The Shining Glory Cloud

 

The Shining Glory Cloud 

(Kavod: כָּבוֹד)

 

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

 

“It stopped” (Matthew 2:9).

Heavenly bodies do not stop.

The Glory Cloud did (Numbers 9:17).

 

 

 

 

It is commonly (though not biblically) known as the Shekinah.

 

One might say that, wherever the Lamb went, the Glory Cloud was sure to be there.

 

It manifested itself in the Book of Exodus, as Barry Setterfield said:

 

Barry Setterfield partly correct about Christ’s Star in Matthew

 

(3) Barry Setterfield partly correct about Christ’s Star in Matthew

 

as a: 'Pillar of cloud by day, and a Pillar of fire by night' (see Ex.13:21.22 etc), and, in Matthew 2, as the “Star” of the Magi.

 

Also, as a Burning Bush (Exodus 3).

 

The Magi called it “his Star” (Matthew 2:2) because they knew that it was inseparable from Him.

 

“It stopped” (2:9). Heavenly bodies do not stop. The Glory Cloud did (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 Bible interprets itself.

 

The Magi and the Star that Stopped

 

(3) The Magi and the Star that Stopped

 

In far more recent times, when the resplendent Christ Child accompanied his Mother, Our Lady of the Rosary, to Pontevedra, Spain, on 10^th December, 1925, He stood upon the same Glory Cloud.

 

Vatican grants a Jubilee Year to the Shrine of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Pontevedra for the centenary of Our Lady’s Apparition to Sister Lucia.

 

The Vatican has granted the Convent-Shrine of Pontevedra, in Spain, the privilege of celebrating a Marian Jubilee Year from December 10, 2025 to December 10, 2026, on the occasion of the centenary of the apparition of Our Lady and the Child Jesus to Sister Lucia. It was during this apparition, on December 10, 1925, that the devotion of the First Five Saturdays of the month was requested by Our Lady. The devotion consists in going for Confessing, receiving Holy Communion, reciting five decades of the rosary, and keep Our Lady’s company for 15 minutes while meditating on the mysteries of the rosary, with the intention of making reparation to Her Immaculate Heart. 

 

The commemoration will begin on December 10, 2025, date of the apparition and will be extended to December 2026. In granting this Jubilee Year, the Holy See is offering a special period of spiritual graces to all those who shall make a pilgrimage to the Shrine of Pontevedra and fulfill the required precepts to obtain the indulgences of the jubilee.

 

The World Apostolate of Fatima has launched an International Congress in Fatima and a pilgrimage to Pontevedra and Santiago of Compostela from December 5 to 12, 2025, with the purpose to grow in knowledge and devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and to join the solemn celebrations of the centenary of the apparitions in Pontevedra, reinforcing the importance of the First Saturdays request.

 

Registrations are still open! If you have not registered yet, please rush to do it and do not miss this unique opportunity. For more information and registration click here: https://congress.worldfatima.com/#info

 

 A Helpful Guide to the First Saturday Devotion

 

In order to obtain the promise of Our Lady, this devotion must be properly understood and duly performed. The requirements stipulated by Our Lady are as follows:

 

(1)    Confession, (2) Communion, (3) five Decades of the Rosary (4) meditation on one or more of the Rosary Mysteries for fifteen minutes, (5) to do all of these things in the spirit of Reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and (6) to observe these practices on the First Saturday of five consecutive months.

 

 

1. Confession

 

A confession of reparation means that the confession should not only be a worthy confession (valid and licit), but also be offered in the spirit of reparation, in this case, to Mary's Immaculate Heart. There is no need to formulate this offering in words, nor is there any need to inform one's confessor; but the intention to offer it in reparation must be made at least before receiving absolution; it also may be made when going to confession or even when deciding to go a few days earlier.

This confession may be made on the First Saturday itself, or eight days before or after the First Saturday, and it also may be associated with another devotion. Thus the confession made in connection with First Friday devotion may likewise be offered in reparation to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart in connection with the First Saturday devotion. The doubts that had risen in Sister Lucia's mind on this matter were resolved by the Child Jesus in His apparition to her of Feb. 15, 1926. She explained to Him the difficulties some experience in getting to confession on Saturdays, and asked whether confession made within the preceding eight days would suffice, the Child Jesus replied:

"Yes, the confession could precede, even for a longer period of time, provided when they receive Me, they be in the state of grace, and the confession is made with the intention of making reparation to the Immaculate Heart of My Mother."

"But if the person forgets to make the intention of reparation at that confession?" asked Lucia. Our Lord told her, "Let him make the intention in the next confession, taking the earliest possible opportunity to confess."

 

2. Holy Communion

 

The Communion of reparation must be sacramental (actual reception of the sacred Species), duly received with the intention of making reparation. This offering, like the confession, is an interior act, and so no external action to express the intention is needed. The communion must be made within twenty-four hours of the First Saturday. For good reason, approved by our Pastor, we may receive the Communion on the next day, the Sunday following the First Saturday (a concession granted by the Child Jesus Himself).

 

3. The Rosary

 

The Rosary mentioned here was indicated by the Portuguese word "terzo", which is commonly employed to denote a Rosary of five decades, since it forms a third of the full Rosary of fifteen decades. This, too, must be recited in the spirit of reparation. It is customary on Saturdays to meditate on the Glorious Mysteries, but there is nothing to prevent one from meditating on either the Joyful or Sorrowful Mysteries. In our apostolate it is customary (but not obligatory) to arrange the meditations as follows:

 

Joyful Mysteries:	First Saturdays of December, January, February, and July
Sorrowful Mysteries:	First Saturdays of March, April, and September
Glorious Mysteries:	First Saturdays of May, June, August, October, and November

 

But the important thing is to say the Rosary well by doing one's best to be attentive and to meditate on the Mystery as we offer each decade. As in the other cases, one should make the intention to offer the Rosary in reparation to the Immaculate Heart at least at the beginning of the Rosary.

 

4. Meditation for Fifteen Minutes

 

This meditation on one or more Mysteries of the Rosary is to be made without simultaneous recitation of the decade of Hail Mary's. As indicated above, the meditation may be either on one Mystery alone for fifteen minutes; or on all fifteen Mysteries, spending about one minute on each mystery; or again, meditation on the Mysteries of a five decade Rosary, which can be made before each decade, spending three minutes or more in considering the mystery of that particular decade. This latter is the custom in our own apostolate.

This meditation, likewise, has to be made in the spirit of reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and a mere intention suffices. But we should take care to truly meditate. Meditation consists in thinking over the events as if we were actually present at the scenes mentioned in the Mystery, or in considering what we would have done had we been present. Finally, meditation concludes with a determination or resolution of some sort to amend our life, according to the lesson taught in the Mystery, in our behavior at home, at work, in our dealings with others, etc.

 

Many find it difficult to meditate because they have never made the attempt to do so. But a start could be made by using holy pictures depicting the different Mysteries, or by reading slowly and devoutly appropriate meditations prepared for our use, or even by reading the Gospel narratives containing the Mysteries, with or without commentaries. Those who are unable to read could be counseled to spend fifteen minutes in recalling to mind all that they know about the Birth, Infancy and Childhood of Jesus (Joyful Mysteries); about the sufferings of Jesus represented in Lent, Holy Week, and the Stations of the Cross (Sorrowful Mysteries); and about Easter, the Ascension, the Coming of the Holy Ghost and its effects upon the Apostles and the world. Consider also the life of Our Lady from Pentecost until her death and her glorious Assumption into Heaven, where she exercises her privilege as the Mother of God in order to obtain from her Divine Son graces for her children on earth, even coming down bodily to earth at times, in order to warn us of the great dangers ahead and to give us timely aid to combat them.

There have been many apparitions of Our Lady, but those at Fatima are the first where meditation on the Mysteries of the Rosary is specifically requested. It is obvious that this request is to teach us how to recite the Rosary properly, and to derive many aids for the amendment of our lives and for our sanctification. If many do not say the Rosary properly, or consider themselves incapable of doing so, it is because they are unfamiliar with the events connected with each of the Mysteries, and their immense significance to each of us. This fifteen minute meditation, as requested by Our Lady, will help us to concentrate on each of the Gospel scenes in the Mystery, and to recall to mind the lessons they contain. What a beautiful, simple way to grow in our knowledge, love, and service of God!

 

5. The Spirit of Reparation

 

All these acts, as said above, must be done with the intention of offering reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary for the offenses committed against her. Every one who offends her, commits, so to speak, a two-fold offense, for these sins also offend her Divine Son, Jesus Christ, and so endanger our salvation. They give bad example to others and weaken the strength of society to withstand immoral onslaughts. The acts of our devotions, therefore, force us to consider not only the enormity of the offense against God, but also the effect of sins on human society, as well as the critical need for undoing these social evils, even if the offender repents and is converted. Further, this reparation emphasizes our enormous responsibility towards sinners who, by themselves, will not pray and make reparation for their sins. In the words of Our Lady so well remembered by little Jacinta, "So many, many souls go to Hell, because there is no one to pray and sacrifice for them!"

 

In short, this devotion brings before us our obligations to our neighbor, and reminds us that a true love of God overflows into a genuine love of our neighbor, above all by endeavoring to help him save his soul. An excellent way of doing this is through the example of our own spirit of reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Our living and effective devotion to Our Lady leads us to elevate our moral and religious standards, and so works to raise the standards of the family, community, and country in which we live.

 

 

Reflecting on the biblical Egyptology of Ron Wyatt’s wife, Mary Nell (Lee)

by Damien F. Mackey According to Mary Nell, Ron believed that he had been able to work out the complexities of Egyptian dynastic history in relation to the Bible only because God had enabled him to do so. Otherwise, it would have been impossible considering the intricacies of the subject. Yesterday, the eve of today’s feast-day of the Immaculate Conception (8th December, 2025), I came across a video by Mary Nell (Lee) Wyatt on the high official, Senenmut, of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty: NEW Discovery | Ron Wyatt Found Evidence For Moses In Egypt! Prior to this, Mary Nell Wyatt was for me just a name that I had seen associated with, as his wife, the well-known Ron Wyatt. Thus I was stunned to hear her expatiate at great length and fluency on Egyptology, from the First Dynasty all the way through to the Eighteenth, in relation to her large book: Battle for the Firstborn: The Exodus and the Death of Tutankhamen (2020). Mary Nell’s narrative, heavily based upon the research of her deceased husband, gives as plausible account as most have been able to do of biblical history, from Abram (Abraham) to Moses, in its relation to the Egyptian dynasties. And it is highly original. Apparently, before the pair (met or) married, Ron had lived in Hawaii and had there, in the library, voraciously devoured books on history. What enhances Mary Nell’s presentation is she herself, a very likeable person who can listen patiently to her interviewer’s questions – unlike some guest speakers who want to talk all the time, talk all over the interviewer, and, when they do pause to listen, ostensibly, seem tense and impatient to re-commence their diatribe. According to Mary Nell, Ron believed that he had been able to work out the complexities of Egyptian dynastic history in relation to the Bible only because God had enabled him to do so. Otherwise, it would have been impossible considering the intricacies of the subject. Now she, as Ron’s successor, believes that the model that she has laid out in her book is the correct one. + + + + + Today’s feast of the Immaculate Conception recalls the one human person (Jesus, though having a fully human nature, was a Divine Person) in history who was not deceived, over whom the Devil never had any dominance. It is one thing to say that we are instruments of the Holy Spirit, but are we really? Might we be deceiving ourselves – or allowing the Devil, the Father of Lies (John 8:44), to deceive us? I remember years ago being turned off Ron Wyatt when I read that he would come to some mound and go all rigid with the Holy Spirit, standing there and pointing at the mound, within which some great biblical discovery, presumably, was waiting to be revealed. His gullible followers would then hasten keenly to start digging there. But nothing ever seemed to come to fruition. At the fateful moment, for example, the Israeli authorities (or some other unforeseen situation) would intervene, preventing the team from continuing. Nothing was ever able to come to fruition. The fact of the matter was, there was no fruition! Apparently the state of Israel is quite prepared to let loose such Christian Zionist amateur archaeologist types to dig in areas of no significance, looking on benignly while the Christians hope to add to their ‘amazing’ discoveries of no significance: Christian Zionists a boon to Israel, but sadly mistaken about Final Coming and Third Temple (7) Christian Zionists a boon to Israel, but sadly mistaken about Final Coming and Third Temple Another key point that we need to consider in studies such as this is that there is a world of difference between knowledge and wisdom, which is an inspired gift of the Holy Spirit. Knowledge is, too, of course (cf. Isaiah 11:2), but here I am talking about knowledge in natural terms, as knowing a whole lot of stuff. Our academic world is full of purveyors of much stuff, but wisdom can often seem to be in very short supply: Trenchant Criticisms of the Academic World (5) Trenchant Criticisms of the Academic World There is nothing self-deceptive in the wise man – the wise woman, Mary Immaculate. Take the prophet Daniel, as an example. He knew by the power of the Holy Spirit that what he had interpreted in relation to King Nebuchednezzar’s Dream, a humanly impossible assignment, was absolutely correct, coming as it did from God (Daniel 2:45): “The dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy”. This is what the Wyatt’s appear to have been claiming, as well. But can the same be said, “true”, “trustworthy” for their admittedly impressive (at least superficially) biblical Egyptology? The prophet Daniel’s wisdom was built upon prayer and fasting, and strict obedience. And there was no self-seeking, or ego, in it. Once the ego takes over, and a reputation is gained, one may feel pressure to ‘doctor’ digging sites, to start planting artefacts, as Ron Wyatt has often been accused of doing. All in the name of God, of course: Abandonment of common sense, telling lies for God, not necessary prerequisites for biblical interpretation (4) Abandonment of common sense, telling lies for God, not necessary prerequisites for biblical interpretation Professor Ian Plimer is not the problem here! The Wyatt version of Egyptology I like the fact that Ron Wyatt had approached Egyptology from the point of view of covering the extensive biblical phase from Abram (Abraham) to Moses, rather than simply focussing upon just one segment, e.g. the Famine era of Joseph. A holistic approach. How well, though, does he and his wife’s Egyptological platform serve for setting up later major events, archaeologically and/or geographically verifiable, such as Joshua’s Conquest of Jericho, and Shishak of Egypt’s despoliation of the Temple of Yahweh? If it be a case of a Danielic type of inspiration from the Holy Spirit, then the whole thing must, like Nebuchednezzar’s Dream, fall lock, stock and barrel, right into place. Sadly, as we are going to find out, this will not be the case. Once again, there will be a lack of fruition, unlike: An accurate revision of history is a ‘tree’ bearing ample fruit (7) An accurate revision of history is a 'tree' bearing ample fruit And if such be so, then it cannot justifiably be claimed to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit. Abraham and Joseph Mary Nell gets off to a very good start, so I believe, by supposing Abraham to have lived at the beginning of Egyptian dynastic history, First or Second Dynasty. It gets even better with her identification of Joseph with the great Imhotep, who served Horus Netjerikhet, a Famine Pharaoh, of Egypt’s Third Dynasty. Creationist Patrick Clarke, who will locate Joseph during Egypt’s Eleventh Dynasty, will refer critically to the Wyatt thesis here in his article: “Joseph’s Zaphenath Paaneah—a chronological key” (JOURNAL OF CREATION 27(3) 2013 || VIEWPOINT): …. Wyatt creates far greater problems by linking Joseph to the famous Imhotep. …. Wyatt (using the conventional Egyptian chronology as the guide) must move Imhotep and Zoser around seven centuries nearer the birth of Christ. …. Given the unsuitability of the choices of pharaohs and names for Joseph above, is there a suitable pharaonic candidate who meets the biblical requirements? Mentuhotep II appears to meet these requirements perfectly, needing a movement of three centuries rather that the stress-inducing seven centuries required by Wyatt above. …. The fact is (my opinion) that, to identify Joseph and Moses, one needs to knit together, as one, several Egyptian dynasties, even kingdoms. Both Wyatt and Clarke are correct that (Wyatt) Joseph is the Third Dynasty Imhotep and (Clarke) that he belonged to the Eleventh Dynasty Famine era of Mentuhotep II. See how I have connected all this, and more, in my article: Symmetrical dynastic links for Famine Pharaoh and Joseph (4) Symmetrical dynastic links for Famine Pharaoh and Joseph But both Wyatt and Clarke are wrong, however, in naming the Third Dynasty (Famine) Pharaoh as Zoser (see my article again). As far back as 1987, Tom Chetwynd had opined that Joseph may have been Imhotep (“A Seven Year Famine in the Reign of King Djoser with Other Parallels between Imhotep and Joseph”, Catastrophism and Ancient History, Volume IX, Part I). Did the Wyatt’s come to this conclusion independently? That can happen. Whatever be the case, it would be nice as a general courtesy if writers would indicate whenever they had adopted an idea from someone else. Whilst listening to Mary Nell most capably deliver her long account of Egyptian history, I wondered at times what happened to certain very important dynasties or rulers. For instance – and perhaps she has dealt with this in her book – the mighty Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt did not seem to get any reasonable mention at all. This, I believe, to have been the very dynasty (or one of them, as merging is necessary) that had begun the Oppression of Israel when Moses was born: Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty oppressed Israel (6) Egypt's Twelfth Dynasty oppressed Israel Mary Nell scoots through a whole swathe of dynasties and ends up in the Seventeenth, with Pharaoh Kamose as her first Oppressor King of Israel (cf. Exodus 1:8). This is a startlingly long jump from Imhotep as Joseph, in Egypt’s Third Dynasty (c. 2600 BC, conventional dating) to the infancy of Moses presumably under Kamose (c. 1550 BC, conventional dating). Biblically estimated, Moses was born only about 65 years after the death of Joseph. And now for the intriguing identification of Moses as the high Eighteenth Dynasty official, Senenmut – a view that has become extremely popular in recent times – with Moses’s Egyptian foster-mother as Hatshepsut. Bizarrely, Mary Nell chooses to identify the male Senenmut in statues as a female: Quite missing from her treatment of the Eighteenth Dynasty (at least in the video) is another much favoured candidate for Moses, the monotheistic pharaoh, Akhnaton. I do not recall Mary Nell even mentioning him. After Akhnaton came the famous Tutankhamun, Pharaoh’s ill-fated first born (see title of Mary Nell’s book). Actually, Smenkhkare is considered to have been Tutankhamun’s older brother, and apparently his features, and not those of Tutankhamun, are what adorn the royal mask. (Mary Nell claims that these are Tut’s father’s features): Tut’s famous middle coffin probably belonged to his predecessor Smenkhkare (6) Tut's famous middle coffin probably belonged to his predecessor Smenkhkare Dr. I. Velikovsky’s intuitive (though not properly worked out) identifications of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty, with, respectively, the biblical Queen of Sheba and King Shishak (Ages in Chaos, I, 1952), are far preferable, I would think, to Mary Nell’s admittedly intriguing and original scenario. And I was able in 1997 to include the addition of Senenmut, as (not Mary Nell’s Moses) King Solomon in Egypt (pairing with the Queen of Sheba, Hatshepsut): Solomon and Sheba (8) Solomon and Sheba All of this segues very nicely into Dr. Velikovsky’s thesis that pharaoh Thutmose III (Shishak), in his Year 22-23 (First Campaign) despoiled the Temple in Jerusalem, about 5 years after the death of King Solomon. The chronology is virtually exact, locking in, as it does, with Senenmut’s (as Solomon) fading from the Egyptian records around Year 16 (of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III). Dr. Velikovsky had made quite a mess, though, of putting together the geography of Thutmose III’s campaign unto Jerusalem, which I hope to have rectified in articles such as: Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III’s march on Jerusalem (6) Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III's march on Jerusalem I do not know if Mary Nell’s version of Egyptian history has projected this far ahead. But why I do know that the Egyptological reconstruction of the Wyatt’s is faulty, and thus not locked in as “trustworthy” by the Holy Spirit, is because any New Kingdom reconstruction of the Exodus will have as its consequence the sore fact that, when Joshua will arrive at Jericho, there will be no city there for him to attack. As I wrote in my article (favouring that holistic approach): From Raamses to the ‘Sea of Reeds’ (8) From Raamses to the 'Sea of Reeds' …. Why the new Kingdom is totally inappropriate While, superficially, a New Kingdom (Eighteenth or Nineteenth Dynasty) setting for the Exodus might appear to fit the bill, it would actually cause far more problems than it may seemingly manage to solve. For it is not sufficient simply to grab a particular phase out of history and claim that it attaches nicely to a biblical event. The Bible records a long, developing history which necessitates that the whole thing be fitted into an historical and archaeological framework. If, for instance, one were to take Ramses II as the Pharaoh of the Exodus, one would then need to be able to situate, each into its own proper place, Joseph and the Famine at an earlier phase of Egyptian history, and, then, Abram (Abraham), before Joseph. On this note, Dr. John Osgood has rightly, in a recent article (2024): https://assets.answersresearchjournal.org/doc/v17/ jericho_dating_joshuas_conquest_of_canaan_comments_osgood.pdf Answers Research Journal 17 (2024): 221–222, “The Walls of Jericho: Dating Joshua’s Conquest of Canaan—Comments”, expressed his ‘amazement’ when those involved in biblico-historical reconstructions exclude “a whole saga of history”: …. Habermehl tells us that “we note that the Bible does not say that Hiel built a city, but only a wall.” Really, then what do the words “Hiel of Bethel built Jericho” mean? It had a foundation (not specifically of a wall) and it had gates (1 Kings 16:34). But the archaeologists have clearly and categorically found a large city during Middle Bronze on the site of Jericho and therefore before Hiel. That city needs an explanation, as it won’t go away. This is where I am amazed at the blindness of both conventional and revisionist discussions, as if the pages of the book of Judges are stuck together and a whole saga of history is excluded. Namely, there was the attack on Jericho, the city of palm trees, by Eglon of Moab, and for 20 years that site was occupied by 10,000 of his troops (Judges 3:12– 30, see also Deuteronomy 34:3; Judges 1:16; 2 Chronicles 28:15—the city of palm trees). …. [End of quote] Nor will it be sufficient to focus only upon Egypt – though that nation was, admittedly, the main power during the biblical era from the patriarchs Abram (Abraham) to Moses. Mesopotamia, Syria, Canaan, and so on, must likewise be properly accounted for, both historically and archaeologically. Key to a biblico-historical synthesis will obviously be the Conquest of Canaan and its centrepiece, the Fall of Jericho, which outstanding episode should be archaeologically verifiable. Pharaoh Ramses II may indeed have had his wonderful horses and chariots, but, for those who hold him to have been the Pharaoh of the Exodus, these are now faced with a Late Bronze Age (LBA) archology for the Conquest, and for Jericho, that is hopelessly inadequate. Much has been written about this. Stuart Zachary Steinberg briefly sums it up here: Redating the Conquest of the Promised Land | by Stuart Zachary Steinberg | Medium “For nearly 150 years the conquest by the Israelites has been dated to the Late Bronze Age. The reason for that has been primarily placing the Exodus in the Late Kingdom to have Raamses II as the pharaoh of the Exodus, to correspond with Exodus where it states that the children of Israel built the store cities of Pithom and Raamses. The problem is that there are nearly no correspondence[s] between the destruction of various cities and archaeology in the Late Bronze Age (LBA). Most [of] the cities mentioned do not exist or were destroyed much earlier. Case in point is Jericho. During the Late Bronze Age there was no city at Jericho for Joshua to destroy”. This is the dire situation that confronts the conventional scholars and whoever else might look to situate the Exodus at the time of Egypt’s New Kingdom. The high point of the Conquest of Canaan by Joshua was the destruction of Jericho, whose walls famously fell down. However: “During the Late Bronze Age there was no city at Jericho for Joshua to destroy”. Boom, boom. This is that lack of fruition, again – no lock, stock and barrel co-ordination.

Seleucid Akra tormented the Jews

by Damien F. Mackey … many good researchers, closely following the ancient records, have determined that Haram al-Sharif definitely was not where the Jerusalem Temples had been built. A decade ago, in 2015, there was great excitement amongst archaeologists that the hitherto elusive Akra (Acra) fortress built by the Seleucid invaders in Jerusalem had been discovered. Brent Nagtegaal wrote about it enthusiastically a few years later: Fortress of Antiochus Epiphanes Uncovered in Jerusalem | ArmstrongInstitute.org Fortress of Antiochus Epiphanes Uncovered in Jerusalem Hannukah’s nemesis comes to life in 2015 discovery By Brent Nagtegaal • December 20, 2019 His article will require some correction (my comments to be added). He wrote: In November 2015, the Israel Antiquities Authority (iaa) sent a news brief to reporters in Jerusalem, calling for a press conference the following day to announce the “solution to one of the greatest questions in the history of Jerusalem.” The announcement did not disappoint: On site, in Jerusalem’s City of David, archaeologist Doron Ben-Ami announced that the famed Akra (citadel) of Antiochus Epiphanes had been discovered. Up until that announcement, little had been found testifying to the massive Hellenistic intrusion into the city early in the second century b.c.e. Yet here, at the northwestern portion of the City of David, a massive section of a city wall from that very period was found under layers and layers of construction from later civilizations. Damien Mackey’s comment: A chronological correction. While “the second century b.c.e.” is the standard era for Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes, this will need to undergo some lowering if I am right in my revised identification of this Seleucid king: Time to consider Hadrian, that ‘mirror-image’ of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus (4) Time to consider Hadrian, that 'mirror-image' of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus Brent Nagtegaal continues: Along with the city wall, the base of a fortification tower was unearthed, having a width of over 3.5 meters (12 feet) and a length of over 18 meters (60 feet). Attached to the lower portion of the wall was a sloped embankment known as a glacis. This was made up of layers of soil, stone and plaster designed to keep attackers away from the base of the wall, a key feature of a defensive city wall. According to the press release from the iaa, this glacis extended as far down as the bottom of the Tyropoeon valley, the depression on the western part of the ancient city. Around the massive wall, lead slingstones typical of Antiochus’s army were discovered, as well as bronze arrowheads featuring a trident symbol on them—the mark associated with Epiphanes. Further corroborating the dating of the wall were a number of coins, the earliest of which dates to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. On top of that, hundreds of pottery handles impressed with markings from Rhodes that were used for wine vessels were also discovered, testifying to the Hellenistic nature of the fortress’s inhabitants. While one can rarely be 100 percent sure of the identification of such a site, the evidence certainly does support the conclusion that this building is indeed the famed Akra. Fortress of Antiochus Following an unsuccessful bid to conquer the Ptolemaic kingdom in Egypt in 168 b.c.e., Antiochus iv (Epiphanes) ventured back to Judea and unleashed one of history’s most atrocious anti-Semitic attacks on the fledgling province of Judea. He ransacked the capital city of Jerusalem, sacrificed swine flesh on the altar of sacrifice in the temple courtyard, and then set up a statue of Jupiter in the holy of holies. Afterward, he ravished the countryside in order to destroy any vestige of the Holy Scriptures he could find, as well as killing those who would not comply with his decrees. Then, in order to ensure the Jews didn’t rebel, he constructed a massive fortress in the northern part of the City of David and stationed a permanent garrison of his troops there. Damien Mackey’s comment: Now for a geographical correction. This is where the sensational find starts to unwind in terms of it being the Akra. Its position here “in the northern part of the City of David” is perfectly correct if the standard geography is followed, according to which the Jerusalem Temples had once stood at today’s Temple Mount, Haram al-Sharif. But many good researchers, closely following the ancient records (e.g. Marilyn Sams below), have determined that Haram al-Sharif definitely was not where the Jerusalem Temples had been built. See also my article on this: True location of Jerusalem Temples right near Gihon Spring (4) True location of Jerusalem Temples right near Gihon Spring Brent Nagtegaal continues: This famed building stood for the next quarter of a century, a constant affront to the Jews as it sat adjacent to the temple. Even after the Maccabean revolt against Antiochus Epiphanes was successful at reclaiming Jerusalem in 165 b.c.e., the Jews still could not take the citadel. Damien Mackey’s comment: The war can be re-dated to the early years of Jesus Christ: Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus (3) Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus Brent Nagtegaal continues: In fact, for the next 20-plus years, long after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes in Babylon, a garrison of Seleucid troops continued to be stationed in the Akra, constantly hounding those visiting the temple grounds. As Flavius Josephus relates in Antiquities of the Jews: [A]nd when he had overthrown the city walls, he built a citadel [Greek: Acra] in the lower part of the city, for the place was high, and overlooked the temple; on which account he fortified it with high walls and towers, and put into it a garrison of Macedonians. However, in that citadel dwelt the impious and wicked part of the multitude from whom it proved that the citizens suffered many and sore calamities. It was only after Simon, the elder brother of Judas, came into power over the new, restored Jewish state in 142 b.c.e., that the Seleucid forces were finally ousted from the Akra a year later. Then, to ensure that foreigners would never again hold captive the religious practice of the Jews, Josephus records that Simon led a three-year, night-and-day effort to destroy the Akra completely, even grinding down part of the ground it rested upon. How could these excavators find evidence of the Akra if Simon destroyed it? …. I shall leave Brent Nagtegaal’s article at this point, with this relevant question hanging, to turn to an important article by Marilyn Sams, who far better understands the geography of Old Jerusalem: (4) Did Excavators Find the Seleucid Citadel in the Givati Parking Lot Did Excavators Find the Seleucid Citadel in the Givati Parking Lot? by Marilyn Sams Since 2007, parts of the Givati parking lot excavation on the southeastern hill of Jerusalem, conducted by Doron Ben-Ami and Yana Tchekhanovets, have been characterized as the remains of Queen Adiabene’s palace and also the Seleucid Acra. Both of these faulty identifications are based on a misunderstanding of and/or lack of attention to literary descriptions which place both of these constructions in the lower city, formerly the City of David, called “Acra,” starting in the Greek period. “Acra” (meaning “citadel” in Greek) stands for both the citadel itself and the area it occupied--the lower city. Josephus and First Maccabees place them both south of the temple, which was in the middle of the southeastern hill, and also verify that Simon Maccabee not only destroyed the citadel, but also the hill on which it stood. Therefore, there were no remains remaining. This paper will set forth the literary evidence evidencing the citadel’s actual location, which was also near the location of Queen Adiabene’s palace. Citadels Preceding the Seleucid Citadel Because the Haram esh-Sharif has been falsely identified as the temple mount, rather than the Roman camp Antonia, claimed by eyewitness Eleazar ben Ya’ir to be the only monument remaining after the 70 A.D. destruction (War VII, 8, 376), there have been eight erroneous proposals for the location of the Israelite and Seleucid citadels. However, they were all in the same location, starting with the Jebusite citadel (called “Millo” in Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles), where David resided before building his palace across from it in the newly renamed City of David (Antiquities VII, 3, 65). The northern boundary of this city can be assumed to be the Middle Bronze Age II and Iron Age I walls found in Kathleen Kenyon’s Area H at the bottleneck of the southeastern hill. Hence, the City of David covered roughly the lower half of the southeastern hill. In 3 Kings 2: 35 (Septuagint version), we discover that Solomon expanded this city by breaching its northern wall and adding the “wall of Jerusalem,” a fortification which would then protect the northern half of the southeastern hill and the daughter of Pharoah in the palace he had newly built for her, outside the City of David. The crescent shape of the City of David/Jerusalem (the shape of the southeastern hill) is witnessed by accounts in Josephus, Aristeas, Tacitus, and the Venerable Bede, confining the city to the southeastern hill, with no northerly extension described. It is notable from the Septuagint scripture that Solomon did not breach the City of David’s wall until he had already built the temple and his own palace and rebuilt the citadel. Since the temple was built on Mount Zion at the border between Benjamin and Judah, above En Shemesh (Spring of the Sun--the Gihon Spring), Solomon’s citadel replaced the former Jebusite citadel and acted as a landmark (along with the temple) demarcating the Benjamin/Judah borderline. Hezekiah repaired this citadel (2 Chronicles 32: 5), Nehemiah mentioned it in the Persian period (Nehemiah 7: 2), and Josephus described it during the conquest of Jerusalem by Antiochus the Great (Antiquities XII, 3, 133). Antiochus Epiphanes IV, the son of Antiochus the Great, replaced the citadel of these descriptions with a new one in the same place. The “Lower City,” “Acra,” and the “City of David” As noted by archaeological excavations or the lack thereof, the “city” of the Persian and Greek periods reverted to the southeastern hill only. Therefore, the “lower city” of those periods was the area south of the temple, which edifice Hecateus of Abdera (c. 4th century B.C.) described as occupying the “middle” of the city (Contra Apion I, 22, 198), a location shared by the Gihon Spring (Shiloah), as noted in Hagigah 76a of the Jerusalem Talmud. The Letter of Aristeas also implies the temple’s bifurcation of the city by describing “upper towers” and “lower towers.” …. In Antiquities XII, 5, 252, Josephus recounts Antiochus Epiphanes’ 168 B.C. conquest of Jerusalem, after having overthrown the walls, and his building a citadel in “the lower part of the city:” He also burned down the finest buildings; and when he had overthrown the city walls, he built a citadel [Acra] in the lower part of the city, for the place was high, and overlooked the temple; on which account he fortified it with high walls and towers, and put into it a garrison of Macedonians. (italics and bracketed Greek terms or other information mine, as in all further quotations) The towers and immense stones of the citadel are described by Aristeas and the height of the “place” of the citadel recalls the 3 Kings 2: 35 passage which says Solomon built his citadel “above” the temple, implying the Seleucid citadel replaced the former Solomonic citadel in the same place. The descriptions of the citadels’ location as being “above” and “high” and “overlooking the temple” are factors which have been minimized, ignored, or dismissed in the false locations posited for all the citadels. The literary evidence is clear that the citadels were in a place higher than the temple in the lower city--that part of the city, in both the Israelite era and the Greek era, being limited to the lower half of the southeastern hill. The reason for the height of the citadel being greater than the temple appears to derive from the difference in height between two natural hills, which were likely augmented by occupational tels (because of the spring), dating from 3,000 B.C., with Mount Zion, the hill on which the temple was built, being the lower of the two. Antiochus Epiphane’s destruction of Jerusalem is also set forth in Maccabees 1: 31-36, but in these verses, Acra, or the “lower part of the city” is referred to as the City of David: And when he [Antiochus] had taken the spoils of the city, he set it on fire, and pulled down the houses and walls thereof on every side…Then builded they the city of David with a great and strong wall, and with mighty towers, and made it a strong hold for hem,…For it was a place to lie in wait against the sanctuary, and an evil adversary to Israel. Hence, the citadel built by Antiochus and occupied by his soldiers became a snare to the Jews, rather than a protection to the temple, as had been its previous role. The tide turned, however, when Judas Maccabeus made an assault on the garrison of Macedonians in the “upper city…[and] drove the soldiers into the lower, which part of the city was called the Citadel [Acra]” (War I, 1, 39). Since the city of this period occupied only the southeastern hill, the “upper city” was north of the temple, and the “lower city” was south of the temple and called Acra, because the citadel stood there (just as the area around the citadel called Millo had also been called Millo). It appears from later descriptions that the Macedonian soldiers driven into the lower city were forced to reside in Antiochus Epiphanes’ citadel. Hence, the War passage explains why the Givati parking lot (located in the “upper” area of the southeastern hill) yielded lead sling shots, bronze arrowheads, and catapult stones stamped with Antiochus IV’s symbol, and coins from his era (Fessenden, 2015). The Macedonian soldiers had been there, in the “upper city,” before Judas drove them into the “lower city.” But it was in the lower city, not the upper, where the Seleucid citadel stood. ….

Luke calls Arimathea “a city of the Jews”

by Damien F. Mackey “[Joseph] (he had not consented to their plan and action), a man from Arimathea, a city of the Jews, who was waiting for the kingdom of God”. Luke 23:51 Introduction Following the magnificent research of Harry Whitakker, I was impelled to embrace an identification of the rich young man of the Gospels, a ruler, with the Cypriot Levite, Joseph Barnabas: Was Apostle Barnabas the Gospels’ ‘rich young man’? (7) Was Apostle Barnabas the Gospels' 'rich young man'? A next step saw me taking this identification further, to include: Joseph of Arimathea a perfect match for Apostle Barnabas as the Gospels’ ‘rich young man’ (7) Joseph of Arimathea a perfect match for Apostle Barnabas as the Gospels' 'rich young man' followed, somewhat more tentatively, by: Can Joseph Barnabas be extended to incorporate Joseph Barsabbas? (8) Can Joseph Barnabas be extended to incorporate Joseph Barsabbas? For me, now, the God-fearing rich young man of the Gospels, a man of some status, had become Joseph Barnabas (and possibly also Joseph Barsabbas), the wealthy Levite from Cyprus, a good man, who was also, as Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy member (ruler) of the Sanhedrin. While most of all of this seemed to tie up very well indeed, a geographical challenge did arise inasmuch as our man, Joseph, a Cypriot (from Cyprus), hailed from a town, Arimathea, generally thought to have been somewhere in Judah or Israel. Though its true location is very uncertain: Bible Map: Arimathea “Its identity is the subject of much conjecture. The Onomasticon of Eusebius and Jerome identifies it with Ramathaim-Zophim in the hill-country of Ephraim (1 Samuel 11), which is Ramah the birthplace and burial-place of Samuel (1 Samuel 1:19; 1 Samuel 25:1), and places it near Timnah on the borders of Judah and Dan. G. A. Smith thinks it may be the modern Beit Rima, a village on an eminence 2 miles North of Timnah. Others incline to Ramallah, 8 miles North of Jerusalem and 3 miles from Bethel (Matthew 27:57 Mark 15:43 Luke 23:51 John 19:38)”. My proposed solution to this difficulty, given that there is so much uncertainty about the location of Arimathea (“Its identity is the subject of much conjecture”), was to suggest for Joseph’s Arimathea the highly important Cypriot town, the like-named, Amathus (Amathea). “A City of the Jews” While I was initially happy with this identification, I later read that Luke the Evangelist had, in his reference to Arimathea, called it “a city of the Jews” (Luke 23:51): (… Ἁριμαθαίας πόλεως τῶν Ἰουδαίων …). My immediate reaction to this was to think that Arimathea must, therefore, have been located somewhere in Judah. But, then, why would Saint Luke make the obvious qualification that a city in Judah was “a city of the Jews”? As far as I am aware, Luke does not qualify any other cities or towns in this way. May be, Saint Luke was referring to an Arimathea in a foreign land, say Cyprus, which had a large Jewish population, or perhaps was even dominated by Jews. Was Amathus in Cyprus just such a city? Jews were prominent in Cyprus. Joseph Barnabas, a Levite, hailed from Cyprus. And: “There is evidence of Jewish settlers at Amathus” (2024 article below): A View of Cyprus: A History of the Jewish Community in Cyprus A History of the Jewish Community in Cyprus Jewish presence in Cyprus begins in the ancient times. There is evidence of Jewish settlers at Amathus. In the 2nd BCE there were a considerable number of Jewish people recorded on the island. They had a close relationship with the locals and the Roman rulers at that time, liked them. When St Paul and Barnabas arrived on the island, to convert people to Christianity, they caused problems, by attempting to convert the Jewish to Christianity. According to the history books of the time, the Jews supported the war against the Romans and sacked Salamis and annihilated the Greek population. Apparently, they massacred 240,000 Greek Cypriots. This led to the Jews being punished. …. Summing it up: Saint Joseph of Arimathea, as Barnabas, may thus have hailed from Amathus (Amathea), a city of the Jews in Cyprus.

“[A] gripping read and triumph of careful philology that will change views of the importance and reliability of this long-debated passage. It certainly changed mine”. —Jack Tannous, Associate Professor of History and Hellenic Studies at Princeton University Home - Josephus & Jesus Josephus & Jesus. New Evidence for the One Called Christ …. This book brings to light an extraordinary connection between Jesus of Nazareth and the Jewish historian Josephus. Writing in 93/94 CE, Josephus composed an account of Jesus known as the Testimonium Flavianum. Despite this being the oldest description of Jesus by a non-Christian, scholars have long doubted its authenticity due to the alleged pro-Christian claims it contains. The present book, however, authenticates Josephus’s authorship of the Testimonium Flavianum and then reveals a startling observation: Josephus was directly familiar with those who put Jesus on trial. Consequently, Josephus would have had access to highly reliable information about the man from Nazareth. The book concludes by describing what Josephus tells us about the Jesus of history, his miracles, and his resurrection. —T. C. Schmidt (PhD, Yale University) Visiting Fellow, Princeton University, James Madison Program (2025-2026) Associate Professor, Fairfield University What Scholars Are Saying ________________________________________ An astonishingly new intervention into what had seemed to be a settled consensus…[an] erudite study — Annette Yoshiko Reed, Professor of Divinity and Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity, Harvard Divinity School An extraordinary scholarly achievement… impressive philological acumen — Tobias Hägerland, Senior Lecturer at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden “[A] gripping read and triumph of careful philology that will change views of the importance and reliability of this long-debated passage. It certainly changed mine. —Jack Tannous, Associate Professor of History and Hellenic Studies at Princeton University Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ T C Schmidt Published: 5 May 2025 Abstract This book brings to light an extraordinary connection between Jesus of Nazareth and the Jewish historian Josephus. Writing in 93/4 ce, Josephus composed an account of Jesus known as the Testimonium Flavianum. Despite this being the oldest description of Jesus written by a non-Christian, scholars have long doubted its authenticity due to the alleged pro-Christian claims it contains. The present book, however, authenticates Josephus’ authorship and then reveals a startling discovery. First, the opening chapters demonstrate that ancient Christians read the Testimonium Flavianum quite differently from modern scholars, considering it to be basically mundane or even vaguely negative, and hence far from the pro-Christian rendering that most scholars have interpreted it to be. This suggests that the Testimonium Flavianum was indeed written by a non-Christian. The book then employs stylometric analysis to demonstrate that the Testimonium Flavianum closely matches Josephus’ style. The Testimonium Flavianum appears, therefore, to be genuinely authored by Josephus. The final chapters explore Josephus’ sources of information about Jesus, revealing a remarkable discovery: Josephus was directly familiar with those who attended the trials of Jesus’ apostles and even those who attended the trial of Jesus himself. The book concludes by describing what Josephus tells us about the Jesus of history, particularly regarding how the stories of Jesus’ miracles and his resurrection developed.

Can Joseph Barnabas be extended to incorporate Joseph Barsabbas?

by Damien F. Mackey “Now these are either unconnected similarities, or else we are to connect the dots to see that “Joseph called Barsabbas”, who was not chosen to be an apostle, but because he was such an encouragement, Barsabbas is now called Barnabas by the apostles!” Perry Dox The first step was to identify Joseph Barnabas, a Cyprian Levite, with the rich young man of the Gospels: Was Apostle Barnabas the Gospels’ ‘rich young man’? (1) Was Apostle Barnabas the Gospels' 'rich young man'? This I was able to do thanks to an enlightening article by Harry Whittaker: http://www.christadelphianbooks.org/haw/sitg/sitgb52.html The second step was to identify Joseph Barnabas, the rich young man of the Gospels, with Joseph of Arimathea: Joseph of Arimathea a perfect match for Apostle Barnabas as the Gospels’ ‘rich young man’ (1) Joseph of Arimathea a perfect match for Apostle Barnabas as the Gospels' 'rich young man' A main challenge here was geographical. Now, can we take a third step, by identifying Joseph Barnabas, the rich young man, with Joseph Barsabbas. I had wondered about that this morning (27th November, 2025), and then almost immediately found the following article which attempts just such an identification: PerryDox – BeJustAChristian » Was Barnabas, Barsabbas? Was Barnabas, Barsabbas? Was Barnabas, Barsabbas? The Bible doesn’t directly say so, but the Bible doesn’t directly many things. Such is where we learn implications and inferences, patterns of narrative storytelling, and such. So, does the Holy Spirit imply such is true by how each narrative unfolds? If they are the same individual, the Bible introduces them both in ways which I believe suggests we are to infer they are. This isn’t just an intellectual game of “what if”. If they are the same man, there is a great spiritual, dare I say “encouraging”, lesson to be imitated. Let’s notice a few facts from their “introduction” narratives (Acts 1:13-26; Acts 4:36-37) 1. Both are named Joseph. 2. Their nicknames are similar – Barnabas and Barsabbas in spelling. 3. Both nicknames are similar in meaning because they mean, “Son of”: the Sabbath or Rest; and Encouragement. 4. Similar language is used in describing them: “Joseph called Barsabbas”; “Joseph…the one called…Barnabas”. 5. Both narratives involve land being bought or sold: “Now this man acquired a field” (Acts 1:8). That would be Judas and the land was a burial place for the poor. In Acts 4:37, Barnabas sold a field and brought the money and laid it as the feet of the apostles for poor saints. Barnabas is unlike the apostle who needed replacing. 6. A final connection is both scenes involve the apostles. In Acts 1, Barsabbas is chosen along with Matthias to possibly replace Judas. However, he is not chosen to be the replacement. Then notice in Acts 4, Joseph is called Barnabas BY THE APOSTLES. This means, “Barnabas” is a new nickname. If they are the same man, the group he wasn’t chosen to be one of, ends up changing his nickname from Barsabbas to Barnabas! Later on, Barnabas is selected to accompany two men carrying encouraging news to the Gentile churches. One of these two men was named, Justus called Barsabbas (Acts 15:22). Could this other Barsabbas be the brother of Joseph called Barsabbas who is possibly Joseph called Barnabas? Now these are either unconnected similarities, or else we are to connect the dots to see that “Joseph called Barsabbas”, who was not chosen to be an apostle, but because he was such an encouragement, Barsabbas is now called Barnabas by the apostles! Do you see the encouraging lesson? Even when we are not chosen, be there for those who are, and continue to do what you can. Encourage others. Encourage the ones called. Wait your turn. And finally, who does the Holy Spirit lead Luke to write about more – Matthias or Barnabas who I believe was Barsabbas. ….

Joseph of Arimathea a perfect match for Apostle Barnabas as the Gospels’ ‘rich young man’

by Damien F. Mackey It remains to be determined if we can reconcile the geography – the fact that we have Joseph of Arimathea, on the one hand, while, on the other hand, Joseph Barnabas was from Cyprus. Here I take some of the key points that were picked up about the ‘rich young man’ of the Gospels in the article: Was Apostle Barnabas the Gospels’ ‘rich young man’? (2) Was Apostle Barnabas the Gospels' 'rich young man'? and now apply them also to Joseph of Arimathea. 1. His name was Joseph. Acts 4:36: “Joseph … whom the apostles called Barnabas …”. John 19:38: “After this, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate to let him take away the body of Jesus”. 2. He was rich. Mark 10:22: “When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions”. Matthew 27:57: “There came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who also was a disciple of Jesus.” 3. He was a good man. Acts 11:24: “[Barnabas] was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith …”. Luke 23:50: “Now there was a man named Joseph … a good and upright man …”. 4. He was a seeker after righteousness. Mark 10:17: ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ Mark 15:43: “Joseph of Arimathea … who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God …”. 5. He was a Levite, and a ruler in the Sanhedrin. Luke 18:18: “A certain ruler [member of the Sanhedrin] asked him, ‘Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’” Acts 4:36: “Joseph, a Levite …”. Mark 15:43: “Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Sanhedrin …”. (Possibly, therefore, a Levite). 6. Gave over his property. Acts 4:36-37: “Joseph … sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet”. Mark 15:46: “So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb”. Readers may perhaps be able to suggest further points of comparison. It remains to be determined if we can reconcile the geography – the fact that we have Joseph of Arimathea, on the one hand, while, on the other hand, Joseph Barnabas was from Cyprus (Acts 4:36: “Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus …”). We well know where Cyprus was, and still is. So, what about Arimathea? Fortunately, for our purposes, “the exact site [of Arimathea] remains uncertain”. Thus, for instance: Bible Map: Arimathea Arimathea is believed to be located in the region of Ramathaim-Zophim in the hill-country of Ephraim, which is associated with the modern village of Beit Rima, about 2 miles north of Timnah. Other theories suggest it may correspond to Rentis, located twenty miles northwest of Jerusalem, or Ramleh, on the road from Jaffa to Jerusalem. The exact site remains uncertain, with various interpretations of its location. Arimathea - Encyclopedia of The Bible - Bible Gateway ARIMATHEA ăr’ ə mə the ə (̓Αριμαθαία; KJV, ASV ARIMATHAEA). The native town of Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin who, after the Crucifixion, obtained the body of Jesus and placed it in his own unused tomb (Matt 27:57-60; Mark 15:43; Luke 23:50-53; John 19:38). It is mentioned in the NT only in connection with the story of Joseph of Arimathea. The exact site is uncertain …. Arimathea - Wikipedia Arimathea or Arimathaea (Koine Greek: Ἀριμαθέα) or Harimathaea or Harimathea (Ἁριμαθαία, Harimathaía) was a purported city of Judea. It was the reported home of Joseph of Arimathea, who appears in all four canonical Gospel accounts of the Passion of Jesus for having donated his new tomb outside Jerusalem to receive the body of Jesus (see Matt. 27:57–59; Mark 15:42–45; Luke 23:50–53; John 19:38–40). There is no external evidence for the existence of Arimathea …. Given such negative conclusions about the location of Arimathea, can we, in accordance with this article, find it situated, instead in Cyprus, from whence hailed Joseph Barnabas the Levite? I believe that we can, thereby wrapping up Joseph of Arimathea with our rich young man, Joseph Barnabas. It is Amathus (Amathea), To my great surprise, I find this comment by Wikipedia (I, only a minute earlier, having never heard that Amathus had been connected with Joseph of Arimathea): Amathus - Wikipedia “Amathus is an ancient city located on the southern coast of Cyprus, known for its historical significance and archaeological remains. It is believed to be the legendary home of Joseph of Arimathea, who is reported to have donated his tomb to receive the body of Jesus after his crucifixion”. While I think that this is correct, that Amathus was the home of our composite Joseph, has Wikipedia got its wires crossed here?