t' for earliest time, "primeval time." Just as 'bereshith' is formed from the Hebrew word for "head," so also is the Egyptian word formed from the word for "head" [13].
The Hebrew word for "heaven" occurs only in the plural form. This is all the more remarkable as its stem is the basic root from which the conception "heaven" is formed in all Semitic languages, yet it is only in Hebrew that "heaven" is used in the plural form. Now such a conception was quite familiar to the Egyptians, says Yahuda, for they accordingly spoke of 'p.ty' "two heavens!" [14]
The Hebrew word 'tehom' for primeval deep, which is also used in the Flood story, has long been regarded by scholars as being an Akkadian (Assyrian) loan-word. Nevertheless, Yahuda considers it necessary to investigate whether the more or less unanimous interpretation of this word given by Assyriologists is at all tenable and, if not, what is the real meaning of 'tehom', and consequently what place does it occupy in the Genesis story of Creation? [15]
Assyriologists and almost all of the modern Biblical critics, he says, still take for granted that 'tehom' is identical with 'tiamat', the name of the dragon of darkness which the god Marduk slew in bitter conflict before the creation of the world [15]. But, he goes on to say, "the positiveness with which this assumption is put forward, and the stubbornness with which it is maintained, are based on no intrinsic or philologically well-founded facts; since, besides the similarity of sound of 'tehom' with 'tiamat', no other proofs for such an identification can be put forward" [15]. The argument that 'tehom' must be identified with 'tiamat' because like the latter it is feminine, is untenable, says Yahuda, "for the simple reason that in our particular passage the gender of 'tehom' is not apparent, and further because there are examples of its being used in the masculine as a poetical expression for sea" [16].
Both Yahuda and Wiseman would concur that this whole approach to Biblical interpretation is due to "mythologising tendencies" which, employing all possible and impossible kinds of combinations, in Procrustean fashion, seek to work into the Genesis stories - and even into the narratives of the Patriarchs - features and elements drawn from the Babylonian myths which are absolutely remote from and completely alien to the Hebrew spirit. One only has to compare the Genesis account of Creation with the Babylonian one to realise how intrinsically different they are: The two accounts are as follows:
Bible Babylonian Creation Tablets
1 Light 1 Birth of the gods, their rebellion and threatened destruction.
2 Atmosphere and water 2 Tiamat prepares for battle. Marduk agrees to fight her.
3 Land, vegetation 3 The gods are summoned and wail bitterly at their threatened destruction.
4 Sun and Moon (regulating lights) length; defeats Tiamat, splits her in half like a fish and thus makes heaven and earth. 4 Marduk promoted to rank of 'god'; he receives his weapons for the fight. These are described at
5 Fish and birds 5 Astronomical poem.
6 Land animals 6 Kingu who made Tiamat to rebel is bound and, as a punishment, his arteries are severed and man created from his blood. The 600 gods are grouped; Marduk builds Babylon where all the gods assemble.
A comparison of the two accounts shows clearly that the Bible owes nothing whatever to the Babylonian tablets, despite the efforts of commentators to make us believe that whoever wrote this portion of Genesis was borrowing from these corrupted Mesopotamian myths. If we rely solely on the text of Genesis, without being biased by the Babylonian mythology, we find no trace of any contest with a living monster in the sense of the Babylonian myth of the fight of the gods. Thus there in no intrinsic ground whatever for the identification of 'tehom' with 'tiamat'.
Here 'tehom' means nothing else but the primeval water, that ocean which filled the chaos, says Yahuda [16]. This is clearly shown, he stresses, by its context as part of the phrase "on the face of the waters" (Genesis 1:2), "which unmistakably indicates the real nature of 'tehom' as water" [16].
From this Yahuda concludes that ('tehom') ought to be identified philologically with a different Akkadian word. It is not ('tiamat'), but ('tamtu'), with which ('tehom') is identical [16]. The Akkadian word ('tamtu') often occurs - not only in creation myths, but also in many other kinds of myths - most distinctly in the sense of primal ocean, exactly like ('tehom') "and not as the personification of any divinity like ('tiamat')" [16].
… In the Paradise Story
We recall that in the Garden of Eden there was "every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food" (Genesis 2:9). Likewise, in the Egyptian "Fields" 'sh.wt', and in the "Garden of God" 'k3n ntr', there were all kinds of trees with sweet fruits such as sycamores, figs, dates and vines, as well as other "lovely trees" 'ht ndm' [17].
Of most importance for us, however, is the fact that among the trees of the Egyptian Paradise was also the "Tree of Life", says Yahuda [17]. The idea that the food of the gods was also the food for eternal life is quite natural and was not confined to Egypt, he says [18]. This idea was also common to the mythology of the Babylonians. But whereas the Akkadian expression 'akãl balãti', "Food of Life," is quite different from the Hebrew, Yahuda explains, the Egyptian 'ht n 'nh', "Tree of Life," "corresponds literally with the Hebrew phrase in Genesis 2:9 [18].
Another expression common to Egyptian and Hebrew is that found in Genesis 3:14 when God says to the serpent, "upon your belly you shall go." Yahuda points out that this is the same expression used for reptiles in Leviticus 11:42 as well, where "it is a distinctive denomination for a special category of animals" [19]. It corresponds exactly, he says, "to the elliptic expression" in Egyptian 'hry h.t-f' "that (which goes) on its belly" for snakes and reptiles generally. Again, a very remarkable parallel to the condemnation of the serpent to the eating of dust is provided in the Egyptian verse: "Behold their sustenance (or food) shall be (Geb or) dust 'm.k grt ir hr.t-sn ntf pw'." [19].
… In the Flood Story
Yahuda believes that no more striking evidence in support of his thesis that the Babylonian stories are later versions of the Hebrew originals is to be found in the story of the Flood. The Flood story is not told by Noah, according to Wiseman's explanation. Noah's account concludes at Genesis 6:9, "These are the generations of Noah," immediately before the account of the Flood. It is the three sons of Noah - Shem, Ham and Japheth - who record the story of the Flood and who, like Noah, were eye-witnesses of that great catastrophe.
To begin with, the most characteristic fact is that for the chief feature of the whole story, the Ark, neither an Akkadian word is used, says Yahuda, nor the Canaanite one current elsewhere in the Bible [20]. Instead a Hebrew word, in which the Egyptian word 'db.t', "box, coffer, chest," has been recognised, is used by the writer. Yahuda exclaims: "It is astonishing that a narrative supposedly set in Babylonia, uses for the Ark an Egyptian loan-word!" [20]
As, however, the same Hebrew word also occurs in the story of the finding of the infant Moses (Exodus 2:3), a comparison of both passages at once suggests itself.
Such a comparison is all the more instructive for our whole thesis as, on the one hand, it clearly reveals the Egyptian character of the Flood narrative, and, on a secondary level, shows how much more powerfully Egyptian influences prevailed in the Exodus narrative.
Then Joseph brought his father Jacob in and presented him before Pharaoh. After Jacob blessed Pharaoh, Pharaoh asked him, ‘How old are you?’
And Jacob said to Pharaoh, ‘The years of my pilgrimage are a hundred and thirty. My years have been few and difficult, and they do not equal the years of the pilgrimage of my fathers’.
Then Jacob blessed Pharaoh and went out from his presence.
Genesis 47:7-10
Continuing on with “A Critical Re-appraisal of the Book of Genesis”, from Part Two we arrive at the era of Joseph (SIS C and C Workshop, pp. 7-8):
… In the Joseph Narrative
The important story of Joseph and his rise to governorship of Egypt occupies almost one quarter of the entire Book of Genesis. Because the narrative is set largely in Egypt, it is most significant from the point of view of our thesis. The fact is that the Joseph narrative is saturated with Egyptian elements, a full appreciation of which one would gain only from reading right through Yahuda's book [25]. Again we only can summarise some of the most striking examples.
The "kernel of the Joseph narrative," Yahuda notes, is his appointment as Grand Vizier to Pharaoh [26]. For this office, Genesis 41:43 gives a Hebrew word containing a root which has the meaning "to do twice, to repeat, to double," in the sense that Joseph represented in relation to the king a sort of "double," acting as his deputy, "invested with all the rights and prerogatives of the king". Yahuda explains that exactly in the same way the Egyptian word 'sn.nw', "deputy" was formed from 'sn', "two" [26]. In the same verse, the command is given for all "to bow the knee" before Joseph. The Hebrew word, which is probably an imperative, is generally considered to have been taken from an Egyptian word [27].
Joseph was called "Father to Pharaoh," and, according to Yahuda, the Hebrew expression 'Ab', "father," is a reproduction of the Egyptian title 'itf', "father," a very common priestly title, and one borne also by viziers [28]. For instance the wise and celebrated vizier of the Fifth Dynasty, Ptah-hotep - who incidentally, like Joseph, may have lived for 110 years - "referred to himself as 'itf ntr mryy-ntr', "father of god, the beloved of god" [29]," Yahuda explains [30].
At the beginning of his conversation with Joseph, Pharaoh says: "I have had a dream... I have heard that you understand a dream to interpret it" (Genesis 40:15). For "understand" the Hebrew has the verb to "hear": "you hear a dream" - a usage which has been so difficult for commentators, says Yahuda, but which corresponds entirely to the Egyptian use of 'sdm', "to hear" or "to understand" [31].
In Genesis 41:40, Pharaoh says to Joseph, literally, "According to your mouth shall my people kiss."
Again this verse has been a headache for commentators and translators, as the verb to "kiss" seems to be completely out of place, Yahuda says [31]. But on comparison with Egyptian, he explains, "kiss" proves to be "a correct and thoroughly exact reproduction of what the narrator really meant to convey. Here an expression is rendered in Hebrew from a metaphorical one used in polished speech among the Egyptians" [31]. Instead of the ordinary colloquial expression 'wnm' for "eating," the Egyptians spoke of "kissing" 'sn' the food. Our passage thus is to be taken literally, says Yahuda, "but in the sense of the Egyptian metaphor" [32]. Pharaoh is saying to Joseph "by your orders shall my people feed," whereby Pharaoh simply meant that the feeding of the whole country would be regulated solely "by the measures and ordinances of Joseph" [32].
Court Expressions of Deference
Addressing the Egyptian king in the third person: "Pharaoh was angry with his servants" (Genesis 41:10): "Let Pharaoh do this" (41:33), and many other such passages, corresponds entirely to the court etiquette of old Egypt and is wholly official. This usage dates back to ancient times, and so we read in a letter addressed in the name of Pharaoh Pepi II of the Old Kingdom of Egypt: "... your letter to the king in the palace so that one (= the king) should know" [33]. A characteristic formula also is the phrase recurring in several passages of Genesis: "in the face of Pharaoh," or "from the face of Pharaoh" (e.g. Genesis 47:2, 7 and 41:6), meaning "before Pharaoh" [34]. According to Yahuda, this corresponds completely to hierarchic court custom, whereby one might not speak to his Majesty 'r hm-f', "to his face," but only 'in the face of his Majesty" 'm hr hm-f' [34]. The same respectful expression was used for viziers, and so we have the phrase "before Joseph's face" (Genesis 43:15 and 34).
Yahuda tells us that a very peculiar form of expression which has often been noted, but remained unexplained, is the Hebrew word for "lord" in the plural, with reference to either Pharaoh or Joseph [35].
Thus, for instance, a literal translation of Genesis 40:1 would read: "the butler of the king of 'the two lands' (i.e. Egypt) and his baker offended their lords," instead of their "lord" in the singular. The same ceremonious turn of speech occurs also in Genesis 42:30 and 33 with reference to Joseph. Now we find that already in quite ancient times, again in the Old Kingdom of Egypt, Pharaoh, besides being referred to as 'nb' "lord," in the singular, also is spoken of as 'nb. wy' in the plural [35].
We could multiply passage upon passage as regards the Egyptian influence in the language of the Book of Genesis, but we shall content ourselves with just one more example. This is that difficult passage in Genesis chapter 47 describing Jacob's first meeting with Pharaoh. One line in particular has defied interpretation by commentators who did not consider to look for the solution in the Egyptian records. To Pharaoh's question to Jacob: "How many are the days of the years of your life?", Jacob replies in the following enigmatic fashion: "The days of the years of my sojournings are 130 years; few and evil have been the days of the years of my life" (Genesis 47:9).
Let us see first what a modern Biblical expert has to say about this exchange. Eugene Maly, the expert on Genesis in the Jerome Biblical Commentary, whom we met briefly in Part One, ascribes this portion of Genesis to the Priestly tradition again, or P. Now his only comment on this peculiar and difficult dialogue between Jacob and Pharaoh is that "The presentation of Jacob to Pharaoh is narrated by P with a sobriety that gives it a touch of grandeur" [36].
No attempt to explain the meaning of the words: nor does he show the least awareness that a great part of the language in the Joseph narrative is modelled on set formulae and expressions used in Egyptian court and official parlance as customary, or even prescribed, in Egyptian hierarchic circles, especially in conversation with exalted persons and the Pharaoh.
But getting back to the meaning of Jacob's reply, for which undoubtedly he was primed by his son Joseph, we gather from Egyptian texts that his words were purely a formal convention with no literal meaning [37] but, in the light of Egyptian court etiquette, so rich in the niceties of speech, quite appropriate and well chosen. As Yahuda puts it, "such remarks as Jacob's, coming from the lips of a foreigner, must have appeared to Pharaoh and his court as being very tactful and thoughtful" [38].
We pointed out in Part One that Joseph's story, the longest in the Book of Genesis, neither contains any catch-line phrases nor concludes with a Toledoth colophon. Does this fact severely damage our thesis? On the contrary, it enhances it! The explanation again is very simple. Unlike the Babylonians and Assyrians, the Egyptians - under whose influence the Israelites were living by the time of Joseph - used neither of these literary methods of catch-lines or "Toledoths." The Egyptians did not write on clay tables, but on papyrus rolls, and hence their literary methods were quite different from the Mesopotamians. In typically Egyptian fashion, the story of Joseph ends with his death and embalming, not with the colophon ending of the other Patriarchs. It is quite consistent with our thesis, therefore, that the Joseph narrative should be devoid of these Mesopotamian literary techniques.
Notes and References
25. Yahuda, op. cit., p.3-99.
26. Ibid., p.20.
27. E.g. in Langenscheidt's Pocket Dictionary. But W. W. Hallo, Biblical Archaeologist 46 (1983), p.25, disagrees with this. He claims that the Hebrew 'Abrekh' = Akkadian 'Abarakku,' a fact which he says dates the Joseph story to the Assyrian period. In reply we might say that, even were the equation accurate (and some think it very doubtful), our article demonstrates that Genesis is more ancient than the Mesopotamian texts; so it would be the Assyrians who were doing the borrowing.
28. Yahuda, op. cit., p.23.
29. Papyrus Prisse, ed. Devaud, p.17, 43 (= Lit., p.56 n.1).
30. Yahuda, op. cit., p.24.
31. Ibid., p.7.
32. Ibid., p.8.
33. J. H. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt (Chicago, 1906-7), i. 351.
34. Yahuda, op. cit., p.13.
35. Ibid., p.14.
36. JBC 47:9.
37. Prisse Dev., p.52, 640f. = Lit. 65.
38. Yahuda, op. cit., p.17.
________________________________________
Jacob and Joseph were not ‘godly’ Christian gentlemen
It is a mistake to impose, as Creationists are wont to do, modern religious and scientific standards upon the Genesis worldview and its characters. We saw, from Jacob’s reply to Pharaoh, that the Patriarch was prepared to defer to some degree to Egyptian court etiquette.
And, in the Book of Daniel, the young Jews are given pagan names.
Now Creationist, Patrick Clarke, who has argued for an Eleventh Dynasty location for Joseph, based on the name given to him by Pharaoh: Zaphenath Paaneah (Genesis 41:45), is critical of Dr. David Down’s identification of Joseph with a Twelfth Dynasty high official, Mentuhotep, since this is a non “godly” name:
Down’s choice of Mentuhotep is all the more surprising given that this specifically (and popular) Middle Kingdom name means Content is Mentu. How happy would the godly Joseph have been to bear the name of the Egyptian god of war? Sesostris I was served by a Mentuhotep and this official is one of the best attested from the Middle Kingdom. He was
‘Overseer of all Royal Works’ and this included overseeing Sesostris’ construction projects at the Temple of Amun in Karnak; again the question must be asked, ‘How happy would the godly Joseph have been to oversee work that glorified the god Amun?’
In my scheme, this Mentuhotep is an actual candidate for Moses.
Clarke dismisses the stand-out candidate for Joseph, Imhotep, for the same reason of ‘godliness’:
Wyatt creates far greater problems by linking Joseph to the famous Imhotep. Firstly, Wyatt, like several other supporters of this idea, believes that Imhotep’s name means ‘he who comes in peace’. Imhotep’s name is attested on the base of a statue of Zoser as iy m ḥtp unearthed at Saqarra. Certainly there is a verb ii m ḥtp but the very manner that Imhotep’s name was written indicates a different meaning to that claimed. The sign M18 is vocalized as iy, which is an epithet of the god Horus (all the Egyptian gods and goddesses had multiple epithets which people incorporated into their personal names); the sign G17 signifies who is; the sign R4 is hotep which means content. Brought together, Imhotep translates as Content is Horus (lit. Horus who is content). Again the question must be asked, ‘How happy would the godly Joseph have been to bear the name of the Egyptian sky god, Horus?’
[End of quotes]
Whilst I, from the biblical trend as discussed, would not agree with Clarke in these two cases, I find that he has made an excellent case for Joseph, and his name, in the context of the Eleventh Dynasty – an era that is not out of the question in my scheme, based on the following Table
Patriarch Old Kingdom Middle Kingdom Archaeology
Abraham 0-I-II X (?) EBI
Joseph - III XI EBII
Moses IV-VI XII (XIII) EBIII
Joshua (Conquest) MBI on EB III/IV
Anarchy in Egypt VII-IX (?) XIII-XVII
aligning the Eleventh Dynasty with the Third Dynasty.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-769520851271631286.post-9544116297087357312020-10-19T23:26:00.011-07:002020-10-20T13:21:49.901-07:00Luke may be Paul's healer, Ananias of DamascusAnanias and Luke share these commonalities: healing; holiness; disciple; follower of the risen Jesus Christ; friend of Paul;
(likely) from Syria.
Michael M. Canaris writes this of the poorly known "Ananias of Damascus, a
saintly, unsung hero" (2019):
https://catholicstarherald.org/ananias-of-damascus-a-saintly-unsung-hero
".... On the day the church celebrates the Conversion of Saint Paul (Jan. 25) — this
year the 60th anniversary of the calling of Vatican II — in contemplating the
daily readings in such a way, it struck me for the first time that Ananias is at
least as much a profile in courage in that narrative as is Saul, “who is also
called Paul” (Acts 13:9). But this latter poor servant of the church has
received infinitely less praise than his more famous counterpart. Let’s begin
with the narrative in Acts of the Apostles 9, where Saul is on his way to
Damascus to continue wreaking havoc upon the Christian community he loathes, and
is knocked to the ground by a blinding light (the biblical narrative doesn’t
tell us whether he was on foot or on a horse, though we often see him flung from
the latter in artworks, like those by Caravaggio and Veronese). Saul encounters
Christ, is struck blind, and needs to be led to the city by hand. All this is
quite familiar to the majority of us.
But most of us pay little attention to the parallel scene. Separately, Jesus also
appears to Ananias in a vision. He is
already in Damascus and already a “disciple.” The Lord calls him and he responds
immediately, “Yes, Lord.” Jesus directs him to go to the Street called Straight
(in Latin, the Via Recta), which still exists amidst the bombs raining down on
modern-day Syria, and to restore sight to Saul.
Ananias’ response is understandably hesitant: “Lord, I have heard many reports about this man and all
the harm he has done to your holy people in Jerusalem. And he has come here with
authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.” (“…um, of
which I am one, Your Divine Majesty,” we could creatively add!). But Christ
emphatically says “Go!” — making clear that it is through this unworthy
instrument that he plans to offer the message of redemption to the nations
outside of Israel.
And so Ananias confidently approaches his sworn enemy, to whom incredible power has been given to decimate
those with whom he disagrees, and the first words out of his mouth are ones not too often repeated today in
our discourse with those who hate or vilify us: “Brother Saul.” He goes on to
say “the Lord — Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here —
has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” It is
he who likely baptizes the greatest missionary in the history of the church, and
causes the scales to fall from his eyes. It’s not necessarily Paul’s faith, but
Ananias’ that brings about the transformation.
And while Ananias is mostly lost
to the sands of history after this encounter, his co-believers with all the
litanies praising them and basilicas named for them initially do not help or
welcome Paul, “for they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was really
a disciple.” It’s only Ananias, and eventually Barnabas, who are moved with
compassion at the Pharisaical former tentmaker, and offer an olive branch of
trust, at great personal peril.
Beyond this snippet, we know very little about
Ananias. His name, which was not a terribly uncommon one in the ancient world,
literally means “Favored by God”."
[End of quotes]
I would like to make the
suggestion here that Ananias of Damascus may be a possible candidate for the
famous St. Luke himself. If so, then Ananias will no longer have to suffer
being, as in the words (above) of Michael Canaris, "lost to the sands of
history".
In various articles now I have tried to fill out other NT characters
using 'alter egos', in most cases allowing for a character to have two names -
both a Hebrew and a Greek name - which, however, can also be a cause of duplication.
For instance:
John the Baptist as Gamaliel's Theudas:
"Gamaliel's 'Theudas' as Johnthe Batist"
https://www.academia.edu/36424851/Gamaliels_Theudas_as_John_the_Baptist
Nathanael of Cana as Stephen Protomartyr:
"St. Stephen a true Israelite"
https://www.academia.edu/30843387/St_Stephen_a_true_Israelite
{also Gamaliel, again, his "Judas the Galilean" as Judas Maccabeus - same name, Judas, in this case}
And then there is the un-named:
"Was Apostle Barnabas the Gospels' "rich young man"?"
https://www.academia.edu/36824565/Was_Apostle_Barnabas_the_Gospels_rich_young_man_
extended even further to:
"Was Apostle Barnabas the Gospels' "rich young man"? Part Three: Further extension – was Barnabas also Joseph of Arimathea?"
https://www.academia.edu/36824947/Was_Apostle_Barnabas_the_Gospels_rich_young_man_Part_Three_Further_extension_was_Barnabas_also_Joseph_of_Arimathea
Paul (Greco-Roman name) is otherwise called Saul (Hebrew name) in the Book of Acts (cf. 9:1 and 23:1).
My main point of connection between Ananias and Luke would be
the healing of Paul's blindness, due to the intervention of Ananias, with the
fact that the converted Paul will refer to his friend Luke as a "healer"
(various "physician"). Thus Colossians 4:14: "Luke the beloved physician greets
you, as does Demas".
The Greek word used here to describe Luke is ἰατρὸς, which
can mean - apart from "physician" or "doctor" - "healer".
"[Greek] ἰατρός (iatros), [Latin] medicus: physician, healer, one who provides healing services;
Mt.9:12, Mk.2:17, Mk.5:26, Lk.4:23, Lk.5:31, Lk.8:43, Col.4:14":
https://resoundingthefaith.com/2018/04/%E2%80%8Egreek-%E1%BC%B0%CE%B1%CF%84%CF%81%CF%8C%CF%82-iatros-latin-medicus/
As Ananias (if that is who Luke was), the Evangelist was also a healer,
thaumaturgist, even a mystic-visionary (Acts 9:12).
Note, too, the close bond
between Paul and Luke, as we would expect if Luke were Paul's healer, Ananias.
Paul calls Luke "beloved", ἀγαπητὸς.
In 2 Timothy 4:11, Luke is found to have
remained steadfastly loyal to Paul (not always easy): "Luke alone is with me.
Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is very useful to me for ministry".
That is reinfroced in Philemon 1:24: "... Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my
fellow workers".
I quoted Fr. Jean Carmignac, who has argued for an early dating of the NT books, in my article:
"Fr Jean Carmignac dates Gospels early"
https://www.academia.edu/30807628/Fr_Jean_Carmignac_dates_Gospels_early
as stating that: "... It is <b>sufficiently probable </b>that our second Gospel [that is, Mark], was composed in a Semitic language by St. Peter the Apostle" (with Mark being his secretary perhaps).
Fr. Carmignac will also suggest that the Book of Acts is the Gospel of Paul.
This would further attest the close bond between Paul and the one who I think may have been his healer.
Ananias is referred to as a "disciple" (Acts 9:10), a word that
is used by commentators to describe Luke as well.
Finally, Luke is considered possibly to have been a native of Syrian Antioch. Though that is not definite.
Ananias himself resided in Syrian Damascus.
Ananias and Luke share these commonalities: healing; holiness; disciple; follower of the risen Jesus Christ; friend of Paul;
(likely) from Syria.
<b>Feast of St Luke (18th October 2020) </b>
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0