tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-90165666969442510232024-03-18T12:51:54.925-07:00Biblically Compatible Archaeology and GeographyBiblical accuracy showing up the foolishness of those biblical minimizersAMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.comBlogger450125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9016566696944251023.post-70141972693728401402024-03-18T12:50:00.000-07:002024-03-18T12:50:53.560-07:00The Magi and the Star that Stopped<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0LRaoml_6NguDeQFthuWcpYGzrp0Hh_U7Qyi4wlcitS9ry1NkujhCeH_N0kZbmQNnvjVq9pfGSbIjAwQ2m_7otTEIHMy01tpOmtMAWBexCKb3Gb4x-M3uM9aPtMQ2-nufbL3jZHPZrRl7R2ZTpYspyqD_0ePRpTuRGDIOauClWMVkCoprHWnM1jkP1Ok/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/AVvXsEh0LRaoml_6NguDeQFthuWcpYGzrp0Hh_U7Qyi4wlcitS9ry1NkujhCeH_N0kZbmQNnvjVq9pfGSbIjAwQ2m_7otTEIHMy01tpOmtMAWBexCKb3Gb4x-M3uM9aPtMQ2-nufbL3jZHPZrRl7R2ZTpYspyqD_0ePRpTuRGDIOauClWMVkCoprHWnM1jkP1Ok/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-9016566696944251023.post-74757494506190442712024-03-17T18:30:00.000-07:002024-03-17T18:30:38.318-07:00Sparser Spartans<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgkPR6YQMSy6i3BkrQSrlvd1K8QZCGfrG5-WYIn6RBcJRecR6Welc5fO_-hZ5sEynh_yIUiYHg_By4F_WCa7Z0ZtBdTewjrYauyL-JR47qQsBTX1l3CfRvRRUuryKgavXO0OjI1NaUij3p_C5-P7re3-zq8RuBKJg9PAWiSeMBRpm9ejXMj-GvvhnYHWg/s275/images.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="183" data-original-width="275" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgkPR6YQMSy6i3BkrQSrlvd1K8QZCGfrG5-WYIn6RBcJRecR6Welc5fO_-hZ5sEynh_yIUiYHg_By4F_WCa7Z0ZtBdTewjrYauyL-JR47qQsBTX1l3CfRvRRUuryKgavXO0OjI1NaUij3p_C5-P7re3-zq8RuBKJg9PAWiSeMBRpm9ejXMj-GvvhnYHWg/s600/images.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
“Hugo Jones writes that the Spartans held in the highest regard a certain ancient law-giver, much like Moses the law-giver of Israel. The Spartans celebrated
new moons (Rosh Chodesh), and unlike their Greek counterparts, even
a seventh day of rest! Of course, the Spartans themselves were very different from other Greeks, particularly those in Athens, whom Sparta often battled”.
Mayim Achronim
According to King Arius of Sparta, his people shared a common ancestry with the Jews through Abraham. I Maccabees 12:19-23:
This is a copy of the letter that they sent to Onias: ‘King Arius of the Spartans, to the high priest Onias, greetings. It has been found in writing concerning the Spartans and the Jews that they are brothers and are of the family of Abraham. And now that we have learned this, please write us concerning your welfare; we on our part write to you that your livestock and your property belong to us, and ours belong to you. We therefore command that our envoys report to you accordingly’.
Given that Abraham was, as according to the meaning of his new name: “The Father of many nations” (Genesis 17:5): “Your name will no longer be Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I will make you the father of many nations”, then the task of identifying a more specific relationship between the Jews and the Spartans is not an easy one.
Legend tends to favour that the Spartans were descended from Abraham through his wife, Keturah.
A seemingly semi-mythological example of this tradition is given at:
https://www.mayimachronim.com/when-jews-and-greeks-were-brothers-the-untold-story-of-chanukah/
Greek Sons of Abraham
Sometime in the 2nd century BCE lived a Greek historian and sage named Cleodemus, sometimes referred to as Cleodemus the Prophet. He also went by the name Malchus which, because of its Semitic origins, makes some scholars believe he could have been Jewish. Cleodemus wrote an entire history of the Jewish people in Greek. While this text appears to have been lost, it is cited by others, including Josephus (Antiquities, i. 15).
Cleodemus commented on Abraham’s marriage to Keturah (typically identified with Hagar), and their children. This is recorded in Genesis 25, which begins:
And Abraham took another wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bore him Zimran, and Yokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuach. And Yokshan begot Sheva and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were Ashurim, and Letushim, and Leumim. And the sons of Midian were Ephah, and Epher, and Chanokh, and Avidah, and Elda’ah. All these were the children of Keturah. And Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac, while to the sons of the concubines that Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and he sent them away from Isaac, while he was still alive, to the east country.
Abraham had six children with Keturah, from which came at least seven grandchildren, and three great-grandchildren which the Torah names explicitly. The Torah then makes it clear that Abraham gave everything that he had to Isaac—including the Covenant with God and the land of Israel—while the others received gifts and were sent away from the Holy Land.
Cleodemus suggests that Epher (or another child named Yaphran), the great-grandson of Abraham, migrated to Africa—which is where the term “Africa” comes from! (This is particularly interesting because Epher was the son of Midian, and Tziporah the wife of Moses was a Midianite, and is described as a Cushite, or African/Ethiopian.) Cleodemus states that Epher, Yaphran, and Ashurim assisted the Greek hero Hercules in one of his battles. Following this, Hercules married one of their daughters—a great granddaughter of Abraham—and had a son with her. This son was Diodorus, one of the legendary founders of Sparta! ….
[End of quote]
Others, such as Steven M. Collins, narrow all of this down considerably more by identifying the Spartans as actual Jews (descendants of Abraham), even specifying that they were of the tribe of Simeon. And so we read at:
https://stevenmcollins.com/the-spartan-israelites-who-halted-the-persian-empire/
THE SPARTAN ISRAELITES WHO HALTED THE PERSIAN EMPIRE
by Steven M. Collins | Sep 17, 2018 | Ten Tribes - Ancient History
Many readers have, no doubt, seen the movie, 300, starring Gerard Butler which was released a number of years ago. It tells the inspiring story of King Leonidas of Sparta, who led 300 of his Spartan warriors to the pass at Thermopylae circa 480 BC to block the path of the immense Persian army under Xerxes that was descending upon Greece. Their noble sacrifice in the battle of Thermopylae inspired all of Greece and bought time for the various city-states to organize a resistance to the Persian invasion. The aforementioned movie is drenched in graphic and bloody combat scenes and is outlandish at times (especially in its portrayal of Xerxes), but the self-sacrifice of the martial Spartan detachment inspires people still today. That movie also is laughably inaccurate in its portrayal of the Spartan warriors, who are presented as soldiers who went to war with appropriate armaments but dressed only in capes and leather loincloths. There was an earlier movie, The 300 Spartans, released in 1961 starring Richard Egan, which told the same story but it showed the Spartans dressed and armored in a much more realistic manner. However, it dated to a time when Hollywood presented war movies in a very sanitized way where the battle scenes were acted out with very little blood being shown.
In both my books (available at the homepage of this website) and an article, I make the case that the Spartan warriors were Israelites from the Israelite tribe of Simeon, which, like the Spartans, was known for being warlike and ruthless. According to the book of First Maccabees, a Spartan king acknowledged in a letter to a Jewish High Priest that the Jews and Spartans were “kinsmen” and fellow descendants of Abraham. If so, where is the historic connection between the two groups of people? The Bible actually does offer us a solid historical context where the Spartans could have originated from a group of Israelites that branched off from the rest of the Israelite tribes. In the book of Numbers, there are two separate censuses taken of the Israelite tribes when they left Egypt. The first is in Numbers 1 and the second is in Numbers 26. The second census indicates that a majority of the tribe of Simeon left the Israelite encampment right after a chief Simeonite prince was executed by a Levite, Phineas, in Numbers 25. The context argues that Moses saw that so many people had left the Israelite encampment at that time that he decided to call for a second census to see how many had departed from the various tribes.
If they had struck out on their own, one would expect the Simeonites to found a martial city or nation of their own…in other words, a city-state just like Sparta. History records that the Spartans had a different origin than the rest of the Greeks. The fact that the Spartan letter cited in I Maccabees records that the Spartans regarded themselves as kinsmen of the Jews and jointly descended from the patriarch, Abraham, is strong evidence that the Spartans had to be from a fellow Israelite tribe, but where had they originated?
Since Numbers 25-26 confirms that most of the tribe of Simeon left the Israelite wilderness encampment circa 1410 BC, it makes sense that this warlike band of Simeonites would resurface later in history in a location other than the Promised Land. The origin of the city-state of Sparta is unknown, but it began to be noticed as an independent entity by at least the 11th or 10th century BC. Years ago, I wrote an article about the Spartan connection to the Israelite tribe of Simeon and I am including a link to that article. I urge all readers with an interest in history to read that article as it will enable you to see ancient Greek and Mediterranean history in an entirely new light.
As a side-bar, I’d like to note that there was an earlier “Brave Three Hundred” warrior group which was mentioned in the Bible. It is the group of 300 warriors that accompanied the hero, Gideon, when he, like Leonidas and his 300, fought against an immense army of invaders who came from the east (circa 1150 BC). The story of Gideon and his brave 300 warriors is told in Judges 6-7. Unlike Leonidas and his 300, Gideon and his 300 emerged victorious over the eastern host albeit with God’s intervention to grant the victory. Gideon and his 300 warriors were also Israelites. Leonidas and his 300 did not emerge victorious although their noble sacrifice has been honored throughout time. I cannot help but wonder how the story of Leonidas and his 300 holding the narrow pass at Thermopylae would have ended if they had not been sabotaged by a traitor who revealed a secret pass around the Spartan position to the Persians. Perhaps they might actually have won if it had not been for that betrayal. At the very least, they would have delayed the Persian host for a much longer period of time.
[End of quote]
I may be able to add another element that could bridge the long chronological gap for the Spartans, as descendants of Abraham, to a connection with Moses. The Spartans looked back to a great Lawgiver called Lycurgus (Lykourgos), generally considered to be semi-mythical. Lycurgus is commonly compared with the Lawgiver supreme, Moses.
Why?
Because, as I think, Lycurgus was actually based on Moses. See e.g. my article:
Moses and Lycurgus
(11) Moses and Lycurgus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Readers might pick up Moses likenesses also in the following by Ellen Lloyd (2023):
https://www.ancientpages.com/2023/01/09/enigma-of-lycurgus-of-sparta-great-reformer-and-his-foundation-of-a-warlike-superior-state/
As we trace the ancient history of Sparta and Lycurgus, we learn he emerged during a deep crisis. According to Spartanophilic Xenophon, a disciple of Socrates and soldier who fought for Sparta against Athens, Lycurgus lived during the time of Heraclidae, around 1,000 B.C.
Herodotus informs that Lycurgus “had brought the Spartans out of an era of extreme political disorder (kakonomotatoi) and into one of good order (eunomie), which in turn led to the city’s increased power.
With the support of the Delphic oracle, Lycurgus changed “all the laws,” and created the gerousia, the ephorate, and the Spartan military organization (there is mention of the syssitia among the military institutions).” 3
Lycurgus “was able to persuade his fellow Spartans to introduce the comprehensive and compulsory educational cycle called the Agoge (agôgê, literally a ‘raising’, as of cattle). This system of education, training and socialisation turned boys into fighting men whose reputation for discipline, courage and skill was unsurpassed.” 4
Some scholars suggest the political reforms in Sparta introduced by Lycurgus were the earliest system of Greek citizen self-government.
Many aspects Lycurgus system were strange to foreigners, and the Spartan rules and customs were radically different from the rest of the Hellenes. Perhaps this was also the goal because the Lycurgus altered decisively the psychological make-up of the citizens. The Spartans’ “own belief in their ideology was absolute. Throughout Spartan history there were very few defectors – or whingers.” 4
How Lycurgus came up with the laws is a mystery. Herodotus provides two entirely different versions of the Spartan lawgiver. One story tells Lycurgus received the laws directly from God Apollo. In another text, Herodotus ascribes the origins of Lycurgus’s laws to the Cretan constitution.
Modern historians have long downplayed the role of Lycurgus in the history of Sparta. Still, in recent years scholars have argued the ancient lawgiver may have been of greater importance to the state than previously assumed. ….
[Ends of quote]
There is enough here to suggest, too, that the Spartans were foreigners in Greece.
The first step, then, is to re-set Sparta in an Israelite direction by re-identifying the Lawgiver Lycurgus (c. 820 BC) as Moses (c. 1450 BC).
The second step is to carry this re-orientation down into the Judges period, by seeing Leonidas and his 300 as a Greek appropriation of Gideon and his 300 (Judges 7).
We read that Steven M. Collins had not missed this similarity (without making my connection):
….
As a side-bar, I’d like to note that there was an earlier “Brave Three Hundred” warrior group which was mentioned in the Bible. It is the group of 300 warriors that accompanied the hero, Gideon, when he, like Leonidas and his 300, fought against an immense army of invaders who came from the east (circa 1150 BC). The story of Gideon and his brave 300 warriors is told in Judges 6-7. Unlike Leonidas and his 300, Gideon and his 300 emerged victorious over the eastern host albeit with God’s intervention to grant the victory. ….
In e.g. my article:
Not so ‘Hot Gates’ of Thermopylae
(3) Not so ‘Hot Gates’ of Thermopylae | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
I suggested biblical antecedents for the so-called Battle of Thermopylae and the 300 Spartans.
If Leonidas and his 300 are not taken from Gideon and his 300, wherein the name Gideon has become Grecised as Leonidas:
[G]ID-EON = [L]EON-ID-AS
then I’ll eat my hat.
The third step is to recognise that:
Admiral Lysander was probably an Egyptian
(3) Admiral Lysander was probably an Egyptian | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Even The Iliad epic associated with the more obviously fictitious Sparta-ruling Menelaus has a biblical base:
‘Homeric’ borrowings from life of King Saul
(4) 'Homeric' borrowings from life of King Saul | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
King Ahab and Agamemnon
(4) King Ahab and Agamemnon | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Judith the Jewess and “Helen” the Hellene
(4) Judith the Jewess and " Helen " the Hellene | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9016566696944251023.post-77975773177439850132024-03-17T13:07:00.000-07:002024-03-17T13:07:06.458-07:00Not so ‘Hot Gates’ of Thermopylae<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLJB3NK8aWLHV4OcyU-Nmos3tcHvzHy7W4DD5WlHO4Q5yHG2HWpgIx_5HrG5_7aBRhOd1jgdnVtb4NeOfR3er37PIcC2VJ6XLHjmjcR7I42vS5x8rRlEUohN1j8Ak47jAwKM0wj4jDG2TKHJeWVw4Cram1-EPBiHBq-NH02_BTFcVRCUHSPGckAx78RwE/s450/The%20300%20Spartans%20-%201962%2002_0.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="190" data-original-width="450" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLJB3NK8aWLHV4OcyU-Nmos3tcHvzHy7W4DD5WlHO4Q5yHG2HWpgIx_5HrG5_7aBRhOd1jgdnVtb4NeOfR3er37PIcC2VJ6XLHjmjcR7I42vS5x8rRlEUohN1j8Ak47jAwKM0wj4jDG2TKHJeWVw4Cram1-EPBiHBq-NH02_BTFcVRCUHSPGckAx78RwE/s600/The%20300%20Spartans%20-%201962%2002_0.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
Morton Scott Enslin has intuitively referred to the Book of Judith’s
Bethulia incident as the “Judean Thermopylae” (The Book of Judith:
Greek Text with an English Translation, p. 80).
Introductory
Professor Paul Cartledge’s well written book about the alleged Battle of Thermopylae between the Spartans and the Persians in 480 BC holds firmly to the familiar line of British writers and historians that our Western civilisation was based front and centre upon the Greeks.
Thus, for instance, he writes in his book, Thermopylae: The Battle That Changed the World (Macmillan, 2006, p. 4):
“The Greeks were second to none in embracing that contrary combination of the ghastly and the ennobling, which takes us straight back to the fount and origin of Western culture and ‘civilization’ - to Homer’s Iliad, the first masterpiece of all Western literature; to Aeschylus’s Persians, the first surviving masterpiece of Western drama; to the coruscating war epigrams of Simonides and, last but most relevantly of all, to Herodotus’s Histories, the first masterpiece of Western historiography”.
And this is not the only occasion in his book where professor Cartledge expresses such effusive sentiments.
The problem is, however, that - as it seems to me, at least - these very foundations, these so-called ‘founts and origins’ of ‘Western culture and civilization’, had for their very own bases some significant non-Greek influences and inspirations.
An important one of these non-Greek influences was the Book of Judith, traditionally thought to have been written substantially by the high-priest Joakim in c. 700 BC.
Compare that to the uncertainty of authorship surrounding those major works labelled Homeric:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer
The Homeric Question—by whom, when, where and under what circumstances were the Iliad and Odyssey composed—continues to be debated. Broadly speaking, modern scholarly opinion falls into two groups. One holds that most of the Iliad and (according to some) the Odyssey are the works of a single poet of genius. The other considers the Homeric poems to be the result of a process of working and re-working by many contributors, and that "Homer" is best seen as a label for an entire tradition.[ ….
On previous occasions I have suggested that parts of The Iliad had appropriated key incidents to be found in the Book of Judith, with ‘Helen’ taking her cue from the Jewish heroine, Judith.
Accordingly, I have written:
“As for Judith, the Greeks appear to have substituted this beautiful Jewish heroine with their own legendary Helen, whose ‘face launched a thousand ships’.
Compare for instance these striking similarities (Judith and The Iliad):
The beautiful woman praised by the elders at the city gates:
"When [the elders of Bethulia] saw [Judith] transformed in appearance and dressed differently, they were very greatly astounded at her beauty" (Judith 10:7).
"Now the elders of the people were sitting by the Skaian gates…. When they saw Helen coming … they spoke softly to each other with winged words:
'No shame that the Trojans and the well-greaved Achaians should suffer agonies for long years over a woman like this - she is fearfully like the immortal goddesses to look at'" [The Iliad., pp. 44-45].
This theme of incredible beauty - plus the related view that "no shame" should be attached to the enemy on account of it - is picked up again a few verses later in the Book of Judith (v.19) when the Assyrian soldiers who accompany Judith and her maid to Holofernes "marveled at [Judith's] beauty and admired the Israelites, judging them by her … 'Who can despise these people, who have women like this among them?'"
Nevertheless:
'It is not wise to leave one of their men alive, for if we let them go they will be able to beguile the whole world!' (Judith 10:19).
'But even so, for all her beauty, let her go back in the ships, and not be left here a curse to us and our children'.
The dependence of The Iliad upon the Book of Judith may go even deeper, though, to its very main theme. For, previously I had written:
“Achilles
Many similarities have been noted too between The Iliad and the Old Testament, including the earlier-mentioned likenesses between the young Bellerophon and Joseph. Again, Achilles' being pursued by the river Xanthos which eventually turns dry (Book 21) reminds one of Moses' drying up of the sea (Exodus 14:21).
Was there really a person by the name of Agamemnon? [See Is Homer Historical? in Archaeology Odyssey, May/Jun 2004, pp. 26-35].
The interview of Professor Nagy of Harvard says ‘no, there wasn't’.
Achilles’ fierce argument with Agamemnon, commander-in-chief of the Greeks, at Troy - Achilles' anger being the very theme of The Iliad [Introduction, p. xvi: "The Iliad announces its subject in the first line. The poem will tell of the anger of Achilleus and its consequences - consequences for the Achaians, the Trojans, and Achilleus himself"] - is merely a highly dramatized Greek version of the disagreement in the Book of Judith between Achior [a name not unlike the ‘Greek’ Achilles] and the furious Assyrian commander-in-chief, "Holofernes", at the siege of Bethulia, Judith's town”.
And the famous Trojan Horse?
I continued:
“If the very main theme of The Iliad may have been lifted by the Greeks from the Book of Judith, then might not even the Homeric idea of the Trojan Horse ruse to capture Troy have been inspired by Judith's own ruse to take the Assyrian camp?
[According to R. Graves, The Greek Myths (Penguin Books, combined ed., 1992), p. 697 (1, 2. My emphasis):
"Classical commentators on Homer were dissatisfied with the story of the wooden horse.
They suggested, variously, that the Greeks used a horse-like engine for breaking down the walls (Pausanias: i. 23. 10) … that Antenor admitted the Greeks into Troy by a postern which had a horse painted on it….Troy is quite likely to have been stormed by means of a wheeled wooden tower, faced with wet horse hides as a protection against incendiary darts…".
(Pausanius 2nd century AD: Wrote `Description of Greece'.)].
What may greatly serve to strengthen this suggestion is the uncannily 'Judith-like' trickery of a certain Sinon, a wily Greek, as narrated in the detailed description of the Trojan Horse in Book Two of Virgil's Aeneid. Sinon, whilst claiming to have become estranged from his own people, because of their treachery and sins, was in fact bent upon deceiving the Trojans about the purpose of the wooden horse, in order "to open Troy to the Greeks".
I shall set out here the main parallels that I find on this score between the Aeneid and the Book of Judith.
Firstly, the name Sinon may recall Judith's ancestor Simeon, son of Israel (Judith 8:1; 9:2).
Whilst Sinon, when apprehended by the enemy, is "dishevelled" and "defenceless", Judith, also defenseless, is greatly admired for her appearance by the members of the Assyrian patrol who apprehend her (Judith 10:14). As Sinon is asked sympathetically by the Trojans 'what he had come to tell …' and 'why he had allowed himself to be taken prisoner', so does the Assyrian commander-in-chief, Holofernes, 'kindly' ask Judith: '… tell me why you have fled from [the Israelites] and have come over to us?'
Just as Sinon, when brought before the Trojan king Priam, promises that he 'will confess the whole truth' – though having no intention of doing that – so does Judith lie to Holofernes: 'I will say nothing false to my lord this night' (Judith 11:5).
Sinon then gives his own treacherous account of events, including the supposed sacrileges of the Greeks due to their tearing of the Palladium, image of the goddess Athene, from her own sacred Temple in Troy; slaying the guards on the heights of the citadel and then daring to touch the sacred bands on the head of the virgin goddess with blood on their hands. For these 'sacrileges' the Greeks were doomed.
Likewise Judith assures Holofernes of victory because of the supposed sacrilegious conduct that the Israelites have planned (e.g. to eat forbidden and consecrated food), even in Jerusalem (11:11-15).
Sinon concludes – in relation to the Trojan options regarding what to do with the enigmatic wooden horse – with an Achior-like statement: 'For if your hands violate this offering to Minerva, then total destruction shall fall upon the empire of Priam and the Trojans…. But if your hands raise it up into your city, Asia shall come unbidden in a mighty war to the walls of Pelops, and that is the fate in store for our descendants'. Whilst Sinon's words were full of cunning, Achior had been sincere when he had warned Holofernes – in words to which Judith will later allude deceitfully (11:9-10): 'So now, my master and my lord, if there is any oversight in this people [the Israelites] and they sin against their God and we find out their offense, then we can go up against them and defeat them. But if they are not a guilty nation, then let my lord pass them by; for their Lord and God will defend them, and we shall become the laughing-stock of the whole world' (Judith 5:20-21). [Similarly, Achilles fears to become 'a laughing-stock and a burden of the earth' (Plato's Apologia, Scene I, D. 5)].
These, Achior's words, were the very ones that had so enraged Holofernes and his soldiers (vv.22-24). And they would give the Greeks the theme for their greatest epic, The Iliad”.
But all of this is as nothing when compared to what I have found to be the multiple:
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
this Semitic literature presumably well pre-dating the fairy-tale Greek efforts.
Unsatisfactory Foundations
“It concerns a supposed night attack by loyalist Greeks on Xerxes’s camp
in the very middle of the Thermopylae campaign with the aim of
assassinating the Great King”.
Herodotus
So much concerning the truth of the supposed Battle of Thermopylae rests with Herodotus, whose Histories are thought to come closest of all to being a primary source for the account.
“He and [the poet] Simonides” are, according to professor Paul Cartledge, the “principal contemporary Greek written source for Thermopylae”. And, on p. 224: “… Herodotus in my view remains as good as it gets: we either write a history of Thermopylae with him, or we do not write one at all”.
One problem with this is that Herodotus was known as (alongside his more favourable epithet, the “Father of History”) - as professor Cartledge has also noted - the “Father of Lies”.
Where does Greek history actually begin?
The history of Philosophy - of whose origins the Greeks are typically credited - begins with shadowy ‘Ionian Greeks’, such as Thales of Miletus, whose real substance I believe resides in the very wise Joseph of Egypt.
Likewise the legendary Pythagoras.
For an overview of all of this, see my:
Re-Orienting to Zion the History of Ancient Philosophy
https://www.academia.edu/4105845/Re-Orienting_to_Zion_the_History_of_Ancient_Philosophy
Already I have de-Grecised such supposedly historical characters as Solon the Athenian statesman (who is but a Greek version of the Israelite King Solomon, and whose ‘laws’ appear to have been borrowed, at least in part, from the Jew, Nehemiah); Thales; Pythagoras; Empedocles, an apparent re-incarnation of Moses (Freud).
And I have shown that Greek classics such as The Iliad and the Odyssey were heavily dependent upon earlier Hebrew literature.
The ancient biblical scholar, Saint Jerome (c. 400 AD), had already noted, according to Orthodox pastor, Patrick H. Reardon (The Wide World of Tobit. Apocrypha’s Tobit and Literary Tradition), the resemblance of Tobit to Homer’s The Odyssey. The example that pastor Reardon gives, though, so typical of the biblical commentator’s tendency to infer pagan influence upon Hebrew literature, whilst demonstrating a definite similarity between Tobit and the Greek literature, imagines the author of Tobit to have appropriated a colourful episode from The Odyssey and inserted it into Tobit 11:9:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=12-02-036-f#ixzz2f1euwlrb
“The resemblance of Tobit to the Odyssey in particular was not lost on that great student of literature, Jerome, as is evident in a single detail of his Latin translation of Tobit in the Vulgate. Intrigued by the literary merit of Tobit, but rejecting its canonicity, the jocose and sometimes prankish Jerome felt free to insert into his version an item straight out of the Odyssey—namely, the wagging of the dog’s tail on arriving home with Tobias in 11:9—Tunc praecucurrit canis, qui simul fuerat in via, et quasi nuntius adveniens blandimento suae caudae gaudebat—“Then the dog, which had been with them in the way, ran before, and coming as if it had brought the news, showed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail.” ….
No other ancient version of Tobit mentions either the tail or the wagging, but Jerome, ever the classicist, was confident his readers would remember the faithful but feeble old hound Argus, as the final act of his life, greeting the return of Odysseus to the home of his father: “he endeavored to wag his tail” (Odyssey 17.302). And to think that we owe this delightful gem to Jerome’s rejection of Tobit’s canonicity!”
Reardon, continuing his theme of the dependence of Tobit, in part, upon, as he calls it here, “pagan themes”, finds further commonality with Greek literature, especially Antigone:
“Furthermore, some readers have found in Tobit similarities to still other pagan themes, such as the legend of Admetus. …. More convincing, I believe, however, are points of contact with classical Greek theater. Martin Luther observed similarities between Tobit and Greek comedy … but one is even more impressed by resemblances that the Book of Tobit bears to a work of Greek tragedy—the Antigone of Sophocles. In both stories the moral stature of the heroes is chiefly exemplified in their bravely burying the dead in the face of official prohibition and at the risk of official punishment. In both cases a venerable moral tradition is maintained against a political tyranny destructive of piety.
That same Greek drama, moreover, provides a further parallel to the blindness of Tobit in the character of blind Teiresias, himself also a man of an inner moral vision important to the theme of the play”.
[End of quote]
In light of all this - and what I have given above is very far from being exhaustive - and appreciating that those conventionally labelled as ‘Ionian Greeks’ may actually have been, in their origins, Hebrew biblical characters, then just how real is Herodotus of Ionian Greece (Halicarnassus)?
And, can we be sure that the Histories attributed to him have been (anywhere nearly) properly dated?
His name, Herod-, with a Greek ending (-otus), may actually bespeak a non-Greek ethnicity, and, indeed, a later period of time (say, closer to a Dionysius of Halicarnassus, C1st BC).
Xerxes
But, whatever may be the case with Herodotus, his classical version of “Xerxes” seems to have been based very heavily upon the Assyrian Great King, Sennacherib - another Book of Judith connection, given my view that Sennacherib was the actual Assyrian ruler of Nineveh named “Nebuchadnezzar” in Judith. E.g. 1:1: “In the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnez′zar, who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Nin′eveh …”. Emmet Sweeney has marvellously shown this in the following comparisons (The Ramessides, Medes and Persians):
SENNACHERIB
XERXES
Made war on Egypt in his third year, and fought a bitter war against the Greeks shortly thereafter. Made war on Egypt in his second year, and fought a bitter war against the Greeks shortly thereafter.
Suppressed two major Babylonian rebellions. The first, in his second year, was led by Bel-Shimanni. The second, years later, was led by Shamash-eriba. Suppressed two major Babylonian rebellions. The first, in his third year, was led by Bel-ibni. The second, years later, was led by Mushezib-Marduk.
The Babylonians were well-treated after the first rebellion, but savagely repressed after the second, when they captured and murdered Sennacherib’s viceroy, his own brother Ashur-nadin-shum. The Babylonians were well-treated after the first rebellion, but savagely repressed after the second, when they captured and murdered Xerxes’ satrap.
After the second rebellion, Sennacherib massacred the inhabitants, razed the city walls and temples, and carried off the golden stature of Marduk. Thereafter the Babylonian gods were suppressed in favour of Ashur, who was made the supreme deity. After the second rebellion, Xerxes massacred the inhabitants, razed the city walls and temples, and carried off the golden stature of Bel-Marduk. Thereafter the Babylonian gods were suppressed in favour of Ahura-Mazda, who was made the supreme deity.
Though I do not deny for a moment that Persia had a King Xerxes, a shortened version of Artaxerxes, the “Xerxes” of the Greeks is, however, purely fictitious.
Diodorus of Sicily, C1st BC (presuming he did actually write later than Herodotus), will contribute to the fiction by including a Judith element (not mentioned by Herodotus) to the tale of “Xerxes” at Thermopylae.
It is, in my opinion, just a re-run version of the assassination of “Holofernes”, admixed, perhaps, with the regicide of Sennacherib.
Professor Cartledge has written of it (op. cit., p. 232): “It concerns a supposed night attack by loyalist Greeks on Xerxes’s camp in the very middle of the Thermopylae campaign with the aim of assassinating the Great King”.
Based on the Book of Judith Drama
Morton Scott Enslin has intuitively referred to the Book of Judith’s
Bethulia incident as the “Judean Thermopylae” (The Book of Judith:
Greek Text with an English Translation, p. 80).
Comparisons between Book of Judith
and the Battle of Thermopylae
In both dramas we are introduced to a Great King, ruling in the East, who determines to conquer the West with a massive army.
Scholars have wondered about the incredible size of the Persian army.
“Almost all are agreed that Herodotus’ figure of 2,100,000, exclusive of followers, for the army (Bk VII. 184-85) is impossible” wrote F. Maurice in 1930 (“The Size of the Army of Xerxes in the Invasion of Greece 480 B. C.”, JHS, Vol. 50, Part 2 (1930), p. 211).
Sennacherib’s Assyrian army of 185,000 was likely - discounting, as an unrealistic translation, the one million-strong army of “Zerah the Ethiopian” - the largest army ever to that time (and possibly even much later) to have been assembled.
Apart from Kings, Chronicles and Isaiah, the same figure is referred to again in Maccabees, and in Herodotus’ Histories. The figure is not unrealistic for the neo-Assyrians, given that King Shalmaneser so-called III is known to have fielded an army of 120,000 men. (Fragments of the royal annals, from Calah, 3. lines 99–102: “In my fourteenth year, I mustered the people of the whole wide land, in countless numbers. I crossed the Euphrates at its flood with 120,000 of my soldiers”).
Invading from the East, the armies must of necessity approach, now Greece, now Judah, from the North.
Having successfully conquered everything in their path so far, the victors find that those peoples yet unconquered will speedily hand themselves over to their more powerful assailants. This process is known as ‘Medizing’ in the classical literature.
In the Book of Judith, the all-conquering commander-in-chief, “Holofernes”, will receive as allies those who had formerly been his foes. And these, like the treacherous ones in the Thermopylae drama, will prove to be a thorn in the flesh of the few who have determined to resist the foreign onslaught.
The armies arrive at a narrow pass, with defenders blocking their way.
Thermopylae in the Herodotean account – “Bethulia” (best identified as Shechem) in the biblical Book of Judith.
Dethroned Spartan King Demaratus, now an exile in Persia, will answer all of Xerxes’s questions about the Greek opposition, promising the King “to tell the whole truth—the kind of truth that you will not be able to prove false at a later date”.
Most similarly Achior, probably born in Assyrian exile, will advise “Holofernes” about the Israelites, promising his superior (Judith 5:5): ‘I will tell you the truth about these people who live in the mountains near your camp. I will not lie to you’.
A traitorous Greek, Ephialtes, will betray his country by telling the Persians of another pass around the mountains.
Likewise, the turncoat local Edomites and Moabites will advise the Assyrians of a strategy better than the one that they had been intending.
Conclusion
The so-called Battle of Thermopylae never happened.
No band of a mere 300 ever held the line against a massive Persian army.
The classical Xerxes is a complete fiction.
“Thermopylae: the Battle that changed the word”, in fact “changed” nothing.
Now, the Battle of the Valley of Salem at “Bethulia” (Shechem), on the other hand, changed a heck of a lot. For (Judith 16:25):
“As long as Judith lived, and for many years after her death,
no one dared to threaten the people of Israel”.
Also a Seleucid and more battles of Thermopylae
“Thermopylae is a mountain pass near the sea in northern Greece
which was the site of several battles in antiquity, the most famous being
that between Persians and Greeks in August 480 BCE”.
Mark Cartwright
The OTHER (supposed) Battles of Thermopylae:
https://steemit.com/history/@iaberius/the-other-battles-of-thermopylae
are given here as follows:
• 353 BC Battle of the Thermopylae. It took place during the Third Sacred War. Phocis and Thebes clashed over Delphi's control. The Phocians made heroic resistance in the Thermopylae against the ally of the Thebanians, King Philip II of Macedonia, father of Alexander the Great.
• 279 BC Battle of Thermopylae. An alliance of the Greeks (Beotians, Phocians, Etholians, Megarenses and Athenians) defended the passage against the invasion of the Breno's Celts. Breno tried to use the hidden path used by Persian army two thousand years earlier, but the Greeks were prepared this time. A garrison defends the rough road, so Breno deviates to Delphi. In a second attempt, he succeeds in passing thanks the fog. However, the Greeks had been evacuated in the Athenian ships. Every one of the contingent goes to defend their city.
• 191 BC Battle of Thermopylae. In this battle, the Seleucids clashed Romans, who came to Greece as allies of Macedonians. Marco Acilio Glabrio surrounded with his troops the army of King Antiochus III. They used the old mountain pass, and thus won the battle.
• 267 AD Battle of Thermopylae. Several barbarian tribes assaulted the Roman Empire. First, they looted the Balkans, and then they extended their raid for Greece. One of these people, the Heruli, arrived at Thermopylae passage, where they tried to stop them without success. As a result, they devastated the entire Attica and the Peloponnese peninsula. Even the city of Sparta was plundered.
Regarding the supposed Seleucid one of Antiochus (so-called) III, we read:
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_thermopylae_191.html
The battle of Thermopylae of 191 B.C. ended the Greek phase of the war between Rome and the Seleucid emperor Antiochus III. Antiochus had crossed into Greece from Asia Minor at the head of small army, hoping to find allies amongst the Greeks. He had been disappointed in this expectation – only the Aetolian League, who had invited him into Greece in the first place, offered him troops, and even then not as many as he had hoped.
The Romans responded by sending an army to Greece, commanded by the consul M. Acilius Glabrio. He was more successful in finding allies, most notably gaining the support of Philip V of Macedonia, who only a few years before had been crushingly defeated by the Romans at Cynoscephalae (Second Macedonian War). Between them Philip and the Romans quickly recaptured all of Antiochus’ conquests in Thessaly.
Antiochus decided to defend the pass of Thermopylae, where the greater Roman numbers would not be so telling. This position allowed him to remain in communication with Aetolia, and protected the crucial naval base at Chalcis. Antiochus defended the pass himself, with his 10,500 men, posting his slingers on the heights above the pass and his phalanx behind strong earthworks. The Aetolians were given the task of guarding his left flank, leaving 2,000 men at Heraclea in Trachis and posting 2,000 men in the forts that guarded the Asopus gorge and the mountain tracks that the Persians had used.
Unfortunately for Antiochus the Romans had read the history books.
They may have had as many as 40,000 men, and so on the night before the Roman attack they could afford to send 2,000 men around his western flank. On the day of the battle the Romans began with a frontal assault on his position. The first attack failed under a hail of missile weapons from the heights, and even when a second attack broke through the first Seleucid line, they were held off by Antiochus’ dug-in phalanx.
The turning point of the battle came when the Roman flanking force appeared behind Antiochus’ position, and defeated the Aetolian troops guarding the col of Callidromus. The Seleucid army in the pass broke and fled, suffering heavy losses in the retreat. Antiochus was only able to rally 500 men at Elatea. He then retreated to Chalcis, before setting sail for Ephesus and Asia Minor.
The war in Greece continued across the summer of 191, and saw Philip V recover some of the areas he had lost to the Aetolians after the Second Macedonian War. The Aetolians were then given permission to appear to the Senate, effectively suing for peace. At the same time the Romans turned their attention to an invasion of Asia Minor, winning a major naval battle at Corycus before winter ended the campaign of 191.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9016566696944251023.post-80124102646930633892024-03-14T23:53:00.000-07:002024-03-14T23:53:21.076-07:00Lysander and Usanhuru<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAQwBqnSZZiy-ACExHRtMyDLI3wC_b8XgfuUznq_3ZG_LmjxHEk4JlMAlpRk8ZXn0yWS0N3B7pBdmNrlg971MuytJzIeJmwExumBuJSUk29Sl686ytjNUB6nHRtmEtalt-0pVrTzr5eVXGaNTX8GphXbsshYFxJEh4dXFnpZZdZOWWJi-w0E3t1WZupkI/s3840/ACOd-Lysander.webp" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="2160" data-original-width="3840" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAQwBqnSZZiy-ACExHRtMyDLI3wC_b8XgfuUznq_3ZG_LmjxHEk4JlMAlpRk8ZXn0yWS0N3B7pBdmNrlg971MuytJzIeJmwExumBuJSUk29Sl686ytjNUB6nHRtmEtalt-0pVrTzr5eVXGaNTX8GphXbsshYFxJEh4dXFnpZZdZOWWJi-w0E3t1WZupkI/s600/ACOd-Lysander.webp"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
Herodotus, in The Histories, tells of a skilful physician, Democedes of Croton, a character that I claim to be fictitious and based upon a really attested historical figure, the Egyptian, Udjahorresne:
Udjahorresne and Democedes
(5) Udjahorresne and Democedes | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
The latter, who was a mentor in Egypt to Cambyses, appears under different names, all of which are mergeable the one with the other. Thus:
Esarhaddon and Nes-Anhuret, Ashurbanipal and Usanahuru, Cambyses and Udjahorresne
(5) Esarhaddon and Nes-Anhuret, Ashurbanipal and Usanahuru, Cambyses and Udjahorresne | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
The Greek writers (whoever they really were) have supposed Greek navy men, such as Polycrates, Lysander, fighting in Greek wars, but also interfering in Egypto-Persian battles. These supposed Greeks – and presumably their Greek wars (at least in part) – were a fiction.
With all of this in mind, the name Lysander (Greek: Λύσανδρος) now looms for me as a Greek-ised version of Usan[a]huru, the Assyrian rendering of the Egyptian name, Udjahorresne. Compare:
Usan[h]ur[u] and [L]usan[d]er
Lysander was supposedly, like Udjahorresne (Usanhuru) really was, a navy admiral.
Lysander was named admiral of the Spartan navy in 407 BC.
Lysander: The Ambitious Admiral - Spartapedia
Udjahorresne … had previously held the office of navy commander.
http://www.displaceddynasties.com/uploads/6/2/6/5/6265423/displaced_dynasties_chapter_7_-_udjahorresne_-_statue__tomb.pdf
Serving a Great King, Darius
…. Great King Darius of Persia replaced the local satrap Tissaphernes with Darius’ younger son, Cyrus. Cyrus was an ambitious prince with a desire to foster closer ties with Sparta that they might one day assist his future claim to the Persian throne. He was thus eager to build a relationship with the incoming admiral [Lysander].
Udjahorresne … identified as a high official under Cambyses and Darius I ….
Left something of a bad legacy:
… scholars have wrongly maligned him, falsely accusing him of collaborating with the enemy.
Lysander was a most unspartanlike Spartiate. Time and again he put him own goals before the common good, used his position for self-benefit, and promoted and celebrated himself in the most unpious fashion. In many ways, he exemplified the human flaws which characterized the unravelling of Lycurgan Sparta and its decline from power.
To fill him out completely, as Udjahorresne, Lysander probably needs to be aligned also with the physician, Democedes:
Udjahorresne and Democedes
(6) Udjahorresne and Democedes | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9016566696944251023.post-64834005548063503252024-03-14T19:34:00.000-07:002024-03-14T19:34:26.396-07:00Jesus Christ gives meaning to ancient history and geography <div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5qDAumJWiyObBYnX7gaQGK7j6XPcmSFUxUxA_h1JgJT35O_zAnwlFKR_uzSHj-GRhjmRXUxMKjjJlXKfZY9ctG_hZ7181GATRfGP_qBTwSmRcEF5715Mr72o2-y1e6ayw2aTCSRE7-aJjFffA5PDCTipyLZPL7sxHpSGR8fj9RYuNKEpBerPrW0OhnZM/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/AVvXsEh5qDAumJWiyObBYnX7gaQGK7j6XPcmSFUxUxA_h1JgJT35O_zAnwlFKR_uzSHj-GRhjmRXUxMKjjJlXKfZY9ctG_hZ7181GATRfGP_qBTwSmRcEF5715Mr72o2-y1e6ayw2aTCSRE7-aJjFffA5PDCTipyLZPL7sxHpSGR8fj9RYuNKEpBerPrW0OhnZM/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-9016566696944251023.post-37123335748013007762024-03-14T14:16:00.000-07:002024-03-14T14:16:57.158-07:00Archaeology of Abimelech<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjF0nXPKukAlLP26-04aQBj00MlyUlHLCJ-4dee0c-XQGan9S2w_IurEFTnc9wgnHeldw4iG5GysOo_sax8q0OEd1KejBhFxH01jzpmtldCRe9prFC3VDLTGHTz8OnULRnXWPHie6hLpni9iuD30eIb8_Rkn1NkgTrMA6OEtwU2OYqR47YOa0EThm0oxxQ/s700/abimelech-millstone.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="550" data-original-width="700" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjF0nXPKukAlLP26-04aQBj00MlyUlHLCJ-4dee0c-XQGan9S2w_IurEFTnc9wgnHeldw4iG5GysOo_sax8q0OEd1KejBhFxH01jzpmtldCRe9prFC3VDLTGHTz8OnULRnXWPHie6hLpni9iuD30eIb8_Rkn1NkgTrMA6OEtwU2OYqR47YOa0EThm0oxxQ/s600/abimelech-millstone.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
“MB IIC at Shechem was a major destruction, so almost certainly
it was the city of Abimelech”.
Dr. John Osgood
SHECHEM OF ABIMELECH
Back in 1988, I, then following a pattern of biblical archaeology different from the one that I would embrace today, had raised this query about the city of Shechem to Dr. John Osgood: https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j03_1/j03_1_124-127.pdf
“Techlets”, EN Tech. J., vol. 3, 1988, pp. 125-126:
…. I think too that Shechem might be a problem in your scheme of things. From the Bible it would seem that Shechem was a small settlement at the time of Abraham, but a city at the time of Jacob. It seems to me that according to your scheme Shechem would be the same size in Jacob's time as in Abraham's. Correct me if I am wrong. Also Prof. Stiebing, who has criticised at various times the schemes of all revisionists (see Biblical Archaeological Review, July/August 1985, pp. 58-69), raises the problem of the absence of LBA remains at Samaria as regards the EBA Conquest Reconstruction.
Looking back now on Dr. Osgood’s reply to this, his view on Shechem, at least, makes perfect sense to me. He seems to have arrived at a proper overview of the archaeology of Shechem, from Abraham to Jeroboam I (and beyond). Here is what Dr. Osgood wrote about it:
Shechem: This is no problem to the revised chronology presented here, since the passage concerning Abraham and Shechem, viz. Genesis 12:6, does not indicate that a city of any consequence was then present there.
On the other hand, Jacob's contact makes it clear that there was a significant city present later (Genesis 33 and 34), but only one which was able to be overwhelmed by a small party of Jacob's sons who took it by surprise.
I would date any evidence of civilisation at these times to the late Chalcolithic in Abraham's case, and to EB I in Jacob's case, the latter being the most significant.
The Bible is silent about Shechem until the Israelite conquest, after which it is apparent that it developed a significant population until the destruction of the city in the days of Abimelech. If the scriptural silence is significant, then no evidence of occupation would be present after EB I until MB I and no significant building would occur until the MB IIC.
Shechem was rebuilt by Jeroboam I, and continued thereafter until the Assyrian captivity.
Moreover, Shechem was almost certainly the Bethel of Jeroboam, during the divided kingdom. So I would expect heavy activity during the majority of LB and all of Iron I.
This is precisely the findings at Shechem, with the exception that the earliest periods have not had sufficient area excavated to give precise details about the Chalcolithic and EB I. No buildings have yet been brought to light from these periods, but these periods are clearly represented at Shechem.
MB IIC at Shechem was a major destruction, so almost certainly it was the city of Abimelech. The population's allegiance to Hamor and Shechem could easily be explained by a return of descendants of the Shechem captives taken by Jacob's son, now returned after the Exodus nostalgically to Shechem, rather than by a continuation of the population
through intervening periods (see Judges 9:28, Genesis 34).
For Jeroboam's city and after, the numerous LB and Iron I strata are a sufficient testimony (see Biblical Archaeology, XX, XXVI and XXXII). ….
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9016566696944251023.post-60593096777269950192024-03-12T15:56:00.000-07:002024-03-12T15:56:26.545-07:00Was Egeria an early visitor to Mount Sinai?<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5RBrrix0bkQXlEVWb9wKuSBsh9PSRtMIz0mkSWn3R1Vk1iRfGVKNSFXrYrNAlW-5ZRrvKmJ9Wg48rpDn81ahrx9shWEw8R3CkxWQxqzOdsuXycEz2bHo9V0u9l5e6XV4iIdw_lQdA8MHAYFjZIIMcqnPd-WM3kyVmZ32WG3V-2PwILLbyiVL1I47RdgE/s300/egeria-profile.webp" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="279" data-original-width="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5RBrrix0bkQXlEVWb9wKuSBsh9PSRtMIz0mkSWn3R1Vk1iRfGVKNSFXrYrNAlW-5ZRrvKmJ9Wg48rpDn81ahrx9shWEw8R3CkxWQxqzOdsuXycEz2bHo9V0u9l5e6XV4iIdw_lQdA8MHAYFjZIIMcqnPd-WM3kyVmZ32WG3V-2PwILLbyiVL1I47RdgE/s600/egeria-profile.webp"/></a></div>
“Egeria’s account is very precise, detailed, clear and direct to the point that it
does not make room to any personal interpretation. She portrays the territory in
a photographic manner, describing the form and position of the mountains,
the form and dimensions of the valley, the precise distances and travel times
from one point to the other.”
Flavio Barbiero
We read at: EGERIA AT HAR KARKOM (altriocchi.com) – web site of Flavio Barbiero
Summary: - The paper shows that Har Karkom was known as the biblical Mount Sinai by Christian pilgrims of the first four centuries C.E. Evidence is provided by a manuscript found in 1884 in the Tuscan town of Arezzo, with the diary kept by a Christian pilgrim, named Egeria, who at the end of the IV century made a trip to the mountain of Moses. Immediately the scholars decided that the account was referred to St Katherine, but unfortunately the description, very accurate and detailed, does not fit at all the reality of that mountain, perhaps apart a single match at the end of the visit. The described distances, travel times and description of the environment are unsuitable to the area of Santa Catherina in a macroscopic way. Besides, the pilgrim reports the existence of monks’ communities and agricultural sites both on the mountain and in the surrounding valley, including dwellings and churches which, according to the archaeological evidence, did not exist there at that time.
In all evidence the account is referring to a different location. Through an accurate survey at Har Karkom, however, it becomes plausible that the narrative refers to a journey made on that precise area. If we strictly follow the indications of the manuscript, starting from the very point where the pilgrim looked out from a gorge over the God’s valley, we are then taken along an itinerary completely matching, down to the smallest detail, the information provided by the diary, at the point that it could be regarded as the best guide ever to a biblical tour of Har Karkom.
Sinai, a Nabatean mountain
An interesting outcome of the archeological discoveries at Har Karkom is that this mountain was known as the biblical Sinai since the beginning of the Christian era. As a matter of fact, 30% of its 1200 archaeological sites belong to the roman-byzantine epoch and in all probability they were due to communities of monks, who thrived there until the beginning of the 7th century, when they were swept away by the Islamic invasion.
St. Paul, in his letter to the Galatians, says that soon after his conversion in Damascus he went for “three years to Arabia”, that is the kingdom of the Nabateans, adding after a few rows that “Sinai is a mountain of Arabia” (4, 25), within which borders there is Har Karkom.
The existence of monks, more precisely ebionites[1], in that area is testified by Epiphanius, who in his book “Panarion” (30, 18, 1 & 29, 7 7-8), written on 375, says that they were spread over most of the provinces of the Nabataean Arabia. His words were confirmed a few years later by a Roman pilgrim, Egeria (381-384), who in his diary described communities of monks in Transjordan, as well as around and on top of the God’s mountain.
In the following pages we will show that this mountain was not the St. Katherine, but Har Karkom, that fits entirely the pilgrim’s description.
The Codex Aretinus
Egeria’s diary was discovered on 1884 in Arezzo, Tuscany, and it’s written on a parchment called Codex Aretinus 405, produced between 1087 and 1105 in the monastery of Monte Cassino. [2]
The initial, the final and four intermediate pages of the manuscript are missing. No other copies of the diary have been found so far, but precious information about the content of the missing parts is contained in a letter, written around 680 by a monk named Valerius to his brothers of Bierzo’s monastery, in Galicia, Spain, in which he makes a list of the mountains climbed by the pilgrim and of the biblical sites that she visited.
Egeria’s pilgrimage to the Holy Land took place between 381 and 384 and the visit to the mountain of God is supposed to have been made at the end of 383.
Mackey’s comment: I would not necessarily accept as accurate any of these AD dates.
Unanimously the scholars agreed that the mountain visited by the Roman pilgrim had to be identified with the St Katherine massif, in the southern part of the Sinai Peninsula, which the Christian tradition blessed as the biblical Sinai since the beginning of the sixth century (the very first mention of it as a possible biblical Sinai is made by Procopius, historian at the court of emperor Justinian).
A survey made on 1899 by M. J. Lagrange, trying to identify on the St Katherine an itinerary somehow fitting the narrative of the manuscript, failed to demonstrate a close match with it, to the point that 90 years later another scholar, Franca Mian, made a second attempt, proposing a few alternatives, with the same disappointing result.
Mount Sinai in Egeria’s description
Egeria’s account is very precise, detailed, clear and direct to the point that it does not make room to any personal interpretation. She portrays the territory in a photographic manner, describing the form and position of the mountains, the form and dimensions of the valley, the precise distances and travel times from one point to the other. She describes what she sees near the path she walks along, relating everything to the biblical text: tombs, churches, caves, ancient encampments, dwellings, altars and so on. All real elements that should be easily verified by a survey on the concerned area.
She reports her own activities with precision and coherence, her movements, the precise time of every activity, and her encounters with monks who lived upon the mountain and in the surrounding valley.
These information allow us to draw a precise outline of Egeria’s visit to the holy mountain.
Dimensions of the God’s valley and distances
In Egeria’s account the valley’s dimensions and the distances between key points are reported with precision:
- four miles from the entrance of the valley to the mountain (§1,2 of the manuscript),
- sixteen thousand footsteps the length of the valley and four thousand footsteps its width (§2,1);
- three miles from the top of Mount Horeb to the site of the burning bush (§ 4,5);
- thirty five miles from Faran to the mountain of God (§ 6,1).
These are important information and therefore it is essential to understand what they really mean. The Romans, when marching their armies through Europe, used the unit of long distance mille passuum (literally "a thousand paces"), corresponding to about 1,480 meters (1,620 yards), because each pace or stride was two steps. If this was the unit of length used by Egeria, then the distances reported in her account were respectively of 6, 24, 4.5 and 52 km.
Egeria, however, is keen to point out that those measures were told to her by the local guides, ignorant monks who almost certainly were not familiar with the Roman army practices. For them distances had to be expressed in simple footsteps, of about 70 cm each, and therefore those values go down to 3, 12, 2.2 and 26 km. Besides, those distances were measured along the paths and therefore they were a little bit longer than the distances as the crows fly. Let’s say a 10 % longer.
In the first case the dimensions of the God’s valley were of 22 km by 5, hugely out of scale in the St Katherine scenario. In the second and more probable case, these dimensions are reduced to 11 by 2.5 km, still at least three times longer than the real ones.
Surprisingly the distance from the God’s mountain to Feiran (and only this) is correct if it was expressed in Roman miles (while is half of its real value if expressed in normal footsteps). A part this lonely match, in both cases the dimensions of the God’s valley, as reported by Egeria’s diary, are macroscopically wrong in the St. Katherine’s scenario, as can be seen in the following map.
Maps and pictures show that there is no match between Egeria’s account and the geography of the St. Katherine, with the only exception of the distance from Feiran to that mountain (which in any case could not have been covered in one day only, as we understand from the manuscript).
A manipulated account
A large part of Egeria’s account is dedicated to encounters with several monks who lived in that area, and to describe churches, agricultural sites, both upon the mountain near its top and in the surrounding valley, archaeological remnants, attributed to the exodus’ Jews, and so on.
Nothing of this kind existed in the St. Katherine area at Egeria’s time. We can therefore state with certainty that her account is related to a different mountain.
There are, however, two data that look correct in the St. Katherine scenario: the declared distance from Faran to the God’s mountain is the same as that from Feiran to the Gebel Musa (if we suppose that it was expressed in Roman miles), and the fact that Egeria, according to the manuscript, went on on her trip following backward the legs of the Jews’ exodus, undoubtedly starting from Feiran, because two days later she reached the Red Sea shores and walked along the beach up to Suez and then to Egypt.
Clearly there is some problem with this narrative. Through a thorough analysis of the manuscript we can easily find it out. Let’s jump directly to the conclusions. The codex found in Arezzo is not a full transcription of the original Egeria’s diary, but only a “collage” of excerpts, quoting the journeys outside Jerusalem made by the pilgrim during the three years of her sojourn in the holy city, assembled in a different order from the original.
From Valerius’ letter we know that the very first journey of Egeria was made to Egypt, where she followed “all the legs of the ancient peregrination of Israel…”(Cap.1). Only later, “burning for the desire to see the holy mountain of God” (cap.2), Egeria programmed a dedicated journey to mount Sinai.
In the manuscript the order of the two journeys has been inverted and they have been put in sequence in such a way as to make the Faran of Egeria coincide with the oasis of Feiran. In this point the copyist inserted the distance of 35 miles, which couldn’t be known to Egeria in this form, because that distance was expressed in Roman miles only in the VI century, when emperor Justinian established a garrison in Feiran and built a fortified monastery at the foot of Gebel Musa.
Evidence of this manipulation is shown at page 37 of the Codex Aretinus, where a footnote, written by the copyist, tries to fix some contradiction, yielded on the text by the operation of connecting in the wrong sequence two different journeys.
….
Thus, the only data in the manuscript, supporting the identification of Egeria’s holy mountain with the St Katherine, is devoid of any value.
EGERIA’S ITINERARY AT HAR KARKOM
Egeria’s diary is too precise, coherent and detailed to be a fantastic tale; it certainly describes a real journey in a real place. Let’s see then how it fits the area of Har Karkom.
If we set all the information provided by the manuscript in the Har Karkom’s scenario, we are forced to follow an itinerary that matches completely, down the smallest detail, the data provided by Egeria.
1st day - From Beer Ada (Faran) to the site HK 183
The starting and return point of the itinerary is Beer Ada, a site at the confluence of wadi Karkom with wadi Faran, whit important archaeological remains of the roman-byzantine period. It’s an obligated choice, because Egeria left and returned back to a place named Faran.
….
Read the full, fascinating article.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9016566696944251023.post-52032377689118643322024-03-11T22:35:00.000-07:002024-03-11T22:35:53.597-07:00Achior a true Israelite<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJoBJoW00uC8FBehAwOA1cYbRhyphenhyphenLGBpM-U8Cdi3kWqMkAR_MZtl7Yg46lKrXEWxUhJ3WZaPVCbVyJMmHsUzsBCMp2TX32MARHzub_uttcdJZLwJ3N9PhTXtYRdASPKT_Iiv6PM2x5bCLpoRdbxNxVMelJSNu11Efvut5-xCbLoEgz1PPBUHPL40Ln0OL8/s1024/54d30afb-a6dd-4b44-98dc-6b895fab0fe5-compressed.jpg" 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/AVvXsEhJoBJoW00uC8FBehAwOA1cYbRhyphenhyphenLGBpM-U8Cdi3kWqMkAR_MZtl7Yg46lKrXEWxUhJ3WZaPVCbVyJMmHsUzsBCMp2TX32MARHzub_uttcdJZLwJ3N9PhTXtYRdASPKT_Iiv6PM2x5bCLpoRdbxNxVMelJSNu11Efvut5-xCbLoEgz1PPBUHPL40Ln0OL8/s600/54d30afb-a6dd-4b44-98dc-6b895fab0fe5-compressed.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
“… 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 Elymais [Elam]”.
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 characters:
MELCHIZEDEK;
RAHAB;
RUTH;
ACHIOR;
JOB
and concluded - in some cases following other researchers - that none of these was in reality a pagan character.
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), a master of Canaan (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 from Pethor in Aram Naharaim 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. See e.g. my article:
A Nativity Shining Light of relevance to Israelite Magi
(13) A Nativity Shining Light of relevance to Israelite Magi | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Delilah, a presumed Philistine. Whilst she may not deserve the epithet, “enlightened”, Delilah most probably was an Israelite - as brilliantly 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 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 Elymais [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, 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 converted to the House of Israel despite the Deuteronomical ban, is one of the primary reasons why the Jews (Protestants) have not accepted 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.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9016566696944251023.post-66147574744947534862024-03-05T21:43:00.000-08:002024-03-05T21:43:59.941-08:00Patriarch Joseph unlikely to have come to power under Hyksos king<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvSqihVHdO8nxlnunVL01KrbA8JBwy1SlNtuSylC8_oqUF6z3jz-IJYzLztWrUnCoS5HdluvXtd-knhhy5EzaPli50Ep-xFu9X0tBMSZ9jWpHV_ZOgpP_bH6patizgrTpjwrYNfmejwgaSG7TZWW68Eri_cwXSKaR0Zj9jEbYTSd88sCvT6gBIAqBKFjk/s2080/hyksos.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="1040" data-original-width="2080" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvSqihVHdO8nxlnunVL01KrbA8JBwy1SlNtuSylC8_oqUF6z3jz-IJYzLztWrUnCoS5HdluvXtd-knhhy5EzaPli50Ep-xFu9X0tBMSZ9jWpHV_ZOgpP_bH6patizgrTpjwrYNfmejwgaSG7TZWW68Eri_cwXSKaR0Zj9jEbYTSd88sCvT6gBIAqBKFjk/s600/hyksos.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
“Joseph shaved when going to see Pharaoh,
hinting at a native Egyptian administration.
Asiatics usually wore beards,
Egyptians typically were clean-shaven”.
Jon Gleason
Genesis 41:14: “So Pharaoh sent for Joseph, and he was quickly brought from the dungeon. When he had shaved and changed his clothes, he came before Pharaoh”.
According to Nahum M. Sarna, though, Joseph was likely contemporaneous with the Hyksos rule of Egypt:
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1987/12/research-and-perspectives/who-was-the-pharaoh-who-knew-not-joseph?lang=eng
Who Was the Pharaoh Who “Knew Not Joseph”?
By Nahum M. Sarna
The biblical account of Goshen, slavery, brickmaking, and midwives matches well with current knowledge about Egypt, according to a modern scholar.
Israel sojourned 430 years in Egypt. Recent archaeological discoveries and increasing knowledge about languages and cultures have helped us understand that sojourn as never before. …. The biblical account accurately portrays two ancient civilizations, which were at first allies, then bitter enemies. It takes us from Joseph, who rose to power under the Egyptian dynasty known as the Hyksos, up to dire bondage two dynasties later under the Pharaoh Ramses II.
….
The Hyksos were Asiatics who ruled Egypt for about a century and a half. …. The name itself means “Rulers of Foreign Lands.” The Hyksos were a conglomeration of ethnic groups who infiltrated Egypt over a long period in ever-increasing numbers, probably coming from Canaan.
By about 1720 B.C.., they controlled the Eastern Delta of the Nile and had established their capital at Avaris. …. By about 1674 B.C., a Hyksos king with the Semitic name Salitis occupied Memphis, the ancient capital of Egypt. The Hyksos constituted the XVth and XVIth Dynasties, adopting the style and bureaucratic institutions of the traditional pharaohs. Gradually, Semites replaced Egyptians in high administrative offices. The rise of Joseph to power and the migration of the Hebrews fits in well with what is known of the era of Hyksos rule. ….
[End of quote]
The only thing that can be said in favour of the Hyksos being rulers at the time of the Patriarchs, Jacob and Joseph, is that their conventional dating - which we now know, in fact, to be hopelessly wrong - fits relatively well with the standard biblical dates.
Jon Gleason gives some reasons why Hyksos was not the historical period for Joseph (2012): A King Who Knew Not Joseph | Mind Renewers
… many scholars put Joseph in the Hyksos period so we’ll take a few minutes on it.
….
One reason cited is dating. Some think Galatians 3:17 puts Abraham in the time of Senusret III, and thus they put Joseph in the time of the Hyksos. This is not the only way to understand Galatians 3:17, so alone it is not conclusive.
Another reason sometimes given is the idea that a foreign Pharaoh was more likely to promote a Hebrew than a native Egyptian would be. I give this little credence — the record of Genesis 41 provides enough explanation for his promotion, even if one forgets the sovereign working of God (and one should never forget that).
Joseph doesn’t fit in the Hyksos period very well:
Joseph shaved when going to see Pharaoh, hinting at a native Egyptian administration. Asiatics usually wore beards, Egyptians typically were clean-shaven.
Joseph was placed “over all the land of Egypt” (Genesis 41:41, 43). The Hyksos only ruled the northern part of Egypt.
Joseph’s wife was a daughter of a sun-priest (Genesis 41:45) — a great honour under a native Egyptian, less so to a Hyksos.
Egypt’s rulers held Hebrews in abomination (Genesis 43:32). The Hyksos would likely have seen Hebrews (from the same region) as potential allies, not abominable enemies.
They also hated shepherds (Genesis 46:34, etc.). Though the Hyksos may or may not have been “Shepherd Kings,” there is no evidence they hated shepherds, and it makes little sense given their background.
Genesis 47:18-20 doesn’t make sense if the Egyptians were slaves under the Hyksos.
While the identity of Joseph’s Pharaoh can’t be certain, if one takes the clues in the Biblical record seriously it is hard to see how Joseph fits in the reign of the Hyksos.
“More and Mightier than We”
Exodus 1:8-10
8 Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.
9 And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we:
10 Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land.
Verse eight hints at more than the normal succession of father to son — a change of dynasty, perhaps, to one with no appreciation for Joseph and his service to Egypt. There were many dynasty changes in Egyptian history — but in many cases, appreciation for past service would continue. That would not be the case if the new king was a foreigner, especially if he came to power through an invasion. .…
[End of quotes]
The era of Moses was the pyramid building era of the Fourth Dynasty (Old Kingdom), which must be aligned with the similarly mighty Twelfth Dynasty (Middle Kingdom).
And this may have been a new, foreign (even Hyksos) dynasty.
Pharaoh Ramses II ‘the Great’, thought by many to be the Pharaoh of the Oppression based on Genesis 1:11, “So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labour, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh” - clearly a later editorial addition - belongs to a much later era. See e.g. my article:
The Complete Ramses II
(6) The Complete Ramses II | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9016566696944251023.post-39045436203029559142024-03-05T10:15:00.000-08:002024-03-05T10:15:41.572-08:00Career of Moses re-writes ancient Egyptian dynasties<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbeZUS0g97rS6qKJwJCGEbFHfWE5oiVZB6oIMWz5an6vzLLnTCOXhbUtzm0m825Kl-iIde77E9aQ8bi3dAfkfR62m5cA9tUpLdVUBhUv4XvNO4yNia5LL3KMQocPEIKg-7LuaQ5PbtfO3yfNjjsWPyzBnVzoumRYPGENUx6tGhW11nL_cn0r0Fmg-3EtQ/s953/13021-1.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="477" data-original-width="953" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbeZUS0g97rS6qKJwJCGEbFHfWE5oiVZB6oIMWz5an6vzLLnTCOXhbUtzm0m825Kl-iIde77E9aQ8bi3dAfkfR62m5cA9tUpLdVUBhUv4XvNO4yNia5LL3KMQocPEIKg-7LuaQ5PbtfO3yfNjjsWPyzBnVzoumRYPGENUx6tGhW11nL_cn0r0Fmg-3EtQ/s600/13021-1.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
When the Bible is forcedly contoured to the king-lists it just does not fit.
Fourth Dynasty
What makes the Fourth Dynasty particularly appealing, from a biblical point of view, is that the Fourth Dynasty was a pyramid-building dynasty. Back in antiquity, historians then claimed that slaves built the great pyramids of Egypt, a theory not at all popular today:
The pyramids of Giza were not built by slaves - Australian Associated Press (aap.com.au)
How the pyramids of Giza were built remains one of Egypt’s biggest mysteries but Macquarie University Egyptologist Dr Karin Sowada told AAP FactCheck, that archaeological evidence shows the pyramids were not built by slaves.
That misconception began with the Ancient Greek historian Herodotus and later continued with Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who both claimed that slaves, Hebrew or otherwise, built the pyramids. ….
Dr Karin Sowada might need to re-examine that “misconception”.
But can the Fourth Dynasty be adequately matched to the life of Moses?
Its list of rulers is generally given as follows:
1 Sneferu
2 Khufu
3 Djedefre
4 Khafre
5 Menkaure
6 Shepseskaf
Six rulers, of whom several are poorly known.
Those who seek to find a biblical match in relationship to ancient dynasties tend uncritically to accept the king lists as they stand, and will then try to force-fit the biblical data. We have seen this approach in the case of the Book of Tobit and the neo-Assyrian king-list. And, again, in the case of the Book of Daniel and the neo-Babylonian (Chaldean) king list.
When the Bible is forcedly contoured to the king-lists it just does not fit.
But when the king-lists are subjected to the cobalt gaze of biblical scrutiny, we learn that the received history needs to undergo a significant revision.
That is because the king-lists generally contain duplicates, sometimes series of duplicates. On this, see e. g. my article:
Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences
(DOC) Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Might this pattern also apply to the era of Moses?
Might we be looking to fit the Book of Exodus, for instance, alongside an erratic king list?
In my article:
Moses, Egypt, Kings before the Exodus
(DOC) Moses, Egypt, Kings before the Exodus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
I detected what I considered to be several potential duplicates within the Fourth Dynasty’s king-list arrangement.
Before discussing that, however, let us consider what dynastic structure we might expect from the biblical data.
According to the Book of Exodus, Moses was born during the reign of an oppressive ‘new king who knew not Joseph’ (1:8).
When Moses grew up, he, at forty years of age, fled from a ruler of Egypt to the land of Midian, and sojourned there for another forty years.
At the end of that period, Moses was informed that all the men who were seeking his life had died.
What is clear from this information, albeit meagre, is that a new dynasty came into being some time prior to the birth of Moses, and that that dynasty had terminated not long prior to his return to Egypt from the land of Midian.
Moses was now eighty years of age.
This means that, if the Fourth Dynasty of Egypt is the dynasty of Moses’s birth and sojourn in Midian, it must have spanned roughly a century, and then died out before the Plagues and Exodus events occurring under a different dynastic ruler, who had no particular a priori grudge against Moses and Aaron.
Conventionally, the Fourth Dynasty of Egypt spanned a little bit more than a century - close to according with the biblical data - estimated at from c. 2615 to c. 2495 BC.
These dates will, of course, in a Mosaïc context, need to be lowered by about a millennium.
Traditionally, two major kings figure in this part of Moses’ life: namely, 1. the “new king”, whose daughter, “Merris”, saved the baby Moses from the water; and 2. the husband of “Merris”, “Chenephres”.
The latter, “Chenephres”, seems to have had the same sort of jealous and inimical attitude towards Moses as King Saul will have towards David.
This traditional information (from the Jew, Artapanus) now gives me further confidence that I am on the right track in designating the Fourth Dynasty as that of Moses’s first 80 years. For it provide us with the perfect trio of (a) Cheops (Khufu), now as the initial oppressor-king of Exodus 1:8; his celebrated successor (b) Chephren (Khafre), the husband of (c) Meresankh.
The name fits are very good, allowing for Greek transliterations of Egyptian:
Chephren becomes the traditional “Chenephres”, husband of Meresankh, who is simply “Merris” with an Ankh, who is said to have saved the baby Moses (as according to Artapanus).
It makes sense for Chephren to have been the inimical king from whom Moses fled to Midian.
This reconstruction necessitates an alteration to the first part of the king list (1-4):
1 Sneferu
2 Khufu
3 Djedefre
4 Khafre
Four kings now needing to become two.
While Chephren (Khufu) stands firm here as the second oppressive ruler in the life of Moses, Cheops, however, I would merge with both Snofru and Djedefre, as follows:
SNEFERU (SNOFRU)
This (somewhat semi-legendary) ruler seems to me to connect well with Cheops in various ways. For instance (the pages are taken from N. Grimal’s A History of Ancient Egypt):
Great “legendary” reputation – good natured
P. 67
.... Snofru soon became a legendary figure, and literature in later [?] periods credited him with a genial personality. He was even deified in the Middle Kingdom, becoming the ideal king who later Egyptian rulers … sought to emulate when they were attempting to legitimize their power.
P. 70
Cheops ... is portrayed in [Papyrus Westcar] as the traditional legendary oriental monarch, good-natured, and eager to be shown magical things, amiable towards his inferiors and interested in the nature of human existence.
Cult figure
P. 67
Snofru’s enviable reputation with later rulers, which according to the onomastica was increased by his great popularity with the people, even led to the restoration of Snofru’s mortuary temple at Dahshur. P. 69 ... cult among Middle Kingdom miners in the Sinai.
P. 165 There is even evidence of a Twelfth Dynasty cult of Snofru in the region of modern Ankara.
P. 70
Cheops was not remembered as fondly as Snofru, although his funerary cult was still attested in the Saite (Twenty-Sixth) Dynasty and he was increasingly popular in the Roman period. According to Papyrus Westcar, he liked to listen to fantastic stories of the reigns of his predecessors.
Meresankh (“Merris”)
P. 170
Snofru is also associated with a Meresankh, though she is considered to be his mother.
P. 67 [She was] one of Huni’s concubines. There is no definite proof of this ....
Meresankh will become something of a golden thread, linking the traditional “Merris” of Moses’ childhood to the 4th Dynasty (Meresankh) ….
Like his alter ego Cheops,
P. 67 [Snofru’s] reign ... appears to have been both glorious and long-lasting (perhaps as much as forty years).
Snofru built
... ships, fortresses, palaces and temples ...
Three pyramids.
If Snofru were Cheops, as I am arguing, then Snofru’s three pyramids - built perhaps early in his reign - would have been the perfect preparation for his later masterpiece, the Great Pyramid at Giza. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneferu
“Under Sneferu [Snofru], there was a major evolution in monumental pyramid structures, which would lead to Khufu's Great Pyramid, which would be seen as the pinnacle of the Egyptian Old Kingdom's majesty and splendour, and as one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World”.
Less positive picture of the king
P. 71
... it is difficult to accommodate within this theory [building immoderation = unpopularity] the fact that Snofru’s reputation remained untarnished when he built more pyramids than any of his successors.
Pp. 69-70
[Cheops’] pyramid transforms him into the very symbol of absolute rule, and Herodotus’ version of events chose to emphasise his cruelty.
Taken from: https://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh2120.htm
124. ... Cheops became king over them and brought them to every kind of evil: for he shut up all the temples, and having first kept them from sacrificing there, he then bade all the Egyptians work for him. So some were appointed to draw stones from the stone-quarries in the Arabian mountains to the Nile, and others he ordered to receive the stones after they had been carried over the river in boats, and to draw them to those which are called the Libyan mountains; and they worked by a hundred thousand men at a time, for each three months continually. Of this oppression there passed ten years while the causeway was made by which they drew the stones, which causeway they built, and it is a work not much less, as it appears to me, than the pyramid; for the length of it is five furlongs and the breadth ten fathoms and the height, where it is highest, eight fathoms, and it is made of stone smoothed and with figures carved upon it. For this, they said, the ten years were spent, and for the underground chambers on the hill upon which the pyramids stand, which he caused to be made as sepulchral chambers for himself in an island, having conducted thither a channel from the Nile. For the making of the pyramid itself there passed a period of twenty years; and the pyramid is square, each side measuring eight hundred feet, and the height of it is the same. It is built of stone smoothed and fitted together in the most perfect manner, not one of the stones being less than thirty feet in length.
Moreover:
126. Cheops moreover came, they said, to such a pitch of wickedness, that being in want of money he caused his own daughter to sit in the stews, and ordered her to obtain from those who came a certain amount of money (how much it was they did not tell me); but she not only obtained the sum appointed by her father, but also she formed a design for herself privately to leave behind her a memorial, and she requested each man who came in to her to give her one stone upon her building: and of these stones, they told me, the pyramid was built which stands in front of the great pyramid in the middle of the three, each side being one hundred and fifty feet in length. ….
DJEDEFRE
“Djedefre …. His personality and his reign are still obscure; it is not even possible
to say whether he reigned for only eight years, as the Turin Canon indicates,
or a longer period … sixty-three years … suggested by Manetho …”.
N. Grimal
Here I am taking Cheops’ presumed son, Djedefre, to be Cheops himself.
Continuing on with N. Grimal:
P. 71
The first [presumed son of Cheops] was Djedefre (Didufri or Radjedef) ….
His personality and his reign are still obscure; it is not even possible to say whether he reigned for only eight years, as the Turin Canon indicates, or a longer period (without going as far as the sixty-three years suggested by Manetho).
I find it most interesting that Grimal had written almost identically (just before this) re the reign length of Cheops: “It is not even known whether Cheops’ reign lasted for twenty-three years, as the Turin Canon suggests, or sixty-three years, which is the length ascribed to him by Manetho”.
A possible sixty-three years of reign each!
https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/djedefre/
“It is also notable that [Djedefre] managed to complete his pyramid at Abu Rawash, which was a sizable monument and so a reign of only eight years is perhaps unlikely”.
P. 72
The place of Djedefre in the royal family, particularly his relationship with his half-brother [sic] Chephren who succeeded him on the throne, is unclear. His mother’s name is unknown, but he is thought to have married his half-sister Hetepheres ….
Appropriately: p. 67: “… [Snofru] would have married … Hetepheres …”.
And (p. 72) “Meresankh”, also appropriately to my reconstruction, “married Chephren …”.
Pp. 73-74
The rift between the reigns of Djedefre and Chephren was probably not as great as scholars have often suggested, and there was in fact no real ideological contrast between the two kings:
On the contrary, Chephren seems to have pursued the same theological course as his predecessor pursued: he continued to bear the title of ‘son of Ra’ and also developed, in a masterly fashion, the theological statement of Atum’s importance vis-à-vis Ra, which had already been emphasized by Djedefre.
Whilst there may be no solid “evidence” to indicate that Djedefre had killed his own brother:
https://mathstat.slu.edu/~bart/egyptianhtml/kings%20and%20Queens/Djedefre.html
“There are stories about that Djedefre killed his brother and then grabbed the throne. There is no evidence for this theory however. It seems that Prince Kawab died during the reign of his father and was buried in a mastaba in Giza”,
Djedefre himself may have been murdered:
http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp455-fs14/2014/10/09/djedefre/
“Djedefre later married. He was later succeeded by his brother Khafre, and one theory is that Khafre killed Djedefre …”.
http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp455-fs14/2014/10/09/djedefre/
I suspect that kings 5-6 of the list are a duplicate set of, respectively, Cheops and Chephren:
5 Menkaure
6 Shepseskaf
MENKAURE
Menkaure, or Mycerinus may have been, similarly to Cheops, disrespectful to his daughter:
https://analog-antiquarian.net/2019/01/11/chapter-1-the-charlatan-and-the-gossip/
Legend had it that Menkaure had a daughter who was very special to him. One version of the tale said that she died of natural causes, whereupon in his grief he had a life-size wooden cow gilt with gold built as a repository for her remains. This, Herodotus claimed, could still be seen in his time in the city of Sais, “placed within the royal palace in a chamber which was greatly adorned; and they offer incense of all kinds before it every day, and each night a lamp burns beside it all through the night.
Every year it is carried forth from the chamber, for they say that she asked of her father Mykerinos, when she was dying, that she might look upon the sun once in the year. ….
Another, darker version of the tale had it that Menkaure had been rather too enamored of his daughter. She sought refuge from his unwelcome advances with his concubines, but they betrayed her, and her father proceeded to “ravish” her.
She hanged herself in the aftermath, whereupon a remorse-stricken Menkaure buried her in the gilt cow and her mother the queen cut off the hands of the concubines who had betrayed her. This explained why, in a chamber near that of the cow in Herodotus’s time, there stood many statues of women with the hands lopped off, “still lying at their feet even down to my time. ….
A distinct pattern seems to be emerging and it will become even more evident in later articles.
It is that the founding Egyptian ruler, say (Snofru or) Cheops, is duplicated again in the king-list, as, say, Djedefre, but then recurs again yet further on.
In this case (c) it will be Menkaure.
This same pattern may be discerned (if I am right) in the 4th; 6th; and 12th dynasties.
Returning to N. Grimal:
P. 74
… Menkaure (‘Stable are the kau of Ra’), or, to take Herodotus’ transcription, Mycerinus.
We recall Menkaure’s allegedly shameful treatment of his own daughter, reminiscent of Cheops’ own prostituting of his daughter, at least according to Herodotus.
Grimal continues: “Manetho is uncertain about the length of his reign, which was probably eighteen years rather than twenty-eight”.
Whilst this reign span may not accord so well with some of our longer-reigning (say forty years) alter egos, it is fascinating, nonetheless, that Phouka
http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn04/05menkaure.html
also has for Menkaure a Manethonian figure of sixty-three years, a figure that we have already met in the case of two other of our alter egos, Cheops and Djedefre.
Whether or not our composite king, (Snofru)-Cheops-Djedefre-Menkaure really reigned for a colossal 63 years (which is most unlikely in an Exodus context, even if he well preceded Moses’s birth), the attribution of the same extensive reign to three names that I have fused together as the one grandiloquent monarch gives me further confidence in my reconstruction.
SHEPSESKAF
The poorly known Shepseskaf (Shepseskaf - Wikipedia)
Shepseskaf's family is uncertain. Egyptologist George Andrew Reisner proposed that Shepseskaf was Menkaure's son based on a decree mentioning that Shepseskaf completed Menkaure's mortuary temple. This, however, cannot be considered a solid proof of filiation since the decree does not describe the relationship between these two kings. Furthermore, the completion of the tomb of a deceased pharaoh by his successor does not necessarily depend on a direct father/son relation between the two. ….
The mother, wives and children of Shepseskaf are unknown. ….
Who I think (without much investigation) is probably just a duplicate of Khafre (Kaf-Shepses), does not really affect this reconstruction.
Egypt’s Fourth Dynasty dies out while Moses was still in Midian.
Its last ruler was actually (so I believe) an un-recorded for (this dynasty) female ruler.
Fifth Dynasty
Most significantly, four of the known six sun temples of the so-called
Fifth Dynasty are – as has been said of evolution’s missing link – “still missing”.
If, as posited in my earlier discussion, Egypt’s Fourth Dynasty, revised, fits promisingly as being the dynastic period of rule from the approximate childhood of Moses through to his sojourn in Midian, then, chronologically, the Fifth Dynasty, which supposedly followed the Fourth, must coincide with the return to Egypt by Moses; the Plagues; and the Exodus.
None of this is at all evident during the Fifth Dynasty, however, which was a phase of intense building and supposed innovations – not one of extreme chaos.
Thus, for instance, at:
http://www.ancient-egypt.org/history/old-kingdom/5th-dynasty/index.html
we read about this impressive dynasty (we can immediately ignore, though, the inflated dates given here):
5th Dynasty (2465-2323)
Compared to the previous dynasties, the 5th Dynasty is fairly well known. All kings noted in the king-lists and by Manetho are attested by archaeological sources. This is largely due to the increased amount of documents from this period.
This dynasty has brought some significant changes and innovations to the Egyptian society.
First of all, the rising importance of the solar cult, already noted for the 4th Dynasty, came to a climax. Except for the last two of this dynasty, all kings built a so-called solar temple.
Two such solar temples have been found and have proven to be quite unique buildings. The first solar temple, at Abusir, to the north of Saqqara, was built by Userkaf and extended by Neferirkare and Niuserre. The only other remaining one, was built by Niuserre at Abu Gorab, north of Abusir. The names of the other solar temples are known, but they have not yet been identified.
….
Probably due to a shift in religious views, the building of solar temples came to a sudden stop with the reign of Djedkare.
A second innovation only came at the end of the dynasty, with the reign of king Unas, who was the first to have religious texts, known today as Pyramid Texts, inscribed in the burial chamber, antechamber and part of the entrance corridor of his pyramid at Saqqara.
It is not impossible that the appearance of these texts is related to the disappearance of the solar temples.
….
On an architectural level, we not only note the building of the solar temples, but also a standardisation in the building of pyramid complexes. Most kings built their pyramid complex at Abusir, near the solar temple of Userkaf, who had built his own pyramid at Saqqara. The organisation and number of rooms in the pyramid, the buildings outside the pyramid and the rooms inside these buildings would more and more become part of a canon. We also note that the pyramids are significantly smaller than those of the beginning of the 4th Dynasty. This has often been explained by the more limited resources available to the 5th Dynasty kings. Against this view, it should be observed that most of the 5th Dynasty kings no longer appeared to limit their building efforts to a pyramid complex and that the complexes were often beautifully decorated. The Ancient Egyptian penchant for standardisation may also explain the smaller pyramids.
The royal titulary was also extended and would from this dynasty on consist of 5 sets of titles.
Although it was first used by 4th Dynasty king Djedefre, the title Son of Re would become an important part of the titulary. It was followed by the king's personal name and links him directly to the solar cult. The older titles, the so-called Horus- and Nebti-names, would still be part of the titulary.
From the beginning of this dynasty on, we also note an increase in the number of high officials. Contrary to the 4th Dynasty, high offices were now no longer restricted to members of the royal family. Government and administration were reformed and this resulted in a far more efficient bureaucracy through which the king could control the country. The larger number of dignitaries also resulted in more documentation left to us and this is one of the reasons why we know more of this dynasty then of the previous one.
Despite all these changes, the 5th Dynasty may have been closely related to the 4th. The Turin King-list lists the kings of this dynasty immediately after those of the 4th, without marking any change. The founder of this dynasty, Userkaf, is believed to have been a descendant of Kheops, perhaps directly or through marriage.
The story noted on the Papyrus Westcar, however, makes Userkaf the brother of his two successors and the son of a priest of Re and a woman named Radjedet. Archaeological sources contradict this view, which has been held for true by many Egyptologists. The story is likely to have been intended to explain the close relationship between the 5th Dynasty and the solar cult.
[End of quote]
Some things here, though, are just not quite right.
Most significantly, four of the known six sun temples of the so-called Fifth Dynasty are – as has been said of evolution’s missing link – “still missing”.
I wrote about this sensational fact in my article:
Missing old Egyptian tombs and temples
(DOC) Missing old Egyptian tombs and temples | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
And, just as I suspect that evolution’s missing link will forever remain missing, so do I believe the same to be the case with the missing temples of the Fifth Dynasty.
That would not be music to the ears of Jeff Burzacott, “The missing sun temples of Abusir”:
https://www.nilemagazine.com.au/2015-5-june-archive/2015/6/9/the-missing-sun-temples-of-abu-sir
There are some sun temples out there somewhere.
Abusir is one of the large cemeteries of the Old Kingdom kings, around 16 kilometres south of the famous Great Pyramids of Giza.
Although the history of the Abusir necropolis began in the 2nd Dynasty, it wasn't until King Userkaf, the first ruler of the Fifth Dynasty, chose to build here that the Abusir skyline changed forever.
What Userkaf built here wasn't a pyramid; he nestled his final resting place close to the world's first pyramid, that of Djoser at Saqqara. What Userkaf raised at Abusir was something new - a sun temple.
The sun temple was a large, squat obelisk, raised on a grand pedestal, and connected with the worship of the setting sun. Each day the sun sank below the western horizon into the Underworld where it faced a dangerous journey before rising triumphantly, reborn at dawn. It was a powerful symbol of cyclical resurrection.
The obelisk shape is likely symbolic of the sacred benben stone of Heliopolis, which represented the primeval mound, the first land to rise from the waters of Nun at the dawn of time, and where creation began. This was the centre of the cosmos.
For the next 70 years, Abusir was a hive of activity as the pyramids of Userkaf's sons, Sahure (rightmost pyramid) and Neferirkare, (leftmost pyramid), as well as his grandson, Niuserre (centre) raised their own step pyramids and sun temples there.
Buried in the Abusir sand are also the barely-started pyramids of Fifth Dynasty pharaohs whose short-lived reigns saw their grand monuments hastily sealed, just a few courses of stone above the desert.
Six sun temples are mentioned in inscriptions, although only the ruins of Userkaf's and Niuserre's have been discovered.
Hopefully, buried out there somewhere lay four more sun temples, waiting to feel Ra's rays once again.
[End of quote]
Can we get further if we proceed, as was done with Egypt’s famous Fourth Dynasty, by patterning the Fifth Dynasty around the early era of Moses?
There may already be clues to this end in the ancient-egypt.org “5th Dynasty …” article above. For example:
Its solar cult already apparent in the 4th dynasty; a bunch of missing solar temples – suggesting, to me, a duplication of kings; the geography of Fifth Dynasty buildings, Saqqara, Abusir, complementing the 4th dynasty’s Giza – as if all built in alignment; continuation of pyramid building; royal titulary, “son of Re”, simply a continuation of its use by 4th dynasty’s Djedefre; close relationship between 4th and 5th dynasties.
In the case of the Fourth Dynasty, it was a matter of dealing with six king names.
These were ultimately reduced to only two.
Now, with the Fifth Dynasty, we are confronted with an imposing nine names.
1 Userkef
2 Sahure
3 Neferirkare Kakai
4 Neferefre (Neferkhau)
5 Shepseskare Ini
6 Neuserre Izi
7 Menkhauhor Kaiu
8 Djedkare Isesi
9 Unas
That there must be extensive duplications amongst this list, though, suggests itself to me by the fact that only two of the six sun temples have been found.
Are we again, therefore, looking at only two kings amongst the multitude of names?
My own view is that the two great rulers of the Fourth Dynasty, Cheops and Chephren, built their massive pyramids at Giza, but also smaller ones at Abusir and Saqqara, along with their two sun temples at, respectively, Abu Gorab and Abusir.
Neuserre Izi, who built his sun temple at Abu Gorab, would then be the Re-named first king, Cheops-previously-fused-with-Djedefre-Menkaure.
Whilst Userkaf, who built his sun temple at Abusir, would then be the Khaf-named second king, Khafre-previously-fused-with-Shepseskaf.
Khafre, Shepseskaf, may likewise have been married to a Khamerernebti.
Now, as the older Neuserre extended Userkaf’s sun temple, as we read above, so, as we have read before, (the younger) “Shepseskaf continued his predecessor Menkaure’s building works, “... he completed the pyramid of Menkaure ...”:
https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/shepseskaf/
We also read above that Neferirkare, too, extended Userkaf’s sun temple.
Something of a pattern is now beginning to emerge:
Cheops-Menkaure (4th dynasty) Neferirkare-Neuserre (5th dynasty)
Chephren-Khafre Userkaf
And we can probably add these three pairs of similar names:
Djedefre (4th dynasty) Djedkare Isesi
(= Izi for Neuserre) (5th dynasty)
Menkaure Menkauhor (= Neferkhau?)
Shepseskaf Shepseskare Ini (= Unas?)
That covers all but Sahure, another of those Re-names.
Sixth Dynasty
Previously I may have lain the foundations for linking Egypt’s mighty pyramid-building Fourth Dynasty with the Sixth Dynasty, and indeed with the Twelfth Dynasty (to be considered later).
Linking the 4th, 6th … dynasties?
We may be able to trace the rise of the 4th dynasty’s Khufu (Cheops) - whose full name was Khnum-khuefui (meaning ‘Khnum is protecting me’) - to the 6th dynasty, to the wealthy noble (recalling that the founding 12th dynasty pharaoh “had no royal blood”) from Abydos in the south, called Khui. An abbreviation of Khuefui?
This Khui had a daughter called Ankhenesmerire, in whose name are contained all the elements of Mer-es-ankh, the first part of which, Meres, accords phonetically with the name Eusebius gave for the Egyptian foster-mother of Moses, “Merris”.
“Merris, the wife of Chenephres, King of Upper Egypt; being childless, she pretended to have given birth to [Moses] and brought him up as her own child. (Eusebius, l.c. ix. 27)”.
Earlier, we read a variation of this legend with “King Kheneferis [being the] … father of Maris, Moses' foster mother”.
I shall be taking this “Chenephres” (“Kheneferis”) to be pharaoh Chephren (Egyptian Khafra), the son of Khufu, since Chephren had indeed married a Meresankh.
“We know of several of Khafre's wives, including Meresankh … and his chief wife, Khameremebty I”.
…
From the 4th dynasty, we gain certain elements that are relevant to the early career of Moses. Firstly we have a strong founder-king, Cheops (Egyptian Khufu), builder of the great pyramid at Giza, who would be an excellent candidate for the “new king” during the infancy of Moses who set the Israelite slaves to work with crushing labour (Exodus 1:8).
This would support the testimony of Josephus that the Israelites built pyramids for the pharaohs, and it would explain from whence came the abundance of manpower for pyramid building. Cheap slave labour.
The widespread presence of ‘Asiatics’ in Egypt at the time would help to explain the large number of Israelites said to be in the land. Egypt’s ruler would have used as slaves other Syro-Palestinians, too, plus Libyans and Nubians. As precious little, though, is known of Cheops, despite his being powerful enough to have built one of the Seven Wonders of the World, we shall need to fill him out later with his 12th dynasty alter ego.
In Cheops’ daughter, Mer-es-ankh, we presumably have the Merris of tradition who retrieved the baby Moses from the water. The name Mer-es-ankh consists basically of two elements, Meres and ankh, the latter being the ‘life’ symbol for Egypt worn by people even today.
Mer-es-ankh married Chephren (Egyptian, Khafra), builder of the second Giza pyramid and probably, of the Great Sphinx. He would thus have become Moses’s foster/father-in-law.
Moses, now a thorough-going ‘Egyptian’ (cf. Exodus 2:19), must have been his loyal subject. “Now Moses was taught all the wisdom of the Egyptians and became a man of power both in his speech and in his actions”. (Acts 7:22) Tradition has Moses leading armies for Chenephres as far as Ethiopia. Whilst this may seem a bit strained in a 4th dynasty context, we shall find that it is perfectly appropriate in a 12th dynasty one, when we uncover Chephren’s alter ego.
[End of quote]
In preceding sections it has been shown that Egypt’s Fourth Dynasty, that Egypt’s Fifth Dynasty, can be contoured to the life of Moses, from his birth to his exile in Midian.
Basically I determined that, despite the multiplicity of royal names, there were only two major male rulers of Egypt - the dynasty closing with a female due to a lack of heirs.
Now, can the Sixth Dynasty of Egypt likewise be adequately matched to the life of Moses?
Its list of rulers is generally given as follows:
1 Teti
2 Userkare
3 Pepi I
4 Merenre I
5 Pepi II
6 Merenere II
7 Netjerkare Siptah (Nitocris)
Again as in the case of the Fourth Dynasty, six rulers are listed, of whom several are poorly known. Very little is known about Userkare, for instance, and the ephemeral ruler Merenre II.
And the list concludes with, appropriately, the female ruler, Nitoctris.
So, immediately, I would be inclined to look for alter egos for the two poorly attested rulers, Userkare and Merenre II.
And here we may establish a link.
Merenre II follows in a tradition of murdered kings of (Old-Middle) Egypt, including Djedefre, purportedly killed by Khafre (as we have previously noted); Teti; and Amenemes I.
Merenre II | ancient Egyptian Pharaoh Merenre II - AskAladdin (ask-aladdin.com)
“According to Herodotus, Merenre II was murdered. This Greek historian had recorded a legend where an Egyptian Queen named Nitocris avenged her brother as well as husband's murder by drowning all the murderers in [a] pre-arranged banquet.
The name of the brother and husband was allegedly Nemtyemsaf II (Merenre II)”.
Merenre II now connects with the composite dynasty founder:
Cheops-Djedefre-Menkaure (Fourth);
Neferirkare-Neuserre-Menkauhor-Djedkare (Fifth);
Teti; Merenre (Sixth)
There appears to be a triple series of duplicates in the conventional Sixth Dynasty list, with the proper sequence inverted from numbers 3-6.
I would suggest the following re-ordering:
Dynastic founder: Teti-Merenre I-II (murdered)
Second king: Userkare-Pepi I-II
Female ruler: Nitocris.
Once again, as with the Fourth Dynasty (and probably the Fifth), “there were only two major male rulers of Egypt - the dynasty closing with a female due to a lack of heirs”.
The obscure Userkare now becomes an alter ego of Userkaf (Fifth), and of the far more substantial Pepi I-II (Sixth), who is Chephren-Khafre (Fourth). Thus:
Chephren-Khafre-Shepseskaf (Fourth);
Userkaf-Shepseskare Ini (= Unas?) (Fifth);
Userkare-Pepi I-II
Twelfth Dynasty
“… the Amen-em-hat [I] who was the FOUNDER OF THE
TWELFTH DYNASTY … makes NO PRETENSION TO ROYAL ORIGIN,
and the probability would seem to be that he attained the throne NOT THROUGH ANY CLAIM OF RIGHT, but by his own personal merits”.
History of Ancient Egypt
Eduard Meyer, the father of the “Sothic” theory mangling, was one (amongst many) who would deny the very existence of Moses and his work. We read this information in the Preface to Martin Buber’s book, Moses (1946): “In the year 1906 Eduard Meyer, a well-known historian, ex¬pressed the view that Moses was not a historical personality. He further remarked”:
After all, with the exception of those who accept tradition bag and baggage as historical truth, not one of those who treat [Moses] as a historical reality has hitherto been able to fill him with any kind of content whatever, to depict him as a concrete historical figure, or to produce anything which he could have created or which could be his historical work. ….
One could reply to this that, thanks to Berlin School Meyer’s own confusing rearrangement of Egyptian chronology, an artificial ‘Berlin Wall’ has been raised preventing scholars from making the crossing between the text book Egyptology and a genuine biblical history and archaeology.
Admittedly Moses - not a native Egyptian, but a Hebrew fully educated in Egyptian wisdom (Acts 7:22): “Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in speech and action” - has been most difficult for historians to identify in the Egyptian records. Impossible for conventional historians (thanks to the likes of Eduard Meyer), who will always be searching in the wrong historico-archaeological period, but also difficult for revisionists.
According to John D. Keyser (http://www.hope-of-israel.org/dynastyo.html):
Some say the Israelites labored in Egypt during the 6th Dynasty; while others claim the dynasty of the oppression was the 19th. Still others proclaim the 18th to be the one -- or the period of the Hyksos rulers of Egypt!” Keyser then concludes:
“By turning to the Bible and examining the works of early historians, the dynasty of the oppression becomes very apparent to those who are seeking the TRUTH with an open mind!
Keyser’s theory here is sound. However, it turns out to be much more difficult to realise in practice.
Concerning “the period of the Hyksos rulers of Egypt”, mentioned here by Keyser, there is at least one very good reason why some have fastened onto it. It is because chariots - seemingly lacking to early Egypt - are thought to have become abundant at the time of the Hyksos conquest (c. 1780 BC, conventional dating).
The Pharaoh of the Exodus, we are told, pursued the fleeing Israelites with 600 war chariots (Exodus 14:7): “[Pharaoh] took six hundred of the best chariots, along with all the other chariots of Egypt, with officers over all of them”.
That incident would have occurred in 1533 BC according to P. Mauro’s estimate (The Wonders of Bible Chronology) - a date estimate that will ultimately need significant lowering in light of a revised Persian-Greek history.
Yet, about two centuries earlier than that, we find Joseph riding in “a chariot” (Genesis 41:43): “[Pharaoh] had [Joseph] ride in a chariot as his second-in-command, and people shouted before him, ‘Make way!’ Thus he put him in charge of the whole land of Egypt”.
A plausible explanation for Joseph’s “chariot” can be found at:
https://josephandisraelinegypt.wordpress.com/tag/merkabah/
The enigma of chariots in the 3rd dynasty of Egypt is easily explained
…. The Bible records that Joseph was given a chariot to travel through Egypt.
If Joseph and Imhotep were the same person, this would mean that chariots existed in Egypt as early as the third dynasty.
In the third dynasty, only high officials like the pharaoh and his chancellor / sage / vizier were afforded a chariot to travel in.
Chariots in the 3rd dynasty were not horse drawn, they were carried by a procession of servants.
The Hebrew word ‘merkabah’ in the Bible can be translated as ‘chariot’ or ‘riding seat’. It does not distinguish between a vehicle that is horse drawn or a vehicle that is carried.
In Joseph’s time, this word is better translated as ‘Riding Seat’ as there were no horse drawn Chariots with wheels in the third dynasty. ….
It is what we might call a palanquin.
King Solomon used one (Song of Solomon 3:9): “King Solomon made himself a palanquin [or sedan chair] of the wood of Lebanon”.
I presume that when, later, Genesis 50:9, referring to the funeral procession of Jacob, father of Joseph, tells that: “Chariots and horsemen also went up with him. It was a very large company”, we may need still to separate the “chariots” from the “horsemen”.
Things would be much more straightforward if we were talking about Mesopotamia for which, by contrast, we have very early evidence of chariots - going back as far as 2500 BC (conventional dating).
See e.g.: https://traveltoeat.com/chariots-the-first-wheels-of-war/
Based on the extensive biblical evidence, it should be possible to find abundant traces of Moses both in history and in mythology, for, according to Exodus 11:3: “… the man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt, in the sight of Pharaoh’s servants, and in the sight of the people”.
More sympathetic to Moses and the biblical Patriarchs was the Hellenistic Jewish author, Artapanus (C2nd BC, conventional dating), who claimed in περὶ ʾΙουδαίων (“On the Jews”), some extraordinary innovations and inventions by the Patriarchs and Moses, as described at:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/artapanus
The purpose of this work was to prove that the foundations of Egyptian culture were laid by Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses. When Abraham came to Egypt, he taught the pharaoh (Pharethothes or Pharetones) the science of astrology. Jacob established the Egyptian temples at Athos and Heliopolis. Joseph was appointed viceroy of all Egypt and initiated Egyptian agrarian reforms to ensure that the powerful would not dispossess the weak and the poor of their fields. He was the first to divide the country and demarcate its various boundaries. He turned arid areas into arable land, distributed land among the priests, and also introduced standard measures for which he became popular among the Egyptians (Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, 9:23). But the one who excelled all was Moses, whom Artapanus identifies with Musaeus, teacher of Orpheus, and with Hermes-Thoth, god of Egyptian writing and culture. The name Hermes was given to Moses by the priests who revered him for his wisdom and paid him divine homage. Moses founded the arts of building, shipping, and weaponry, as well as Egyptian religion and philosophy. He was also the creator of hieroglyphic writing. In addition, he divided the city into 36 wards and assigned to each its god for worship. Moses was the founder of the cult of Apis the Bull and of Ibis. All these accomplishments of Moses aroused the jealousy of King Kheneferis, father of Maris, Moses' foster mother. He tried to kill Moses, but failed.
Here, undoubtedly, we have an interesting blend of fantasy and reality.
We have previously read that the famous account of baby Moses placed in a basket on the river bank (Exodus 2:2-10) was re-visited later in legends about the mighty Sargon of Akkad, who actually pre-dated Moses by some centuries.
At: http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/Content/Detail/7 we read: “The parallel lives of Sargon and Moses are intriguing. Both were born to Semite mothers. Both were placed in reed baskets lined with pitch and set afloat. Both were reared in the homes of non Semites, one Sumerian, the other Egyptian. As young men, both became part of their respective royal courts. Both confronted rulers. And both became mighty leaders over a great nation”.
For my explanation of this, see e.g. my article:
Did Sargon of Akkad influence the Exodus account of the baby Moses?
https://www.academia.edu/35752394/Did_Sargon_of_Akkad_influence_the_Exodus_account_of_the_baby_Moses
Background to Birth of Moses
About sixty-four (64) years are estimated to have elapsed from the death of Joseph at age 110 (1677 BC) to the birth of Moses (1613 BC): P. Mauro’s dates.
That phase of time would probably be sufficient to explain why it is said of the Pharaoh of the Oppression (Exodus 1:8): “Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph”. The great Imhotep (Joseph) – surely this “new” pharaoh ‘knew’ of him!
The Hebrew (לֹא-יָדַע) here, translated as “did not know”, can also mean something along the lines of ‘did not take notice of’, which is not surprising if more than half a century had elapsed.
Moreover, as we are going to find out from the testimony of Josephus, the crown of Egypt had at this stage passed into ‘a new family’.
King Solomon, though, many centuries later, will be scathing in his Book of Wisdom about the Egyptian ingratitude (19:13-17):
On the sinners, however, punishments rained down not without violent thunder as early warning; and they suffered what their own crimes had justly deserved since they had shown such bitter hatred to foreigners.
Others, indeed, had failed to welcome strangers who came to them, but the Egyptians had enslaved their own guests and benefactors.
The sinners, moreover, will certainly be punished for it, since they gave the foreigners a hostile welcome; but the latter, having given a festive reception to people who already shared the same rights as themselves, later overwhelmed them with terrible labours.
Hence they were struck with blindness, like the sinners at the gate of the upright, when, yawning darkness all around them, each had to grope his way through his own door.
Another possible explanation is that the “new king” of Exodus 1:8 did not know Joseph because he was a foreign, non-native Egyptian, presumably a dynastic founder - likely the first ruler of the Fourth (Old) and the first ruler of the Twelfth (Middle) kingdom[s].
Beginning with the Fourth Dynasty, the “new king” would be none other than Khufu (Cheops), best-known pharaoh because of his Great Pyramid at Giza (Gizeh).
Yet, for all this, he is surprisingly, unknown.
In fact, we have only one tiny statuette representation of pharaoh Khufu.
“Although the Great pyramid has such fame, little is actually known about its builder, Khufu. Ironically, only a very small statue of 9 cm has been found depicting this historic ruler. This statue … was not found in Giza near the pyramid, but was found to the south at the Temple of Osiris at Abydos, the ancient necropolis”: http://www.guardians.net/egypt/khufu.htm
Thus Khufu, like the seemingly great, yet poorly known, pharaoh Zoser, at the time of Joseph, is crying out for an alter ego.
And that we get, quite abundantly, I believe, in the person of Amenemhet [Amenemes] I, the founder of the mighty Twelfth Dynasty, Moses’s dynasty (along with the Fourth; Fifth; and Sixth).
John D. Keyser has, with this useful piece of research, arrived at the same conclusion as mine, that Amenemhet I was the Book of Exodus’s “new king” (op. cit.):
In the works of Flavius Josephus (1st-century A.D. Jewish historian) we read the following:
Now it happened that the Egyptians grew delicate and lazy, as to painstaking; and gave themselves up to other pleasures, and in particular to the love of gain. They also became VERY ILL AFFECTED TOWARDS THE HEBREWS, as touched with envy at their prosperity; for when they saw how the nation of the Israelites flourished, and were become eminent already in plenty of wealth, which they had acquired by their virtue and natural love of labour, they thought their increase was to their own detriment; and having, in length of time, forgotten the benefits they had received from Joseph, PARTICULARLY THE CROWN BEING NOW COME INTO ANOTHER FAMILY, they became very abusive to the Israelites, and contrived many ways of afflicting them; FOR THEY ENJOINED THEM TO CUT A GREAT NUMBER OF CHANNELS [CANALS] FOR THE RIVER [NILE], AND TO BUILD WALLS FOR THEIR CITIES AND RAMPARTS, THAT THEY MIGHT RESTRAIN THE RIVER, AND HINDER ITS WATERS FROM STAGNATING, UPON ITS RUNNING OVER ITS OWN BANKS: THEY SET THEM ALSO TO BUILD PYRAMIDS, and by all this wore them out; and forced them to learn all sorts of mechanical arts, and to accustom themselves to hard labour. And FOUR HUNDRED YEARS [sic] did they spend under these afflictions.... (Antiquities of the Jews, chap. IX, section 1).
Within this passage from Josephus lie several CLUES that will help us to determine the dynasty of the oppression of the Israelites.
The Change of Rulership
Josephus mentions that one of the reasons the Egyptians started to mistreat the Israelites was because “THE CROWN [HAD]...NOW COME INTO ANOTHER FAMILY.” Does Egyptian history reveal a time when the crown of Egypt passed into the hands of a totally unrelated family? Indeed it does!
In the Leningrad museum lies a papyrus of the 12th DYNASTY, composed during the reign of its FIRST KING AMENEMHET I. The papyrus is in the form of a PROPHECY attributed to the sage Nefer-rehu of the time of King Snefru; and in it an amazing prediction is made:
A king shall come from the south, called AMUNY [shortened form of the name Amenemhet], the son of a woman of Nubia, and born in Upper Egypt....He shall receive the White Crown, he shall wear the Red Crown [will become ruler over ALL Egypt]....the people of his time shall rejoice, THE SON OF SOMEONE shall make his name for ever and ever....The Asiatics shall fall before his carnage, and the Libyans shall fall before his flame....There shall be built the ‘WALL OF THE PRINCE [RULER],’ and the Asiatics shall not (again) be suffered to go down into Egypt.
Here the NON-ROYAL DESCENT of Amenemhet I. is clearly indicated, for the phrase “son of Someone” was a common way of designating a man of good, though not princely or royal, birth. According to George Rawlinson:
“There is NO INDICATION OF ANY RELATIONSHIP between the kings of the twelfth and those of the eleventh dynasty; and it is a conjecture not altogether improbable, that the Amen-em-hat who was the FOUNDER OF THE TWELFTH DYNASTY was descended from THE FUNCTIONARY OF THE SAME NAME, who under Mentuhotep II. [of the previous dynasty] executed commissions of importance. At any rate, he makes NO PRETENSION TO ROYAL ORIGIN, and the probability would seem to be that he attained the throne NOT THROUGH ANY CLAIM OF RIGHT, but by his own personal merits. (History of Ancient Egypt. Dodd, Mead and Co., N.Y. 1882, pp.146-147).
“His own personal merits” probably included conspiracy: “We have to suppose that at a given moment he CONSPIRED AGAINST HIS ROYAL MASTER [last king of the 11th Dynasty], and perhaps after some years of confusion mounted the throne IN HIS PLACE. A recent discovery lends colour to this hypothesis.
A Dyn. XVIII inscription extracted from the third pylon at Karnak names after Nebhepetre and Sankhkare a ‘GOD’S FATHER’ SENWOSRE who from his title can only have been the NON-ROYAL PARENT of Ammenemes I [Greek form of Amenemhet].” (Egypt of the Pharaohs, by Sir Alan Gardiner. Oxford University Press, England. 1961, p.125).
The inscriptions on the monuments make it clear that his elevation to the throne of Egypt was no peaceful hereditary succession, but a STRUGGLE for the crown and scepter that continued for some time.
He fought his way to the throne, and was accepted as king only because he triumphed over his rivals. After the fight was ended and the towns of Egypt subdued, the new pharaoh began to extend the borders of Egypt.
The fact that the 12th Dynasty was a “maverick” dynasty -- one that did not conform to the royal blood line of the pharaohs -- was well known in the 18th Dynasty. According to information provided by the family pedigrees in several tombs of the 18th Dynasty, and by texts engraved or painted on certain objects of a sepulchral nature, the ANCESTOR of the royal family of this dynasty was worshiped in the person of the old Pharaoh MENTUHOTEP OF THE 11th DYNASTY, the 57th king of the great Table of Abydos. The royal family of the 18th Dynasty considered the dynasty of Amenemhet I. to be an aberration!
According to Henry Brugsch: “The transmission of the PURE BLOOD of Mentuhotep to the king Amosis (Aahmes) of the EIGHTEENTH DYNASTY was made by the hereditary princess Aahmes-Nofertari (‘the beautiful consort of Aahmes’), who married the said king, and whose issue was regarded as the LEGITIMATE RACE of the Pharaohs of the house of Mentuhotep.” (A History of Egypt Under the Pharaohs. Second edition. John Murray, London. 1881, p. 314).
Thus, with the ascension of Amenemhet I. of the 12th Dynasty, the crown had “NOW COME INTO ANOTHER FAMILY”. ….
The implications of this choice for the “new king”, though, would likely mean that Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty needs to be shortened, as I have long realised. The possibility of any such radical shortening of the Twelfth Dynasty - along the lines of what I have already done for the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth - will be seriously considered as we proceed.
I have mentioned Khufu of the Fourth Dynasty, and shall return to him soon, but I find a more ready and striking alter ego for Amenemhet I in the founder of the Sixth Dynasty, Teti.
As I have written previously:
Starting at the beginning of the 6th dynasty, with pharaoh Teti, we have found that he has such striking likenesses to the founder of the 12th dynasty, Amenemhet (Amenemes) I, that I have had no hesitation in identifying ‘them’ as one. Thus I wrote in my “Bible Bending” article:
Pharaoh Teti Reflects Amenemes I
…. These characters may have, it seems, been dupli/triplicated due to the messy arrangement of conventional Egyptian history.
Further most likely links with the 6th dynasty are the likenesses between the latter’s founder, Teti, and Amenemes I, as pointed out by historians. Despite the little that these admit to knowing of pharaoh Teti - and the fact that they would have him (c. 2300 BC) well pre-dating the early 12th dynasty (c. 1990 BC) - historians have noted that pharaoh Teti shared some common features with Amenemes I, including the same throne name, Sehetibre, the same Horus name, Sehetep-tawy (“He who pacifies the Two Lands”), and the likelihood that death came in similarly through assassination.
This triplicity appears to me to be another link between the ‘Old’ and ‘Middle’ kingdoms!”
But Amenemhet I combined with Teti - shaping up remarkably well as the “new king” of Exodus 1:8 - may need further yet to include the alter ego of the Fourth Dynasty’s Khufu. Though, as noted earlier, “we have only one tiny statuette representation of pharaoh Khufu”, that one depiction of him finds a virtual ‘identical twin’ in a statue of Teti I have viewed on the Internet (presuming that this statue has rightly been labelled as Teti’s).
Linking the 4th, 6th and 12th dynasties?
We may be able to trace the rise of the 4th dynasty’s Khufu (Cheops) - whose full name was Khnum-khuefui (meaning ‘Khnum is protecting me’) - to the 6th dynasty, to the wealthy noble (recalling that the founding 12th dynasty pharaoh “had no royal blood”) from Abydos in the south, called Khui. An abbreviation of Khuefui?
This Khui had a daughter called Ankhenesmerire, in whose name are contained all the elements of Mer-es-ankh, the first part of which, Meres, accords phonetically with the name Eusebius gave for the Egyptian foster-mother of Moses, “Merris”.
“Merris, the wife of Chenephres, King of Upper Egypt; being childless, she pretended to have given birth to [Moses] and brought him up as her own child. (Eusebius, l.c. ix. 27)”.
Earlier, we read a variation of this legend with “King Kheneferis [being the] … father of Maris, Moses' foster mother”.
I shall be taking this “Chenephres” (“Kheneferis”) to be pharaoh Chephren (Egyptian Khafra), the son of Khufu, since Chephren had indeed married a Meresankh.
“We know of several of Khafre's wives, including Meresankh … and his chief wife, Khameremebty I”.
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/khafre.htm
Apart from neo-Assyrian literature picking up the biblical story of Moses and re-applying it, restrospectively, to Sargon of Akkad, the story would also become enshrined in later Greco-Roman accounts of Egyptian myth.
Although, as we have found, the ancient gods tend to have originated from major antediluvian characters - and this may also apply to the Egyptian gods, Seth, Osiris, Isis and Horus - Greco-Roman authors were wont to tell variant tales of them. This is not the way “modern biblical scholarship” would explain it, however - as is apparent from the following article by Gary Rendsburg, according to which the Book of Exodus ‘borrowed’ from the pagan myths:
http://forward.com/articles/9812/the-subversion-of-myth/
A major finding of modern biblical scholarship is the extent to which the narrative in the book of Exodus is informed by the ancient Israelites’ knowledge of Egyptian culture, religion and literature. The birth story of Moses in Exodus 2:1-10 provides an excellent illustration of both the extent of and the transformation involved in such borrowing.
One of the core myths of ancient Egypt concerned the gods Seth, Osiris, Isis and Horus. Seth and Osiris were brother deities, the former representing evil and chaos, the latter representing good and fertility. The battle between the two resulted in the death of Osiris, but before he died Osiris had impregnated his wife, Isis, goddess of wisdom and beauty. Isis in turn gave birth to Horus, the falcon-headed god of kingship. When Seth learned that his brother Osiris’s offspring had been born, he sought to kill the baby Horus. Isis prepared a basket of reeds to hide him in the marshland of the Nile Delta, where she suckled him and protected him, along with the watchful eye of her sister, Nephthys, from the snakes, scorpions and other dangerous creatures until he grew and prospered.
Scholars have noted that the birth story of Moses is part of a larger motif of ancient literature, namely the exposed-infant motif. The ancients delighted in telling tales of their heroic leaders who at birth were exposed to nature, usually by their parents who, for one reason or another, did not desire their newborn sons. Among the most famous accounts are the stories of Oedipus from Greece and Romulus and Remus from Rome, along with the less well known but equally important story of Sargon of Akkad (in ancient Mesopotamia). There is a difference, however, between the Moses story and the other exposed-infancy narratives, for in Exodus, chapter two, the goal of Moses’ mother is not to be rid of the child but to save him. This occurs elsewhere in ancient literature only in the story of the baby Horus, whose mother, Isis, sought to protect him from his wicked uncle, Seth. The Hebrew and Egyptian stories share this crucial feature, which is lacking in the other parallels, and therefore beckon us to read the former in the light of the latter.
The list of specific features shared by the two accounts is truly remarkable. In both stories, it is the mother who is the active parent (in the Egyptian version, Osiris is dead; in the Hebrew account, Moses’ father is mentioned in passing in Exodus 2:1, after which the role of the mother is highlighted). Both mothers construct a small vessel of reeds and place the baby in the marshland of the Delta. In both accounts, another female relative watches over the baby (Nephthys in the Horus story; Miriam in the biblical account). Significantly, in both stories the mother’s suckling of the child is emphasized: Isis’s nursing of the baby Horus is a prominent feature of Egyptian artwork, with many statues portraying this action; while in the biblical story, Miriam arranges for Moses’ mother to nurse the child. Most importantly, in both stories the baby is hidden and protected from the wicked machinations of the villain.
The fact, noted briefly above, that Horus is the god of kingship is of critical importance. It means that every pharaoh was considered the living embodiment of Horus.
….
Thus, if Moses is the baby in the bulrushes in the biblical account, he has become, as it were, Horus, and thus the equivalent of the pharaoh.
And if the pharaoh of the biblical account is the one who commands that Hebrew baby boys be drowned in the Nile, and who by extension seeks the death of the baby Moses, then he has been transformed into the wicked Seth. The biblical author, in short, subverts the foundational myth of ancient Egypt by portraying Moses as the good Horus and by converting the pharaoh into the wicked Seth.
Such subversions are typical of the manner in which a weaker people (in our case, ancient Israel) gains power, as it were, over the stronger nation (in our case, ancient Egypt).
The story of Moses’ birth implies that not only did the author of our text possess a thorough knowledge of ancient Egyptian culture, religion and literature, but that his audience, or at least a significant portion thereof, did, as well. One can imagine the ancient Israelite reader, conversant with all matters Egyptian, delighting in such a tale portraying Moses, and not Horus or the pharaoh, as the hero, and depicting the pharaoh not as the good force but as the evil force identified with Seth.
[End of quote]
But, continuing our merging of kingdoms and dynasties, this family relationship may again be duplicated (though in garbled form) in that the Sixth Dynasty ruler, Piops I, had a daughter also called Ankhenesmerire, whom his son Merenre married.
It probably should be the other way around, that Teti (who was Cheops-Amenemes I) had a daughter also called Ankhenesmerire, whom his son Piops-Userkare married.
From the 4th dynasty, we gain certain elements that are relevant to the early career of Moses. Firstly we have a strong founder-king, Cheops (Egyptian Khufu), builder of the great pyramid at Giza, who would be an excellent candidate for the “new king” during the infancy of Moses who set the Israelite slaves to work with crushing labour (Exodus 1:8). This would support the testimony of Josephus that the Israelites built pyramids for the pharaohs, and it would explain from whence came the abundance of manpower for pyramid building. Cheap slave labour.
Thus Josephus:
... they became very abusive toward the Israelites, and contrived many ways of afflicting them; for they enjoined them to cut a great number of channels for the river, and to build walls for their cities and ramparts, that they might restrain the river, and hinder its waters from stagnating, upon its running over its banks: they set them also to build pyramids, and by all this wore them out; and forced them to learn all sorts of mechanical arts, and to accustom them to hard labor.
The widespread presence of ‘Asiatics’ in Egypt at the time would help to explain the large number of Israelites said to be in the land. Pharaoh would have used as slaves other Syro-Palestinians, too, plus Libyans and Nubians. As precious little, though, is known of Cheops, despite his being powerful enough to have built one of the Seven Wonders of the World, we shall need to fill him out later with his 12th dynasty alter ego.
In Cheops’ daughter, Mer-es-ankh, we presumably have the Merris of tradition who retrieved the baby Moses from the water. The name Mer-es-ankh consists basically of two elements, Meres and ankh, the latter being the ‘life’ symbol for Egypt worn by people even today.
Mer-es-ankh married Chephren (Egyptian, Khafra), builder of the second Giza pyramid and probably, of the Great Sphinx. He would thus have become Moses’s foster/father-in-law.
Moses, now a thorough-going ‘Egyptian’ (cf. Exodus 2:19), must have been his loyal subject. “Now Moses was taught all the wisdom of the Egyptians and became a man of power both in his speech and in his actions”. (Acts 7:22) Tradition has Moses leading armies for Chenephres as far as Ethiopia. Whilst this may seem a bit strained in a 4th dynasty context, we shall find that it is perfectly appropriate in a 12th dynasty one, when we uncover Chephren’s alter ego.
From the 12th dynasty, we gain certain further elements that are relevant to the early era of Moses. Once again we have a strong founder-king, Amenemhet I, who will enable us to fill out the virtually unknown Cheops as the “new king” of Exodus 1:8. The reign of Amenemhet I was, deliberately, an abrupt break with the past. The beginning of the 12th dynasty marks not only a new dynasty, but an entirely new order. Amenemhet I celebrated his accession by adopting the Horus name: Wehem-Meswt (“He who repeats births”), thought to indicate that he was “the first of a new line”, that he was “thereby consciously identifying himself as the inaugurator of a renaissance, or new era in his country’s history”.
Amenemhet I is thought actually to have been a commoner, originally from southern Egypt.
I have thought to connect him to pharaoh Khufu via the nobleman from Abydos, Khui.
“The Prophecy of Neferti”, relating to the time of Amenemhet I, shows the same concern in Egypt for the growing presence of Asiatics in the eastern Delta as was said to occupy the mind of the new pharaoh of Exodus, seeing the Israelites as a political threat (1:9): “‘Look’, [pharaoh] said to his people, ‘the Israelites have become far too numerous for us’.”
That Asiatics were particularly abundant in Egypt at the time is apparent from this information from the Cambridge Ancient History: “The Asiatic inhabitants of the country at this period [of the Twelfth Dynasty] must have been many times more numerous than has been generally supposed ...”. Dr David Down gives the account of Sir Flinders Petrie who, working in the Fayyûm in 1899, made the important discovery of the town of Illahûn [Kahun], which Petrie described as “an unaltered town of the twelfth dynasty”.
Of the ‘Asiatic’ presence in this pyramid builders’ town, Rosalie David (who is in charge of the Egyptian branch of the Manchester Museum) has written:
It is apparent that the Asiatics were present in the town in some numbers, and this may have reflected the situation elsewhere in Egypt. It can be stated that these people were loosely classed by Egyptians as ‘Asiatics’, although their exact home-land in Syria or Palestine cannot be determined .... The reason for their presence in Egypt remains unclear.
Undoubtedly, these ‘Asiatics’ were dwelling in Illahûn largely to raise pyramids for the glory of the pharaohs. Is there any documentary evidence that ‘Asiatics’ in Egypt acted as slaves or servants to the Egyptians? “Evidence is not lacking to indicate that these Asiatics became slaves”, Dr. Down has written with reference to the Brooklyn Papyrus. Egyptian households at this time were filled with Asiatic slaves, some of whom bore biblical names. Of the seventy-seven legible names of the servants of an Egyptian woman called Senebtisi recorded on the verso of this document, forty-eight are (like the Hebrews) NW Semitic. In fact, the name “Shiphrah” is identical to that borne by one of the Hebrew midwives whom Pharaoh had commanded to kill the male babies (Exodus 1:15).
“Asian slaves, whether merchandise or prisoners of war, became plentiful in wealthy Egyptian households [prior to the New Kingdom]”, we read in the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Amenemhet I was represented in “The Prophecy of Neferti” - as with the “new king” of Exodus 1:8 - as being the one who would set about rectifying the problem. To this end he completely reorganised the administration of Egypt, transferring the capital from Thebes in the south to Ithtowe in the north, just below the Nile Delta.
He allowed those nomarchs who supported his cause to retain their power. He built on a grand scale. Egypt was employing massive slave labour, not only in the Giza area, but also in the eastern Delta region where the Israelites were said to have settled at the time of Joseph.
Professor J. Breasted provided ample evidence to show that the powerful 12th dynasty pharaohs carried out an enormous building program whose centre was in the Delta region. More specifically, this building occurred in the eastern Delta region which included the very area that comprised the land of Goshen where the Israelites first settled.
“... in the eastern part [of the Delta], especially at Tanis and Bubastis ... massive remains still show the interest which the Twelfth Dynasty manifested in the Delta cities”.
Today, archaeologists recognise the extant remains of the construction under these kings as representing a mere fraction of the original; the major part having been destroyed by the vandalism of the New Kingdom pharaohs (such as Ramses II).
The Biblical account states that: “... they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in mortar and in brick”. (Exodus 1:14).
John Keyser, again, has written very interestingly, in a compatibly revised context, of the oppressive pharaonic labour demands upon the Israelite slaves, he now incorporating pharaoh Amenemhet III into the mix. Thus Keyser has written (op. cit.):
Josephus’ description of the type of labor the Israelites were forced to endure under the new pharaoh is REMARKABLY SIMILAR to the observations of DIODORUS SICULUS, the first-century B.C. Greek historian:
Moeris ... dug a lake of remarkable usefulness, though at a cost of INCREDIBLE TOIL. Its circumference, they say, is 3,600 stades, its depth at most points fifty fathoms. Who, then, on estimating the greatness of the construction, would not reasonably ask HOW MANY TENS OF THOUSANDS OF MEN MUST HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED [?], AND HOW MANY YEARS THEY TOOK TO FINISH THEIR WORK?
No one can adequately commend the king’s design, which brings such usefulness and advantage to all the dwellers in Egypt.
Since the Nile kept NO DEFINITE BOUNDS in its rising, and the fruitfulness of the country depended upon the river’s regularity, THE KING DUG THE LAKE TO ACCOMMODATE THE SUPERFLUOUS WATER, SO THAT THE RIVER SHOULD NEITHER, WITH ITS STRONG CURRENT, FLOOD THE LAND UNSEASONABLY AND FORM SWAMPS AND FENS, nor, by rising less than was advantageous, damage the crops by lack of water. BETWEEN THE RIVER AND THE LAKE HE CONSTRUCTED A CANAL 80 STADES IN LENGTH AND 300 FEET IN BREADTH. Through this canal, at times he admitted the water of the river, at other times he excluded it, thus providing the farmers with water at fitting times by opening the inlet and again closing it scientifically and at great expense. — The Pyramids of Egypt, by I.E.S. Edwards. Viking Press, London. 1986, pp. 234-235.
These engineering marvels are noted by author J. P. Lepre:
“Amenemhat III is also credited with the mighty engineering feat of constructing the irrigation canal now known as the Bahr Yusif, and of using this canal to REGULATE THE FLOW OF WATER FROM THE NILE to Lake Fayum during the flood season. This water was held there by sluices, and later let out again, at will, back to the section of the Nile from Assyout down to the Mediterranean Sea, REGULATING THE HEIGHT OF THE RIVER in that area during the dry season. This irrigation system was the PROTOTYPE for the modern High Aswan Dam.”
Although Amenemhat III was involved in several great engineering works, the Bahr Yusif endeavor is of special note. For here, two 20-mile long dykes -- one straight and the other semicircular -- were constructed so as to aid in the ADJUSTMENT OF THE WATER LEVEL through the use of sluices, and to reclaim 20,000 acres of farmland by enriching the soil." (The Egyptian Pyramids. McFarland & Company, Inc. Jefferson, N.C. 1990, pp. 217-218).
Obviously, both Josephus and Diodorus Siculus are talking about THE SAME construction project carried out during the reign of AMENEMHET III. OF THE 12TH DYNASTY! ….
Historians in pursuit of the Era of Oppression of the Israelites have spent much time and consideration pondering the crucial geographical information as provided in Exodus 1:11: “So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labour, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh”.
Lacking here, but no doubt crucial, is the extra piece of information supplied by the Septuagint version of this verse, that the Israelites also built On (Heliopolis): “And he set over them task-masters, who should afflict them in their works; and they built strong cities for Pharao, both Pitho, and Ramesses, and On, which is Heliopolis”.
Let us follow John Keyser further as he considers, in a sensibly revised Twelfth Dynasty context, now (“The Strong City of Ramesses”), and now (“The City of the Sun!”), Heliopolis - however, I would not necessarily adhere to his view that the city of Ramesses was so named before Rameses II ‘the Great’, as later biblical editors were quite able to (as Moses certainly did with the older patriarchal toledôt) update geographical names:
The Strong City of Ramesses
If we go now to the book of Exodus in the Bible, we can uncover some more clues to help us pinpoint the dynasty of the oppression:
And there rose up another king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph....And he set over them [the Israelites] taskmasters, who should afflict them in their works; and THEY BUILT STRONG CITIES FOR PHARAO, BOTH PITHO [PITHOM], AND RAMESSES, AND ON, WHICH IS HELIOPOLIS....And the Egyptians tyrannised over the children of Israel by force. And they embittered their life by hard labours, IN THE CLAY AND IN BRICK-MAKING, and all the works in the plains, according to all the works, wherein they caused them to serve with violence. -- Exodus 1:8, 11, 13. Septuagint”.
If we can determine when the cities of Ramesses, Pithom and On were built, we can place the Israelite slaves in the right dynasty!
Because one of these cities was named “Ramesses,” many scholars believe it was named after Ramesses the Great of the 19th Dynasty, and was therefore constructed during this time -- but is this true? Notice the following:
LONG BEFORE RAMESSES THE GREAT WAS BORN, THERE WERE SEVERAL KINGS, NOT KNOWN BY MODERN HISTORIANS, WITH SOME FORM OF THE NAME RAMESSES. The record of these kings of the delta, foolishly rejected by ALL historians today, is the KEY to this enigma in the Bible. The names are preserved by Syncellus in the Book of Sothis. A list of them may be found in Waddell’s Manetho, page 235...Among these rulers is a Ramesses WHO LIVED IN THE DAYS OF JOSEPH and the fourth dynasty.
Many historians have been puzzled by the fact that the name of Ramesses should appear on so many of the building blocks that went into the early buildings of the THIRD AND FOURTH DYNASTIES. Their mistaken explanation is that the later Ramesses had his servants take the time out to carve his name on ALL these stones. It NEVER OCCURRED TO THEM that there might actually have been a Rameses who assisted in the erection of these fabulous monuments of a by-gone era. -- Compendium of World History, by Herman L. Hoeh. Vol.I. Ambassador College, Pasadena, CA. 1963, pp. 94-95”.
There is another reason why the Israelites cannot have built the city of Ramesses during the reign of Ramesses the Great. The earliest reference to Israel outside of the Bible is on the famous MERNEPTAH STELE. Merneptah was the successor of Ramesses II (“the Great”). Notice what Hans Goedicke, chairman of the department of Near Eastern Studies at John Hopkins University, has to say:
Merneptah’s famous stele records his military achievements to the fifth year of his reign. By that time, ISRAEL HAD SUCH SIGNIFICANCE AS A PEOPLE that it is listed among these achievements: “ Israel’s seed is not,” Pharaoh Merneptah boasted, with obvious exaggeration. The people of Israel was plainly a POLITICAL PROBLEM for Merneptah. This could hardly have been the case if the people who became Israel had SO RECENTLY become a “people” after the Exodus. Are we to believe that within 75 years at most, the Exodus group became A POLITICAL AND MILITARY POWER of the magnitude reflected in the Merneptah stele, especially after a 40-year desert sojourn? -- BAR, September/October 1981.
The answer is, obviously, NO!
In 1966, an Austrian archaeological team, headed by Dr. Manfred Bietak, began long-term excavations four miles north of the delta town of Faqus -- at a site called Tell el-Dab’a. Bietak was aware that this site had an earlier name, Tell el-Birka -- “the mound of the LAKE.” Old maps revealed that this lake was at one time joined to the old Pelusiac branch of the Nile by an artificial waterway that anciently encircled the whole area. When aerial photography revealed the ancient bed of the Pelusaic branch of the Nile, Bietak was convinced he had found the SITE OF RAMESSES.
During the 1979-80 excavation season, Bietak realized that the city had been built DURING THE 12TH DYNASTY BY AMENEMHET I. -- WITH ADDITIONS AND/OR REBUILDING BY SENWOSRET III. OF THE SAME DYNASTY!
Some FIVE HUNDRED YEARS BEFORE THE TIME OF RAMESSES II. this had been a CAREFULLY LAID OUT CITY of some importance during the time of Egypt’s MIDDLE KINGDOM, a century or so PRIOR to Egypt’s takeover by the Hyksos. Readily discernible were the foundations of an imposing 450-foot-long palace, with a huge court lined by columns, that had probably served as a ROYAL SUMMER RESIDENCE....Records show that order [in Egypt] was re-established by STRONG GOVERNMENT on the part of the kings of Egypt’s MIDDLE KINGDOM, and IT IS TO THESE THAT CAN BE ATTRIBUTED THE COLUMNED PALACE west of the Tell el-Dab’a mound, as well as a variety of OTHER BUILDINGS AND MONUMENTS that seem to have surrounded the Birka lake.
One of these, a TEMPLE OF THE EGYPTIAN KING AMENEMHET I., was found to contain a tablet specifically referring to the ‘TEMPLE OF AMENEMHET in [at] the water of the town’ -- independent corroboration of the town’s abundance of water....
But what is also quite obvious from Dr. Bietak’s findings is that not only was this site the TRUE BIBLICAL RAMESSES, it quite evidently had a history MUCH EARLIER than the time of Ramesses II. as well, and was in fact none other than the HYKSOS CAPITAL, AVARIS, referred to in Manetho’s History. -- The Exodus Enigma, by Ian Wilson. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London. 1985, pp. 48, 49 & 52.
The City of the Sun!
Let’s look at another city mentioned in the Septuagint version of the Bible -- On, or Heliopolis. Although the city of On wasn’t originally settled during the Middle Kingdom, it was, however, REBUILT ON A MASSIVE SCALE by a pharaoh of the 12th DYNASTY! We read about this in Henry Brugsch-Bey’s book, A History of Egypt Under the Pharaohs:
...a remarkable document on parchment, which I had the good fortune to acquire at Thebes in 1858, and which for some years past has been in the possession of the Berlin collection of Egyptian antiquities, make the fact certain, that USURTASEN I. [Sesostris I of the 12th Dynasty], at the very beginning of his reign, occupied himself with BUILDINGS AT THE TEMPLE OF THE CITY OF THE SUN [ON, HELIOPOLIS]. This important material informs us how, in the third year of his reign, he assembled round his throne the first officials of his court, to hear their opinion and their counsel as to his intention of RAISING WORTHY BUILDINGS TO THE SUN-GOD. As usual in such assemblies, the king begins his address with a solemn reference to his divine descent....
From this he proceeds to a discourse on the importance of the buildings and monuments dedicated to the deities, starting from the idea that such alone are able to immortalize the memory of a ruler. After the address, the assembled counsellors UNANIMOUSLY APPROVE the good intentions of their lord, and encourage him to carry out the same without delay. THE PHARAOH IMMEDIATELY GIVES HIS COMMAND TO THE PROPER COURT OFFICIAL, ENJOINS HIM TO WATCH OVER THE UNINTERRUPTED PROGRESS OF THE WORK WHICH HAS BEEN DETERMINED UPON, and then begins the solemn ceremony of LAYING THE FOUNDATION-STONE by the king himself. -- Pp.151-152.
The result of this ceremony was a work that can still be seen today! Not far from Cairo, in the neighborhood of the village of Matarich, a huge obelisk made out of the hardest and most beautiful rose granite points skyward, commemorating the work of the Israelites as they slaved under this pharaoh to re-build the “City of the Sun.”
Usurtasen [Sesostris] erected a massive BRICK-BUILT double wall around the main temple at Heliopolis, which also surrounded the area of present-day Tell Hisn. The area this wall enclosed has been estimated to measure some 1,100 by 475 meters, or 1,203.4 by 519.7 yards! (Atlas of Ancient Egypt, by Baines and Malek, p. 173).
Apart from the Era of Moses involving the Fourth, Sixth and Twelfth Egyptian dynasties, we also need to add the Thirteenth, based on some known correspondences of its officials with the Twelfth Dynasty. Dr. Donovan Courville has provided these useful, when writing of the Turin list which gives the names of the Thirteenth Dynasty officials (“On the Survival of Veliovsky’s Thesis in ‘Ages in Chaos”, pp. 67-68):
The thirteenth name [Turin list] (Ran-sen-eb) was a known courtier in the time of Sesostris III …”.
“The fourteenth name (Autuabra) was found inside a jar sealed with the seal of Amenemhat III ….
How could this be, except with this Autuabra … becoming a contemporary of Amenemhat III? The explanations employed to evade such contemporaneity are pitiful compared with the obvious acceptance of the matter”.
“The sixteenth name (RaSo-khemkhutaui) leaves a long list of named slaves, some Semitic-male, some Semitic-female.
One of these has the name Shiphra, the same name as the mid-wife who served at the time of Moses’ birth …. [Exodus 1:15]. RaSo-khemkhutaui … lived at the time of Amenemhat III. ….
This Amenemhet III, as we pick up from reading about him in N. Grimal’s book (op. cit.), was a particularly strong ruler, renowned for massive projects involving water storage and channelling on a gargantuan scale. He is credited with diverting much of the Nile flow into the Fayuum depression to create what became known as lake Moeris (the lake Nasser project of his time).
The grim-faced depictions of the 12th dynasty kings, Amenemhet III and Sesostris III, have been commented upon by conventional and revisionist scholars alike.
Cambridge Ancient History has noted with regard to the former …:
“The numerous portraits of [Amenemhet] III include a group of statues and sphinxes from Tanis and the Faiyûm, which, from their curiously brutal style and strange accessories, were once thought to be monuments of the Hyksos kings.”
For revisionists, these pharaohs can - and rightly so - represent the cruel taskmasters who forced the Israelites to build using bricks mixed with straw (Exodus 5:7, 8). In fact, this very combination of materials can clearly be seen for example in Amenemhet III’s Dahshur pyramid.
Amenemhet III, according to Grimal …:
… was respected and honoured from Kerma to Byblos and during his reign numerous eastern workers, from peasants to soldiers and craftsmen came to Egypt. This influx of foreign workers resulted both from the growth in Egyptian influence abroad and from the need for extra workmen to help exploit the valuable resources of Egypt itself. For forty-five years [Amenemhet] III ruled a country that had reached a peak of prosperity … and the exploitation of the Faiyûm went hand in hand with the development of irrigation and an enormous growth in mining and quarrying activities.
The Faiyûm was a huge oasis, about 80 km S.W. of Memphis, which offered the prospect of a completely new area of cultivable land. Exodus 1:14 tells of the Israelite slaves doing “all kinds of work in the fields.”
Mining and quarrying also, apparently, would have been part of the immense slave-labour effort. Grimal continues …:
In the Sinai region the exploitation of the turquoise and copper mines reached unprecedented heights: between the ninth and forty-fifth years of [Amenemhet III’s] reign no less than forty-nine texts were inscribed at Serabit el-Khadim …. The seasonal encampments of the miners were transformed into virtually permanent settlements, with houses, fortifications, wells or cisterns, and even cemeteries. The temple of Hathor at Serabit el-Khadim was enlarged …. The expeditions to quarries elsewhere in Egypt also proliferated ….
Amenemhet III was, it seems, a complete dictator … (my emphasis):
The economic activity formed the basis for the numerous building works that make the reign of [Amenemhet] III one of the summits of state absolutism. Excavations at Biahmu revealed two colossal granite statues of the seated figure of [Amenemes] III …. Above all, he built himself two [sic] pyramids, one at Dahshur and the other at Hawara….
Beside the Hawara pyramid were found the remains of his mortuary temple, which Strabo described as the Labyrinth. ….
From the birth of Moses to the Exodus 80 years later, the Twelfth Dynasty rulers sorely oppressed Israel, beginning with an infanticide that Herod in Israel would later emulate.
King Solomon tells - in what ought to be a wake-up call for our own times - how Egypt paid for this pharaonic “decree of infanticide” (Wisdom 11:5-16, emphasis added):
Thus, what had served to punish their enemies became a benefit for them in their difficulties.
Whereas their enemies had only the ever-flowing source of a river fouled with mingled blood and mud, to punish them for their decree of infanticide, you gave your people, against all hope, water in abundance, once you had shown by the thirst that they were experiencing how severely you were punishing their enemies.
From their own ordeals, which were only loving correction, they realised how an angry sentence was tormenting the godless; for you had tested your own as a father admonishes, but the others you had punished as a pitiless king condemns, and, whether far or near, they were equally afflicted.
For a double sorrow seized on them, and a groaning at the memory of the past; when they learned that the punishments they were receiving were beneficial to the others, they realised it was the Lord, while for the man whom long before they had exposed and later mockingly rebuffed, they felt only admiration when all was done, having suffered a thirst so different from that of the upright.
For their foolish and wicked notions which led them astray into worshipping mindless reptiles and contemptible beetles, you sent a horde of mindless animals to punish them and to teach them that the agent of sin is the agent of punishment”.
Adopted into the royal household of the mighty and prosperous Twelfth Egyptian Dynasty, the Hebrew Moses would grow up to be a great man in the land of Egypt.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9016566696944251023.post-52355434088711349582024-03-01T12:20:00.000-08:002024-03-01T12:20:43.109-08:00Chaldean contemporaries of Ramses II ‘the Great’<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiG5pCLKRHyRBNS95VDRtHr5C84nfYGVWJ8gPS6JWMSk1NkSQEU-OfYwqNSPiNT95QLpUM9W_OWcKSHGhqQurey98LQuzbylVv9Jc_ogvOulUSXI48iikLQvGCr3rjNwZmxBS_a6xaNrY9r1x4Qdx0eD9bdeJqyyc8algp6Dvh_wCxud22QZr_isEnLYQc/s768/d7a175b984334553a7dd1f84b5b084c1.jpeg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="512" data-original-width="768" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiG5pCLKRHyRBNS95VDRtHr5C84nfYGVWJ8gPS6JWMSk1NkSQEU-OfYwqNSPiNT95QLpUM9W_OWcKSHGhqQurey98LQuzbylVv9Jc_ogvOulUSXI48iikLQvGCr3rjNwZmxBS_a6xaNrY9r1x4Qdx0eD9bdeJqyyc8algp6Dvh_wCxud22QZr_isEnLYQc/s600/d7a175b984334553a7dd1f84b5b084c1.jpeg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky was correct in identifying Ramses II
as a contemporary of King Nebuchednezzar the Chaldean.
In my previous article:
Assyrian contemporaries of Ramses II ‘the Great’
(5) Assyrian contemporaries of Ramses II 'the Great' | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
a partner to this present one, I had concluded that:
• Pharaoh Ramses II ‘the Great’ was a younger contemporary of Shalmaneser; and he was
• an older contemporary of Sargon II/Sennacherib.
Ramses II was also to be identified as:
Ramses III;
Psibkhenno (Šilkanni);
Shabako;
“So king of Egypt”
His famous son, Khaemwaset, was all of:
Khaemwaset, son of Ramses III;
Si’be (turtan);
Shebitku Khaemwaset;
Shabataka (Tang-i Var)
Sargon II/Sennacherib, for his part, was also Tukulti-ninurta (and, as identified elsewhere) Shamsi-Adad (not I of that name).
The reign of Ramses II was so long (66-67 years), however, that it - having spanned the latter part of the reign of Shalmaneser and the entire reign of Sargon II/ Sennacherib - still had some approximately three further decades to run after that.
Now, according to Tobit 1, whose neo-Assyrian sequence I firmly follow, Sennacherib was succeeded by Esarhaddon, he being the king whose statue appeared alongside that of Ramses II at Nahr el-Kalb. Unlike convention and Dr. Velikovsky, I had Esarhaddon as a younger contemporary of Ramses II. I explained this in the companion article:
The Nahr el-Kalb inscription juxtaposes a statue of Ramses II alongside a statue of Esarhaddon.
- Conventional scholars presumably might argue that Ramses II is worn because he (c. 1280 BC, conventional dating) is much older than Esarhaddon (c. 680 BC, conventional dating).
- Dr. I. Velikovsky, who made Ramses II a contemporary of Nebuchednezzar (c. 580 BC, conventional dating), would have considered Ramses II as ruling later than Esarhaddon.
- I (Damien Mackey) have Ramses II as an older contemporary of Esarhaddon’s predecessor, Sargon II/Sennacherib. Esarhaddon, for his part, likely scratched out his foe, Ramses II, from the Nahr el-Kalb inscription.
This last point, Ramses II’s being contemporaneous with the Assyrian king, Sargon II/ Sennacherib, now needs to be explained. ….
[End of quote]
My Esarhaddon is also different in other ways from the conventional and Velikovskian versions of him.
For one, I do not believe that Esarhaddon was a biological son of Sennacherib, the Assyrian, but was a Chaldean, thereby commencing a new dynasty.
And, secondly, I have identified Esarhaddon as Nebuchednezzar the Chaldean:
Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar
(6) Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Dr. Velikovsky’s thesis in Ramses II and His Time (1978), that Ramses II was a contemporary of Nebuchednezzar, accords perfectly with my own reconstruction, insofar as I have Ramses II as a contemporary of Esarhaddon, my Nebuchednezzar.
Despite my manifold identifications of Ramses II (as given above), I have not followed Dr. Velikovsky, though, in his view that Ramses was the same as pharaoh Necho of Egypt’s Twenty-Sixth Dynasty, also a contemporary of Nebuchednezzar.
In my article, “The Complete Ramses II”, I had identified Ramses II, instead, as Tirhakah of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty, who is also Piankhi.
Two more mighty identifications of Ramses II to be added to the list.
Nor have I been able to accept Dr. Velikovsky’s ingenious thesis that Nebuchadnezzar was Hattusilis, the Hittite emperor, who famously made a treaty with Ramses II.
The Chaldean dynasty consisted only of Nebuchednezzar and his son, Belshazzar.
The latter, who is also Amēl-Marduk, is referred to in Baruch 1:11, 12:
… and pray for the life of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and for the life of his son Belshazzar, so that their days on earth may be like the days of heaven. The Lord will give us strength and light to our eyes; we shall live under the protection of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and under the protection of his son Belshazzar, and we shall serve them many days and find favor in their sight.
Ramses II was thus a contemporary also of the second Chaldean king, Belshazzar, but only while Belshazzar was yet a prince.
King Belshazzar was subsequently succeeded by the Medo-Persian king (Daniel 5:31).
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9016566696944251023.post-78475956298689813562024-02-29T20:42:00.000-08:002024-02-29T20:42:33.410-08:00Assyrian contemporaries of Ramses II ‘the Great’<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg65VgH5OLdcTOT1iiXUbskgWkQ3T_JC5bVT0L48VB7IBxlzWHs-OxOSSnqwQcWhbVcPF5jTQR0zOFh2lr3kger5oEwPXuai3u5DqM5dA2U_DmrW5FA2h1Ca5AHsfAe2SCOm1bmRbYAMpHK1ExoxCdYLWT46zfCBFUWXroYsQCAf7B5gx6lFYxeBR2IAWE/s1400/Image-depicting-Esar-haddon-King-of-Assyria-showcasing-his-reign-and-the-architectural-and-cultural-advancements-of-the-era.-02.webp" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="1400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg65VgH5OLdcTOT1iiXUbskgWkQ3T_JC5bVT0L48VB7IBxlzWHs-OxOSSnqwQcWhbVcPF5jTQR0zOFh2lr3kger5oEwPXuai3u5DqM5dA2U_DmrW5FA2h1Ca5AHsfAe2SCOm1bmRbYAMpHK1ExoxCdYLWT46zfCBFUWXroYsQCAf7B5gx6lFYxeBR2IAWE/s600/Image-depicting-Esar-haddon-King-of-Assyria-showcasing-his-reign-and-the-architectural-and-cultural-advancements-of-the-era.-02.webp"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
According to the typical conventional estimation of Egypt’s Nineteenth Dynasty:
https://www.historyskills.com/classroom/ancient-history/anc-ramses-ii-reading/#:~:text=Ramses%20II%20also%20formed%20alliances,coast%20of%20Egypt's%20Nile%20Delta.
….
When Seti I died in 1279 BCE, Ramses II was only about 20 years old. He succeeded his father to the throne and became Pharaoh of Egypt.
During his early reign, Ramses II faced many challenges. There were rebellions in Canaan and Libya.
The Hittites were also a constant threat, as they continued to try and expand their empire. In order to protect Egypt's borders, Ramses II needed to build up his army.
He did this by conscripting soldiers from all over Egypt and training them to be loyal and disciplined soldiers.
Ramses II also formed alliances with other countries in the region, such as Babylon and Assyria. ….
[End of quote]
Checking the standard Assyrian king lists, the beginning of the reign of Ramses II would fall right withing the long reign (32 years) of king Adad-nirari I (1295-1264 BC):
https://www.livius.org/sources/content/anet/564-566-the-assyrian-king-list/
My Assyrian Revision
Adad-nirari I in my revision, on the other hand, belongs to the first half of the C8th BC, approximately half a millennium after his conventional placement (above).
I explained my radical revision and re-identifying of a relevant set of Assyrian kings as follows in e.g. my article:
Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences
(5) Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
….
Marc Van de Mieroop will give one perfect sequence (as I see it) of four Middle Assyrian kings, who, nevertheless, need to be folded into the Neo Assyrian era, where Van de Mieroop has these four kings listed again, but now in the wrong sequence. I refer to his “King Lists” towards the end of his book, A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000 -323 BC.
The following I would consider to be a perfect Assyrian sequence of kings (p. 294):
Adad-nirari [I]
Shalmaneser [I]
Tukulti-Ninurta [I]
Assur-nadin-apli [I]
where Tukulti-Ninurta = Sennacherib and Assur-nadin-apli = Ashurnasirpal = Esarhaddon.
This sequence accords perfectly with the neo-Assyrian sequence given in Tobit 1: “Shalmaneser”; “Sennacherib”; “Esarhaddon”.
But on p. 295, the same four kings will become skewed, as follows:
Adad-nirari [II]
Tukulti-Ninurta [II]
Ashurnasirpal [II]
Shalmaneser [III]
….
[End of quote]
If Ramses II were a ruling contemporary of Adad-nirari (I/II) – [and I don’t believe that he was, though he came close to it] - then he would have begun to reign in the first half of the C8th BC.
My Egyptian Revision
This is complex.
It is spelled out in articles of mine such as:
The Complete Ramses II
(6) The Complete Ramses II | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky (Ramses II and his Time, 1978) had identified Ramses II with Necho II of Egypt’s Twenty-Sixth Dynasty. In Dr. Velikovsky’s scheme of things, Ramses II was a contemporary of King Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’.
The Nahr el-Kalb inscription juxtaposes a statue of Ramses II alongside a statue of Esarhaddon.
- Conventional scholars presumably might argue that Ramses II is worn because he (c. 1280 BC, conventional dating) is much older than Esarhaddon (c. 680 BC, conventional dating).
- Dr. I. Velikovsky, who made Ramses II a contemporary of Nebuchednezzar (c. 580 BC, conventional dating), would have considered Ramses II as ruling later than Esarhaddon.
- I (Damien Mackey) have Ramses II as an older contemporary of Esarhaddon’s predecessor, Sargon II/Sennacherib. Esarhaddon, for his part, likely scratched out his foe, Ramses II, from the Nahr el-Kalb inscription.
This last point, Ramses II’s being contemporaneous with the Assyrian king, Sargon II/ Sennacherib, now needs to be explained.
Assyria encountering Egypt
In approximately 720 BC (conventional dating) Sargon II, very early in his reign, chased away Egypt’s young turtan (commander), Si’be.
Egypt’s Turtan, Si’be
This Egyptian military commander has been enormously difficult for scholars (whether they be conventional or revisionist) to identify. Was he: Ramses III; or Psibkhenno (I had liked Dr. Rohl’s attempt here due to its close transliteration); or Shabako; or Shebitku; or the biblical “So king of Egypt” (2 Kings 17:4)?
Or some, or all, of these?
As I had observed in my article:
Identifying neo-Assyrian era Egyptian names, “So”, Si’be and the pharaoh Shilkanni
(3) Identifying neo-Assyrian era Egyptian names, “So”, Si’be and the pharaoh Shilkanni | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
….
Sir Alan Gardiner had looked to identify [the biblical] “So with the Sib’e, turtan of Egypt, who the annals of Sargon state to have set out from Rapihu (Raphia on the Palestinian border) together with Hanno, the King of Gaza, in order to deliver a decisive battle” (Egypt of the Pharaohs, 1961, p. 342).
That conclusion was also, as we have read, the view of Charles Boutflower.
Whilst I, too, have wondered if this might be the correct interpretation, such a view would need to address why one whom the Second Book of Kings had entitled ‘King’, prior to the Fall of Samaria, had become, some half a dozen or so years later, a mere Egyptian official (turtan, general); albeit an important one.
Dr. Kenneth Kitchen has confidently held that So is an abbreviated form of Osorkon (IV) of the Twenty-Second (Libyan) Dynasty (The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt: 1100-650 BC, 1972).
Revisionist, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky, had also thought to locate King So to the period of the Twenty-Second (Libyan) Dynasty, as one of the pharaohs Shoshenq (or Sosenk) – a good name fit in its abbreviated form (So-senk = So).
Others prefer for So pharaoh Tefnakht[e] of the Twenty-Fourth Dynasty. ….
[End of quote]
As noted here, Si’be, as a military commander, is unlikely to have been a pharaoh.
Sargon II will distinguish “Pharaoh (Pir’u) king of Egypt [Musri]”.
Actually, all Ramses III; Psibkhenno; Shabako; Shebitku; the biblical “So king of Egypt” will be found to be very close to the mark. For only two Egyptian persons are represented amongst these names: namely (1) Ramses II and (2) his son, Khaemwaset.
Thus, as argued in “The Complete Ramses II” article:
Ramses II, whose son is Khaemwaset, is Ramses III, whose son is Khaemwaset;
Ramses II is Psibkhenno (Psusennes) Ramses;
Ramses II is Shabako (Sabacos = Psibkhenno);
Ramses II is “King So [Sabacos] of Egypt”.
Khaemwaset is Shebitku Khaemwaset.
I, reluctant to let go of Dr. Rohl’s linguistic connection of Si’be with Psib-khenno, eventually, however, decided that, whilst the latter was a pharaoh, the former had to be a subordinate. Psibkhenno Ramses was Ramses II, and his turtan, Si’be, was his famous son, the highly talented (Shebitku) Khaemwaset.
Sargon II will allude to Shebitku Khaemwaset (now as a sub-pharaoh to his father) in the Tang-I Var inscription. Here Sargon calls him, not Si’be (Sibu), but Shabataka. Dan’el Kahn writes of it in his article, “Was there a Co-regency in the 25th Dynasty?:
file:///C:/Users/Damien%20Mackey/Downloads/85102-Artikeltext-228805-1-10-20211210.pdf
…. According to the inscription, king Shebitku (=Shabatka) extradited Iamani to Sargon. The inscription can be dated quite certainly to 706 BC, not long before the death in battle [sic] of Sargon II. in the summer of 705 BC. …. Thus, the Tang-i Var inscription indicates that Shebitku was already king of Kush in 706 BC. This new date is at least four years earlier than has generally been thought. Frame continued and claimed that this is a "piece of information which will require Egyptologists to revise their current chronology for Egypt's twenty-fifth Dynasty", and added: "This would raise difficulties for the current Egyptian chronology". ….
Egypt’s King, Šilkanni
Ann E. Killebrew, writing from a conventional point of view in Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology, tells of the exchange between pharaoh Šilkanni and Sargon II:
"With the Assyrian army in the region, Silkanni, the king of Egypt (Osorkon IV), felt compelled to send Sargon twelve magnificent horses as a gift. These were probably Kushite horses from the Dongola Reach area, already an important horse-breeding center at this time" (pg 240; also citing Heidorn).
Since the Nineteenth Dynasty ruled Kush (Ethiopia) it would not surprise if: “These were probably Kushite horses from the Dongola Reach area, already an important horse-breeding center at this time".
But it would surprise me if Šilkanni was, as according to the conventional estimate, Osorkon. Despite the admittedly apt name comparison of Šilkanni with Osorkon, I think that the even better fit would be Psibkhenno (Psibkhanni), who is my Ramses II.
To match, the names Psibkhanni and Šilkanni one need only swap the letters b and l.
The Šilkanni incident would have occurred about 4 years before the Tang-I Var inscription incident when Shebitku had joined his father as a co-ruler of Egypt/ Ethiopia.
Conclusion
Sargon’s (Sennacherib’s) Egyptian contemporaries were:
Ramses II/Shabako (Pi’ru; Šilkanni), and his son
Shebitku Khaemwaset (Si’be; Shabataka).
The biblical “So King of Egypt” was likewise Ramses II, but at the time of Sargon II’s predecessor, Shalmaneser. Ramses II knew two great Assyrian kings, Shalmaneser and Sargon II/Sennacherib. What of Esarhaddon? He was Chaldean, not Assyrian.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9016566696944251023.post-57154808676363041892024-02-29T11:08:00.000-08:002024-02-29T11:08:59.669-08:00Some Letters from Sennacherib<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQDZel_p6t6EBVqJob4Ba1bWMRfyX2THOHsNU59REQpzY35vTCflA3fGY6rxutf85vxJl0VhnHVwsOaqczPwzCXAeG27dofRRMKBQKnCkdXgi7R0u001DpV_punWdTMDoA698ldeFSIu04N9h1GZkDZvJLvFiInm8BZo1MfPl_QLXPs2bI-hgn2xwURgA/s736/Sennacherib-King-of-Assyria-05.webp" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="421" data-original-width="736" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQDZel_p6t6EBVqJob4Ba1bWMRfyX2THOHsNU59REQpzY35vTCflA3fGY6rxutf85vxJl0VhnHVwsOaqczPwzCXAeG27dofRRMKBQKnCkdXgi7R0u001DpV_punWdTMDoA698ldeFSIu04N9h1GZkDZvJLvFiInm8BZo1MfPl_QLXPs2bI-hgn2xwURgA/s600/Sennacherib-King-of-Assyria-05.webp"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
“If the "king, my lord," was Shalmaneser, we must conclude that Sargon built
the city of Dur-Sharrukin, ("Sargon's Fortress"), when he was still a prince,
i.e., before 721 B.C.”.
Brazilian correspondent
A Brazilian researcher has written to me concerning a series of letters of Sennacherib that are generally thought to constitute his correspondence, as Crown Prince, with the Assyrian king, Sargon II.
If this were to prove true, then it would completely shatter my thesis, as argued in various articles, that Sennacherib was Sargon II. For example:
Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap
(7) Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
The Book of Tobit gives the neo-Assyrian succession for this period as “Shalmaneser”, “Sennacherib”, and “Esarhaddon” (1: 15, 21), with no mention whatsoever of a Sargon.
And that is the sequence that I firmly follow.
Surely Tobit himself would have known the correct neo-Assyrian order.
Had he not served Shalmaneser at a high official level?:
Tobit may have been King Shalmaneser’s Rab Ekalli
(11) Tobit may have been King Shalmaneser's Rab Ekalli | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
And had he not been hounded from his home by a vengeful Sennacherib (Tobit 1:19-20) – but was later “allowed” to resume his normal existence by Esarhaddon (1:22)?
The Brazilian researcher opened the correspondence with this e-mail (26th February, 2024):
….
I was conducting research on Assyrian correspondence on the website https://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/saao/saa01/corpus/ and came across a series of letters from Crown Prince Sennacherib addressed to King Sargon, including mentions of Dur-Sharruken, (see letter SAA 01 039). I imagine you are already familiar with these letters and could help me understand how to interpret them. ….
At the time I was researching the Tudors:
Henry VIII’s palaces missing
(DOC) Henry VIII's palaces missing | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
and my response that same day was admittedly somewhat knee-jerk and hasty, I not taking due cognizance of the mention here of “Dur-Sharruken”.
I wrote back:
….
These letters are like the El Amarna letters, supposedly addressed to pharaohs, but not mentioning any pharaohs - or even Egypt sometimes.
They are addressed to "the king my lord", who could be Shalmaneser, or some other potentate. ….
To which the correspondent sensibly replied:
….
Thanks for the clarification.
It's always nice to talk to you. However, one question remains. If the "king, my lord," was Shalmaneser, we must conclude that Sargon built the city of Dur-Sharrukin, ("Sargon's Fortress"), when he was still a prince, i.e., before 721 B.C. And if he was a prince, don't you think it would be too daring to build it and give it his own name, or even to build a gigantic palace? ….
This time around I was a little more circumspect:
....
I said, or some other potentate.
How do we know that Sennacherib was then Crown Prince?
And, that he was actually writing to an Assyrian monarch? ….
[End of e-mail exchanges]
The intriguing question (for me, at least) now arises:
TO WHOM WAS SENNACHERIB WRITING?
The Letters
There are twelve (12) letters in this “series of letters”:
They typically open with the greeting [029]:
[To] the king, my lord: [your servant] Sin-ahhe-riba [Sennacherib]. Good health to the king, my lord! [Assyri]a is well,[the temp]les are well, all [the king's forts] are well. The king, my lord, can be glad indeed.
Some, though, e.g. [030] do not:
"[...... I have] appointed your [major]-domo in [my] palace."
Same with [040].
Some thoughts
Firstly, I now think it most unlikely that Sennacherib was addressing an Assyrian king.
Why then say: “[Assyri]a is well …”?
Neither Shalmaneser, nor Sargon (if he were not Sennacherib), would need to be told that!
Secondly, with the mention of Dur-Sharruken [-kin] [039], completed in Sargon’s Year 16/17, according to my estimation (thesis, 2007, p. 393), then - presuming that these 12 letters are basically contemporaneous - Shalmaneser becomes irrelevant.
Sennacherib, though, does not, if he is (as I believe) Sargon II.
My tentative conclusion: Sargon II/Sennacherib was writing, as King of Assyria, to a contemporary foreign brother-king of equal power with whom he shared a treaty.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9016566696944251023.post-7136887064036013792024-02-28T10:36:00.000-08:002024-02-28T10:36:41.744-08:00A Jewish tradition has Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ as Emperor Hadrian<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuuUw2TULn84L1daTH8V20KPqZCuvSXW3UTku3P06uxfKCbqUrWiK9VKBOPBhrJpdBYr5kxHSV9Zb-8lrRt10Cx5nPSU-wZyHB0jdE56IFGb25ZOe2AXbSneJF7PCX8aR5cvKL1J2HrzgQnLYAPzHdMtY8TjEprX5S5ZtcLZCVrHcbPRS6yAc73Mn4nBM/s2138/m3htcqe9slc81.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="1465" data-original-width="2138" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuuUw2TULn84L1daTH8V20KPqZCuvSXW3UTku3P06uxfKCbqUrWiK9VKBOPBhrJpdBYr5kxHSV9Zb-8lrRt10Cx5nPSU-wZyHB0jdE56IFGb25ZOe2AXbSneJF7PCX8aR5cvKL1J2HrzgQnLYAPzHdMtY8TjEprX5S5ZtcLZCVrHcbPRS6yAc73Mn4nBM/s600/m3htcqe9slc81.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
The tyrant in the rabbinic versions, however, is not Antiochus Epiphanes but Hadrian: “Hadrian came and seized upon a widow …” (S. Eliyahu Rab. 30)
This story bears remarkable parallels to that of the widow-martyr, Hannah, in 2 Maccabees, especially in my revised context according to which the Seleucid king Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’ was Hadrian:
Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Emperor Hadrian. Part One: “… a mirror image”
https://www.academia.edu/32734925/Antiochus_Epiphanes_and_Emperor_Hadrian._Part_One_a_mirror_image_
and:
Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Emperor Hadrian. Part Two: “Hadrian … a second Antiochus”
https://www.academia.edu/35538588/Antiochus_Epiphanes_and_Emperor_Hadrian._Part_Two_Hadrian_a_second_Antiochus_
For one, an “Antiochus” denounces the mother and her daughters to the emperor Hadrian.
In 2 Maccabees 7 it is Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ who tortures the victims, but who is named in Jewish legends, “Hadrian”.
In the Christian tale the mother has only daughters.
In the Maccabean account the mother has only sons.
St. Sophia is, as Hannah is (according to Jewish tradition), a widow.
In both tales the children remain composed even whilst being tortured.
In both tales the pious mother, who encourages her children, outlives them all, but soon dies (St. Sophia 3 days later).
Here is my account of the Jewish widow-martyr, according to my revised history, with the Herodian and Maccabean ages now contemporary, and Hannah tentatively suggested as the New Testament widow, Anna the prophetess:
Anna was a widow - and, appropriately, the woman-martyr in Maccabees has no husband with her but only sons. Soon we shall read that she was, according to rabbinic tradition, “a widow”.
And she was indeed very wise and prophetic, as would befit an Anna the prophetess.
Moreover, Anna had had the inestimable privilege of witnessing the future hope of Israel and she accordingly “gave thanks to God and spoke about the Child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem” (Luke 2:38).
If Anna were also the woman of Maccabees, then her experience of meeting the Holy Family would have greatly fortified her in her worthy task of urging her seven sons not to apostatise. Her hope had become their hope.
And so the youngest of the sons can hopefully proclaim to the king (2 Maccabees 7:32-35):
‘It is true that our living Lord is angry with us and is making us suffer because of our sins, in order to correct and discipline us. But this will last only a short while, for we are still his servants, and he will forgive us. But you are the cruelest and most disgusting thing that ever lived.
So don’t fool yourself with illusions of greatness while you punish God’s people. There is no way for you to escape punishment at the hands of the almighty and all-seeing God’.
The wise mother also manages to ‘shatter the theory of evolution’ with her ex nihilo remark (7:28):
‘God did not make them out of existing things’:
http://www.usccb.org/bible/2mc/7 “that is, all things were made solely by God’s omnipotent will and creative word; cf. Heb 11:3. This statement has often been taken as a basis for “creation out of nothing” (Latin creatio ex nihilo)”.
Hannah’s (Anna’s) martyrdom, along with her seven sons, I would estimate to have occurred very soon after the Presentation.
The Holy Family was now safe from “the king”, in Egypt.
Now, a traditional Jewish interpretation of this dramatic account of martyrdom may have great import for our revised Maccabean-Herodian history and for the ‘shaving off’ of Romans. My question has been: And who is Caesar Augustus?
… whilst Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ was the king present during the martyrdom of the woman and her seven sons, there are accounts in the Jewish Talmud and Midrash according to which the king in the story was “Caesar” (e.g. Talmud, Gittin 57b and Midrash Eicha Rabba 1:50). Even more shockingly (in standard historical terms) the cruel king overseeing the martyrdom is sometimes named “Hadrian”. Stephen D. Moore, in The Bible in Theory: Critical and Postcritical Essays, p. 196, when discussing the famous incident in the Maccabees of the mother and her seven martyred sons, adds this intriguing footnote (51) according to which Antiochus was replaced in rabbinic tradition by Hadrian:
Nameless in 4 Maccabees, the mother is dubbed … Hannah … in the rabbinic tradition …. The tyrant in the rabbinic versions, however, is not Antiochus Epiphanes but Hadrian: “Hadrian came and seized upon a widow …” (S. Eliyahu Rab. 30); “In the days of the shemad [the Hadrianic persecutions]…” (Pesiq. R. 43). ….
As said, this is ‘shocking’ in a conventional context which would have Antiochus (c. 170 BC) separated in time from the reign of the emperor Hadrian (c. 117-138 AD) by some three centuries. But it accords perfectly with the descriptions of Hadrian as “a second Antiochus” and “a mirror-image of Antiochus”.
[End of quote]
Now, here is the story of the Christian saint and her daughters - all so marvellously named:
https://oca.org/saints/lives/2012/09/17/102641-martyr-love-with-her-mother-and-sisters-at-rome
Martyr Love with her mother and sisters at Rome
The Holy Martyrs Saint Sophia and her Daughters Faith, Hope and Love were born in Italy. Their mother was a pious Christian widow who named her daughters for the three Christian virtues. Faith was twelve, Hope was ten, and Love was nine. Saint Sophia raised them in the love of the Lord Jesus Christ. Saint Sophia and her daughters did not hide their faith in Christ, but openly confessed it before everyone.
An official named Antiochus denounced them to the emperor Hadrian … who ordered that they be brought to Rome.
Realizing that they would be taken before the emperor, the holy virgins prayed fervently to the Lord Jesus Christ, asking that He give them the strength not to fear torture and death. When the holy virgins and their mother came before the emperor, everyone present was amazed at their composure. They looked as though they had been brought to some happy festival, rather than to torture. Summoning each of the sisters in turn, Hadrian urged them to offer sacrifice to the goddess Artemis. The young girls remained unyielding.
Then the emperor ordered them to be tortured. They burned the holy virgins over an iron grating, then threw them into a red-hot oven, and finally into a cauldron with boiling tar, but the Lord preserved them.
The youngest child, Love, was tied to a wheel and they beat her with rods until her body was covered all over with bloody welts. After undergoing unspeakable torments, the holy virgins glorified their Heavenly Bridegroom and remained steadfast in the Faith.
They subjected Saint Sophia to another grievous torture: the mother was forced to watch the suffering of her daughters. She displayed adamant courage, and urged her daughters to endure their torments for the sake of the Heavenly Bridegroom. All three maidens were beheaded, and joyfully bent their necks beneath the sword.
In order to intensify Saint Sophia’s inner suffering, the emperor permitted her to take the bodies of her daughters. She placed their remains in coffins and loaded them on a wagon. She drove beyond the city limits and reverently buried them on a high hill. Saint Sophia sat there by the graves of her daughters for three days, and finally she gave up her soul to the Lord. Even though she did not suffer for Christ in the flesh, she was not deprived of a martyr’s crown. Instead, she suffered in her heart. Believers buried her body there beside her daughters. ….
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9016566696944251023.post-33553277679525173902024-02-24T12:57:00.000-08:002024-02-24T12:57:05.246-08:00Essenes and Cistercians<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggkw56Gag9yfaI3QcIKqAZqti_zY7f3XgI7pEGTj987ebrCC5KN0olpyP6TmRdzP3Y7q3LAbO93DiuGiYT1MvTJqDxNxt4iCVQocTVaWWeLLJ2ALr_mDwIQt_7LQYLTVbOJhAtmUh9EWVcOKqoayLveN3ncfS8-cwgtnKs07w8DOl2i_186m7oualzg4s/s272/1000_F_579153176_pAQuuf5yVmmXXaH1H443fDHIJh0tG6Cp.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="185" data-original-width="272" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggkw56Gag9yfaI3QcIKqAZqti_zY7f3XgI7pEGTj987ebrCC5KN0olpyP6TmRdzP3Y7q3LAbO93DiuGiYT1MvTJqDxNxt4iCVQocTVaWWeLLJ2ALr_mDwIQt_7LQYLTVbOJhAtmUh9EWVcOKqoayLveN3ncfS8-cwgtnKs07w8DOl2i_186m7oualzg4s/s600/1000_F_579153176_pAQuuf5yVmmXXaH1H443fDHIJh0tG6Cp.jpg"/></a></div>
“Essene and Cistercians alike maintained a belief
in the founding of a “New Jerusalem”.”
A. Butler and S. Dafoe
The following interesting passages are taken from the book, The Knights Templar Revealed. The Secrets of the Cistercian Legacy (Magpie Books, 2006), by A. Butler and S. Dafoe:
Pp. 43-44:
…we can find no monastic institution anywhere near as similar to the Essene communities as that of the … Cistercians. … it is worth itemizing some of these similarities:
• The Essene specifically chose remote desert locations for their settlements, as did the Cistercians, for the word “desert” is specifically mentioned in the Order of the Cistercians. Both groups deliberately sought seclusion and redemption through both work and prayer.
• Both brotherhoods wore white. It isn’t known if the Essene placed the same reliance on sheep rearing as did the Cistercians, but the likelihood is that they did, and their garments, like those of the Cistercians, were undoubtedly of non-dyed and possibly bleached wool.
• Cistercians and Essene alike showed a great obsession with cleanliness and sanitary living conditions. This was not an exclusive consideration of all monastic settlements by any stretch of the imagination. The Essene may or may not have practised total immersion as a form of repeated baptism. There is no written evidence that this was the case and the cisterns found at Qumran and other locations may merely have been a means of retaining water in an extremely arid area. The Cistercians were expected to wash their heads, hands and arms daily. This might seem a perfunctory accession to cleanliness when seen from our modern perspective, but in medieval terms it was viewed with surprise and even alarm by some agencies. Like the Essene, the Cistercians made superhuman efforts to supply all parts of their monasteries and other establishments with ample water for all manner of uses. The layout of a typical Cistercian abbey might incorporate a modified stream, as at Fountains Abbey in Yorkshire, England, as well as waste water channels and other indications of an ingenious effort to supply every part of the establishment with running water.
Similar efforts were made at Qumran as well as at the Minoan palace of Knossos, where the supply of fresh water to all parts of the building were broadly similar, as were precautions taken for drainage and the disposal of sewage. We dare to suggest the Minoan/Philistine know-how, amassed over many centuries, might easily have been employed in the planning and building of settlements such as Qumran.
• Essene and Cistercians alike maintained a belief in the founding of a “New Jerusalem”. ….
• By their very nature both the Essene doctrine and that of the Cistercians harked back to the dawn of Judaism and the founding of the First Temple by Solomon. It should be remembered that the Templars were actually named after this institution (the poor Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon).
Comment: Judaism never called it the Temple of Solomon, but the Temple of Yahweh.
The article continues:
House of Solomon
… The fascination that both the Cistercians and the Templars held for this early period of Jewish history is quite without parallel and set the standard for the Old Testament interest prevailing in Europe at the time.
• Both groups believed that the final battle, preparatory to the creation of the New Jerusalem, would represent a physical as well as a spiritual struggle. … one of the documents found at Qumran is known as the War Rule Scroll and it details the last and greatest battle that would have to be fought against the forces of darkness. This is not simply a hypothetical document based on spiritual beliefs. On the contrary, it gives very specific military advice and instructions. … the form of armaments to be carried, together with the clothing and headgear that should be worn. Beyond this, it specifies a system of signals to be used at times of war. This is a strange document to have been compiled by a body that generally existed to wage spiritual rather than tangible war against its enemies. Nevertheless, it is more than paralleled in the case of the Cistercians ….
[End of quote]
For a compelling identification of the Essenes as the (Herodians)-scribes of the New Testament, see Marvin Vining’s Jesus the Wicked Priest. How Christianity was born of an Essene Schism (2008).
See also my (Damien Mackey’s) article:
The “Essenes” in the Bible
(5) Damien Mackey | The University of Sydney - Academia.edu
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9016566696944251023.post-18314466731550785692024-02-24T12:23:00.000-08:002024-02-24T12:23:58.509-08:00The “Essenes” in the Bible
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhurirNGYp3ew0frLqqyCOjTMF97xKJvLoojG3xlXTgK7LonUeUKV3fTwzxGfA2T0vZ_pEHsRFDXlj-U1V7oaBETA2Qt9i9tHFWD_HYakDZ2zynxVnHpLb0Sq2wt-7J7V58hgqazpG6mjkfjFTXm4yx4u-ygxgpYCsgXGqSu0_ctBVb89UHkNd4FbG1Bjc/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/AVvXsEhurirNGYp3ew0frLqqyCOjTMF97xKJvLoojG3xlXTgK7LonUeUKV3fTwzxGfA2T0vZ_pEHsRFDXlj-U1V7oaBETA2Qt9i9tHFWD_HYakDZ2zynxVnHpLb0Sq2wt-7J7V58hgqazpG6mjkfjFTXm4yx4u-ygxgpYCsgXGqSu0_ctBVb89UHkNd4FbG1Bjc/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-9016566696944251023.post-73765533962024328222024-02-22T20:34:00.000-08:002024-02-22T20:34:26.069-08:00Matthew, 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/AVvXsEh4z1sFnUobU6HtWLOYhNniPk4ideyxytkbAgSSYnDE2nlFowx5OeBAPUDVB_XGOELcZjF3BAgV8XzfOWBTwMk6jhZCQOd1dHOzk7NEO0V3QG9N2zOr87IpZp2VVauF-TOMvF8iJp05dTpzDLpQ-85n6fVUfDpBz4MBYkABwc4HfnDY2gnry2-wfx9Sz7c/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/AVvXsEh4z1sFnUobU6HtWLOYhNniPk4ideyxytkbAgSSYnDE2nlFowx5OeBAPUDVB_XGOELcZjF3BAgV8XzfOWBTwMk6jhZCQOd1dHOzk7NEO0V3QG9N2zOr87IpZp2VVauF-TOMvF8iJp05dTpzDLpQ-85n6fVUfDpBz4MBYkABwc4HfnDY2gnry2-wfx9Sz7c/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-9016566696944251023.post-60103698461363987702024-02-22T11:54:00.000-08:002024-02-22T11:55:07.400-08:00Sumerian History in Chaos<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijwJD-ALG-aZKPMdHVD7Sh2ftjLn6Uj-W0R2qca0xHX-_lhergKB0yDTN2ycxVeb4dYmWpj9_RxXFP49WnLyEKkFiraaNd_NwNL8UYSDWJXkbBTJ4LjlI0Bkx-cW5EbkX5OVWc2o9IzB0Rm_DOTkCZ2qFsOvBNN7fkVinVAsoRzaw_zr_UThnnBhz1F8g/s511/Urukagina.webp" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="600" data-original-height="511" data-original-width="289" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijwJD-ALG-aZKPMdHVD7Sh2ftjLn6Uj-W0R2qca0xHX-_lhergKB0yDTN2ycxVeb4dYmWpj9_RxXFP49WnLyEKkFiraaNd_NwNL8UYSDWJXkbBTJ4LjlI0Bkx-cW5EbkX5OVWc2o9IzB0Rm_DOTkCZ2qFsOvBNN7fkVinVAsoRzaw_zr_UThnnBhz1F8g/s600/Urukagina.webp"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
It surely follows from my latest article (20th April, 2023):
Sumerian Geography in Chaos
(6) Sumerian Geography in Chaos | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
that historians will not be able to give a definitive account of who the Sumerians were, from whence they originated, and what was the basis of their language.
Nita Gleimius will introduce the enigmatic Sumerians with the phrase commonly used for them, “The Sumerian Problem” (2022):
https://www.thecollector.com/sumerian-problem/
The Sumerian Problem(s): Did the Sumerians Exist?
Did the Sumerian civilization really exist? Were they immigrants? And why is their language so unique?
Oct 22, 2022 • By Nita Gleimius, BA Ancient Near Eastern Cultures & Biblical Archaeology
Controversies regarding the Sumerian people — generally called “The Sumerian Problem” — started almost as soon as their civilization was rediscovered. After almost two centuries of discoveries and interpretations, and the deciphering of ancient cuneiform texts from various ancient Near Eastern sources, the very existence of the Sumerians as a distinct nation is still questioned today by some learned scholars.
Add to this the various theories about ancient aliens and mysterious teachers, and we have a veritable melting pot of beliefs, myths, and interpretations that defy logic. Many Assyriologists and Sumerologists, like Thorkild Jacobsen and Samuel Noah Kramer, have contributed immensely to the unraveling and interpretation of facts from conjecture. They started to create a semblance of order using the conglomeration of information from archaeology, cuneiform texts, guesswork, and unsubstantiated theories. But even they had to guess and make assumptions.
What Is the Sumerian Problem?
Discovering our ancient roots is enlightening and wonderfully exciting, one clue leads to a discovery, which leads to another clue, which leads to another discovery, and so on — almost like a top-selling mystery novel. But imagine that your favorite mystery or crime novelist suddenly ends a book without tying up the pieces — and with some crucial pieces of the mystery still missing. Without crucial evidence, without enough hints to lead you further, you may check and recheck if you were right in your analysis and tentative conclusions. Sometimes archaeologists end up with just such a mystery.
In the case of the Sumerians, the problems started from the very beginning; their very existence, their identity, their origin, their language, and their demise have all been questioned. Once most of the archaeological and linguistic fraternities agreed that a previously unknown group of people had in fact settled in southern Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) before 4000 BCE, theories abounded.
Scholars theorized, reasoned, and debated. Instead of arriving at a reasonable potential geographic location, questions and mysteries multiplied. The issue became several issues. The Sumerian Problem became so emotional for some scholars that they attacked each other openly and personally. The media had a field day, and the scholarly war became in itself part of the problem.
The truth is that a civilization that lasted for more than 3,000 years [sic] would inevitably have gone through deep changes — in social, political, cultural, and economic terms. It will have been affected by outside factors such as the physical environment, contact with and incursions from outsiders, and pestilence. It would also have been impacted by population growth patterns, cultural changes, habits, the natural diffusion of immigrant cultures, as well as thought patterns, religious influences, internal strife, and wars among city-states.
Mackey’s comment: Problems, questions, are arising due to a greatly over-expanded chronology and to an uncertain geography, making it impossible to be really definite about the situation. Hence the question below: Why Is There a Problem?
How then can we define such a multiplex of societal epochs as one single civilization? Were the Sumerians rough and robust outsiders that took over an already refined and more advanced southern Mesopotamian society?
Background: Why Is There a Problem?
After thousands of years of nomadic and semi-nomadic seasonal settlements created by hunter-gatherers, some settlements in southern Mesopotamia were settled all year round. From around 4000 BCE there appears to have been a relatively rapid development in agriculture, culture, and technology.
Mackey’s comment: The Great Agricultural Leap had begun before this, at Karaca Dağ.
See e.g. my article:
Great Leap to Agriculture made by Noah’s family in mountains of SE Turkey
(9) Great Leap to Agriculture made by Noah’s family in mountains of SE Turkey | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Low-lying Sumer was still, at that stage, under the influence of the vestiges of the Flood. Far from being the Cradle of Civilisation, its settlement was relatively later.
Nita Gleimius continues:
Crops were planted using irrigation: canals diverted rivers, channels ran from rivers to crop fields, and furrows led water into the fields. A simple plow was converted into a seeder plow which could do both jobs at once — and could be pulled by draught animals.
By 3500 BCE agriculture was no longer so labor-intensive, and people could direct their attention to other occupations. Urbanization and specialization in the manufacturing of goods such as ceramics, farm implements, boat building, and other crafts led to cities being built around large religious centers by 3000 BCE. Why and where did this burst of innovation come from?
Various Biblical scholars and treasure hunters have actively searched the ancient Near East for proof of Biblical stories and to find legendary riches from ancient civilizations. Scholars and historians from as far back as Herodotus knew well enough about the Assyrians and the Babylonians. Nobody, though, knew that these civilizations inherited their advanced cultures from a still older civilization.
Mackey’s comment: Assyrian Nineveh was surely settled before Sumer (which is not the biblical “Shinar”) was (Genesis 10:10, 11).
Assyria was called “the land of Nimrod” (Micah 5:6).
Nita Gleimius continues:
Though the Sumerians were gone and forgotten, their legacy was very much alive. It had passed down through other geographic locations …
Mackey’s comment: Even its own supposed geographic locations belonged far away elsewhere.
… and through social, political, and economic developments as empires came and went through the ages that followed.
….
The Sumerian Language Quest
The discovery of Ashurbanipal’s library at Nineveh and the subsequent translation of its texts revealed three distinct languages written in similar cuneiform script. Assyrian and Babylonian were distinctly Semitic, but a third Semitic script contained words and syllables that just did not fit into the rest of its Semitic vocabulary. This language was Akkadian with non-Semitic Sumerian phraseology interlaced. Excavations at Lagash and Nippur provided plenty of cuneiform tablets, and these were entirely in this non-Semitic language.
Researchers noted that the Babylonian kings called themselves the kings of Sumer and Akkad. Akkadian was accounted for, so they named the new script Sumerian. Then they found tablets with bilingual texts, believed to be from school exercises. Although these tablets were dated to the first millennium BCE, long after Sumerian as a spoken language had ceased to exist, it continued as a written language similar to the use of Latin today.
Identifying and deciphering Sumerian did not solve the problem of their origins. The language is what is known as a language isolate — it fits into no other known language group. Instead of clarifying the origins of the Sumerians, it added to the confusion.
Scholars have identified many Semitic names among the place names used by the Sumerians for some of their greatest cities. Ur, Uruk, Eridu, and Kish are but a few of these. This could mean that they moved into places that were already settled — or it could mean that they kept the place names given to these cities by their conquerors — the Akkadians and the Elamites — after regaining their independence. The Elamites, though, were also a non-Semitic speaking people, and the identified names are Semitic.
Another scholarly argument is that some of the earliest words from the Sumerian language are from the most primitive phase of their agricultural development. Many words are names for local southern Mesopotamian animals and plants. This may mean that the Sumerians were primitive immigrants settling into a more advanced culture (the Ubaid culture).
They then later adopted the culture of their host country and developed it further with more innovations. Another argument in favor of this hypothesis is that the Sumerian words for these above objects are mostly one syllable, whereas the words for more sophisticated objects have more than one syllable, indicating the more advanced culture of another group.
Samuel Noah Kramer has argued that the Ubaid culture in the region was already advanced when the Sumerians arrived. The Ubaid culture, he posited, came from the Zagros mountains, and amalgamated over time with several Semitic groups from Arabia and elsewhere. After the Sumerians conquered this more advanced Ubaid culture, they and the Sumerians together achieved the heights that we now assign to the Sumerian civilization.
More Sumerian Origin Hypotheses
Archaeological finds from the earliest levels of Sumerian civilization, such as the oldest Eridu temple structures, confirms that southern Mesopotamian culture is similar from at least the Ubaid Period right through the giant leaps towards urbanized civilization. There is no sign of any outside material in these earliest levels, and a lack of foreign pottery clinches it.
On the other hand, some theorists maintain that religious structures like ziggurats appear in Sumer only in the late Uruk period. The time selected by the immigrant theorists for the Sumerian arrival in the already flourishing Ubaid Period of southern Mesopotamia. ….
The hypothesis that the Sumerians came from a homeland beyond the Persian Gulf towards the East has been floated on and off since their identification. This theory is popular with those who do not believe that the Sumerians would have traveled across the hinterland of Mesopotamia all the way to the tip of the land where resources are more limited. Another southern origin idea posits that the Sumerians were Arabs who lived on the east coast of the Persian Gulf before their home was flooded after the last ice age.
Other scholars theorize that their skills with metalwork — for which there were zero resources in Sumer — and the building of high places (ziggurats), indicate that their homeland must have been in the mountains. The most popular theory here points to the foothills and plains of the Zagros mountains — today’s Iranian plateau.
Others suggest that they may be related to the original peoples of ancient India. They find similarities between the Sumerian language and the Dravidian group of languages from this region.
Mackey’s comment: Very much needing to be factored in here as well is the noticeable similarity between Sumerian and Chinese:
Ancient Chinese History and the Book of Genesis. Part Four: Chinese and Sumerian
(9) Ancient Chinese History and the Book of Genesis. Part Four: Chinese and Sumerian | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
To the north, we have several areas that could be likely candidates if the Sumerians were immigrants to southern Mesopotamia. The areas around the Caspian Sea, Afghanistan, Anatolia, the Taurus mountains, Northern Iran, Kramer’s trans-Caucasian area, Northern Syria, and more.
Mackey’s comment: So much guesswork here.
Might I suggest trying “Northern Syria” (above)/ southern Turkey?
Kings David and Solomon
With the geography of Sumer (supposedly) unscrambled, we are surprised to find deeds pertaining to the Israelite kings, David and Solomon, in the Eshnunna and Lagash tales of the c. C18th BC, with Solomon appearing even well before that, in the c. C22nd BC.
But, given the apparently long history of this region - artificial though it all may be - we would expect to find other Israelite/Judean history there as well.
And that we surely do.
But I shall need an article supplementary to this one to cover it.
This is what I have previously written on David, Solomon and Eshnunna, Lagash.
*****
One of the most important contributions to the revision of ancient history, with a keen reference to the Bible, has been Dean Hickman’s re-location of King Hammurabi of Babylon from, originally, c. 2400, now c. 1800 BC (conventional dating) - with some revisionists opting for c. 1450 BC, the time of Joshua - to the era of kings David and King Solomon (c. 1000 BC, standard dating).
Dean Hickman most helpfully identified the powerful Assyrian ruler of the time, Shamsi-Adad I, as the biblical (Syrian) king, Hadadezer, against whom King David successfully campaigned (2 Samuel 8:3).
And Hickman skilfully identified Hadadezer’s father, Rekhob (or Rehob), as Shamsi-Adad’s father, Uru-kabkabu (Urukab = Rekhob).
Surely, so I then thought, kings David and Solomon must also be historically identifiable amongst these supposed C18th BC kings and their wars.
A tentative thought of mine was that King Solomon may have been King Jabin of Hazor (Mari Letters) at this time, seeing that Solomon had control of that city (I Kings 9:15).
Unfortunately, several good revisionist historians, ignoring Dean Hickman’s work, have identified this Jabin with the one at the time of Joshua (11:1), thereby throwing their revisions right out of kilter, by about half a millennium.
Jabin was a generic name for rulers of Hazor, and there was another such Canaanite king at the time of Deborah (Judges 4).
King Solomon may have taken the name as well when he gained control of Hazor. Or, this Jabin may have been another Canaanite king under that name whom Solomon conquered.
The Mari Letters do not name places further south than this, so any reference to Solomon may have associated him with one of his northern cities (closer to Mari), rather than to Jerusalem much further to the south.
Of more pressing interest to me, though, was that there was a king with a David-like name, who was, again like King David, an opponent of Shamsi-Adad I (Hadadezer).
The name David means “Beloved”:
https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/David.html
I refer to a King of Eshnunna, Naram-Sin (“Beloved of” the Lord) – the Syrians interchanged Sin and El.
Even closer to David’s name was Dadusha of Eshnunna of the same approximate era.
Hence, I badly wanted Eshnunna re-situated from Sumer to the region of Jerusalem.
The trouble was that Eshnunna seemed firmly situated in Central Mesopotamia, to the north of Sumer.
But that was not to be the end of the story.
I had, in my university thesis (2007) distinguished between two forts named Ashdod, the well-known coastal one belonging to the Philistines, known in Sargon II’s Annals as Ashdudimmu, “Ashdod-by-the-Sea”, and another Ashdod that Sargon II’s General (Turtan) captured (Isaiah 20:1), which I determined to have been the famous Lachish.
It needs to be noted that Lachish was second in importance to Jerusalem itself:
https://www.baslibrary.org/biblical-archaeology-review/31/4/8
“Among cities in ancient Judah, Lachish was second only to Jerusalem in importance. A principal Canaanite and, later, Israelite site, Lachish occupied a major tell (mound) 25 miles southwest of Jerusalem, nestled in the foothills of Judah (the region known as the Shephelah)”.
Eventually it struck me that my combination, Ashdod-Lachish, had to be the supposed Sumerian combination of Eshnunna-Lagash. (Friend Robert R. Salverda, at the same time, had come to the conclusion that Lagash was Lachish).
Now, with Eshnunna as Ashdudda (merely requiring an n and d interchange), or Ashdod (Lachish), then Dadusha king of Eshnunna could certainly be King David. Thanks to Dean Hickman’s revision, Dadusha was now an approximate contemporary of King David.
But why Lachish and not Jerusalem for David (Dadusha)?
Well, it is an indication of the importance of Lachish. However, some Sumeriologists think that Lagash was not the capital, but that Girsu, the religious centre, actually was.
The religious centre, Girsu, therefore, with Lagash secondary to it, must be Jerusalem.
This has since led me to the realisation that the land of Sumer needs to be de-nuded of some of its most famous names. Places that seemingly just drop out of history.
That is because they did not belong there in the first place.
Seth Richardson, refers to them as ‘falling off the political map’. Thus I wrote on this:
Amazingly - though not really surprisingly under the circumstances - Lagash and Girsu seem to ‘fall permanently off the political map’, according to Seth Richardson (and that is because they do not belong on this map):
Ningirsu returns to his plow: Lagaš and Girsu take leave of Ur (2008)
(5) Ningirsu returns to his plow: Lagaš and Girsu take leave of Ur (2008) | Seth Richardson - Academia.edu
The Ur III state came to its end through a series of passive defections of individual provinces over the course of about twenty years, rather than by any single catastrophic event. This pattern of defections is nowhere better reflected than in the gradual progression of provinces abandoning the use of Ibbi-Sîn’s year names over his years 2–8.
Among the cities that fell away from the control of Ur in those years were Girsu and Lagaš, where Ur III year names are not attested after Ibbi-Sîn’s sixth year. …. Like Puzriš-Dagān and Umma (but unlike Larsa, Uruk, Isin, and Nippur), these cities seemingly fell permanently off the political map of lower Mesopotamia following their departure from Ur’s control, never again the seat of significant institutional life to judge by the low number of texts and inscriptions coming from the sites. At the same time, it is difficult to assert from evidence that any hardship or conflict either precipitated or resulted from Lagaš-Girsu’s decamping from Ur’s authority; no especial difficulty marks the event. ….
Considering that Puzrish-Dagan and Umma likewise fall off the map, we may need now to begin critically examining these two places as well.
Happily, for Sumeriologists and the like, Larsa, Uruk, Isin, and Nippur, seem to be firmly established in Sumer.
Though I would distinguish between the well-known Sumerian Uruk and the Urukku seemingly associated with Girsu (my Jerusalem) as its sanctuary.
(Ur, Uruk, appear to have been very common ancient names, widely distributed).
Also to be distinguished, in this context, are the Sumerian Ur and the home of Abram, “Ur of the Chaldees”, which is Urfa (Şanliurfa) in SE Turkey, far from Sumer.
Finally, given my view (and that of others) that Jerusalem was the same site as the antediluvian Garden of Eden, then the Gu-Edin (Guedena) over which the king of Lagash, Eannatum (yet to be identified), and the king of Umma, fought, could perhaps be a reference to the region of Jerusalem (or some place closely associated with it).
[End of quotes]
When the Jews were exiled to Sumer, their history must have become known, but re-cast in Sumerian fashion, with Sumerian pronunciations replacing Hebrew ones.
King Dadusha’s famous stele, honouring the god, Adad, might lead one to think that David (if Dadusha) was an idolater.
But some think that this stele would have been set up, instead, by Dadusha’s son, Ibal-pi-el, who must then be King Solomon himself, who did apostatise, and who did build polytheistic and idolatrous shrines (I Kings 11:1-13).
Or, it might simply be that the god, Adad, was the best name representation for the God of Israel in that SE part of the ancient world.
Some commentators suggest that King David, rather than Hadadezer, set up his boundary stele, at the Euphrates (2 Samuel 8:3): “Moreover, David defeated Hadadezer son of Rehob, king of Zobah, when he [meaning David] went to restore his monument at the Euphrates River”.
King Solomon
I have most tentatively identified King Solomon above with Jabin king of Hazor (the Mari Letters). And, somewhat more confidently, with Ibal-pi-el of Eshnunna.
Most confidently, I have identified King Solomon, in Eighteenth Dynasty Egypt, as Senenmut, adviser (consort?) to the female pharaoh, Hatshepsut. See e.g. my article:
Solomon and Sheba
(3) Solomon and Sheba | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
I also suggested in this article that the sage king Solomon has been appropriated by the Greeks as the Athenian statesman (using Hebrew laws, no less), Solomon.
Senenmut is often considered by historians to have been ‘the real power behind the throne’ of Egypt.
Conventional historians, however, have no hope whatsoever of identifying any of the above characters (presuming any of them be legitimate) with King Solomon. To do so, they would need to cross geographical boundaries and timelines. Thus:
C18th BC Syro-Palestine, as Jabin of Hazor and/or Ibal-pi-el of Eshnunna.
C15th BC Egypt, as Senenmut during the Eighteenth Dynasty. Not to mention
C11th BC Jerusalem, as the biblical King Solomon.
Naturally, this throws into absolute chaos the conventional archaeology.
And so we get puerile statements by the likes of Israeli professor Israel Finkelstein: “Now Solomon. I think I destroyed Solomon, so to speak. Sorry for that!”
(Draper, R., “Kings of Controversy”, National Geographic, December 2010, p. 85).
Doubtlessly, there will be other intriguing manifestations of the great king as well, including possibly in a pseudo AD ‘history’ (Charlemagne?, Suleiman?).
Now, with Lagash re-identified as the Judean Lachish, then a supposedly much earlier character of note emerges as a prime candidate for King Solomon the Temple builder.
I refer to:
Gudea ensi of Lagash
We now have to locate ourselves back in c. 2100 BC, although the dating of Gudea is almost as liquid as has been that of Hammurabi of Babylon.
Gudea is variously dated to c. 2144-2124 BC (middle chronology), or c. 2080–2060 BC (short chronology).
I am going to date him closer to c. 950 BC – about 1200 years lower than the earliest conventional estimate for him.
“Parallels between Gudea’s and Solomon’s account include … taxing the people; costly imports; divine word requiring obedience; detailed description of opulent furnishings; consecration; installation of divine majesty into temple; speech by ruler at consecration imploring divine bounty; specification of ruler’s offering …”.
Diane M. Sharon
Having the ancient city of Lagash rudely transferred from deep in Sumer, to be re-located 1300-plus km (as I estimate it) westwards, as the fort of Lachish, as I have proposed to be necessary in articles such as:
As Ashduddu (Ashdod) is to Lachish, so, likewise, is Eshnunna to Lagash
(7) As Ashduddu (Ashdod) is to Lachish, so, likewise, is Eshnunna to Lagash | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
then it comes as no surprise - in fact, I would have expected it - to learn that Gudea’s Temple hymn has Jewish resonances.
It just remains to be determined with which prominent Jewish builder, Gudea – {a name that looks like Judea, but supposedly means: “the messenger or the one called by the god, or “the receiver of revelation”, meaning “the prophet”} – may have been.
Diane M. Sharon, who has dated the era of Gudea about a millennium too early, has nevertheless written most interestingly at the beginning of her 1996 article, “A Biblical Parallel to a Sumerian Temple Hymn? Ezekiel 40–48 and Gudea”:
Ezekiel’s remarkably detailed vision of the future temple as described in chapters 40–48 is unique in Biblical literature. …. However, it bears undeniable resemblance to the ancient Near Eastern genre of Sumerian temple hymns, and to one example in particular. …. This example, commonly referred to as the Gudea Cylinders, was written at about 2125 B.C.E. to commemorate the building of a temple to the god Ningirsu by Gudea, king of Lagash. …. It recounts a vision received by Gudea in a dream, in which he is shown the plan and dimensions of the temple he is to build. While in fundamental ways these texts are quite different, this paper will focus on the common features of theme, structure, and detail shared by these two documents.
We will focus first on the major themes which are common to Ezekiel and Gudea, addressing especially the association of the temple with abundance, and particularly with water as a symbol of fertility associated with the temple. We will also address a second theme in common, the concern with gradations of purification and consecration.
Ezekiel’s vision of the restored temple is the culmination of his prophetic mission, which spanned more than twenty years during the sixth century B.C.E. …. The burden of his message in most of his book is the inevitability of the destruction of Jerusalem, the death of most of Judah’s inhabitants, and the scattering of the pitiful remainder. ….
But from the time God tells Ezekiel to watch for a refugee bearing the news of Jerusalem’s downfall, Ezekiel begins to prophesy against Israel’s enemies. …. While his message can never be described as comforting, Ezekiel does convey hope as he begins at this point to sketch the outlines of an Israel restored to her land with a new heart and a new spirit for the honor of her God (37:22, 26–28, 32).
Ezekiel’s final chapters, dazzling in their graphic description of the divine majesty re-establishing residence in the magnificent re-sanctified precincts of a rebuilt temple, conclude with an unmistakable allusion to fertility and abundance (47:9–12).
In notably parallel circumstances [sic], Gudea’s temple-building occurs toward the end of the seventy- or eighty-year domination of Sumer by a people known as the Gutians. …. The Gutian invasion, described in the Sumerian lament, “The Curse of Agade,” … resulted in dire famine for Sumer, with “misery, want, death and desolation thus threatening to overwhelm practically all ‘mankind fashioned by Enlil’.” ….
After these decades of oppression, the Sumerian people experience a renewal. Gudea builds a temple at the direction of the storm god Ningirsu. …. The temple’s construction and consecration represent the presence of the god’s blessings of abundance among the people … and may indeed have the same “redemptive” implications as Ezekiel’s visionary temple, that of a people rebuilt at long last after devastation by an invader and many years of foreign oppression. ….
For Gudea, the temple is a sign of the divine presence, bringing with it abundance. …. Ningirsu promises: ….
….
When to my house, the house honored in all lands,
the right arm of Lagash,
the thunderbird roaring on the horizon—
Eninnu, my kingly house,
O able shepherd Gudea, you put effectively the hand for me,
I shall call up a rain …
that from above it bring for you abundance;
and the people may spread hands with you on the abundance.
May with the laying of the foundations of my house abundance come! ….
It is interesting that in both texts at least part of the promised abundance takes the metaphoric form of being showered from above. In fact, an important parallel between the two works is the repetition of all types of water images, many associated with fertility, and some—notably thunderstorms and water flowing from the earth— also associated with the appearance of the divinity.
In the Sumerian hymn, water images abound. The overflow of the river signals to Gudea that the god wants something of him. …. Gudea floats down the river in a barge, seeking the clarifying oracle and stopping at different stages on the way to appease the tutelary gods with bread and libations of clear water. …. The clan (area) of the goddess Nanshe, another divinity invoked in Gudea’s dream, is described as “superabundant waters spreading abundance,” i7-mah a-diri hé-gál-bi pàr-pàr. …. Repeatedly, the heart of a god is referred to as a flood, or as a river overflowing. …. And the god Ningirsu, himself the personification of the thundercloud and the overflowing river, is invoked with unmistakable references to waters of fertility. ….
In the final chapters of Ezekiel, YHWH, too, partakes of this image of divine abundance associated with water, though to be sure the associations are attenuated and not always clear-cut. For example, in Ezekiel’s second vision of theophany, the sound of God’s voice is compared to the sound of “the voice of mighty waters,” … (43:2). Ezekiel compares this theophany to his first experience many years before, both specifically located by the river Chebar. ….
But by far the most dramatic water image in the book of Ezekiel is manifestly associated with fertility and abundance: that of the river issuing from beneath the visionary temple in 47:1–12. Moshe Greenberg remarks that Ezekiel’s celestial architect leads Ezekiel from the modest origin of the spring and measures its growth into “an unfordable river after a 4,000-cubit flow through a desert!” …. Greenberg is impressed with the connection between this flow of water and miraculous abundance, and notes:
This vision specifically connects Temple and fertility and singles out for transformation the most barren tract of land—the wilderness of Judah—and the body of water most inhospitable to life, the Dead Sea, a dramatic exhibition of God’s beneficent presence in the temple. ….
Raphael Patai is also impressed by this association between the temple and fertility, and he was the first to make this particular connection between Ezekiel’s vision and Gudea’s temple. ….
Both Gudea and Ezekiel are deeply concerned with purification. …. All those who are “impure” … are banished from Gudea’s city, and the king consecrates the city and the ground on which he will build his temple with fire and with incense. ….
In a sense, for Ezekiel, the people will have already been purified by an ordeal by fire in the destruction and exile. Nevertheless, purification and gradations of holiness are still a major concern of Ezekiel’s, never more apparent than in this vision of the Temple rebuilt.
According to Greenberg, the very design of Ezekiel’s visionary Temple reflects the prophet’s focus upon sanctity. Greenberg comments that: ….
The Temple proper expresses gradation of holiness by the successively narrowing entrances to its inner parts. Along the border between the two courts rooms and zones are appointed for activities which if not properly contained might violate the grades of holiness.
God’s blessing follows closely upon the consecration of the temple. Once the temple is completed and the degrees of holiness are appropriately defined and contained in their designated locations within the visionary edifice, the full abundance which seems contingent on proper sanctification bursts forth in the form of the spring of water emerging from the south side of the altar. ….
Gudea’s god also makes abundance contingent upon the completion of the temple, and the Sumerians enjoy gradually increasing abundance as the temple construction progresses. For Gudea’s people, abundance begins from the moment the foundation of the temple is laid; … and, of course, when the temple is completed, abundance rains down and is also raised from the earth in the form of grain. ….
It is possible to view the gradually increasing abundance which follows the progress of building Gudea’s temple as an expression of the same idea in a different metaphor as the abundance which follows the carefully designated degrees of holiness embodied in the design of Ezekiel’s visionary temple.
The divine command in both instances is for an edifice which expresses in its design (in Ezekiel’s case) or in its process of construction (in Gudea’s case) the idea of progressive sanctification. Upon the achievement of the final sanctification in both cases, the divine blessing of abundance pours forth in the form of fertilizing water.
In addition to these two major themes of, first, associating temple with both water and abundance, and, second, preoccupation with degrees of sanctity, the structural pattern of the temple vision in Ezekiel shares much in common with the structure of the Gudea hymn. ….
Let us first summarize the common structural pattern, and then we will examine specific details. The common structural pattern consists of seven points:
1) annunciation to the seer in a vision or a dream of the divine desire to have a temple built; ….
2) a precise blueprint received in an altered state of consciousness at the hand of a divine “architectural assistant”;
3) concern throughout with purification, consecration, and ritual/ cultic renewal;
4) installation of the divine majesty into the completed edifice;
5) assignment of specific duties to designated temple personnel;
6) ultimate consecration of the temple for service to the divinity; followed, finally, by
7) the divine blessing in the form of abundance expressed in water imagery.
The idea of a cosmogonic pattern for temple archetypes is recurrent in the critical literature of comparative mythology … and has been seen in biblical and ancient Near Eastern literature as well. ….
Several of the points outlined in the scholarly literature as they relate to food narratives or to edifice construction in Mesopotamian and Biblical literature apply as well to the accounts we have been considering in Ezekiel and Gudea, specifically, the associations among temple, water, and abundance; the divine request for a temple as conveyed to a king or priest; the requirement for cultic purification; and the celebration of a recurring annual ritual of re-consecration. ….
Taken together with other scholarly studies on temple models of the ancient Near East reflected in Hebrew scripture … the correspondences among so many sacred constructions from so many different, though related, cultures in the ancient Near East suggest an implicit, if not explicit, paradigm for the structure and function of “Temple” that was operative over a long period and at many levels. The several biblical accounts that correspond to this hypothetical model may be adduced as evidence that Hebrew scribes and prophets were familiar with this genre and incorporated it into their writings.
Before proceeding to consideration of our third task, the examination of parallels in the details of the two texts, it is worthwhile noting that the structure and details of Gudea’s building program also bear great resemblance to other temple construction accounts in the Bible, specifically Solomon’s activity described in 1 Kgs. 5:1–9:9 and Hezekiah’s reconstruction and repair of the temple outlined in 2 Chronicles 29–31.
While a deeper analysis must wait, a summary of the parallels might be illuminating for the reader of the present paper. Parallels between Gudea’s and Solomon’s account include: … taxing the people; costly imports; divine word requiring obedience; detailed description of opulent furnishings; consecration; installation of divine majesty into temple; speech by ruler at consecration imploring divine bounty; specification of ruler’s offering; feast of seven days; and divine exhortation to moral and ethical behavior by ruler and subjects. ….
Sumerian History in Chaos:
Urukagina, first reformer, or C8th BC ruler of Jerusalem?
by
Damien F. Mackey
Sorting amongst the:
Sumerian Geography in Chaos
(6) Sumerian Geography in Chaos | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
we needed to go as far back as c. 2100 BC to find King Solomon in the:
Sumerian History in Chaos
(5) Sumerian History in Chaos | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
as Gudea, the famous ensi (governor) of Lagash, or Lakish (= Lachish).
Then we needed to slide down the artificial timeline by a further three centuries, approximately, to find King Solomon now at c. 1780 BC, as Ibal-pi-el (so-called) II, the son of Dadusha (King David), and supposed nephew of Naram-Sin (also King David). These were kings of Eshnunna, which, again, is (another name for) Lagash (Lachish).
As I have explained before, ASHDOD (ASHDUDDA)/LACHISH - is - ESHNUNNA/LAGASH.
Another most notable historical occupant of Lagash was one URUKAGINA.
To find him in the text books, we need to go all the way back to the virtual beginnings of recorded history, to c. 2400 BC, approximating to the time of King Sargon of Akkad.
However, if Urukagina was in control of Lachish in SW Judah (Shephelah) - which location I believe that Lagash was - then there is every good chance, indeed, that Urukagina (just like Gudea) will have a biblical identity.
Who, then, was this Urukagina?
To find him, things now become really radical and somewhat complicated.
An Explanatory Note: My earlier effort to write this article, with Urukagina of Lagash there identified as the chief official of King Hezekiah of Judah, namely, Eliakim son of Hilkiah - whom I had further identified as the Akhimiti of Sargon II of Assyria’s Annals, to whom the Assyrians gave rulership over “Ashdod”, my Lachish (= Lagash) - began to come unstuck when I realised that Urukagina, formerly an ensi (governor), was later being referred to as Lugal, meaning “King” (literally “Big Man”).
This term was most unlikely applicable to Eliakim/Akhimiti, despite his apparent prominence.
Part One: Urukagina identified
Previously I had written:
To find Urukagina, we need to scroll down a massive (2400 – 700 =) 1700 years, approximately, to the era of Sargon II, whose era was far distant from Sargon of Akkad.
For Urukagina was, as we shall determine, a High Priest official of King Hezekiah of Judah, at the time of Sargon II/Sennacherib of Assyria (c. 700 BC, standard dating).
I propose to match Urukagina with Eliakim son of Hilkiah, generally thought to have been King Hezekiah’s Major Domo, but who was actually the High Priest.
For more on this, see e.g. my article:
Hezekiah’s Chief Official Eliakim was High Priest
(5) Hezekiah's Chief Official Eliakim was High Priest | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Before we can proceed any further, though, I need to add a further crucial dimension to Eliakim son of Hilkiah from the contemporary Assyrian records.
In my university thesis (2007), I tentatively identified Eliakim with Akhimiti, whom Sargon II established at “Ashdod” (Lachish) after he had deposed the rebellious Azuri.
Akhimiti (Mitinti) of Ashdod
Here follows the dramatic sequence of events at Lachish as we learn about them in the records of the Assyrian king, Sargon II/Sennacherib, following Charles Boutflower (The Book of Isaiah, Chapters I-XXXIX, in Light of the Assyrian Monuments, London, Soc. for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, 1930).
I wrote this in my thesis (Volume One, pp. 156-158):
Was it that Sargon II - hence, that Sennacherib - had instead referred to Lachish by the descriptive title of ‘Ashdod’, whose capture Sargon covers in detail?
Let us now follow Boutflower in his reconstruction of this somewhat complex campaign, referring to the fragment Sm. 2022 of Sargon’s Annals, which he calls “one particularly precious morsel”:
The longer face [of this fragment] ... has a dividing line drawn across it near the bottom. Immediately below this line, and somewhat to the left, there can be seen with the help of a magnifying-glass a group of nine cuneiform indentations arranged in three parallel horizontal rows. Even the uninitiated will easily understand that we have here a representation of the number “9”. It is this figure, then, which gives to the fragment its special interest, for it tells us, as I am about to show, “the year that the Tartan came unto Ashdod”.
Boutflower now moves on to the focal point of Assyria’s concerns: mighty ‘Ashdod’:
The second difficulty in Sm. 2022 is connected with the mention of Ashdod in the part below the dividing line. According to the reckoning of time adopted on this fragment something must have happened at Ashdod at the beginning of Sargon’s ninth year, i.e. at the beginning of the tenth year, the year 712 BC, according to the better-known reckoning of the Annals. Now, when we turn to the Annals and examine the record of this tenth year, we find no mention whatever of Ashdod. Not till we come to the second and closing portion of the record for the eleventh year do we meet with the account of the famous campaign against that city.
What, then, is the solution to this second difficulty Boutflower asks? And he answers this as follows:
Simply this: that the mention of Ashdod on the fragment Sm. 2022 does not refer to the siege of that town, which, as just stated, forms the second and closing event in the record of the following year, but in all probability does refer to the first of those political events which led up to the siege, viz. the coming of the Tartan to Ashdod.
To make this plain, I will now give the different accounts of the Ashdod imbroglio found in the inscriptions of Sargon, beginning with the one in the Annals (lines 215-228) already referred to, which runs thus:
“Azuri king of Ashdod, not to bring tribute his heart was set, and to the kings in his neighbourhood proposals of rebellion against Assyria he sent. Because of the evil he did, over the men of his land I changed his lordship. Akhimiti his own brother, to sovereignty over them I appointed. The Khatte [Hittites], plotting rebellion, hated his lordship; and Yatna, who had no title to the throne, who, like themselves, the reverence due to my lordship did not acknowledge, they set up over them. In the wrath of my heart, riding in my war-chariot, with my cavalry, who do not retreat from the place whither I turn my hands, to Ashdod, his royal city, I marched in haste. Ashdod, Gimtu [Gath?], Ashdudimmu … I besieged and captured. …”.
Typical Assyrian war records! Boutflower shows how they connect right through to Sargon’s Year 11, which both he and Tadmor date to 711 BC:
The above extract forms ... the second and closing portion of the record given in the Annals under Sargon’s 11th year, 711 BC., the earlier portion of the record for that year being occupied with the account of the expedition against Mutallu of Gurgum. In the Grand Inscription of Khorsabad we meet with a very similar account, containing a few fresh particulars. The usurper Yatna, i.e. “the Cypriot”, is there styled Yamani, “the Ionian”, thus showing that he was a Greek. We are also told that he fled away to Melukhkha on the border of Egypt, but was thrown into chains by the Ethiopian king and despatched to Assyria.
....
In order to effect the deposition of the rebellious Azuri, and set his brother Akhimiti on the throne, Sargon sent forth an armed force to Ashdod. It is in all probablity the despatch of such a force, and the successful achievement of the end in view, which were recorded in the fragment Sm. 2022 below the dividing line. As Isa xx.1 informs us - and the statement, as we shall presently see, can be verified from contemporary sources - this first expedition was led by the Tartan. Possibly this may be the reason why it was not thought worthy to be recorded in the Annals under Sargon’s tenth year, 712 BC. But when we come to the eleventh year, 711 BC, and the annalist very properly and suitably records the whole series of events leading up to the siege, two things at once strike us: first, that all these events could not possibly have happened in the single year 711 BC; and secondly, as stated above, that a force must have previously been despatched at the beginning of the troubles to accomplish the deposition of Azuri and the placing of Akhimiti on the throne. On the retirement of this force sedition must again have broken out in Ashdod, for it appears that the anti-Assyrian party were able, after a longer or shorter interval, once more to get the upper hand, to expel Akhimiti, and to set up in his stead a Greek adventurer, Yatna-Yamani. The town was then strongly fortified, and surrounded by a moat.
It is at about this stage, Year 11, that Sargon was stirred into action:
Meanwhile, the news of what was going on at Ashdod appears to have reached the Great King at the beginning of his eleventh year, according to the reckoning of the annalist .... So enraged was Sargon that, without waiting to collect a large force, he started off at once with a picked body of cavalry, crossed those rivers in flood, and marched with all speed to the disaffected province.
Such at least is his own account; but I shall presently adduce reasons which lead one to think that he did not reach Ashdod as speedily as we might expect from the description of his march, but stopped on his way to put down a revolt in the country of Gurgum. In thus hastening to the West Sargon tells us that he was urged on by intelligence that the whole of Southern Syria, including Judah, Edom, and Moab, as well as Philistia, was ripe for revolt, relying on ample promises of support from Pharaoh king of Egypt.
We find, as we switch to what I believe to be Sennacherib’s corresponding campaign (his Third Campaign) to discover how Assyria dealt with the Egyptian factor, that a ringleader in this sedition was king Hezekiah himself:
The officials, nobles and people of Ekron, who had thrown Padi, their king, bound by (treaty to) Assyria, into fetters of iron and had given him over to Hezekiah, the Jew (Iaudai), - he kept him in confinement like an enemy, - they (lit., their heart) became afraid and called upon the Egyptian kings, the bowmen, chariots and horse of the king of Meluh-ha (Ethiopia), a countless host, and these came to their aid. In the neighborhood of the city of Altakû (Eltekeh), their ranks being drawn up before me, they offered battle. (Trusting) in the aid of Assur, my lord, I fought with them and brought about their defeat. The Egyptian charioteers and princes, together with the charioteers of the Ethiopian king, my hands took alive in the midst of the battle.
Charles Boutflower was able to deduce from the record of Sargon’s Year 10 what he considered to have been the reason why the first expedition against ‘Ashdod’ was led, not by Sargon in person, but by his ‘Turtan’.
This was because “Sargon was busy over his darling scheme, the decoration of the new palace at Dur-Sargon.
… It was with this object in view that Sargon remained “in the land”, i.e. at home, during the year 712, entrusting the first expedition to Ashdod to his Tartan, as stated in Isa xx.1”.
Boutflower’s detailed chronological reconstruction of the events associated with the siege of ‘Ashdod’ seems to be right in line with Tadmor’s more recent, and more clipped, reconstruction of the same events. ….
[End of quotes]
This series of dramatic incidents will be what I think are right at the forefront of what we read about Urukagina and the invasions of his time (see Part Two).
Next, I attempted to identify the succession of officials at Ashdod, as named in the Annals of Sargon II, with leading figures during the reign of King Hezekiah of Judah (thesis, pp. 161-162):
Now if Sargon’s ‘Ashdod’ really were Lachish as I am proposing here, and his war were therefore being brought right into king Hezekiah’s Judaean territory, then we might even hold out some hope of being able to identify, with Hezekian officials, the succession of rulers of ‘Ashdod’ whom Sargon names. I refer to Azuri, Yatna-Yamani and Akhimiti. The first and the last of these names are Hebrew. The middle ones, Yatna-Yamani, are generally thought to be Greek-related, as we saw above; but Tadmor supports the view of Winckler and others that Yamani at least “was of local Palestinian origin”; being likely the equivalent of either Imnâ or Imna‛. ….
Hezekiah had, much to Assyria’s fury, enlarged the territory of his kingdom by absorbing Philistia, and had placed captains over key cities. This would no doubt have included those governors with Jewish names in the Philistine cities. Thus Sennacherib, as we saw, refers to a Padi (Pedaiah) in Ekron and a Tsidqa (Zedekiah) in Ashkelon. As for Lachish, we could expect that the king of Jerusalem might have entrusted to only a very high official the responsibility of so important a fort. I propose to identify Sargon’s:
• AzURI with the high priest URIah … most notably in the time of Hezekiah’s father, Ahaz (2 Kings 16:10-11; cf. Isaiah 8:1-4);
• YatNA with the ill-fated ShebNA … of Hezekiah’s time; and
• AKHI-Miti (Azuri’s brother) with Hezekiah’s chief official, EliAKIM …. Akhi-miti correspondingly appears as Mitinti (thought to be Hebrew, Mattaniah … as the ruler of ‘Ashdod’ in Sennacherib’s Third Campaign account.
[End of quote]
Here I am primarily interested in Eliakim as Akhimiti (Mitinti), and, potentially, now, as Urukagina.
The prophet Jeremiah
The final piece to be fitted into the jigsaw will be to recall my further identification of Eliakim son of Hilkiah with the great prophet Jeremiah son of Hilkiah (of numerous other alter egos as well), the latter being so vital - as I hope to show - towards the proper understanding of Urukagina of Lagash and his great teachings of reform.
For the Eliakim/Jeremiah connection, see e.g. my article:
Jeremiah was both prophet and high priest
(5) Jeremiah was both prophet and high priest | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
This fusion, Eliakim/Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, can be achieved only with my radical identification of the reforming King Hezekiah of Judah with the reforming King Josiah of Judah. This connection is perhaps best explained in my article:
Damien F. Mackey’s A Tale of Two Theses
(5) Damien F. Mackey's A Tale of Two Theses | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
I hope to be able to show that Jeremiah (also Eliakim) son of Hilkiah matches very well with Urukagina of Lagash and Girsu (my Jerusalem), whose famous laws and reforms (inspiring, along with Isaiah, the great Reformation of King Hezekiah/Josiah) will be found to have been later Judean, rather than most ancient Sumerian.
While a lot of the above still holds good - for example the revised era and geography, the great Reform of the time - it now seems that Urukagina himself, though, as Lugal, “King”, is far more likely to have been the reforming King of Jerusalem at the time, rather than his reform-urging prophet and potential governor of Lachish.
Let us reconsider our main character, Urukagina, now as Lugal.
Taking the following account of Urukagina from the Sumerian Shakespeare:
http://sumerianshakespeare.com/70701/77001.html I shall be adding some pertinent comments to test whether Urukagina can make an adequate reforming King of Judah.
A Sumerian king. There are no known images of Urukagina. This terra cotta figure is from the city of Ur and is dated in a later period. The king carries a shepherd's flail, a symbol of authority, and he stands before an offering table. He wears a shepherd's hat, the crown of a Sumerian king.
Mackey’s (previous) comment: Urukagina is also called ensi (governor) of the city of Lagash. Eliakim, son of Hilkiah, is wrongly thought to have been Major Domo when, in fact, he was the High Priest. This office may possibly be indicated by the symbols above, “shepherd's flail … and he stands before an offering table”.
Urukagina reigned for seven years in the city of Lagash, sometime around 2375 B.C. (Sumerian dates are never very certain). The pronunciation of his name is Uru-ka-gina,
though he is also known as Iri-ka-gina and Uru-inim-gina. His signature is shown at the bottom of the page [at the end of this article].
Mackey’s comment: “… 2375 B.C.” The era c. 2400 BC (as a round number) is more befitting of the time of the Great Genesis (Noachic) Flood.
As the ensi (ruler, governor) of the city of Lagash, he followed a long line of powerful monarchs that began with Ur-Nanshe and continued for several generations with Eannatum and Enmetena. During recent years, however, the power and prestige of Lagash seemed to be on the decline.
Mackey’s comment: The correct order, and identifications, of these governors of Lagash (if that is what they all were), Ur-Nanshe, Eannatum and Enmetana, may need now seriously to be re-assessed.
Urukagina may not have been of royal descent, since he did not assume the rulership by the normal means of royal succession and he never signed himself as dumu, "son of," which seems to indicate his father was not a high-ranking nobleman with a title worth mentioning. ….
Mackey’s (previous) comment: If Urukagina was a High Priest, then he - while not being of the royal line - would, nonetheless, have been a man of the greatest distinction.
Urukagina’s immediate predecessor was ensi Lugalanda, who had a reputation for greed and corruption. Lugalanda seized control of the most important temples, those of the gods Ningirsu and Shulshagana and the goddess Bau. He placed them under the administration
of an official that he appointed who was not, as formerly the case, a priest. Lugalanda also appointed himself, his wife Baranamtarra, and other family members, as administrators of the temples. He referred to the temples as the private property of the ensi. He no longer mentioned the names of deities in temple documents and he levied taxes on the priesthood.
Lugalanda and his wife became the largest landholders in the region. His wife shared in the ensi’s power, managing her own private estates and those of the Bau temple. She sent diplomatic missions to neighboring states and she bought and sold slaves.
(source: "The Creation of Patriarchy," by Gerda Lerner)
Mackey’s (previous) comment: Lugalanda would presumably be the rebellious Azuri of the Assyrian records, who may also have been the corrupt priest, Uriah, at the time of King Ahaz of Judah. Nepotism appears to have been rife.
Mackey’s (revised) comment: Lugalanda would likely have been the corrupt and idolatrous king, Ahaz of Judah.
Tensions between the ensi and the community increased. On his foundation cones (below) Urukagina describes the prevailing conditions for the common people. Their boats were
seized by the chief of the boatmen. Their sheep were appropriated by the head herdsman, and their fish stores were confiscated by the fisheries inspector. The “men of the ensi”
cut down the orchards of the poor and they conscripted workers to labor in their fields.
Court officials were “everywhere.” The ensi took the best land for himself and used the
sacred oxen from the temples to plow his fields. The temple officials were also greedy
and corrupt.
They charged excessive fees to perform their religious rituals and to bury
the dead. They took bribes, levied onerous taxes which they shared with the ensi, and they likewise used the temple oxen to plow their fields. Although these conditions had existed
to some degree since time immemorial (“from distant days”) they seemed to become
much worse during the reign of Lugalanda.
Mackey’s (previous) comment: This is pure Jeremiah, and examples could be greatly multiplied. Here is just one relevant comment:
https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/ordinary-16-2/commentary-on-jeremiah-231-6-7
Jeremiah’s critique of leaders is born from his compassion for the people.
“Woe!” This passage begins with the cry that marks an oracle of destruction.
It is a hook that the audience can’t ignore.
Corrupt leadership
Jeremiah has his eye fixed in particular on the leaders: “Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!” (Jeremiah 23:1). The shepherd is a common ancient metaphor for leaders, and for kings in particular. That leaders bear more responsibility than their people for social fate and for social injustice is a view shared by the prophet Ezekiel, who employs this same metaphor to speak of the exile of Judah in Babylon (Ezekiel 34).
There is a persistent ethical thread throughout the Hebrew Bible: God requires the community to be ruled with justice and righteousness, which is manifested in the treatment of the alien, the orphan, and the widow (Jeremiah 22:3-4). But rulers who seek their own fortune, who expand their houses and enrich their coffers at the expense of the poor are in egregious violation of God’s covenant, and will be held accountable (Jeremiah 22:13-17).
In the contemporary context, political and religious leaders give us ample opportunity to consider how corruption at the highest levels leads to the increasing devastation of the poor and the marginalized. Recent White House policies aimed at deterring immigration are separating immigrant families at the United States borders. The trauma this poses for children and their families is an example of a breach of care for the alien and the poor.
In this passage, the social disintegration of the exile at the hands of the Babylonian empire is the responsibility of rulers:
“It is you [shepherds] who have scattered my flock, and have driven them away, and have not attended to them” (Jeremiah 23:2).
The prophet wrestles with the question of who is to blame for suffering and political trauma, and offers two answers: It is you [shepherds] who have driven them into exile (Jeremiah 23:2) and it is I [God] who have driven them into exile (Jeremiah 23:3). There is a poetic cadence to this repetition that on the one hand holds corrupt leadership accountable for their oppression of the poor, but also insists that it is God who is ultimately powerful. This is a tension that Jeremiah carefully holds. ….
Mackey’s (revised) comment: Urukagina would be King Hezekiah (Josiah) of Judah, whose extensive reforms were inspired by the prophets, Micah (= Zephaniah); Isaiah; and Eliakim/Jeremiah.
…. Urukagina claimed he was acting on behalf of boatmen, shepherds, fisherman and farmers, and he implied he was aided by the priests. The priesthood of Lagash had always been very influential, but if the temple officials thought they were playing the role of “king maker” by bringing Urukagina to power, they would later have cause to regret it.
Urukagina, ensi of Lagash.
The examples of cuneiform writing on this page are from tablets
and from clay "tags" that were used to identify various statues.
The statues themselves were destroyed long ago in the many wars that occurred in the region.
… Urukagina soon set about making some changes. He dismissed many corrupt officials, the chief boatmen, head herdsmen and fishery inspectors who had seized private property.
He confiscated the estates of the ensi and placed them under the jurisdiction of the gods
(i.e., the temples). Urukagina removed many court officials, including supervisors who controlled the grain tax. He dismissed the priests who had taken bribes and the temple administrators who had shared tax revenues with the ensi.
Mackey’s comment: Ultimately, it would be the Lord himself who would set about the removal of the corrupt and the sinful ones (e.g., Jeremiah 8:1-15):
‘At that time, declares the LORD, the bones of the kings and officials of Judah, the bones of the priests and prophets, and the bones of the people of Jerusalem will be removed from their graves.
They will be exposed to the sun and the moon and all the stars of the heavens, which they have loved and served and which they have followed and consulted and worshiped. They will not be gathered up or buried, but will be like dung lying on the ground.
Wherever I banish them, all the survivors of this evil nation will prefer death to life, declares the LORD Almighty.’
Sin and Punishment
Say to them, ‘This is what the LORD says: “ ‘When people fall down, do they not get up? When someone turns away, do they not return?
Why then have these people turned away? Why does Jerusalem always turn away? They cling to deceit; they refuse to return.
I have listened attentively, but they do not say what is right. None of them repent of their wickedness, saying, “What have I done?” Each pursues their own course like a horse charging into battle.
Even the stork in the sky knows her appointed seasons, and the dove, the swift and the thrush observe the time of their migration. But my people do not know the requirements of the LORD.
‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?
The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and trapped. Since they have rejected the word of the LORD, what kind of wisdom do they have?
Therefore I will give their wives to other men and their fields to new owners. From the least to the greatest, all are greedy for gain; prophets and priests alike, all practice deceit.
They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. “Peace, peace,” they say, when there is no peace.
Are they ashamed of their detestable conduct? No, they have no shame at all; they do not even know how to blush. So they will fall among the fallen; they will be brought down when they are punished, says the LORD.
‘I will take away their harvest, declares the LORD. There will be no grapes on the vine. There will be no figs on the tree, and their leaves will wither. What I have given them will be taken from them’.
Why are we sitting here? Gather together! Let us flee to the fortified cities and perish there! For the LORD our God has doomed us to perish and given us poisoned water to drink, because we have sinned against him.
We hoped for peace but no good has come, for a time of healing but there is only terror.
Then Urukagina set limits on the amount that the priests could collect for their religious rituals and their fees for burying the dead. He cancelled debt slavery and declared a general amnesty for the citizens of Lagash, even for criminals, even for thieves and murderers (“their prison he cleared out”). Last but not least, he provided charity for the poor and the elderly. In all of these actions Urukagina claimed he was directed by the gods.
Mackey’s comment: “… directed by the gods”. Originally, by God.
Comparative examples of Jeremiah’s concern for the poor could be multiplied.
E.g. Jeremiah 2:26, 34-35; 5:26-31:
As a thief is disgraced when he is caught,
so the people of Israel are disgraced—
they, their kings and their officials,
their priests and their prophets.
….
On your clothes is found
the lifeblood of the innocent poor,
though you did not catch them breaking in.
Yet in spite of all this
you say, ‘I am innocent;
he is not angry with me.’
Among my people are the wicked
who lie in wait like men who snare birds
and like those who set traps to catch people.
Like cages full of birds,
their houses are full of deceit;
they have become rich and powerful
and have grown fat and sleek.
Their evil deeds have no limit;
they do not seek justice.
They do not promote the case of the fatherless;
they do not defend the just cause of the poor.
Should I not punish them for this?”
declares the LORD.
“Should I not avenge myself
on such a nation as this?
A horrible and shocking thing
has happened in the land:
The prophets prophesy lies,
the priests rule by their own authority,
and my people love it this way.
But what will you do in the end?
Mackey’s comment: This also wonderfully reflects the sweeping religious and socio-political/economic reform of Judah’s greatest king after David, Hezekiah/Josiah:
https://loandbeholdbible.com/2021/11/08/king-josiah-the-religious-reformer/
“A son will be born to the house of David by the name of Josiah.” (1 Kings 13:2)
Josiah may not be that widely known, but along with Hezekiah, he was one of Judah’s most saintly kings. Like Christ, his birth was prophesied hundreds of years beforehand (1 Kings 13:1-2). He brought religious reform to his kingdom, restored worship at the Temple of Jerusalem, publicly read the Scriptures and defended the poor and needy (2 Chronicles 34:1-3,8, 29-33; Jeremiah 22:16).
The Second Book of Kings says: “There had never before been any king like him nor will there ever be one after him who turned to the Lord with all his heart and all his soul and all his might according to the law of Moses.” (2 Kings 23:25) He was one of the last kings to reign before Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians and the people were driven into exile.
Josiah not only served God from the heart, but he also led his nation to conversion. As Scripture later says: “He followed the right course by reforming the people and eliminating loathsome and abominable practices. He kept his heart fixed on God, and in lawless times he made godliness prevail.” (Sirach 49:2-3)
All of these reforms were carefully recorded on Urukagina’s cones and tablets to ensure that “the orphan or widow to the powerful will not be subjugated.” Urukagina's “Liberty Cones”
are the world’s first documented effort to establish the basic legal rights of citizens.
Mackey’s comment: This last comment, I would suggest, is quite false.
Urukagina’s reform was simply a renewed implementation of the Mosaïc charter written almost a millennium earlier.
Some
of the credit must go to Enmetena’s earlier efforts at reform (see Enmetena Translation),
but Urukagina’s reforms are far more comprehensive. There's nothing else like them
in the annals of ancient history. Unfortunately, they don’t get the credit they truly deserve,
even though in the evolution of human society they are just as important as the legal codes
of Ur-Namma or Hammurabi, the Magna Carta, or the American Bill of Rights.
(See a complete translation of the Liberty Cones, along with some explanatory comments.)
As noted earlier: The correct order, and identifications, of these governors of Lagash (if that is what they all were), Ur-Nanshe, Eannatum and Enmetana, may need now seriously to be re-assessed.
Conclusion: Urukagina was the reforming King Hezekiah/Josiah, inspired by those long-lived prophets, Isaiah and Jeremiah.
Part Two: Lugalzagesi identified
As noted in my article:
King Lugalzagesi joins the list of ‘camera-shy’ ancient potentates
(3) King Lugalzagesi joins the list of 'camera-shy' ancient potentates | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
the lack of any portraiture of Lugalzagesi:
“A Sumerian king. There are no known images of Lugalzagesi”.
Sumerian Shakespeare
would suggest to me that this great ruler must have had one or more other substantial alter egos.
From what we have read in Part One, it becomes fairly apparent as to who Lugalzagesi, in a revised context, must actually have been: namely, Sargon II of Assyria (who is also Sennacherib).
Once again, taking the following account from the Sumerian Shakespeare:
http://sumerianshakespeare.com/70701/77001.html I shall be adding some pertinent comments to test whether Lugalzagesi can make an adequate invading foreign ruler at the time of King Hezekiah of Judah.
One of Urukagina’s “Liberty Cones.” The cone was covered with inscriptions written to the gods, then buried near the foundations of a new temple.
Some historians like to portray Urukagina as a leader of a populist revolution in which freemen battled against the aristocracy and wealthy landowners. But Urukagina’s reforms went only so far; he was merely trying to correct the worst abuses of power, he wasn’t trying to overturn the basic structures of society.
Mackey’s comment: This last comment would basically sum up the situation.
Other historians like to emphasize his role in transitioning the Sumerians from a “temple economy,” where the temples were the administrative centers of government, to a modern secular society based on royal power. In this regard he would be like an ancestor of Henry the VIII, in the age old struggle between church and state …
Mackey’s comment: Regarding Henry the so-called VIIIth, see e.g. my recent article.
Chewing over the House of Tudor
(8) Chewing over the House of Tudor | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
… but Urukagina wasn’t an anti-religious revolutionary or an iconoclast. The estates that he confiscated from the ensis he gave to the temples. Still other historians point to his claim of working on behalf of the gods to right the wrongs of society as a self-justifying assertion of the divine right of kings, but this ground had already been covered by his predecessors, Eannatum and Enmetena, for instance. Although there's no reason to doubt the sincerity of his efforts, the simple result of his reformations was more power for himself. Evidence for this is found in the second year of his reign, when Urukagina changed his title from ensi (“ruler or governor,” which the monarchs of Lagash usually called themselves) to the loftier title of lugal, meaning “king.”
Mackey’s comment: Mention here of “king” stopped me right in my tracks with regard to my former effort to associate Urukagina with Eliakim/Akhimiti/ Jeremiah.
A possibility is that Hezekiah was co-regent at Lachish for King Ahaz of Judah, before becoming the sole king in Jerusalem.
Mackey’s further comment: Having said that about Lugal, “King”, it is most interesting to learn that:
https://www.joshobrouwers.com/articles/evolution-sumerian-kingship/
“Lugal-Zagesi is said to have had no less than fifty LUGALs beneath him”.
Cf. Isaiah 10:8: “Assyria [Sargon II] says, ‘Aren’t my commanders all kings? Can’t they do whatever they like?’”
There has been some speculation on whether or not Urukagina enacted his reforms into law or if he was just paying lip service to social reform as a way to increase his popularity with his subjects (many kings announce high-minded reforms at the beginning of their reigns, only to proceed with “business as usual”). With Urukagina there can be little doubt as to his intentions. He repeated his reforms on other foundation cones. The reforms were the central event of his reign, and they would end up costing him dearly, as will later be shown. As for whether or not he enacted the reforms into law: Urukagina was the king, his word was law. This alone was enough to guarantee that the reforms were enacted.
….
These social reforms weren't his only concern. He ruled during a period of political instability and civil war between the Sumerian city-states [sic]. His main antagonist was Lugalzagesi,
the king of Umma who was making a bid to conquer all of Sumer and Akkad (and beyond).
Mackey’s comment: The name Lugalzagesi (with various alternative spellings, such as Lugalzaggessi and Lugalzagissi), just like the name Sargon, which means “True King”, shares at least the King element.
Umma is problematical. It is yet another of those supposedly Sumerian places that drops off the political map, as we read in e.g.:
Prince of Lagash
(8) Prince of Lagash | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Umma may either be a well-known place in Sumer under a different name (below), or it may be the name for a place not in Sumer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umma
Umma (Sumerian: 𒄑𒆵𒆠 ummaKI;[1] in modern Dhi Qar Province in Iraq, formerly also called Gishban) was an ancient city in Sumer. There is some scholarly debate about the Sumerian and Akkadian names for this site.[2]
Lugalzagesi made several attacks on the kingdom of Lagash. One administrative tablet from this period is dated “the month that the man of Uruk came a third time.” It seems like Lagash was under repeated attacks from two different cities, Umma and Uruk, but in this case they are essentially the same.
Mackey’s comment: “… came a third time”. Sargon II had sent his Turtan against Lachish/Ashdod (Isaiah 20:1), then the Assyrian army came again, after Iatna-Iamani had revolted.
Then, as Sennacherib, Sargon II famously laid siege to the mighty fort-city, Lachish.
And, as we read above, “Uruk and Umma … [may] essentially [be] the same”.
Though, as we read on, the two names will now be distinguished.
Although Lugalzagesi was originally the king of Umma, he had
recently moved his capital to Uruk, so “the man of Umma,” as he’s called on another tablet,
and “the man of Uruk,” both refer to Lugalzagesi.
Umma and Uruk would be allies in the war
against Urukagina, since both cities were ruled by Lugalzagesi.
Three (or more) attacks on Urukagina within the span of seven years is a bit much, even by the Sumerian standards of internecine warfare. The reason for this was the long standing animosity between Umma and Lagash. They were at war for more than a century, battling
for control of the Guedena, the fertile land between the two cities.
Mackey’s comment: Guedena, Gu-Edin, I have identified, basically, as the ancient Eden, which became Jerusalem.
Although Lugalzagesi was
currently 'the Man of Uruk', he was born and raised as a royal prince of Umma. As such, he would have grown up hating Lagash and dreaming of the day when he could defeat it.
The Sumerian Hundred Years War was about to culminate into its final battle.
Urukagina was focused on his social reformations. He wasn't interested in foreign wars abroad or Sumerian civil wars at home. Nonetheless, although social reforms were Urukagina's primary concern, he spent most of his time defending his kingdom.
Mackey’s comment: This description fits very well with phases during the reign of King Hezekiah of Judah.
….
The gloominess of Urukagina’s situation can be sensed in a fragment from a heavily damaged foundation cone (CDLI P222617):
n lines missing
“For my part, what did I have of it?” I said to him:
“I did not do any violent act, but the dogs {the enemy} today are ... my city(?)”
n lines missing
Girsu was surrounded by it {the enemy army},
and Urukagina
exchanged blows with it with weapons.
A wall of it he {Lugalzagesi} made grow there,
and dogs he made live there.
He went away to his city,
but a second time
he came ...
rest of column missing
The “wall” is probably the enemy army surrounding the city, or it may be a siege wall constructed by the invaders to trap the civilians and defenders inside the city, cut off from outside food supplies, in order to starve them into submission. The prolonged siege of
the city caused the enemy “dogs” (soldiers) to live there for a while.
Mackey’s comment: This would be the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib.
2 Kings 18:13-17:
In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah’s reign, Sennacherib king of Assyria attacked all the fortified cities of Judah and captured them. So Hezekiah king of Judah sent this message to the king of Assyria at Lachish: ‘I have done wrong. Withdraw from me, and I will pay whatever you demand of me’. The king of Assyria exacted from Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. So Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the Temple of the LORD and in the treasuries of the royal palace.
At this time Hezekiah king of Judah stripped off the gold with which he had covered the doors and doorposts of the Temple of the LORD, and gave it to the king of Assyria.
Sennacherib Threatens Jerusalem
The king of Assyria sent his supreme commander, his chief officer and his field commander with a large army, from Lachish to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem. They came up to Jerusalem and stopped at the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Washerman’s Field.
….
Urukagina’s social reforms now came back to haunt him. He had thoroughly alienated the aristocracy, who highly resented any reduction of their royal prerogatives, even in the slightest degree. Throughout the ages, the aristocracy has always been the military class. They justified their privileged lifestyle by bringing their armies of peasants to the battlefield when summoned by the king, by being recklessly brave in combat, and by dying heroically in defense of the realm. Many a king in history has suffered tragedy and downfall after alienating his aristocracy. Urukagina was no exception. Now, when he needed them most, he could not rely on his lords and noblemen. Their defense of his kingdom would be lukewarm at best. They may have even refused to defend him, or with a few bribes and blandishments they could easily be persuaded to switch sides. It didn't help matters much that Urukagina had also alienated the clergy.
Mackey’s comment: “Their defense of his kingdom would be lukewarm at best. They may have even refused to defend him …”.
Indeed, there was a deep division between the reform-inspired King of Judah and his aristocracy, including certain leading priests.
Thus Isaiah 30:1-5
‘Woe to the obstinate children’,
declares the LORD,
‘to those who carry out plans that are not mine,
forming an alliance, but not by my Spirit,
heaping sin upon sin;
who go down to Egypt
without consulting me;
who look for help to Pharaoh’s protection,
to Egypt’s shade for refuge.
But Pharaoh’s protection will be to your shame,
Egypt’s shade will bring you disgrace.
Though they have officials in Zoan
and their envoys have arrived in Hanes,
everyone will be put to shame
because of a people useless to them,
who bring neither help nor advantage,
but only shame and disgrace’.
And Isaiah 30:7-17:
Therefore I call her [Egypt]
Rahab the Do-Nothing.
Go now, write it on a tablet for them,
inscribe it on a scroll,
that for the days to come
it may be an everlasting witness.
For these are rebellious people, deceitful children,
children unwilling to listen to the LORD’s instruction.
They say to the seers,
‘See no more visions!’
and to the prophets,
‘Give us no more visions of what is right!
Tell us pleasant things,
prophesy illusions.
Leave this way,
get off this path,
and stop confronting us
with the Holy One of Israel!’
Therefore this is what the Holy One of Israel says:
‘Because you have rejected this message,
relied on oppression
and depended on deceit,
this sin will become for you
like a high wall, cracked and bulging,
that collapses suddenly, in an instant.
It will break in pieces like pottery,
shattered so mercilessly
that among its pieces not a fragment will be found
for taking coals from a hearth
or scooping water out of a cistern’.
This is what the Sovereign LORD, the Holy One of Israel, says:
‘In repentance and rest is your salvation,
in quietness and trust is your strength,
but you would have none of it.
You said, ‘No, we will flee on horses.’
Therefore you will flee!
You said, ‘We will ride off on swift horses.’
Therefore your pursuers will be swift!
A thousand will flee
at the threat of one;
at the threat of five
you will all flee away,
till you are left
like a flagstaff on a mountaintop,
like a banner on a hill’.
All this is proven by the fact that Lagash eventually lost the war with Umma. This had seldom happened.
Mackey’s comment: True.
King Hezekiah and his kingdom of Judah suffered a comprehensive defeat at the hands of King Sennacherib of Assyria during the latter’s Third Campaign.
But, as Isaiah had divined, the blasphemous King of Assyria would eventually get his come-uppance big time (Isaiah 37:21-36).
For, about a decade later, Sennacherib’s massive Assyrian army of 185,000 would be completely routed near Shechem (“Bethulia”), thanks to the courageous intervention of the Simeonite heroine, Judith.
Through generations of conflict, under the leadership of Ur-Nanshe, Eannatum, and Enmetena, Lagash had always been the victor and Umma the vanquished. Now, under the leadership of Urukagina, bereft of effective military support from his disgruntled nobility because of his social reforms, the roles had been reversed. Lugalzagesi, “the Man of Umma,” thoroughly sacked the city of Lagash, as if to avenge a century of humiliating defeats. The savagery of the attack, especially the looting of the temples, shocked the Sumerians [sic]. Sumerian civil wars were usually a lot more “civilized.” (See “The Man of Umma” for a translation of a tablet detailing Lugalzagesi’s plundering of Lagash.)
A letter from the high priest Lu-enna addressed to the king of Lagash, believed to be Urukagina, informing him that his son had been killed in combat.
Urukagina survived the sacking of Lagash and moved his capital to the smaller neighboring city of Girsu. He was still a king, but his kingdom was considerably reduced. Lugalzagesi followed him to Girsu and twice besieged the city. Soon afterward, Urukagina disappears from the historic record.
Mackey’s comment: King Hezekiah was always located at Girsu, my Jerusalem. The invading king did indeed proceed from Lachish (Lagash) to Jerusalem (Girsu).
The kingdom of Judah, indeed, was “considerably reduced” by the Assyrians.
And little is told of Hezekiah/Josiah, even in the Scriptures, after approximately the mid-point of his reign.
It’s not known for certain how he died, but the possibilities are endless. Perhaps he died of
natural causes. Maybe he was captured and executed, or he killed himself rather than being
taken alive. Perhaps he was murdered by an unseen assassin in a palace coup by someone
trying to curry favor from Lugalzagesi. Hopefully he died in combat, in one last heroic battle,
in defense of his kingdom and his vision of a better world.
Mackey’s comment: Sumerian Shakespeare gets this last wish.
For it may now be “known for certain how [the king] died …”.
King Hezekiah/Josiah did die “in combat, in one last heroic battle,
in defense of his kingdom and his vision of a better world”.
Thus 2 Chronicles 35:20-27:
The Death of Josiah
After all this, when Josiah had set the temple in order, Necho king of Egypt went up to fight at Carchemish on the Euphrates, and Josiah marched out to meet him in battle. But Necho sent messengers to him, saying, ‘What quarrel is there, king of Judah, between you and me? It is not you I am attacking at this time, but the house with which I am at war. God has told me to hurry; so stop opposing God, who is with me, or he will destroy you’.
Josiah, however, would not turn away from him, but disguised himself to engage him in battle. He would not listen to what Necho had said at God’s command but went to fight him on the plain of Megiddo.
Archers shot King Josiah, and he told his officers, ‘Take me away; I am badly wounded’. So they took him out of his chariot, put him in his other chariot and brought him to Jerusalem, where he died. He was buried in the tombs of his ancestors, and all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for him.
Jeremiah composed laments for Josiah, and to this day all the male and female singers commemorate Josiah in the laments. These became a tradition in Israel and are written in the Laments.
The other events of Josiah’s reign and his acts of devotion in accordance with what is written in the Law of the LORD— all the events, from beginning to end, are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9016566696944251023.post-65933482129838284262024-02-22T11:38:00.000-08:002024-02-22T11:38:16.377-08:00Sumerian Geography in Chaos<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7sR6ofmoYb2AZlCRZJV_awg5YVjr9AQA9RmpL5vazX-1z1uDv1vC6IrdYSokf5k2Cv4CcxZN4thCAvWbN5aLMt9jv1yNZ7-aCvJYwEniMrHtEXwPWC1dKmShB-mBbu8fKqRt8W2qjT-Ce1jxB__MYWB10ehSpW1O6q8XFnwfY_8_d-HjFqEPGzYoO6vM/s994/Sumer_map.webp" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="780" data-original-width="994" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7sR6ofmoYb2AZlCRZJV_awg5YVjr9AQA9RmpL5vazX-1z1uDv1vC6IrdYSokf5k2Cv4CcxZN4thCAvWbN5aLMt9jv1yNZ7-aCvJYwEniMrHtEXwPWC1dKmShB-mBbu8fKqRt8W2qjT-Ce1jxB__MYWB10ehSpW1O6q8XFnwfY_8_d-HjFqEPGzYoO6vM/s600/Sumer_map.webp"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
As explained in e.g. my article:
Prince of Lagash
(4) Prince of Lagash | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
none of these following locations:
Akkad;
Dilmun;
Magan;
Meluḫḫa;
Lagash;
Eshnunna;
Girsu;
Gu-Edin
was actually located in - as we are commonly told - Sumer (for Akkad; Lagash; Girsu Gu-Edin); or Central Mesopotamia (for Eshnunna); or Bahrain/Oman/Indus Valley (for Magan and Meluḫḫa).
None of these was even situated to the east of the Euphrates River.
We have been served up a ridiculous geography of Sumer, in part, and of its environs.
So it is not really surprising – could almost be anticipated – that some of the places, such as Lagash and Girsu, seem to ‘fall permanently off the political map’ (and that is because they have never belonged on this map). According to Seth Richardson:
Ningirsu returns to his plow: Lagaš and Girsu take leave of Ur (2008)
(5) Ningirsu returns to his plow: Lagaš and Girsu take leave of Ur (2008) | Seth Richardson - Academia.edu
The Ur III state came to its end through a series of passive defections of individual provinces over the course of about twenty years, rather than by any single catastrophic event. This pattern of defections is nowhere better reflected than in the gradual progression of provinces abandoning the use of Ibbi-Sîn’s year names over his years 2–8.
Among the cities that fell away from the control of Ur in those years were Girsu and Lagaš, where Ur III year names are not attested after Ibbi-Sîn’s sixth year. …. Like Puzriš-Dagān and Umma (but unlike Larsa, Uruk, Isin, and Nippur), these cities seemingly fell permanently off the political map of lower Mesopotamia following their departure from Ur’s control, never again the seat of significant institutional life to judge by the low number of texts and inscriptions coming from the sites. At the same time, it is difficult to assert from evidence that any hardship or conflict either precipitated or resulted from Lagaš-Girsu’s decamping from Ur’s authority; no especial difficulty marks the event. ….
[End of quote]
All of these places in my list above I have re-located far to the west (and to the south of west).
Akkad was, in fact, the famous port city of Ugarit (Ras Shamra) far away on the Mediterranean coast.
The Egyptians knew Ugarit as IKAT (Akkad).
It really makes no sense, does it, that the great Assyro-Babylonian monarchs would individually have boasted of being a “king of Sumer and Akkad” if there was no meaningful geographical separation between the two name-places.
Locations thought to have been closely associated with Akkad, geographically, such as Dilmun, Magan and Meluḫḫa, were found to have been nowhere near Sumer either.
These were, respectively, Tyre, Egypt and Ethiopia.
The region of Sumer, long considered to have been the biblical Shinar (Genesis 11:2), and hence the “Cradle of Civilisation”, was, in fact, a region of late settlement due to the waters and marshes left over by the Genesis Flood.
Post-Flood civilisation began in SE Turkey, at Karaca Dağ, the mountain of the Ark’s landing according to the brilliant research by Ken Griffith and Darrell K. White, “Candidate site for Noah’s Ark, altar, and tomb” (Journal of Creation 35(3):50–63, December 2021): https://creation.com/karaca-dag
From there, it is a small step to the world’s most ancient civilisations of Göbekli Tepe, and other places traditionally considered to be the world’s “first city”, such as Abram’s Ur of the Chaldees (Sanliurfa), and Harran.
Lagash and Eshnunna. This is the same place. And it is to be found in Judah.
I had, in my university thesis (2007) distinguished between two forts named Ashdod, the well-known coastal one belonging to the Philistines, known in Sargon II’s Annals as Ashdudimmu, “Ashdod-by-the-Sea”, and another Ashdod that Sargon II’s General (Turtan) captured (Isaiah 20:1), which I determined to have been the famous Lachish.
It needs to be noted that Lachish was second in importance to Jerusalem itself:
https://www.baslibrary.org/biblical-archaeology-review/31/4/8
“Among cities in ancient Judah, Lachish was second only to Jerusalem in importance. A principal Canaanite and, later, Israelite site, Lachish occupied a major tell (mound) 25 miles southwest of Jerusalem, nestled in the foothills of Judah (the region known as the Shephelah)”.
Eventually it struck me that my combination, Ashdod-Lachish, had to be the supposed Sumerian combination of Eshnunna-Lagash. (Friend Robert R. Salverda, at the same time, had come to the conclusion that Lagash was Lachish).
Lagash is sometimes referred to as Lakish.
Eshnunna as Ashdudda merely requires an n and d interchange.
But why do we find Lachish (Lagash) being so important? What about Jerusalem?
Well, it is an indication of the importance of Lachish. However, some Sumeriologists think that Lagash was not the capital, but that Girsu, the religious centre, actually was.
The religious centre, Girsu, therefore, with Lagash secondary to it, must be Jerusalem.
This has since led me to the realisation that the land of Sumer needs to be stripped of some of its most famous names. Places that seemingly just drop out of history.
Puzrish-Dagan and Umma, that likewise fall off the map, need to come under scrutiny now as well.
Happily, for Sumeriologists and the like, Larsa, Uruk, Isin, and Nippur, seem to be firmly established in Sumer.
Though I would distinguish between the well-known Sumerian Uruk and the Urukku seemingly associated with Girsu (my Jerusalem) as its sanctuary.
(Ur, Uruk, appear to have been very common ancient names, widely distributed).
Also to be distinguished, in this context, are the Sumerian Ur and the home of Abram, “Ur of the Chaldees”, which is Urfa (Şanliurfa) in SE Turkey, far from Sumer.
Finally, given my view (and that of others) that Jerusalem was the same site as the antediluvian Garden of Eden, then the Gu-Edin (Guedena) over which the king of Lagash, Eannatum (yet to be identified), and the king of Umma, fought, could perhaps be a reference to the region of Jerusalem (or some place closely associated with it).
Akkad will also disappear from history, as did Ugarit at the time of the Sea Peoples.
But this will be due purely to external destruction.
When the Jews were exiled to Sumer, their history must have become known, but re-cast in Sumerian fashion, with Sumerian pronunciations replacing Hebrew ones.
Now - and this will be examined in my next article, “Sumerian History in Chaos” - we have the absurdity that some of what is presented as extremely ancient Sumerian history was, in fact, far less ancient Judean history.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9016566696944251023.post-11099784579869153592024-02-21T22:40:00.000-08:002024-02-21T22:40:53.613-08:00 King Abdi-Hiba of Jerusalem Locked in as a ‘Pillar’ of Revised History<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimYOCL2ejAuHNj0geQkUKy3rZ5Z4eH6-h0yp5Ad7Umz5xuR3BQNZ9L03m1LaCy6DC8ms9chgozVXASCZOt7cYH4PM-Tgn8m_TfcuJUnz4gIkv5lOGNNr8HXVFvGy3AjcHQlBELdUqFtVDRzyIav_j2yTnUyotvGWd7Rcmi9W6-p0t8JSytzJFDf2hixnI/s250/images.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="202" data-original-width="250" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimYOCL2ejAuHNj0geQkUKy3rZ5Z4eH6-h0yp5Ad7Umz5xuR3BQNZ9L03m1LaCy6DC8ms9chgozVXASCZOt7cYH4PM-Tgn8m_TfcuJUnz4gIkv5lOGNNr8HXVFvGy3AjcHQlBELdUqFtVDRzyIav_j2yTnUyotvGWd7Rcmi9W6-p0t8JSytzJFDf2hixnI/s600/images.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
Who was this Abdi-Hiba of Jerusalem, and when did he live?
We know at least who were his pharaonic contemporaries.
With the inadequacies of the Sothic dating upon which the conventional Egyptian chronology has been based (and to which the other nations have been tied) now laid bare, e.g.:
Sothic Star Theory of the Egyptian Calendar
http://www.academia.edu/2568413/Sothic_Star_Theory_of_the_Egyptian_Calendar
and also
The Fall of the Sothic Theory: Egyptian Chronology Revisited
https://www.academia.edu/3665220/The_Fall_of_the_Sothic_Theory_Egyptian_Chronology_Revisited
and the ground thus cleared for the raising of a scientific chronological model that is not based upon artificial a priori assumptions, revisionist scholars have been able to re-assess the abundant El Amarna [EA] archive to re-determine its proper historical location.
One of the EA correspondents who has aroused special interest, owing to the mention of Jerusalem (Urusalim) in connection with him, is the king of that city, Abdi-Hiba (Abdi-Heba), the author of six letters (EA 285-290):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdi-Heba
Abdi-Heba was the author of letters EA 285-290.[9]
1. EA 285—title: "The soldier-ruler of Jerusalem"
2. EA 286—title: "A throne granted, not inherited"
3. EA 287—title: "A very serious crime"'
4. EA 288—title: "Benign neglect"
5. EA 289—title: "A reckoning demanded"
6. EA 290—title: "Three against one"'[9]
Who was this Abdi-Hiba of Jerusalem, and when did he live? We know at least who were his pharaonic contemporaries. As I have previously written about EA in a general fashion: http://www.specialtyinterests.net/elamarna_period.html#ere
EA’s Egyptians
Identifying the EA pharaohs is the easiest … challenge as it is almost universally agreed that Amenhotep III and Akhnaton are those who are referred to in the EA correspondence by their throne names, respectively, of Nimmuria (i.e. Nebmare, Nb-m3't-R') and Naphuria (i.e. Neferkheprure, Nfr-hprw-R'). These two pharaohs, having been Sothically dated to the late C15th-early C14th BC, are - from a biblical perspective - usually considered by historians to have pre-dated the arrival of the Israelites in the Promised Land - or at least to have coincided with their arrival there. Thus it is common to read that the habiru rebels who feature prominently in the EA letters were either the Hebrews of the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or perhaps the newly arrived Hebrews (Israelites) under Joshua. ….
But To Which Era Do Revisionists
Re-Locate EA’s Abdi-Hiba?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
…. two … pieces of evidence in EA letters 285-290 … determine the historical
terminus a quo for king Abdi-Hiba: namely, the mention of Jerusalem;
and the mention of Beth Shulman (“House of Solomon”).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We ourselves, set completely free as we are from Sothic theory, are able to begin to zone in on the correct era of Abdi-Hiba, and we are going to find that it is nothing like what the conventional text books say about this king as a ruler of Jerusalem in the mid 1300’s BC, and probably, therefore, corresponding with pharaoh Amenhotep III. In terms of biblical correlation, the era of Abdi-Hiba would be considered to approximate to the Judges period, some would say to the time of Joshua (as said above). Thus:
http://www.biblehistory.net/newsletter/joshua.htm
The Bible states in Joshua 10:26 that Joshua defeated these kings, captured them and killed them, including the king of Jerusalem, Adoni-Zedek.
It is very likely that Abdi-Heba and Adoni-Zedek are one [and] the same man. The reason being is that “Adoni-Zedek” is a title rather [than] the actual name of the king. Adoni-Zedek means the “Lord of Zedek,” similar to the name Melchi-Zedek which means “Prince of Zedek,” who was the ruler of Salem according to Genesis 14:18. The Hebrews would have associated this title with the prince of Salem, an early name for the city of Jerusalem.
So the letters written by Abdi-Heba, trying to stop the advancing Hebrews [sic], were likely written by either Adoni-Zedek, mentioned in Joshua 10:1, or Adoni-Bezek, another king mentioned in Judges 1:7 who was defeated by Joshua and buried in Jerusalem.
The letters from Abdi-Heba seem to have been written to either Amenhotep II or Amenhotep III. Since one of the letters from Abdi-Heba mentions that the pharaoh, whom he was requesting help from, had conquered the land of Naharaim and the land of Cush, this would likely point to Amenhotep II who indeed had military campaigns against both these countries.
[End of quote]
Evidences would suggest that a Joshuan alignment with the EA Pharaohs is not sustainable. For, two such pieces of evidence in EA letters 285-290 that spring to mind determine the historical terminus a quo for king Abdi-Hiba: namely, the mention of Jerusalem; and the mention of Beth Shulman (“House of Solomon”). In other words, the conventional scenario, and any other that would locate the reign of Abdi-Hiba in Jerusalem to a period ante-dating kings David and Solomon, are immediately to be cancelled out as having historical validity (and that even apart from the ramifications of Sothic theory).
That means that Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky’s revision, in which he chronologically re-locates Abdi-Hiba - along with Nimmuria and Naphuria - to the early period of Israel’s Divided Monarchy (about half a millennium after the Joshua/Judges period), is not to be cancelled out at least by our ‘two pieces of evidence’.
(i) Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky’s Pioneering Effort
In Dr. Velikovsky’s firm opinion, Abdi-Hiba was to be identified with king Jehoshaphat of Judah. He, reflecting later upon this choice, commented:
http://www.varchive.org/ce/sultemp.htm
“In Ages in Chaos (chapters vi-viii) I deal with the el-Amarna letters; there it is shown that the king of Jerusalem whose name is variously read Ebed-Tov, Abdi-Hiba, etc. was King Jehoshaphat (ninth century)”.
In this same article, Dr. Velikovsky made a most significant discovery towards re-setting his revised EA period to the approximate time of King Solomon:
The Šulmán Temple in Jerusalem
In the el-Amarna letters No. 74 and 290 there is reference to a place read (by Knudtzon) Bet-NIN.IB. In Ages in Chaos, following Knudtzon, I understood that the reference was to Assyria (House of Nineveh).(1) I was unaware of an article by the eminent Assyriologist, Professor Jules Lewy, printed in the Journal of Biblical Literature under the title: “The Šulmán Temple in Jerusalem.”(2)
From a certain passage in letter No. 290, written by the king of Jerusalem to the Pharaoh, Lewy concluded that this city was known at that time also by the name “Temple of Šulmán.” Actually, Lewy read the ideogram that had much puzzled the researchers before him.(3)
After complaining that the land was falling to the invading bands (habiru), the king of Jerusalem wrote: “. . . and now, in addition, the capital of the country of Jerusalem — its name is Bit Šulmáni —, the king’s city, has broken away . . .”(4) Beth Šulmán in Hebrew, as Professor Lewy correctly translated, is Temple of Šulmán. But, of course, writing in 1940, Lewy could not surmise that the edifice was the Temple of Solomon and therefore made the supposition that it was a place of worship (in Canaanite times) of a god found in Akkadian sources as Shelmi, Shulmanu, or Salamu.
The correction of the reading of Knudtzon (who was uncertain of his reading) fits well with the chronological reconstruction of the period. In Ages in Chaos (chapters vi-viii) I deal with the el-Amarna letters; there it is shown that the king of Jerusalem whose name is variously read Ebed-Tov, Abdi-Hiba, etc. was King Jehoshaphat (ninth century). It was only to be expected that there would be in some of his letters a reference to the Temple of Solomon.
Also, in el-Amarna letter No. 74, the king of Damascus, inciting his subordinate sheiks to attack the king of Jerusalem, commanded them to “assemble in the Temple of Šulmán.”(5)
It was surprising to find in the el-Amarna letters written in the fourteenth century that the capital of the land was already known then as Jerusalem (Urusalim) and not, as the Bible claimed for the pre-Conquest period, Jebus or Salem.(6) Now, in addition, it was found that the city had a temple of Šulmán in it and that the structure was of such importance that its name had been used occasionally for denoting the city itself. (Considering the eminence of the edifice, “the house which king Solomon built for the Lord”,(7) this was only natural.) Yet after the conquest by the Israelites under Joshua ben-Nun, the Temple of Šulmán was not heard of.
Lewy wrote: “Aside from proving the existence of a Šulmán temple in Jerusalem in the first part of the 14th century B.C., this statement of the ruler of the region leaves no doubt that the city was then known not only as Jerusalem, but also as Bet Šulmán.”—“It is significant that it is only this name [Jerusalem] that reappears after the end of the occupation of the city by the Jebusites, which the Šulmán temple, in all probability, did not survive.”
The late Professor W. F. Albright advised me that Lewy’s interpretation cannot be accepted because Šulmán has no sign of divinity accompanying it, as would be proper if it were the name of a god. But this only strengthens my interpretation that the temple of Šulmán means Temple of Solomon.
In the Hebrew Bible the king’s name has no terminal “n”. But in the Septuagint — the oldest translation of the Old Testament — the king’s name is written with a terminal “n”; the Septuagint dates from the third century before the present era. Thus it antedates the extant texts of the Old Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls not excluded.
Solomon built his Temple in the tenth century. In a letter written from Jerusalem in the next (ninth) century, Solomon’s Temple stood a good chance of being mentioned; and so it was. ….
Though I cannot locate the exact reference at present, I recall a brief article pointing out that, contrary to Dr. Velikovsky, Beth Šulmán could not properly refer to the actual Temple of Solomon, since this edifice was always referred to as the Temple of Yahweh. So, the better translation of the EA phrase is “House of Solomon”.
Now, that accords with contemporary usage, in that we have at least two documented references to the “House of David” (the Tell Dan and the Mesha Moabite Inscription), see André Lemaire at: http://www.cojs.org/pdf/house_of_david.pdf
For a time, this equation of Abdi-Hiba = Jehoshaphat held as the standard amongst revisionists. However, the Glasgow School, in 1978, seriously re-assessed Dr. Velikovsky’s entire EA revision – with, as I believe, some outstanding results. This included a reconsideration of Velikovsky’s corresponding opinion that king Jehoshaphat of Judah’s contemporaneous ruler of Samaria, king Ahab of Israel, was to be identified with the prolific EA correspondent Rib-Addi.
(ii) The “Glasgow” School’s Modification of Velikovsky
The Glasgow Conference of 1978 gave rise to important contributions by scholars such as Martin Sieff; Geoffrey Gammon; John Bimson; and Peter James. These were able at the time, with a slight modification of Dr. Velikovsky’s dates, to re-set the latter’s revised EA period so that it sat more comfortably within its new C9th BC allocation. Thus pharaoh Akhnaton (Naphuria) now became a contemporary of king Jehoram of Judah (c. 848-841 BC, conventional dating) - and, hence, of the latter’s older contemporary Jehoram of Israel (c. 853-841 BC, conventional dating) - rather than of Dr. Velikovsky’s hopeful choice of Jehoshaphat (c. 870-848 BC, conventional dating) and of king Ahab of Israel (c. 874-853 BC, conventional dating).
Peter James, faced with J. Day’s “Objections to the Revised Chronology” in 1975, in which he had raised this fundamental objection to Dr. Velikovsky’s identification of Abdi-Hiba with Jehoshaphat (ISG Newsletter 2, 9ff):
Velikovsky claims that Abdi-Hiba, king of Jerusalem, is to be equated with Jehoshaphat. Abdi-Hiba means ‘servant of Hiba’ - Hiba being the name of a Hittite goddess. Can one really believe that Jehoshaphat, whom the Old Testament praises for his loyalty to the Israelite god, could also have borne this name involving a Hittite goddess?
plus James’s own growing belief that the lowering of the date of the EA letters (within a revised model) was demanded by “several chronological and other considerations ...”, arrived at his own excellent comparison of Abdi-Hiba with king Jehoram of Judah.
I give only his conclusion here, with which I fully concur, whilst recommending that one reads James’s full comparisons (“The Dating of the El-Amarna Letters”, SIS Review, Vol. II, No. 3 (London, 1977/78), 84):
To sum up: the disasters that befell Jehoram of Judah and Abdi-Hiba of Jerusalem were identical. Both suffered revolts of their subject territories from Philistia to Edom. During the reign of both the Philistines invaded and swept right across Judah, entering Jerusalem itself, in concert with the sack of the king’s palace by “men of the land of Kaši” or men “that were near the Cushites”. These peculiar circumstances could hardly be duplicated in such detail after a period of five hundred years. It is clear that Velikovsky’s general placement of the el-Amarna letters in the mid-ninth century must be correct, and that the modification of his original model suggested here, that Abdi-Hiba was Jehoram rather than Jehoshaphat, is preferable.
[End of quote]
Rib-Addi, for his part, could not have been king Ahab of Israel, Glasgow well determined. Dr. Velikovsky had been wrong in his proposing that the Sumur mentioned in relation to Rib-Addi (though not necessarily even his city, it has since been suggested) was Samaria, when Sumur is generally regarded as referring to Simyra, north of Byblos on the Syrian coast.
David Rohl’s Intriguing Angle on EA
Whilst I personally fully accept the Glasgow School’s basic conclusions about Abdi-Hiba and Rib-Addi, those, generally, who had worked these out went on later to disown them completely. James would team up with David Rohl to devise a so-called New Chronology, that I find to be a kind of ‘No-Man’s-Land revision’ hovering awkwardly mid-way between convention land and real base. Rohl, in The Lost Testament, would re-locate EA back from Dr. Velikovsky’s Divided Monarchy, where (when modified) I think that it properly belongs, to the time of the Unified Monarchy of kings Saul and David. Rohl will, like Dr. Velikovsky, propose an EA identification for a king of Israel, but it will be for Saul rather than for the later king Ahab. According to Rohl, king Saul is to be identified with EA’s Labayu, generally considered to have been a local ruler in Canaan.
And Rohl identifies David with the Dadua (“Tadua”) who is referred to in EA 256.
For Rohl, Abdi-Hiba is now a Jebusite ruler of Jebus/Jerusalem.
Dr. Rohl is extremely competent and his reconstructions are generally most interesting to read. However, his EA revision, locating Abdi-Hiba as it does as an early contemporary of David’s, who is defeated by the latter, cannot therefore discern in EA’s Beth Shulman any sort of reference to David’s son, Solomon.
Moreover, Rohl’s revision may have difficulty accounting for the fact that the name Urusalim (Jerusalem) occurs in the letters of Abdi-Hiba, supposedly a Jebusite king ruling over Jebus, but apparently known to David as Jerusalem (I Chronicles 11:4).
Conclusion
Whilst the New Chronology is superficially impressive, it, based as it is upon rocky ground, fails to yield the abundant fruit that arises from the fertile soil of a modified Velikovskian EA. James’s erstwhile identification of EA’s Abdi-Hiba as king Jehoram of Jerusalem not only yields some impressively exact comparisons between these two, supposedly separate, historical characters, but it is also able to accommodate most comfortably (chronologically) those two EA evidences of Shulman (Solomon) and Urusalim (Jerusalem).
Hence
EA’s Abdi-Hiba = King Jehoram of Judah
is worthy to be regarded now as a firm pillar of the revised chronology, from which fixed standpoint one is able to generate a very convincing series of further correlations between EA and the particular biblical era.
Peter James has thereby provided the definitive answer to the questions that I posed earlier: Who was this Abdi-Hiba of Jerusalem, and when did he live?
With whom was Abdi-hiba corresponding?
Abdi-hiba “also makes clear that it was not his “father or mother who put me in this place” (on the throne), but rather the “strong arm of the king”.”
The question is: which “king”?
The following would be a typical view of the El Amarna [EA] situation of Abdi-hiba of Jerusalem (“Urusalim”), that he was a C14th BC Canaanite king enthroned by a pharaoh:
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/places/related-articles/jerusalem-in-the-amarna-letters.aspx
Jerusalem in the Amarna Letters by Christopher Rollston
The Amarna Letters are a group of inscribed clay tablets discovered around 1887 at Amarna, a site in Egypt on the east bank of the Nile about 190 miles south of Cairo. The city was founded by the Egyptian king (pharaoh) Amenhotep IV, who later became known as Akhenaten. Akhenaten was known as a heretic king; he worshiped only the Egyptian god Aten, perhaps becoming history’s first monotheist, and he apparently attempted (unsuccessfully) to impose this monotheism on Egyptian religion more broadly.
The tablets total almost 400 in number and are written (almost without exception) in Akkadian. Most of these letters come from vassal cities in Syria-Palestine, including Byblos, Tyre, Gezer, Hebron, Shechem (Nablus), Ashkelon, Megiddo, and Jerusalem, and contain diplomatic correspondence with officials in Babylonia, Assyria, Mitanni (an area of northern Syria and southeastern Anatolia), Alashia (Cyprus), and Hatti (central Anatolia). They date to the 14th century B.C.E., primarily to the reigns of the Egyptian kings Amenhotep III (reigned circa 1382–1344 B.C.E.) and Amenhotep IV (reigned circa 1352–1336 B.C.E.).
The letters from Jerusalem (written as “Urusalim” in the Amarna texts) are from a Canaanite ruler named Abdi-Heba. He states that he is a “soldier for the king, my lord” and requests that the Egyptian monarch send him a messenger and some military men to help resist his enemies. In multiple letters he states that he “falls at the feet of my lord the king, seven times and seven times,” a stock phrase and common ancient Near Eastern motif that conveys his faithfulness to his Egyptian suzerain. He also makes clear that it was not his “father or mother who put me in this place” (on the throne), but rather the “strong arm of the king.” Here Abdi-Heba reveals that he was not the heir to the throne but given the throne of Jerusalem by the Egyptian king himself. He goes on to state that for this reason he will always be a faithful vassal of his Egyptian lord, regardless of any accusation by an enemy to the contrary. Among the enemies he refers to in his correspondence are the “Apiru” (people living on the fringes of society in the second millennium B.C.E., sometimes serving as mercenaries) and the Kashites (a Hittite people from Anatolia).
The Amarna Letters from Jerusalem have attracted substantial attention because of their dialect. It is normally argued that they are quite different in terms of cuneiform signs used, orthography, and syntax from the rest of the letters from Canaanite cities¾more sophisticated in certain ways, which may indicate the scribal culture at Jerusalem was of a particularly high quality.
The Amarna Letters from Jerusalem are of interest for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that they come from Jerusalem a few centuries before King David would ostensibly vanquish the Canaanite (Jebusite) population of Jerusalem and make it his own capital (2 Samuel 5). Also, the correspondence with a Jerusalem ruler in the 14th century provides evidence for occupation in the city in a period (Late Bronze Age II) for which there is little archaeological evidence. Recently a fragment of an Akkadian tablet (now called “Jerusalem Tablet 1) was found in excavations at Jerusalem, and some scholars have claimed that this tablet contained some correspondence between a king of Jerusalem and a king of Egypt. But this tablet is ultimately too fragmentary to determine if it was a letter. Among the most important things that these tablets demonstrate is that there was a vibrant and sophisticated scribal apparatus in Jerusalem during the Late Bronze Age. This Canaanite city was certainly not a backwater, but precisely the reverse.
[End of quote]
In terms of the revised chronology, however, Abdi-hiba was instead a C9th BC Jewish king of Jerusalem – a name not known for the city during the C14th BC, when it was called Jebus.
And, in terms of the revised chronology that I follow specifically in the case of Abdi-hiba (following an early idea of Peter James), he was a biblical king, namely, Jehoram of Judah, son of the great king Jehoshaphat.
To establish who may have set Abdi-hiba on his royal throne, as indicated by him in EA 286:
Seeing that, as far as I am concerned, neither my father nor my mother put me in this place, but the strong arm of the king brought me into my father’s house, why should I of all people commit a crime against the king, my lord?
- and one presumes from the above that it could not have been king Jehoshaphat himself - might the better be determined by an examination of who was/were the recipient/s of his letters (EA 285-290).
EA Letters of Abdi-Hiba
“Abdi-Heba was the author of letters EA 285-290”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdi-Heba
1. EA 285—title: "The soldier-ruler of Jerusalem"
2. EA 286—title: "A throne granted, not inherited"
3. EA 287—title: "A very serious crime"'
4. EA 288—title: "Benign neglect"
5. EA 289—title: "A reckoning demanded"
6. EA 290—title: "Three against one"'[9]
One is most surprised to find out, upon perusing these letters of Abdi-hiba, that - despite Rollston’s presumption that Abdi-hiba’s “the king, my lord” was an “Egyptian monarch” - no Egyptian ruler appears to be specifically named in this set of letters.
Moreover, “Egypt” itself may be referred to only once in this series (EA 285): “ … Addaya has taken the garrison that you sent in the charge of Haya, the son of Miyare; he has stationed it in his own house in Hazzatu and has sent 20 men to Egypt-(Miṣri)”.
When we include the lack of any reference to Egypt in the three letters of Lab’ayu (252-254):
Was Lab'ayu even writing to a Pharaoh?
(8) Was Lab'ayu even writing to a Pharaoh? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
and likewise in the two letters of the woman, Baalat Neše - ten letters in all - then we might be prompted to reconsider whether the extent of Egyptian involvement was as much as is generally claimed.
EA 285 is as follows:
To the king [my lord, thus hath spoken] Abdi-{iiba, thy
servant. [At] the feet [of the king, my lord], seven times
and seven times I fall. Behold, I am not a [loeal ruler] ;
an officer am I to the [king, my lord]. Why has the king
. . . not sent a messenger . . A Under sueh cireum-
stanees Eenjiamu has sent. . . . Let the king [hearken] to
Abdi-Juba, his servant! [Behold], there are no troops.
Let the king, my lord, send an officer, and let him take the
loeal rulers with him! The lands of the king . . . and
people . . . who are . . . and Addaya, the offieer of the
king, [has] their house. . . .
Let the king take heed for them, and let him send a
messenger quiekly When ... I die. . . .
Letter from Lachish (Constantinople, W. 21 9). 2
[To the] great, thus hath spoken Pabi, at thy feet I fall.
Thou must know that Shipti-Ba'al and Zimrida are eon-
spiring, and that Shipti-Ba'al hath spoken to Zimrida:
" My father of the eity, Yarami (?) has written to me — Give
me [six] bows, and three daggers, and three swords ! If I
go forth against the land of the king, and thou dost join me, I shall surely conquer. He who makes (?) this plan is Pabu. Send him before me. w Now I have sent Rapi-el.
Ho will bring to the great man information about this
affair (?)
EA 286 is as follows:
--Say [t]o the king, my lord: Message of Abdi-Heba, your servant. I fall at the feet of my lord, the king, 7 times and 7 times.
(5-15)--What have I done to the king, my lord? They denounce me : ú-ša-a-ru[2] (I am slandered) before the king, my lord,1 "Abdi-Heba has rebelled against the king, his lord."
Seeing that, as far as I am concerned, neither my father nor my mother put me in this place, but the strong arm of the king2 brought me into my father's house, why should I of all people commit a crime against the king, my lord?
(16-21)--As truly as the king, my lord, lives,3 I say to the commissioner of the king, [my] lord, "Why do you love the 'Apiru but hate the mayors? Accordingly, I am slandered before the king, my lord.
(22-31)--Because I say4 "Lost are the lands of the king, my lord," accordingly I am slandered before the king, my lord. May the king, my lord, know that (though) the king, my lord stationed a garrison (here), Enhamu has taken i[t al]l away. [ ... ]
Reverse:
(32-43)--[Now], O king, my lord, [there is n]o garrison, [and so] may the king provide for his land. May the king [pro]vide for his land! All the [la]nds of the king, my lord, have deserted. Ili-Milku has caused the loss of all the land of the king, and so may the king, my lord, provide for his land. For my part, I say, "I would go in to the king, my lord, and visit the king, my lord," but the war against me is severe, and so I am not able to go in to the king, my lord.
(44-52)--And may it seem good in the sight of the king, [and] may he send a garrison so I may go in and visit the king, my lord. In truth,5 the king, my lord, lives: whenever the commissioners have come out, I would say (to them), "Lost are the lands of the king," but they did not listen to me. Lost are all the mayors; there is not a mayor remaining to the king, my lord.
(53-60)--May the king turn his attention to the archers so that archers of the king, my lord, come forth. The king has no lands. (That) 'Apiru6 has plundered all the lands of the king. If there are archers this year, the lands of the king, my lord, will remain. But if there are no archers, lost are the lands of the king, my lord.
(61-64)--[T]o the scribe of the king, my lord: Message of Abdi-Heba, your [ser]vant. Present eloquent words to the king, my lord. Lost are all the lands of the king, my lord.
EA 287 is as follows:
Say to the king, my lord: Message of Abdi-Heba, your servant. I fall at the feet of my lord 7 times and 7 times. Consider the entire affair. Milkilu and Tagi brought troops into Qiltu against me... ...May the king know (that) all the lands are at peace (with one another), but I am at war. May the king provide for his land. Consider the lands of Gazru, Ašqaluna, and Lakisi. They have given them [my enemies] food, oil and any other requirement. So may the king provide for archers and send the archers against men that commit crimes against the king, my lord. If this year there are archers, then the lands and the hazzanu (client kings) will belong to the king, my lord. But if there are no archers, then the king will have neither lands nor hazzanu. Consider Jerusalem! This neither my father nor my mother gave to me. The strong hand (arm) of the king gave it to me. Consider the deed! This is the deed of Milkilu and the deed of the sons of Lab'ayu, who have given the land of the king to the 'Apiru. Consider, O king, my lord! I am in the right!....
EA 288 is as follows:
To the king, my lord, my sun, hath spoken thus Abdi-
hiba, thy servant. At the feet of the king, my lord, seven
times and seven times do I fall. Behold, the king, my
lord, hath set his name upon the East and upon the West.
It is a wickedness which they have wrought against me.
Behold, I am not a local ruler, I am an officer 2 of the king,
my lord. Behold, I am a shepherd of the king, and one
who brings tribute to the king. Neither my father, nor
my mother, [but] the mighty hand of the king, hath
established me in my father's house . . . came to me. . . .
I gave him ten slaves into his hand. When Shuta, the
officer of the king, came to me, I gave him twenty-one
maidservants and eighty (?) asiru . . . gave I into the
hand of Shtita, as a present for the king, my lord. Let
the king care for his land I The whole land of the king
will be lost. They have assumed hostilities against me (?)
As far as tho territory of Sheri, as far as Ginti-kirmil, it
goes well with all the local rulers (?), and hostility prevails
against mc. If one could see ! 3 But I do not see the eyes
of tho king, my lord, because hostility is established
against me. When there was a ship on the sea, and the
mighty hand of the king held Najjrima and Kapasi. But
now the habiru hold the cities of the king. There is no
local ruler left to the king, my lord ; all are lost. Behold,
Turbazu has been slain in the gate of Zilu ; yet tho king
docs nothing. Behold, Zimrida of Lachish, his servants
havo slaughtered him . . . the Habiru, Iaptiji-Adda, has
been slain in the gate of Zilu ; yet the king does nothing.
. . . l Let the king take care for his land, and let the king
give his attention in regard to troops for the land of
tribute (?) 1 For if no troops come in this year, all the
lands of the king, my lord, will be destroyed and in ruins.
They must not say before the king, my lord, that the land
of the king, my lord, is destroyed, and all the local rulers
are destroyed. If no troops arrive in this year, then let
the king send an officer to take mo to thee with my brothers, and wo will die with the king, my lord.
EA 289 is as follows:
Lines 1-4)--[Say t]o the king, my lord: Message of 'Abdi-Heba, your servant. I f[all] at the feet of my lord, the k[ing], 7 times and 7 times.
(5-10)Milkilu does not break away from the sons of Labaya and from the sons of Arsawa, as they desire the land of the king for themselves. As for a mayor who does such a deed, why does the king not (c)all him to account?
(11-17)--Such was the deed that Milkilu and Tagi did: they took Rubutu. And now as for Jerusalem-(URUUru-Salimki), if this land belongs to the king, why is it ((not)) of concern1 to the king like Hazzatu?
(18-24)--Ginti-kirmil belongs to Tagi, and men of Gintu are the garrison in Bitsanu.2 Are we to act like Labaya when he was giving the land of Šakmu to the Hapiru?
(25-36)--Milkilu has written to Tagi and the sons ((of Labaya)), "Be the both of you a protection.3 Grant all their demands to the men of Qiltu, and let us isolate Jerusalem."4 Addaya has taken the garrison that you sent in the charge of Haya, the son of Miyare; he has stationed it in his own house in Hazzatu and has sent 20 men to Egypt-(Miṣri). May the king, my lord, know (that) no garrison of the king is with me.
(37-44)--Accordingly, as truly as the king lives, his irpi- official,5 Pu'uru, has left me and is in Hazzatu. (May the king call (this) to mind when be arrives.)6 And so may the king send 50 men as a garrison to protect the land. The entire land of the king has deser[ted].
(45-46)--Send Ye((eh))enhamu that he may know about the land of the king, [my lord].
(47-51)--To the scribe of the king, [my lord: M]essage of 'Abdi-Heba, [your] servant, Offer eloq[uent] words to the king: I am always, utterly yours.7 I am your servant.—
EA 290 is as follows:
Let it be known what Milkilu and Shuwardata did to the land of the king, my lord! They sent troops of Gezer, troops of Gath . . . the land of the king went over to the ‘Apiru.
But now even a town near Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi (Bethlehem) by name, a village which once belonged to the king, has fallen to the enemy . . . Let the king hear the words of your servant Abdi-Heba, and send archers to restore the imperial lands of the king! But if no archers are sent, the lands of the king will be taken by the 'Apiru people. This act was done by the hand of Milkilu and Shuwardata.
Good Correspondence Between EA and Revision
According to 2 Kings 8:16-17: “In the fifth year of Joram son of Ahab king of Israel, when Jehoshaphat was king of Judah, Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat began his reign as king of Judah. He was thirty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years”.
In favour of Abdi-hiba as king Jehoram of Judah, and Lab’ayu as Ahab of Israel, is the fact that Lab’ayu is appropriately dead by the time of Abdi-hiba.
Thus EA 280:
Say to the king, my lord, my god, my Sun: Message of Shuwardata, your servant, the dirt at your feet. I fall at the feet of the king, my lord, my god, my Sun, 7 times and 7 times. The king, my lord, permitted me to wage war against Qeltu (Keilah). I waged war. It is now at peace with me; my city is restored to me. Why did Abdi-Heba write to the men of Qeltu, "Accept silver and follow me?"... Moreover, Labaya, who used to take our towns, is dead, but now another Labaya is Abdi-Heba, and he seizes our town. So, may the king take cognizance of his servant because of this deed...
Interestingly, Abdi-hiba is being designated here as “another Labaya”.
And (EA 287) “the sons of Lab'ayu”, are now active in place of their deceased father.
Jehoram of Judah, who, according to P. Mauro (The Wonders of Bible Chronology) was both prorex and corex during the latter part of his father Jehoshapat’s reign (and had three regnal beginnings), was also a contemporary, then, of the two sons of Ahab, Ahaziah and Jehoram – these being, according to my revision, “the sons of Lab'ayu”.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9016566696944251023.post-83688257313574613692024-02-20T14:13:00.000-08:002024-02-20T14:13:18.773-08:00Whatever did happen to King Jehoahaz of Judah?<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAe3mYycWrTSmNhoNkaB_SbO_nDpEW1VFhkRCz6ODkEy60VSyaUSPjdw-DjLrP9wz9TaVGVX113WlJSbPOxg90hCtFwbaE_YVO6WRBvWhIiJpa1B-z2l6FRbofn5U8oGtAe-R7JXlmzInkpzz6LysiMVTa30f6J86M9PBQMfJU2K-B8IUqXrlY5jKpf4E/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/AVvXsEhAe3mYycWrTSmNhoNkaB_SbO_nDpEW1VFhkRCz6ODkEy60VSyaUSPjdw-DjLrP9wz9TaVGVX113WlJSbPOxg90hCtFwbaE_YVO6WRBvWhIiJpa1B-z2l6FRbofn5U8oGtAe-R7JXlmzInkpzz6LysiMVTa30f6J86M9PBQMfJU2K-B8IUqXrlY5jKpf4E/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-9016566696944251023.post-78342707608323149192024-02-19T12:13:00.000-08:002024-02-19T12:13:33.930-08:00King Amon’s descent into Aman (Haman)<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjp1SdwziFzuJh19rz4hjCLaqgl9Ti5v96M4QxbIYiubXsiG-X9YS4jPuEyimnCIglIUI0ZqTxaLJZam0pICRZvGlsbv4L7mcBJ-PGorgMnTyCE8yJKIEglChCbPYnGUqRpoGKuCJpgtl8Smc7iVCViWnB4oHWRo2e3yCyUJUMLgVuanVqsxFTqGbwYAi0/s1000/haman.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="529" data-original-width="1000" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjp1SdwziFzuJh19rz4hjCLaqgl9Ti5v96M4QxbIYiubXsiG-X9YS4jPuEyimnCIglIUI0ZqTxaLJZam0pICRZvGlsbv4L7mcBJ-PGorgMnTyCE8yJKIEglChCbPYnGUqRpoGKuCJpgtl8Smc7iVCViWnB4oHWRo2e3yCyUJUMLgVuanVqsxFTqGbwYAi0/s600/haman.jpg"/></a></div>
Part One: Honing in on the ever malevolent king Amon
by
Damien F. Mackey
If Haman is Amon, then that would account for the origin of the name Haman, which I had previously imagined must have been Jehoiachin’s Persian name.
For instance, the famous Persian name Achaemenes can be rendered as Hakhamanish (containing the element haman). Amon itself, though, is very much an Egyptian name, and we know that pharaoh Necho, at about that time,
had a certain influence in naming young kings of Judah (2 Kings 23:34).
How could this young king of Judah have managed to achieve such a degree of wickedness, when, as according to 2 Chronicles 33:21: “Amon was two and twenty years old when he began to reign, and reigned two years in Jerusalem”?
Not very long a reign, not very old in years, for Amon to have surpassed in wickedness (v. 23) his father, Manasseh, who “reigned in Jerusalem fifty-five years”.
My Revised Amon
My explanation for how king Amon of Judah was able to amass such an appalling record of “evil in the sight of the LORD” would be that the count of his reign had continued into a long period of captivity. I would take as an example of this king Jehoiachin of Judah, who, having “reigned in Jerusalem three months” before having been taken captive to Babylon by Nebuchednezzar (2 Kings 24:8-12), continued to have his regnal years counted there in exile, so that we read further on (25:27): “In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the year Awel-Marduk became king of Babylon …”.
King Jehoiachin is a particularly apt comparison - at least according to my revision - because he would continue in his evil ways (“trespassed more and more”) culminating in his rôle as the terrible Haman during the Medo-Persian era.
See e.g. my article:
If King Belshazzar made Daniel 3rd, who was 2nd?
(10) If King Belshazzar made Daniel 3rd, who was 2nd? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
But king Jehoiachin now - in my steps here towards a deeper revision - becomes even more apt given that his alter ego, Haman, enables for a virtual name comparison with Amon, leading to my proposed new identification of (Jehoiachin)-Haman with Amon king of Judah.
Haman is in fact called Aman (even closer to the name, Amon) in a version of Tobit 14:10, where he has been confused with Nadab (or Nadin), which is the correct reading.
{Haman and Nadin, my ‘Holofernes”, belong to two entirely different eras}
My new suggestion (Haman = Amon) does admittedly affect certain biblical sequences as we currently have them (e.g. Amon can now no longer be the father of king Josiah) - as well as affecting information pertaining to who was the mother of Amon.
If Haman is Amon, then that would account for the origin of the name Haman, which I had previously imagined must have been Jehoiachin’s Persian name. For instance, the famous Persian name Achaemenes can be rendered as Hakhamanish (containing the element haman). Amon itself, though, is very much an Egyptian name, and we know that pharaoh Necho, at about that time, had a certain influence in naming young kings of Judah (2 Kings 23:34).
Scholars dearly wish that they knew more about Amon, given that the Bible dismisses him, qua Amon, in just a few verses. “It is rather unfortunate that so little is known of the reign of Amon, king of Judah; for he lived evidently in a critical period”.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1420-amon-king-of-judah
However, if Amon has the alter egos that I have proposed for him in this article, then we can actually know quite a lot about him.
The Jewish Encyclopedia here recalls a Rabbinic comment on the extreme wickedness of King Amon of Judah:
The fact that Amon was the most sinful of all the wicked kings of Judah (II Chron. xxxiii. 23) is brought out in the Talmud (Sanh. 103b) as follows:
(Sanh. 104a)
Ahaz suspended the sacrificial worship, Manasseh tore down the altar, Amon made it a place of desolation [covered it with cobwebs]; Ahaz sealed up the scrolls of the Law (Isa. viii. 16), Manasseh cut out the sacred name, Amon burnt the scrolls altogether [compare Seder Olam, R. xxiv. This is derived from the story of the finding of the Book of the Law, II Kings, xxii. 8]; Ahab permitted incest, Manasseh committed it himself, Amon acted as Nero was said to have done toward his mother Agrippina. And yet, out of respect for his son Josiah, Amon's name was not placed on the list of the kings excluded from the world to come.
[End of quote]
What does gel nicely - according to my revised view that Amon is Haman - is the situation of death of Amon (2 Kings 21:23): “Amon’s officials conspired against him and assassinated the king in his palace”, with the situation of death of Haman (Esther 7:9): “And Harbona, one of the eunuchs that stood waiting on the king, said: ‘Behold the gibbet which [Aman] hath prepared for Mardochai, who spoke for the king, standeth in Aman's house, being fifty cubits high’. And the king said to him: ‘Hang him upon it’.”
Both deaths occurred violently, at the hands of officials, in the palace (house) of the offender.
In the case of Amon, we get the added note that (2 Kings 21:24): “Then the people of the land killed all who had plotted against King Amon …”.
The “land”, I believe, is Susa, and the Jews (now assisted by the Persian king) are in the midst of a major conflict, yet unresolved, with their enemies. So it may not be surprising to learn that there was a retaliation for the death of Amon-Haman, who had many friends and allies (Esther 5:10-11): “But dissembling his anger, and returning into his house, [Haman] called together to him his friends, and Zares his wife. And he declared to them the greatness of his riches, and the multitude of his children, and with how great glory the king had advanced him above all his princes and servants”.
A concluding note
New problems arise from this radical new proposal about King Amon of Judah, which places him much later in time than is usually accepted for him.
I have already admitted this above.
These problems will be elaborated upon, and hopefully addressed, as this article progresses.
Part Two:
Some implications of Amon’s being Jehoiachin-Haman
“Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he was king [reigned] three months in Jerusalem. His mother’s name
was Nehushta daughter of Elnathan from Jerusalem”.
2 Kings 24:8
At the end of Part One I noted that “new problems arise from this radical new proposal about King Amon of Judah, which places him much later in time than is usually accepted for him”.
These “problems” are not insignificant.
First of all, this deeper revision must affect the sequence of the latter kings of Judah as currently set out in 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, etc.
For instance, Amon can no longer be the father of Josiah as recorded in various places. E.g.:
2 Kings 21:24;
2 Chronicles 33:25;
Jeremiah 1:2;
Zephaniah 1:1;
Matthew 1:10.
And, considering that the royal sequence is also set out in the New Testament, in Matthew 1:6-11, then the Genealogy of Jesus Christ as we currently have it must be affected as well. According to another version of Matthew 1:10 (ESV), though, Josiah was the son of “Amos”, not Amon: “… Hezekiah [was] the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh the father of Amos, and Amos the father of Josiah …”.
Bible Gateway adds the note to this: “Matthew 1:10 Amos is probably an alternate spelling of Amon; some manuscripts Amon; twice in this verse”.
In actual fact, the names “Amos” and “Amon” are two entirely different names.
The fact that “Amos” can appear instead of “Amon” may give me some hope now for thinking that there is a certain leeway for rejecting Amon as the father of Josiah.
And, perfectly in accord with my revised view that King Amon of Judah was also the wicked Haman of the Book of Esther is Abarim’s association of these two names:
http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Amon.html#.W5WkP-RNB9A
Associated Biblical names
♂♕☀Amonאמון
אמן
♂Haman
Other related problems that arise from my deeper revision are the different ages and reign lengths attributed to the supposedly two kings, but whom I am identifying as one, plus three different female names ‘claiming the right’ to be the king of Judah’s mother:
2 Kings 21:19: “Amon was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem two years. His mother’s name was Meshullemeth daughter of Haruz; she was from Jotbah”.
2 Kings 24:8: “Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he was king [reigned] three months in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Nehushta daughter of Elnathan from Jerusalem”.
Esther 3:1: “After these events, King Xerxes honored Haman son of Hammedatha …”, she being queen Hamutal (Hammutal) of 2 Kings 23:30 according to my revision.
Part Three:
Re-casting the sequence of Judaean kings
“Now after this he (King Manasseh) built a wall without the city of David,
on the west side of Gihon, in the valley, even to the entering in at the fish gate,
and compassed about Ophel, and raised it up a very great height,
and put captains of war in all the fenced cities of Judah.”
2 Chronicles 33:14
With King Amon of Judah identified in this present series with Haman of the Book of Esther - described as a “king” in Queen Esther’s prayer (14:10), “to magnify forever a mortal king” - and whom I have previously identified with King Jehoiachin (var. Coniah) of Judah, and hence having now detected a duplicating sequence embedded in our various lists of Judaean kings, it becomes necessary to attempt to re-cast the royal list without any such duplications.
Let us turn again the Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah in Matthew 1, to that part of Matthew’s list from King David to Jeconiah (= Amon) (vv. 7-11):
David was the father of Solomon …
Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
and Josiah the father of Jeconiah ….
As has often been pointed out, four known kings (Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah and Jehoiakim) are missing from Matthew’s list here (Jehoahaz now needs to be added), making it seem to many to be artificially constructed.
D. M. Williams, for instance, will wonder about three of these missing Judaean kings, in his “A word on the skipped generations in Matthew’s genealogy”:
https://resurrectingraleigh.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/a-word-on-the-skipped-generations-in-/
But in addition to the striking features of the schema, there are some nettlesome ones as well: namely, Matthew has to skip a few kings in order to make the second block of fourteen “work” (compare, for instance, 1:8-9 with 1 Chronicles 3:11-12–what happened to Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah?) and the final block, if you count, actually only has thirteen generations. One question which came up in our study yesterday was basically What are we to make of this? Are we now resting our faith on a lie? If Jesus was not born precisely forty nine generations after Abraham, is our faith in vain?
[End of quote]
I have wondered especially about the omission of the mighty kings, Joash and Amaziah, who, though they erred, do not appear to have been so consistently bad as, say, Ahaz, or Manasseh, who are included in the list.
But, in the end, I had acquiesced to arguments connecting them with the Omride queen, Athaliah - although that would apply more directly to king Jehoram (who was married to her, 2 Kings 8:18), who is not omitted from the list.
But now, with duplications recognised (if I am on the right track), there is no longer need for Joash and Amaziah to be excluded from the list.
With Amon now folded into Jeconiah (or Jehoiachin) as according to this series, and with Amon no longer recognised as the father of Josiah, but rather one named “Amos” thus being recognised, then, finally - and what I have long wondered about - Hezekiah can now be identified with his mirror-image Josiah.
Manasseh now becomes the wicked Jehoiakim, another of those kings who has been left out of Matthew’s genealogical list.
And “Amos”, the father of Josiah, becomes Ahaz, the father of Hezekiah.
The name Amos, or Amoz, is only a consonant different from Ahaz.
This would therefore be my emended list:
Hezekiah [=Josiah] the father of Manasseh [=Jehoiakim],
Manasseh the father of Amon [=Jehoiachin] ….
If Manasseh were Jehoiakim, then that would explain, for one, why the prophet Jeremiah names Manasseh as the reason for the Babylonian enmity (Jeremiah 15:4): “I will make them abhorrent to all the kingdoms of the earth because of what Manasseh son of Hezekiah king of Judah did in Jerusalem”, even though Jehoiakim was just as evil and was, conventionally speaking, far closer in time to the Babylonian troubles than was Manasseh.
Again it would explain the strong tradition of the prophet Isaiah’s being martyred during the reign of king Manasseh.
“Michael A. Knibb writes: "The Martyrdom of Isaiah is a Jewish work which has come down to us as part of a larger Christian composition known as the Ascension of Isaiah".”
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/ascensionisaiah.html Un-mentioned in the Bible in connection with king Manasseh, qua Manasseh, this incident can (I think) be related to the martyrdom of the prophet Uriah (var. Urijah) during the reign of Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 26:23): “And they fetched forth Urijah out of Egypt, and brought him to Jehoiakim the king; who slew him with the sword, and cast his dead body into the graves of the common people”.
Uriah now becomes Isaiah.
Incidentally, the prophet Uriah was “fetched forth” from Egypt by an “Elnathan” (v. 27), who may well be the same as the father of king Jehoiachin’s mother, “Nehushta daughter of Elnathan” (2 Kings 24:8): “His mother’s name was Nehushta daughter of Elnathan …”.
Unlike king Amon/Jehoiachin, who evolved into Haman, and who “humbled not himself before the LORD [BUT WHO] trespassed more and more”, his similarly long-reigning (in captivity) father, king Manasseh/Jehoiakim, thankfully, “had humbled himself” (2 Chronicles 33:22, 23).
The conversion of King Manasseh is told in vv. 11-13:
Therefore the LORD brought against them the army commanders of the Assyrian king; they captured Manasseh with hooks, shackled him with chains, and transported him to Babylon. In his distress, he began to appease the LORD, his God. He humbled himself abjectly before the God of his ancestors, and prayed to him. The LORD let himself be won over: he heard his prayer and restored him to his kingdom in Jerusalem. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD is indeed God.
As we read at the beginning, king Manasseh began the rebuilding and fortifying of Jerusalem.
I would tentatively identify king Manasseh/Jehoiakim with the “Sheshbazzar prince of Judah” of Ezra 1:8: “Cyrus king of Persia brought these out in the charge of Mithredath the treasurer, who counted them out to Sheshbazzar the prince of Judah”.
“Sheshbazzar” would of course have been the king’s Babylonian name, given to him in captivity. As we do not hear any more about Sheshbazzar, he, now aged (if he were Manasseh), may well have died not long afterwards – or simply left the overseeing of the remaining building work to younger men.
Part Four:
Who was the actual mother of King Amon of Judah?
“After these events, King Ahasuerus honored Haman son of Hammedatha …”.
Esther 3:1
Having alter egos for King Amon of Judah, whilst serving to solve certain problems according to the findings of this series, also adds a few complications as I noted in Part Two:
“Other related problems that arise from my deeper revision are the different ages and reign lengths attributed to the supposedly two kings, but whom I am identifying as one, plus three different female names ‘claiming the right’ to be the king of Judah’s mother:
2 Kings 21:19: “Amon was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem two years. His mother’s name was Meshullemeth daughter of Haruz; she was from Jotbah”.
2 Kings 24:8: “Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he was king [reigned] three months in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Nehushta daughter of Elnathan from Jerusalem”.
Esther 3:1: “After these events, King Ahasuerus honored Haman son of Hammedatha …”, she being queen Hamutal (Hammutal) of 2 Kings 23:30 according to my revision”.
Actually, I have already partly solved the problem of ‘three mothers’ for the one king here by indicating that the otherwise unattested “Hammedatha”, of whom Haman was the “son”, was the same as the Jewish queen, Hammutal (or Hamutal).
http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Hamutal.html#.W5cH5uRNB9A
“There is only one Hamutal in the Bible, and she is the mother of kings Jehoahaz and Zedekiah of Judah (2 Kings 23:31, 24:18, Jeremiah 52:1)”.
{That these kings could have more than the one name is attested by Zedekiah originally having been Mattaniah (2 Kings 24:17)}
As to whether either Meshullemeth (above), said to be the mother of Amon, or Nehushta (above), said to be the mother of (Amon’s alter ego) Jehoiachin, was the actual biological mother, I have not looked into the matter yet deeply enough to make any sort of judgment.
One possibility to be considered is that Meshullemeth and Nehushta were the same person, though with different patronymics due to possible differentiation between father and grandfather.
But, whatever may be the case, we have easily managed to reduce three ‘mothers’ to two.
Differing ages and reign lengths: Amon … twenty-two years old … he reigned in Jerusalem two years; Jehoiachin … eighteen years old … he … [reigned] three months in Jerusalem, can readily be accounted for by co-regency.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9016566696944251023.post-55164873230742330022024-02-18T23:23:00.000-08:002024-02-18T23:23:07.898-08:00If King Belshazzar made Daniel 3rd, who was 2nd?<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj17ppmHx0DdTkDGnz8XDyh3-EpbSHGpyX_nE8yoAbKpG5BvrqsrizeO2o4koRprjMn6FtiRb4I6-VobKl3zcumt92acc3CSy_9HxlnUthaPgmHhh5UcBpxRgWhoAEiPCYTpmxCiJzZ5rG7TX4r6DHSJYJGZIlWxEZqrFo3Oug8K50XQxZeNTVk-oCmkL4/s310/download.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="163" data-original-width="310" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj17ppmHx0DdTkDGnz8XDyh3-EpbSHGpyX_nE8yoAbKpG5BvrqsrizeO2o4koRprjMn6FtiRb4I6-VobKl3zcumt92acc3CSy_9HxlnUthaPgmHhh5UcBpxRgWhoAEiPCYTpmxCiJzZ5rG7TX4r6DHSJYJGZIlWxEZqrFo3Oug8K50XQxZeNTVk-oCmkL4/s600/download.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
Question:
I have a question concerning Belshazzar and the Babylonian kingdom. Daniel was offered to be the third ruler of the kingdom if he could tell the interpretation of the writing on the wall. The question was asked, Was [sic] there two rulers in the kingdom at that time or was there only one king? http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2007/10-08c.html
That is a perfectly legitimate question to ask, and it is one that I have attempted to answer, and will do so again here, by modifying what I previously wrote about it under the same title:
If King Belshazzar made Daniel 3rd, who was 2nd?
But, firstly, here is the answer given to this question at La Vista Church of Christ:
________________________________________
Answer:
"Then Belshazzar gave the command, and they clothed Daniel with purple and put a chain of gold around his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom" (Daniel 5:29).
In most kingdoms there would be the current king, the heir apparent, and then the chief counselor. After Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 B.C., Babylon had a series of short-lived kings.
Nebuchadnezzar's son, Evil-Merodach, succeeded his father, but was assassinated two years later. His brother-in-law, Neriglissar, came to the throne, but he died four years later.
His infant son, Labashi-Marduk, was next in line, but was assassinated. He was followed by the last king of Babylon, Nabonidus.
Babylonian kings were required [to] attend a yearly new year ceremony and pledge their loyalty to the Babylonian god, Marduk. Nabonidus, however, chose to give loyalty to another god, the moon god Sin. This caused such an uproar in Babylon that Nabonidus left the city and put his son, the crown prince Belshazzar, in charge.
This explains the third in line offer. Belshazzar was second after his father, Nabonidus, and offered to put Daniel directly under himself. ….
[End of quote]
This “Answer”, doggedly following the textbook succession of neo-Babylonian kings, which contains duplicates, is doomed to be wrong.
It does succeed, however, in identifying the correct historical person as the “King Belshazzar” of the Book of Daniel, namely, Belshazzar son of Nabonidus. The latter, though, Nabonidus, who was the same as King Nebuchednezzar, was, by now, dead.
Here follows the modified version of my original article:
Introduction
According to my new arrangement of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty, which - arguing for certain duplications in the sequence - involves an approximate halving of the number of kings conventionally listed:
Aligning Neo-Babylonia with Book of Daniel
(5) Aligning Neo-Babylonia with the Book of Daniel | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Some of the benefits of this restructuring, are that:
• Nabonidus, considered by various scholars to have been the true paradigm for Daniel’s “Nebuchednezzar”, is now to be identified with Nebuchednezzar;
• Belshazzar (= Amel-Marduk) is the last king of the dynasty, as according to Daniel; and
• Belshazzar is immediately followed by the Medo-Persians.
How it all works out
in relation to Daniel
King Belshazzar is now the Amel-Marduk (Awel-Marduk or Evil Merodach) who raised up the captive Judaean king, Jehoiachin (Coniah) (2 Kings 25:27-30):
And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, that Evilmerodach king of Babylon in the year that he began to reign did lift up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah out of prison;
And he spake kindly to him, and set his throne above the throne of the kings that were with him in Babylon;
And changed his prison garments: and he did eat bread continually before him all the days of his life.
And his allowance was a continual allowance given him of the king, a daily rate for every day, all the days of his life.
Clearly, King Belshazzar (as Amel-Marduk) had made Jehoiachin second to himself, having “set [Jehoiachin’s] throne above the throne of the kings that were with him in Babylon”.
Considering the short reign of Belshazzar as Amel-Marduk (c. 562-560 BC, conventional dates), and as Daniel’s Belshazzar (8:1):
“In the third year of King Belshazzar’s reign, I, Daniel, had a vision, after the one that had already appeared to me”, a mere 2-4 years, Jehoiachin would presumably still have been second in the kingdom at the time of “Belshazzar’s Feast” (Daniel 5:1-29). The best that Daniel could be given, therefore, was “the third highest ruler in the kingdom”.
First: King Belshazzar;
Second: Jehoiachin;
Third: Daniel.
But the blasphemous numero uno would promptly lose his place at the top, for we read (5:30): “That very night Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans, was slain …”.
His replacement at the top? V. 31: “And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old”.
Presumably Jehoiachin retained a high place:
He was the conspiratorial Haman of the Book of Esther, according to my:
Haman un-masked
(10) Haman un-masked | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Darius the Mede, though, appears to have employed a different system of government (Daniel 6:1-3):
It pleased Darius to appoint 120 satraps to rule throughout the kingdom, with three administrators over them, one of whom was Daniel. The satraps were made accountable to them so that the king might not suffer loss. Now Daniel so distinguished himself among the administrators and the satraps by his exceptional qualities that the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom.
The fierce revolt of the Babylonians against the king in support of Daniel (Daniel 14:27-30) may have opened the door for the advancement, again, of Jehoiachin, now as Haman. And so Darius the Mede, the “Ahasuerus” of the Book of Esther (3:1): “… promoted Haman … the son of Hammedatha, and advanced him and set his throne above all the officials who were with him”.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9016566696944251023.post-64139680597321371682024-02-17T22:01:00.000-08:002024-02-17T22:01:50.072-08:00Manasseh - Jehoiakim<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgejzllslQutAhJHlULjHz87kqSs9uOAxrpemWLydb0GqRmhyF5QOlCEgZKRUqWssfuNC8c4RwzHX1oonwrWJT7Wee5LdZaN5CPEoAMsHEa6oNK0oYBvj0xKv-OL2lxesD-4ym9ukCDGlIKnf0x4euyCjjAjg7HZ_JYrCgK8zJflD37uPOa0Gmscqrn2uQ/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/AVvXsEgejzllslQutAhJHlULjHz87kqSs9uOAxrpemWLydb0GqRmhyF5QOlCEgZKRUqWssfuNC8c4RwzHX1oonwrWJT7Wee5LdZaN5CPEoAMsHEa6oNK0oYBvj0xKv-OL2lxesD-4ym9ukCDGlIKnf0x4euyCjjAjg7HZ_JYrCgK8zJflD37uPOa0Gmscqrn2uQ/s600/maxresdefault.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
Manasseh
2 Chronicles 33:11: “Yahweh then brought down on them the generals of the king of Assyria's army who captured Manasseh with hooks, put him in chains and took him to Babylon”.
Jehoiakim
2 Chronicles 36-5-6: “Jehoiakim … did what is displeasing to Yahweh his God. Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon attacked him, loaded him with chains and took him to Babylon”.
These two texts, I submit, are describing the very same incident.
Note the common points: Yahweh; attack by a mighty foe; king of Judah defeated; that king loaded with chains; and taken off to Babylon.
Now, in my article:
De-coding Jonah
(6) De-coding Jonah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
I identified Manasseh as Jehoiakim, the murderer of the prophet Uriah (just as legend has Isaiah martyred by Manasseh).
And I identified Esarhaddon-Ashurbanipal as Nebuchednezzar.
The note in The Jerusalem Bible (33 b, 2 Chr 34) follows the conventional view that Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal were separate kings: “Manasseh of Judah was a vassal of Esarhaddon (680-669) and of Assurbanipal (668-633)”.
Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal were the same and only once captured king Manasseh of Judah.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9016566696944251023.post-79821081160239262432024-02-16T21:10:00.000-08:002024-02-16T21:10:13.191-08:00Gog and Magog: Satan, Haman, Russia, or Macedonian Greek?
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhK74dbLpg3ashOYzZ_hOAQ5JfNLjq2IO5YNqtb-LgOfKZMGvwJWBR0yOOfTYdLYm6ixDyUbmvkpj_k9e_sKPD5k1xR4eu8ooO3_823-aDKazJUPG-5C-yKaE_Ua8vtzqGGCWgUn99DDa4TujYu0GWKZpSVydvc4nQqrz9e974GkOrFgHs980nttlm-vqY/s375/Depiction-of-Judah-fighting-a-Seleucid-warrior-Breaking-Israel-News-375x250.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="250" data-original-width="375" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhK74dbLpg3ashOYzZ_hOAQ5JfNLjq2IO5YNqtb-LgOfKZMGvwJWBR0yOOfTYdLYm6ixDyUbmvkpj_k9e_sKPD5k1xR4eu8ooO3_823-aDKazJUPG-5C-yKaE_Ua8vtzqGGCWgUn99DDa4TujYu0GWKZpSVydvc4nQqrz9e974GkOrFgHs980nttlm-vqY/s600/Depiction-of-Judah-fighting-a-Seleucid-warrior-Breaking-Israel-News-375x250.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
Reader Suggests “Gog is Satan”
A Reader’s opinion: Your view on Gog and Magog is similar to James Jordan's old view that it was about the Maccabees. Jordan changed his mind and believes it refers to Esther. Personally, I disagree with both approaches. I see Gog and Magog (and the other prophecies of an eschatological battle) as referring to the war of the Church to convert the nations throughout her history. Gog is the eschatological wicked king mentioned in Numbers 24, and it is stated there that the messiah's kingdom is higher than Gog.
For complex reasons I don't have space to go into now, I think Gog is Satan.
Mackey’s Response: This interpretation, Gog being Satan, reminds me a bit of the suggestion of some regarding the nephilim giants of Genesis 6:4, that they were fallen angels.
According to Fr. John Echert, with whom I am inclined to agree, an interpretation such as this can run into what Fr. Echert here calls, “metaphysical complications”:
Answer by Fr. John Echert on 1/22/2006:
Genesis records a strange hybrid which resulted from sexual unions between the "daughters of men" and the “sons of God.
6:1 When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, 6:2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose. 6:3 Then the LORD said, "My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years." 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.
While many scholars prefer to dismiss this entirely as myth which is borrowed from pagans cultures of the ancient near east, it is more appropriate to look for some truth and reality behind this mythical sounding text. Some of the Church Fathers, such as St. Augustine, Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria suggested that the “sons of God” may refer to righteous descendants (men) of Seth who took descendants (women) of Cain as wives. In such a case, “sons of God” associates the men with the goodness of God whereas “daughters of men” would be intended as a contrast to this. This is typical of ancient Semitic expressions which must not be interpreted literally as we understand such constructions but in accord with the customary use of language at the time. Knowing the background of Cain as a killer and the bad blood of his descendants, it is no wonder that such unions would be regarded in a negative light, which unions led to a situation in which humanity was corrupted and unacceptable to God. On the other hand, it is said of Seth and his line that these were the first to reverence the Name of Yahweh. The word “Nephalim” literally means “fallen ones” which sense would be consistent with an interpretation that views this group as a corrupt mixture of good and bad blood. Other commentators have suggested that the “sons of God” were (fallen) angels who somehow mated with human women, but this does present metaphysical complications in light of the natures of each. For now, I find the Patristic solution the most satisfying. ….
[End of quote]
There is a serious need today for a return to the studying of philosophia perennis, a sound Philosophy of Being, with its clear distinctions between the various levels of being (whether created or uncreated).
I find it most difficult to regard the “Gog” of Ezekiel 38 and 39 as being anything other than a human being, he being a prince-ruler of provinces known to us from the Assyrian records, and said to be leading an international army comprising soldiers from known places at the time, such as Persia and Ethiopia (Cush), these invading Israel, and there meeting catastrophic defeat.
The nephilim giants perished in the Flood - demons, of course, do not drown.
The Gerasene “Legion” may, perhaps have had their ‘wings dampened’, but it was only the herd of swine that actually drowned (Mark 5:12-13):
“The demons begged Jesus, ‘Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them’. He gave them permission, and the impure spirits came out and went into the pigs. The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned”.
Likewise, one does not bury Satan (‘I will give Gog a burial place in Israel’), nor his demon army. Neither will one find Ezekiel’s “human bone” remnants amongst non-human demons (39:11-16):
‘On that day I will give Gog a burial place in Israel, in the valley of those who travel east of the Sea. It will block the way of travelers, because Gog and all his hordes will be buried there. So it will be called the Valley of Hamon Gog. For seven months the Israelites will be burying them in order to cleanse the land. All the people of the land will bury them, and the day I display my glory will be a memorable day for them, declares the Sovereign LORD. People will be continually employed in cleansing the land. They will spread out across the land and, along with others, they will bury any bodies that are lying on the ground. After the seven months they will carry out a more detailed search. As they go through the land, anyone who sees a human bone will leave a marker beside it until the gravediggers bury it in the Valley of Hamon Gog, near a town called Hamonah. And so they will cleanse the land’.
James B. Jordan, who has written some interesting articles, had thought to connect the phonetically alike names, “Hamon” and “Haman” (the wicked conspirator in the Book of Esther). But he had realised that a connection between the two was problematic: “The main argument against my hypothesis would be that Ezekiel 38-39 picture an invasion of the land of Israel, whereas the events of Esther happened throughout the Persian Empire”: https://theopolisinstitute.com/the-battle-of-gog-and-magog/
{“… Numbers 24, and it is stated there that the messiah's kingdom is higher than Gog”.
No, Numbers 24:7 actually says “higher than Agag”, which may be an entirely different geographical prospect}.
Conclusion on Satan
Certainly, I think that one might legitimately argue that Gog and Magog may represent Satan and his minions on a metaphorical level of interpretation of Scripture.
But such an interpretation cannot at all be made to fit a literal level of interpretation, which is the level of interpretation with which I am concerned in this article.
Could Haman be Gog?
At least one able commentator, James B. Jordan, has suggested that the enigmatic Gog and Magog might well fit the drama of the Book of Esther, with the wicked Haman, enemy of the Jews, being Gog.
For instance:
“It seems to me that if I were a Jew living during the intertestamental era,
I would be struck by the correspondence between Haman and Hamon-Gog, and it would cause me to consider whether or not they are related”.
James B. Jordan has proposed the following interesting comparison: http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-2-the-battle-of-gog-and-magog/
The battle of Gog and Magog is found in Ezekiel 38-39. My purpose in this brief essay is to propound an explanation for this passage that I have not encountered in any of my commentaries, but that makes more sense to me than any other. I offer it here in the hope that others can enter into conversation over the matter. Thus, this essay is designed as a "first word" and not the "last word" on the subject.
….
At this point, Ezekiel describes the attack of Gog, Prince of Magog, and his confederates. Ezekiel states that people from all the world will attack God’s people, who are pictured dwelling at peace in the land. God’s people will completely defeat them, however, and the spoils will be immense.
The result is that all nations will see the victory, and "the house of Israel will know that I am the Lord their God from that day onward" (Ezk. 39:21-23). This is the same idea as we found in Zechariah 2:9, "They you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent Me," which I argued above most likely refers to the events of Esther.
Chronologically this all fits very nicely. The events of Esther took place during the reign of Xerxes, after the initial rebuilding of the Temple under Joshua and Zerubbabel and shortly before the restoration of the Temple by Ezra and the rebuilding of the walls by Nehemiah.
….
Looking at a few details, we see that the victory of the Jews over their enemies in Esther resulted in the deaths of 75,310 people (Esth. 9:10, 15, 16). This number of deaths is commensurate with the extent of the slaughter pictured in Ezekiel 38-39. The Jews were told that they might plunder those they slew (Esth. 8:11), but they did not take any of the plunder for their personal use (Esth. 9:10, 15, 16), which surely implies that it was regarded as holy and was sent to adorn the Temple. Was this the gold and silver "found in the whole province of Babylon" that Ezra brought to Jerusalem a few years later (Ezr. 7:16)?
Another interesting correspondence lies in the fact that the book of Esther repeatedly calls attention to the "127 provinces" of the Persian Empire, and in connection with the attack on the Jews, speaks of the "provinces which were from India to Cush" (Esth. 8:9). This goes well with the way Ezekiel 38 starts out, for there a number of nations are mentioned from all over the world, all of which were within the boundaries of the Persian Empire (Ezk. 38:1-6). In other words, the explicit idea that the Jews were attacked by people from all the provinces of Persia is in both passages.
Another possible cue [sic] is found in the prominent use of the Hebrew word for "multitude" in Ezekiel 39:11, 15, and 16. That word is hamon, which is spelled in Hebrew almost exactly like the name Haman. It was Haman, of course, who engineered the attack on the Jews in Esther. In Hebrew, both words have the same "triliteral root" (hmn). Only the vowels are different. (Though in hamon, the vowel "o" is indicated by the letter vav.) According to Ezekiel 39:11 and 15, the place where the army of Gog is buried will be known as the Valley of Hamon-Gog, and according to verse 16, the nearby city will become known as Hamonah. It seems to me that if I were a Jew living during the intertestamental era, I would be struck by the correspondence between Haman and Hamon-Gog, and it would cause me to consider whether or not they are related.
Yet another corroboration, to my mind, lies in the fact that Haman was an Amalekite. He was an "Agagite," a descendant of the Amalekite king Agag who was captured by Saul and hacked to pieces by Samuel (1 Sam. 15; Esth. 3:1). What Esther records is the last great attack upon Israel by Amalek, and the final destruction of Amalek. Now, Numbers 24:20 states that "Amalek was the first of the nations, but his end shall be destruction." The term "nation" is more closely associated with the Japhethites than with the Hamites or the Shemites. We don’t know which "nation" Amalek was, since it is not listed in Genesis 10, but it would seem to have been a Japhethite one.
At any rate, what is striking about Ezekiel 38 is that the nations listed as conspiring against Israel are Japhethite and Hamite nations seldom if ever heard from outside the primordial list of Genesis 10. Magog, Meshech, Tubal, Beth-togarmah, Tarshish, and Gomer are all Japhethite nations from Genesis 10:2-4. Cush, Put, Sheba, and Dedan are Hamite peoples from Genesis 10:6-7. Thus, the notion is of a conspiracy of primordial peoples against the true remnant of the Shemites. This certainly squares well with the fact that Haman was the preeminent representative of Amalek, the first of the nations.
[End of quote]
As James B. Jordan points out, there seem to be some compelling reasons to accept that the prophet Ezekiel’s Gog (and Magog) was a prefiguring of the Haman conspiracy in the Book of Esther.
Whilst I have been favouring the Macedonian (Seleucid) era, and the blasphemous Nicanor, the “Macedonian” element does appear also in the LXX version of the Book of Esther: “In the LXX, Haman is called a "Macedonian" by Xerxes (see Esther 16:10)”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haman_(biblical_figure)
Haman is variously also called a “Bougaean” and an “Amalekite”, the latter being the nationality for him favoured by James B. Jordan.
Haman is also, like Gog, an inveterate enemy of the Jews.
Moreover, as with Gog and Magog, so with Haman, the tables are turned when the beleaguered Jews gain the upper hand and annihilate their foes.
However, things are not always as they seem. According to my interpretations of the Book of Esther, Haman was not an Amalekite at all. He was, shock, horror - but yet according to a legend of the Jews - a Jew, and known to Mordecai.
I developed this startling notion in my article:
Haman un-Masked
(5) Haman un-masked | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
and it ultimately led me to the conclusion that Haman was in fact the Jewish king, Jehoiachin, or “Coniah the Captive”, and that it was from the Greek word for “captive” that Haman had mistakenly been confused as an Amalekite: “Now, ‘Amalekite’ (Greek: Amali̱kíti̱s) could no longer be regarded as Haman’s nationality, but as a misinterpretation of the epithet by which he, as king Jehoiachin, was best known: “the Captive” (Greek: aichmálo̱tos), of very similar phonetics”.
More recently, I wrote about it, and the origin of the name “Haman”, as an Egyptian name, in my article:
Setting the record straight on the historical Haman
(5) Setting the record straight on the historical Haman | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Some Islamic scholars have thought, but most anachronistically, to connect the name and person, Haman, with Hemiunu, the architect of King Cheops’s Great Pyramid:
Qur’an catapults evil Haman way back to the era of Moses
https://www.academia.edu/38676968/Qur_an_catapults_evil_Haman_way_back_to_the_era_of_Moses
My identification of Haman with the well-known (and ill-fated) biblical king Jehoiachin thus enables for any guess work to be taken out of the historical location of the Book of Esther.
Now, James B. Jordan himself has realised that there is a problem with his own reconstruction. And it turns out to be a major one. Jordan continues:
The main argument against my hypothesis would be that Ezekiel 38-39 picture an invasion of the land of Israel, whereas the events of Esther happened throughout the Persian Empire. At present, this argument does not have much force with me because of the fact that this entire section of Ezekiel is so highly symbolic in tone anyway. Chapter 37 gives us the vision of the valley of dry bones, after all, and chapters 40-48 are a thoroughly geometrical vision of the Restoration Temple. Thus, I can see no difficulty in assuming that Ezekiel is picturing the final world-wide attack of Amalek and his cohorts under the imagery of an attack on the land, imagery derived from the book of Judges (cp. Jud. 18:7, 10, 27 with Ezk. 38:8, 11, 14).
A final corroboration of this interpretive hypothesis comes from what we might call the "Amalek Pattern" in the Bible. Note in Genesis 12-15 that Abram moves into the land after escaping Pharaoh (ch. 12), settles down and experiences peace and prosperity (ch. 13), and then faces an invasion of a worldwide alliance of nations (ch. 14). This alliance captures Lot, but Abram rescues him, after which a Gentile priest blesses Abram (ch. 14). Finally, after this, God appears to Abram in a vision and makes covenant with him (ch. 15), guaranteeing him a "house."
Now look at Moses: After escaping Pharaoh (Ex. 1-14), the people are given food and water in the wilderness (Ex. 16). Then Amalek attacks and kills many Lot-like stragglers (Ex. 17; Dt. 25:17-19). Moses defeats Amalek, after which a Gentile priest (Jethro) blesses the people, and then God appears in the Cloud and makes covenant with them (Ex. 18-24), including the building of a "house" (the Tabernacle).
The same themes show up in the history of David: After escaping Pharaoh Saul (1 Sam. 18-26), David finds a place of rest in the "wilderness" at Ziklag (ch. 27). Then Amalek attacks and steals David’s wives (ch. 30), but David defeats them. Following this, a Gentile priest-king (Hiram of Tyre, whose as a Gentile king was also a priest) blesses David (2 Sam. 5:11-12), and then God appears to David in a vision, promising him a "house" (2 Sam. 7).
In this pattern, the attack of Gentile world powers (Gen. 14) is associated with the attack of Amalek (Ex. 17; 1 Sam. 27). As can plainly be seen, the same pattern recurs in the Restoration. After departing from Babylon, the people settle in the land and experience a degree of peace. Then comes the attack of Amalek and Gog & Magog. After this, Gentile priest-kings sponsor the return of Ezra and Nehemiah to restore the land and the "house."
While it would be fascinating to follow up this theme in the Gospels, Acts, and possibly Revelation, enough has been said to indicate that it is a recurring pattern, and one that lends some support to the hypothesis that the attack of Gog and Magog is fulfilled in the book of Esther.
[End of quote]
As intriguing as might seem to be “the correspondence between Haman and Hamon-Gog”, I would suggest that it is merely a phonetic coincidence, with no actual connection at all between the two names.
Nor do I think that Ezekiel 38-39’s “invasion of the land of Israel”, can be reduced to James B. Jordan’s “highly symbolic in tone”, but that it is rather what would actually turn out to be the biblico-historical case.
Conclusion on Haman
Haman is neither the Haman-Gog of Ezekiel 39, nor the Hemiunu of Old Kingdom Egypt.
Haman was the idolatrous Judean king, Jehoiachin the Captive, whose father had - as a vassal to pharaoh Necho - named his son after the Egyptian god, Amon.
The name has no connection whatsoever to Hamon-Gog.
Russia and the War of Gog and Magog
Are We Living in the Biblical End Times? What Scripture Says About Gog, Magog, and Russian Chaos
BILLY HALLOWELL, FAITHWIRE
02-25-2022
As Russia continues an unprovoked invasion into the sovereign nation of Ukraine, political warnings abound.
Ukraine Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba told the United Nations on Wednesday an outright war with Russia would be the “end of the world order.”
Others are pondering what Russian President Vladamir Putin’s obstinate and dangerous acts mean for the future of international affairs more broadly.
Amid all this dismay, though, is a lingering theological conversation that has unfolded for decades around the biblical end times and Russia’s theoretical involvement in it.
Are the end times upon us? Are Russia’s actions part of the eschatological landscape? What does it all mean? These are just some of the pressing questions before us.
Is Russia a Key End-Times Player?
Most Bible experts carefully discuss these issues and are cautious not to overstate or definitively make proclamations about nations and events, though viable theories have emerged that are worth exploring.
Author Joel Rosenberg has been among those who have vocally explored Old Testament prophecies about the biblical end of days, discussing Russia’s potential placement in the mix. He published a blog post a few years ago in which he discussed world events as they pertain to the writings of Ezekiel, a biblical prophet.
“The Hebrew prophet Ezekiel wrote 2,500 years ago that in the ‘last days of history, Russia and Iran will form a military alliance to attack Israel from the north,” Rosenberg wrote. “Bible scholars refer to this eschatological conflict, described in Ezekiel 38–39, as the ‘War of Gog & Magog.'”
NEW DEVELOPMENT... Russia Rejects Israel’s Claim to Golan Heights
The text discusses a “Gog, of the land of Magog” and points to not only a battle but a victory for the Lord before the world’s eyes.
Ezekiel 38:14-16 (NIV) reads:
“Therefore, son of man, prophesy and say to Gog: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: In that day, when my people Israel are living in safety, will you not take notice of it?
You will come from your place in the far north, you and many nations with you, all of them riding on horses, a great horde, a mighty army. You will advance against my people Israel like a cloud that covers the land. In days to come, Gog, I will bring you against my land, so that the nations may know me when I am proved holy through you before their eyes.”
….
What is Gog and Magog?
There are undoubtedly many opinions surrounding Gog, Magog, and the intensely complex themes in these biblical texts.
GotQuestions is one of the outlets that has provided an explainer regarding Russia, among other facets.
“Gog is a person. Whoever Gog is, he is from the land of Magog and is the leader of Tubal and Meshek (some translations add ‘Rosh’ to the list) and a confederacy of other nations: Persia, Cush, Put, Gomer, and Beth Togarmah (Ezekiel 38:5 –6),” the outlet notes. “And, whoever he is, he will have plans to ‘attack a peaceful and unsuspecting people,’ viz., Israel (verses 11, 14, and 18). But, regardless of Gog’s plans, the Lord God is against him and will defeat him soundly (Ezekiel 38:4-19 –23; 39:3–5).”
This is a pretty concise recap of what is believed to be happening in this text. But you might have a lingering question: Why is Russia believed to be Magog by so many?
If you take out a map and look to the north (these Scriptures note Gog comes from the “far north”), you’ll find Russia and former Soviet territories. So, it’s not surprising to see so many Bible experts point to this region.
One other note worth mentioning here is “Persia,” a nation listed as being in alliance with Magog, is modern-day Iran. Considering current affairs and trajectories, that piece is raising a lot of eyebrows.
….
[End of quotes]
Imposing an ancient scenario upon the modern-day world is never going to fit literally.
Though it may have some metaphorical value.
More sensibly, we read from Jeffrey Goodman (2012):
http://www.newscientificevidenceforgod.com/2012/02/debunking-russiawar-of-gog-and-magog.html
….
Debunking the Russia/War of Gog and Magog Myth
One of the more popular topics among Christians today is the “end times.” With each significant news story, a correlation between it and end times events prophesied in the Bible is sought. Because of recent military activities and tensions in Russia and Israel, the end times event prophesied in the Bible called “The War of Gog and Magog” is now a red hot topic. Ezekiel 38/39 tells how Gog, the powerful leader from the land of Magog, will lead a confederacy of nations to invade Israel during the end times and start a war of unprecedented size and devastation.
Many end times aficionados believe that Magog represents Russia and that Russia will soon come to invade Israel. However, the ancient Assyrians had dealings with Magog, and their Court records clearly identify Magog and it is not Russia. For decades Christians have been deceived and have been unwittingly deceiving others about who is to be involved in the prophesied invasion of Israel. Russia has absolutely nothing to do with Magog and being the nation that will lead an invasion of Israel.
While many may picture Russia as an “evil empire,” personal opinions, traditional views, incomplete research, and current events cannot be the basis of the identification of Gog and Magog and the interpretation of Ezekiel 38/39. The correct identification and interpretation of Ezekiel 38/39 must be based on scripture, with the aid of the archeological and historical context of these scriptures. (The scriptures of the Bible are set in a context of ancient cultures, nations, and times.)
While everyone is entitled to their own opinions, everyone is not entitled to their own set of facts. Although opinions may abound, there is not one verifiable fact or any primary evidence to support the belief that Magog represents Russia. II Peter 1:20 says “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” This is consistent with II Timothy 2:15 which says, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” Any interpretation of Ezekiel 38/39 requires recognition of the historical truth and obedience to the word of God which is truth.
The brief report below explains the great deception about Russia and the War of Gog and Magog. Complete details about this topic and other end time events are available in my new book THE COMETS OF GOD.
….
Russia and the War of Gog and Magog
While most end times Bible prophecy authors have argued that Russia's origins trace back to the ancient nation of "Magog” described in Ezekiel 38-39, this is simply not true. This myth that traces back to the mid 1800’s is built on historical statements that were deliberately altered, and on the assumption that the similarity of certain words could mean something else in another language. Although ancient records have been found that tell a different story about the identity of Magog and about Russia’s origins, the “Russia is Magog” myth persists.
Assyrian Court Records
The popular identification of the nations of Ezekiel 38-39 is not correct. Despite the traditional viewpoint, professional archeologists know the identity of these nations from the Assyrian Royal Court records. The reliable, clear and detailed records of Assyrian Royal Court show they dealt directly with each of these nations about 100 years before Ezekiel wrote. These are the same records that are referred to in Ezra 4:15, 19 and 5:17-6:7. These passages tell how the Jews of the fifth century BC 538 BC–457 BC overcame opposition by the local Persian governor to the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem by referring to these same Assyrian cuneiform court records. They are also the same records Bible scholars now use to provide independent verification and edification of the Bible’s historical accounts from about 805 BC to 530 BC.
The Assyrian Royal Court records provide direct evidence and represent an incontestable primary source on this subject, since they were written during the time period in question by people who were directly involved. Primary sources have greater value than secondary sources, which can include generalizations, speculation and interpretations made long after the occurrence of the events.
On this particular subject, too often what has been written about these countries constitutes secondary evidence and is not based on facts.
In some instances statements are the product of mischief, bias or not studying all of the available information.
The Assyrian Court records show dealings with Magog, Meshech, Tubal, and Togarmah (Ezekiel 38:3-6), the nations that stretched across ancient Asia Minor (modern Turkey) from west to east. From these records we also learn that the ancient nation of Gomer (Ezekiel 38:6), an enemy of the Assyrians invaded Asia Minor by coming down from an area around the northeast shore of the Black Sea. Archeologists know that the militant leader called “Gog” in Ezekiel 38/39 led a confederacy of these nations against invading Gomer. ….
[End of quote]
Russia is a crucial player in non-biblical prophecies approved by the Catholic Church, such as Fatima and the Divine Mercy (as opposed to the myriads of unapproved ones like Garabandal, Medjugorje, etc., etc.).
Fatima 1917
Brother André Marie asks:
https://catholicism.org/what-are-the-errors-of-russia.html
What Are ‘the Errors of Russia?’
MAR 23, 2017 BROTHER ANDRÉ MARIE
In her apparition of July 13, 1917, Our Lady of Fatima told Sister Lucy that “Russia will spread its errors throughout the world, raising up wars and persecutions against the Church.
The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, and various nations will be annihilated.”
People sometimes ask the question, “What are the errors of Russia?” In her article, Have the “Errors of Russia” Now Infected Rome?, Dr. Maike Hickson gives the most exhaustive list I have ever seen in reply to this question.
….
But, what, then, are the “errors of Russia” as they were developing at the time of the Bolshevik-Russian Revolution shortly after the Fatima apparitions? It would seem that they include, among other things, the following list of characteristics:
1. A reductively atheistic materialist world-view which aims at undermining anything Christian in society;
2. An ideology that is disconnected from Truth and reality;
3. A cultural Marxism that later permeated also the West with the help of the Frankfurt School and Antonio Gramsci’s ideas;
4. A revolutionary socialistic spirit that undermines especially major aspects of family life – especially with the help of feminism, divorce and abortion;
5. A Hegelian dialectic philosophy, along with dialectic materialism, which claims that strife and ongoing contention in society are necessary in order to bring about higher and unfolding forms of life; such an approach essentially denies and purportedly transcends the principle or law of non-contradiction.
6. A form of governing “revolutionary socialism” that is also constitutionally called “Democratic Centralism,” the latter formulation meaning that things have the appearance of being openly democratic, yet they are all centrally organized and managed in the background (Dr. Robert Hickson recently applied this principle to the current situation in the Church – especially with regard to the Family Synods – here);
7. A disregard for tradition and for the traditional institutions of society (or now of the Church, such as the Curia?) as “counter-revolutionary forces”;
8. A deceitful misuse of language with the intent to manipulate the public;
9. A method of branding one’s own opponents with sweeping and demeaning epithets that abstractly categorize them as “right-wing” or “counter-revolutionary” [and what about the most-common term in use among the left: “fascist”?];
10. An approach to ongoing revolutionary changes where there is both “a slow path” and “a fast path” of the Revolution; such is “the Dialectic” and the “dialectical process”;
11. Toward more moderate and compromising opponents, one first tries to incorporate them into the professed new system so as to use them as Lenin’s “useful idiots” in the sense that they help give to the world the illusory idea that nothing has really changed;
12. As a last element – but of course a very important and painful one for those who lived under Communism – there is a constant sense of distrust and fear, unto the imprisonment and killing of one’s intransigent opponents.
[End of quotes]
Divine Mercy
Divine anger at Russia: https://www.theprodigalfather.org/lecture-on-divine-mercy-what-jesus-said-about-russia-and-how-we-can-be-at-peace-in-a-time-of-war-cancel-culture-polarization-and-division/’
Sister Faustina Kowalska, standing in the breach as a new Moses:
…. This was December 19, 1936. [818] I have offered this day to Russia. I have offered all my sufferings and prayers for that developing country. After Holy Communion, Jesus said to me; I cannot suffer that country anymore. (Listen to this) Do not tie my hands, My daughter. (209) I understood that if it had not been for the prayers of souls pleasing to God, the whole nation would have already been reduced to nothingness. Oh, how I suffer for that nation which has banished God from its borders! ….
Conclusion on Russia
Gog and Magog pertain to antiquity, not to the modern era, Fatima and Russia’s errors, which are dealt with, instead, in the Fatima and Divine Mercy revelations of the C20th.
These are still most relevant today!
Some Geography
Old Testament texts, such as the much-discussed Ezekiel 38 and 39,
should be studied according to their own proper geographical setting,
rather than having superimposed upon them a modern global world scene.
The geography of Ezekiel 38 and 39 can be well understood, for instance,
from the Assyrian incursions into the same regions not much before Ezekiel’s own time.
One must reject a common tendency today to take words from, e.g., Ezekiel 38:2, such as rosh (רֹאשׁ), and meshech (מֶשֶׁךְ), and tubal (תֻבָל), and re-invent them as modern places, such as, respectively: “Russia”; “Moscow”; and “Tobolsk” (or “Tblisi”).
Not to mention the possibility that “Gog” (38:1, 2) himself might stand for “President Putin”.
Rosh is best interpreted, not as a place name, but as e.g. “chief”, hence (38:2): “Gog, of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal”, whilst the last two names are known from the Assyrian records as Mushki (Muški) and Tabal.
There seem to have been a western Mushki (= Phrygia) and an eastern Mushki (Cappadocia and Cilicia). “The Phrygian King Midas has been identified with Mita of Mushki, who appears in Assyrian records as a contemporary of Sargon II between ca. 718 and 709 BC”:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=sqOXCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA133&lpg=PA133&dq=mita+of+mushki+sargon+iI&source=bl&ots=CiKC0Byq8q&sig=JsvzmPuYdCGZCT6qifLpz6Lf8qo
Tabal was located in the Kayseri region of central Anatolia.
As for Magog, I like the following Assyrian-based explanation, once again, that the name simply means “the land of Gog” (http://blogs.christianpost.com/guest-views/debunking-the-russia-war-of-gog-and-magog-myth-8754/)
Gog is a historical man who the Greeks called Gyges of Lydia. In Gyges of Lydia we have the leader the Assyrians called "Gugu, King of Ludu," and "Gugu of Magugu," who is referred to in the Bible as Gog of Magog. "Magog" simply means "the land of Gog." In Akkadian ma means land, so in Akkadian Ma- gugu means "the land of Gugu," which becomes our Ma-gog. (Just as the Assyrian eponym for the land of the leader called Zamua is rendered as Ma-zamua). Magog is an eponym for the ancient nation of Lydia that was in the westernmost part of Asia Minor.
The Assyrians often referred to a new land by the name of the first leader they learned of from this land. The Assyrians dealt with Lydia through Meshech, who were subsequently defeated by Gomer, and thus the Assyrians finally came to deal with Lydia directly. ….
Then follows the typical extension of the ancient prophecy into a Christian framework:
“In the prophecy of Ezekiel 38/39 Gog is being used as a "historical type" of the "antichrist" who is prophesied to come during the end times, and Magog is being used as a "historical type" of "the land of the antichrist."
Passing on to verses 5-6, we encounter five more place names: “Persia, Cush and Put will be with them, all with shields and helmets, also Gomer with all its troops, and Beth Togarmah …”.
“Persia” = Persia;
“Cush” is Ethiopia;
The Maccabees, in whose era I would set the Gog incident, were confronted by various hostile governors of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia. Thus (2 Maccabees 3:4-6):
But a man named Simon, of the tribe of Benjamin, who had been made captain of the temple, had a disagreement with the high priest about the administration of the city market; and when he could not prevail over Onias he went to Apollonius of Tarsus, who at that time was governor of Coelesyria and Phoenicia.
He reported to him that the treasury in Jerusalem was full of untold sums of money, so that the amount of the funds could not be reckoned, and that they did not belong to the account of the sacrifices, but that it was possible for them to fall under the control of the king.
And (2 Maccabees 8:8-9):
When Philip saw that the man was gaining ground little by little, and that he was pushing ahead with more frequent successes, he wrote to Ptolemy, the governor of Coelesyria and Phoenicia, to come to the aid of the king’s government. Then Ptolemy promptly appointed Nicanor son of Patroclus, one of the king’s chief Friends, and sent him, in command of no fewer than twenty thousand Gentiles of all nations, to wipe out the whole race of Judea. He associated with him Gorgias, a general and a man of experience in military service.
And (2 Maccabees 10:11): “When [Antiochus] Eupator succeeded to the kingdom, he put a certain Lysias in charge of the government as commander-in-chief of Coelesyria and Phoenicia”.
“Gomer”, is generally thought to indicate the Cimmerians.
“Gomer fathered the Cimmerians who located southwest of the Black Sea. After being defeated by the Assyrians they settled in the area between Armenia and Cappadocia (Ezekiel 38:2 and 39:6)”.
http://jaymack.net/genesis-commentary/Dh-The-Line-of-Japheth.asp
“Beth Togarmah” is the Assyrian Til-garimmu
With whom Sargon II made a treaty.
Some of these nations were Japhetic in origin (Genesis 10:2-5):
The sons of Japheth:
Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshek and Tiras.
The sons of Gomer:
Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah.
The sons of Javan:
Elishah, Tarshish, the Kittites and the Rodanites. (From these the maritime peoples spread out into their territories by their clans within their nations, each with its own language.)
“On the mountains of Israel”
A key factor militating against the possibility of satisfactorily locating Ezekiel’s Gog incident to the Book of Esther, with Gog being Haman, was James B. Jordan’s point: “The main argument against my hypothesis would be that Ezekiel 38-39 picture an invasion of the land of Israel, whereas the events of Esther happened throughout the Persian Empire”.
He is right, for according to Ezekiel 39:1-6:
Son of man, prophesy against Gog and say: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against you, Gog, chief prince of Meshek and Tubal. I will turn you around and drag you along. I will bring you from the far north and send you against the mountains of Israel. Then I will strike your bow from your left hand and make your arrows drop from your right hand. On the mountains of Israel you will fall, you and all your troops and the nations with you. I will give you as food to all kinds of carrion birds and to the wild animals. You will fall in the open field, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD. I will send fire on Magog and on those who live in safety in the coastlands, and they will know that I am the LORD’.
Clearly, the geographical setting for the annihilation of the forces of Gog is ‘the land of Israel and its mountains’. And, whilst that region may not fit well the drama of the Book of Esther, it is precisely the geography for the many confrontations between the Seleucid armies and the Maccabean Jews.
Real Gog and Magog
Now the word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him …’.
Ezekiel 38:1-2
And you, son of man, prophesy against Gog, and say, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “Behold, I am against you, O Gog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal …”.’
Ezekiel 39:1
And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
Revelation 20:8
Certain books deemed apocryphal, that do not constitute part of the Jewish or Protestant canon, but which figure in the Catholic bibles, I have found to be absolutely essential for completing key identifications.
For example:
Without the Book of Tobit, one might not be able to come to realise that, contrary to the textbooks, Sennacherib succeeded his father, Shalmaneser [V] (Tobit 1:15): “But when Shalmaneser died, and his son Sennacherib reigned in his place ...”.
Hence my:
Assyrian King Sargon II, Otherwise Known As Sennacherib
https://www.academia.edu/6708474/Assyrian_King_Sargon_II_Otherwise_Known_As_Sennacherib
Again, without the Book of Tobit, I may never have been able properly to identify (at least as I see it) the prophet Job:
Job’s Life and Times
https://www.academia.edu/3787850/Jobs_Life_and_Times
And, without the Book of Judith, I may never have discovered what actually happened to the 185,000-strong army of Sennacherib:
“Nadin” (Nadab) of Tobit is the “Holofernes” of Judith
https://www.academia.edu/36576110/_Nadin_Nadab_of_Tobit_is_the_Holofernes_of_Judith
Without 1 Maccabees 11:38-51, I would not have had a clue as to what historical situation was being referred to in 2 Maccabees 8:20: “And of the battle that they had fought against the Galatians, in Babylonia; how they, being in all but six thousand, when it came to the point, and the Macedonians, their companions, were at a stand, slew a hundred and twenty thousand, because of the help they had from heaven, and for this they received many favours”.
Jews annihilate the “Galatians”
https://www.academia.edu/44850554/Jews_annihilate_the_Galatians_
Now it seems to me that 1 and 2 Maccabees, again, might enable for the interpretation of that enigmatic prophecy by Ezekiel concerning Gog and Magog, which is later taken up by the Evangelist St. John in the Book of Revelation.
“Holofernes” and Nicanor
Because of certain similarities between the Maccabean accounts of Nicanor against the Jews, and the arrogant “Holofernes” who sought to take Jerusalem, some commentators presume that the Book of Judith was written during – and mirrored - the C2nd BC era of the Maccabees.
Judith Parallels in Maccabean
Defeat of Treacherous Nicanor
The author(s) of the Nicanor narratives in 1 and 2 Maccabees may well have had in mind the stirring ancient saga of the heroine Judith’s defeat of “Holofernes”.
This last was, according to my reconstructions, e.g.:
A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf
the catalyst for the rout and defeat of Sennacherib’s 185,000-strong Assyrian army.
And Judas Maccabeus will duly allude to this epic Jewish victory in his prayer for victory against the blasphemous Nicanor:
I Maccabees 7:40-42: “Then Judas prayed and said, ‘When the messengers from the king spoke blasphemy, your angel went out and struck down one hundred and eighty-five thousand of the Assyrians. So also crush this army before us today; let the rest learn that Nicanor has spoken wickedly against the sanctuary, and judge him according to this wickedness’.”
Cf. Judith’s prayer (Judith 9:7-14):
‘Here are the Assyrians, a vast force, priding themselves on horse and chariot, boasting of the power of their infantry, trusting in shield and spear, bow and sling. They do not know that you are the Lord who crushes wars; Lord is your name. Shatter their strength in your might, and crush their force in your wrath. For they have resolved to profane your sanctuary, to defile the tent where your glorious name resides, and to break off the horns of your altar with the sword. See their pride, and send forth your fury upon their heads. Give me, a widow, a strong hand to execute my plan. By the deceit of my lips, strike down slave together with ruler, and ruler together with attendant. Crush their arrogance by the hand of a female.
Your strength is not in numbers, nor does your might depend upon the powerful. You are God of the lowly, helper of those of little account, supporter of the weak, protector of those in despair, savior of those without hope.
Please, please, God of my father, God of the heritage of Israel, Master of heaven and earth, Creator of the waters, King of all you have created, hear my prayer!
Let my deceitful words wound and bruise those who have planned dire things against your covenant, your holy temple, Mount Zion, and the house your children possess. Make every nation and every tribe know clearly that you are God, the God of all power and might, and that there is no other who shields the people of Israel but you alone’.
II Maccabees 15:22-24: “[Judas’s] prayer was worded thus: ‘You, Master, sent your angel in the days of Hezekiah king of Judaea, and he destroyed no less than one hundred and eighty-five thousand of Sennacherib’s army; now, once again, Sovereign of heaven, send a good angel before us to spread terror and dismay. May these men be struck down by the might of your arm, since they have come with blasphemy on their lips to attack your holy people’. And on these words he finished”.
Because of the undoubted similarities between the Judith drama and Maccabees here, some commentators conclude that the Book of Judith must be a late product reflecting Maccabean times. For example (http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/judith.htm):
Both the apocalyptic element in the book and certain details of the narrative suggest that it dates from the period of the Maccabees. Nebuchadnezzar, for example, is said to have wanted “to destroy all local gods so that the nations should worship Nebuchadnezzar alone and people of every language and nationality should hail him as a god” (3:8). Yet it was the Seleucids, not the Assyrians or Babylonians, whose kings first insisted on divine honors. In that case, “Nebuchadnezzar” might represent Antiochus IV, while “Holofernes” may stand for his general Nicanor, “Assyrians” for the Seleucid Syrians, and “Nineveh” for Antiochus's capital Antioch. This interpretation is supported by the existence of a Hebrew Midrash that tells the story of Judith in an abbreviated form, explicitly assigning it to the period of Seleucid oppression.
[End of quote]
The fact is that Judith of Bethulia and Judas Maccabeus belonged to two entirely different eras separated the one form the other by at least half a millennium.
Judith belongs to the neo-Assyrian era of Sennacherib (c. 700 BC). Hence, “Assyrians” in the Book of Judith means Assyrians, not “Seleucid Syrians”, and “Nineveh” means Nineveh, and not “Antioch”!
But there are, nevertheless, definite parallels between the two eras, just as someone arriving on earth in a thousand years’ time might discern parallels between the First and Second World Wars. May even end up concluding that this must have been just the one World War.
Judith’s era is somewhat like, but yet very different from, the era of Judas Maccabeus.
The Book of Judith, probably written by the high priest, Joakim (4:6), could not have been influenced by 1 and 2 Maccabees. Instead, it could only have been the other way around.
Comparing the two enthralling sagas, we find for example:
Just as the Assyrian king will send his competent second-in command (Judith 2:4), so will King Demetrius send Nicanor “ranking as Illustrious” (I Maccabees 7:1, 26).
Like “Holofernes” (6:2-6), Nicanor is arrogant and mocking (as according to Judas’s testimony above).
The Jews, the priests, in Jerusalem, in fear for their Temple, turn to God and ask for vengeance upon the Assyrians (4:9-12), as do those whom Nicanor had mocked and threatened (I Maccabees 7:36-37).
In both sagas, the small Jewish forces will be confronted by massive foreign ones.
Like “Holofernes”, Nicanor falls early, thus precipitating a rout.
The Jews then swarm upon the enemy from all quarters.
The head of “Holofernes” is publicly displayed (14:1), as is that of Nicanor (I Maccabees 7:47).
Judith and her victorious people will celebrate the victory for “three months” (16:20), whilst the Maccabees will mark the day as an annual day of celebration (Mordecai’s Day) (I Maccabees 7:48-49).
Peace then prevailed for a time (cf. Judith 16:25; I Maccabees 7:50).
The main point of this article, though, is to identify “Gog and Magog”.
How does the above relate to this enigmatic foe of Israel?
Is Nicanor the key?
Gog Long Foretold
Ezekiel 38:16-17
…. O Gog …. Thus saith the Lord GOD; ‘Art thou he of whom I have spoken in old time by my servants the prophets of Israel, which prophesied in those days many years that I would bring thee against them?’
Who foretold Gog?
Some Equivocal References
Prophetic utterance about Gog goes back to the time of Moses according to some versions of Numbers 24:7, such as the LXX, which renders Balaam’s prediction of “a king higher than Agag”, as “a king higher than Gog”. Likewise the Samaritan Hebrew text.
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=yjMHAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PA33&lpg=RA1-P).
But there is an Amalekite king called “Agag” at the time of King Saul (I Samuel 15:8): “[Saul] also took Agag king of the Amalekites alive …”.
Again (http://danielstreett.com/2011/09/23/gog-the-locust-king-lxx-texts-of-note-3/): “In Vaticanus, Deut 3:1, 13 read Γωγ [Gog] instead of Ὠγ [Og] as the king of Βασάν [Bashan]. Og, of course, also takes on mythic proportions in Jewish tradition”.
The name, “Gog”, also appears in the LXX version of Amos 7:1, the prophet Amos actually belonging to the neo-Assyrian period of the C9th-8th’s BC. We read of this at: http://danielstreett.com/2011/09/23/gog-the-locust-king-lxx-texts-of-note-3/
In Amos 7:1 LXX we have a most intriguing passage. Most English translations read something like this: “The sovereign LORD showed me this: I saw him making locusts just as the crops planted late were beginning to sprout. (The crops planted late sprout after the royal harvest.)” (NET Bible)
Gog the Grasshopper
The LXX, however, reads: οὕτως ἔδειξέν μοι κύριος καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπιγονὴ ἀκρίδων ἐρχομένη ἑωθινή καὶ ἰδοὺ βροῦχος εἷς Γωγ ὁ βασιλεύς. In English: “Thus the Lord showed me, and behold, a swarm of locusts coming early, and behold, one locust, Gog, the king.” It’s possible that the translator has seen in Amos 7:1 a link to Joel’s locust army, which comes from the north (Joel 2:20), and has thus linked it to Ezekiel’s Gog, which also comes from the north (Ezek 38:15).
[End of quote]
More Promising Predictions
Though the prophet Zechariah, who is late - whose life continued on into the post-exilic period - never actually mentions Gog, he does predict a Jewish victory over the Greeks (9:13):
I will bend Judah as I bend my bow
and fill it with Ephraim.
I will rouse your sons, Zion,
against your sons, Greece,
and make you like a warrior’s sword.
The most promising of all biblical anticipations of the Macedonian Greek hostile incursions into Palestine comes of course from the prophet Daniel, from as far back as “the first year of Darius the Mede” (11:1), who was none other than the King Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther.
The prophet Ezekiel refers to Daniel in several places. Though various modern commentaries suggest that this is not the Daniel of the Old Testament, but possibly a pagan king, Dan’el, of Ugaritic literature. In my article on this:
The Identity of the “Daniel” in Ezekiel 14 and 28
(DOC) Identity of the 'Daniel' in Ezekiel 14 and 28 | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
I quoted the following from The Jerome Biblical Commentary (my emphasis):
Inasmuch as Daniel (Hebr consonants d-n-‘-l, Danel, as in Ugaritic) is placed beside Noah and Job, he is probably a figure from antiquity known through popular tradition and not to be identified with the biblical Daniel. Probably, although not necessarily, the reference is to Danel of ancient Ugarit, known for the effectiveness of his intercession with the gods, for attention to their desires, and as a righteous judge (ANET 150).
Sticking, however, with the real Daniel, the biblical prophet, who I believe was Ezekiel’s “Daniel”, this is what that prophet foretold about the one who I think looms as a most likely candidate for Gog (11:21-31):
He will be succeeded by a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty. He will invade the kingdom when its people feel secure, and he will seize it through intrigue. Then an overwhelming army will be swept away before him; both it and a prince of the covenant will be destroyed. After coming to an agreement with him, he will act deceitfully, and with only a few people he will rise to power. When the richest provinces feel secure, he will invade them and will achieve what neither his fathers nor his forefathers did. He will distribute plunder, loot and wealth among his followers. He will plot the overthrow of fortresses—but only for a time.
With a large army he will stir up his strength and courage against the king of the South. The king of the South will wage war with a large and very powerful army, but he will not be able to stand because of the plots devised against him. Those who eat from the king’s provisions will try to destroy him; his army will be swept away, and many will fall in battle. The two kings, with their hearts bent on evil, will sit at the same table and lie to each other, but to no avail, because an end will still come at the appointed time. The king of the North will return to his own country with great wealth, but his heart will be set against the holy covenant. He will take action against it and then return to his own country.
At the appointed time he will invade the South again, but this time the outcome will be different from what it was before. Ships of the western coastlands will oppose him, and he will lose heart. Then he will turn back and vent his fury against the holy covenant. He will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant.
His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation. With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant, but the people who know their God will firmly resist him.
Who is Gog?
What did the prophet Ezekiel have in mind when he predicted the rise of Gog?
Since Ezekiel’s “Gog”, already foretold in bygone days, was to emerge at a time well beyond Ezekiel’s own era (38:8): “After many days you will be called to arms. In future years you will invade a land that has recovered from war …”, and well after the return from Babylonian Exile: “… whose people were gathered from many nations to the mountains of Israel, which had long been desolate. They had been brought out from the nations, and now all of them live in safety”, we would not expect the prophet to have crystal clear knowledge of this future enemy - just a general impression.
Ezekiel, apparently having an inspired awareness of the general region to be ruled by the future foe of Israel, chose to identify him by the generic name of “Gog”.
This was likely a hearkening back to the historical king Gyges of Lydia, whom the Assyrians called “Gugu, King of Ludu”.
For the Seleucids did indeed rule over the Lydian realm of Gyges.
(https://books.google.com.au/books?id=yklDk6Vv0l4C&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=eum):
“The Romans are said to have taken “India and Media and Lydia” from Antiochus and to have given them to Eumenes”. This is a reference to I Maccabees 8:8.
{Commentators say that “India” ought perhaps to be replaced here by “Ionia”, since the Seleucids are thought not to have reigned over India}.
I have already discussed Seleucid control over Coele Syria and Phoenicia, as well.
And, although Egypt and Ethiopia rightfully belonged to the Ptolemies, Antiochus IV “Epiphanes”, the stand-out candidate for Ezekiel’s “Gog”, would successfully invade Egypt with a great force (I Maccabees 1:17-20):
And the kingdom was established before Antiochus, and he had a mind to reign over the land of Egypt, that he might reign over two kingdoms.
And he entered into Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots and elephants, and horsemen, and a great number of ships:
And he made war against Ptolemy king of Egypt, but Ptolemy was afraid at his presence, and fled, and many were wounded unto death.
And he took the strong cities in the land of Egypt: and he took the spoils of the land of Egypt.
“[Antiochus] took the spoils of the land of Egypt”. Nothing surprising about that, of course.
But Ezekiel will give as Gog’s very motivation, loot and plunder (38:12-13):
‘I will plunder and loot and turn my hand against the resettled ruins and the people gathered from the nations, rich in livestock and goods, living at the center of the land. Sheba and Dedan and the merchants of Tarshish and all her villages will say to you, “Have you come to plunder? Have you gathered your hordes to loot, to carry off silver and gold, to take away livestock and goods and to seize much plunder?”’
And Antiochus’s next move would be to turn upon Israel and plunder Jerusalem and its Temple (vv. 21-34):
And after Antiochus had ravaged Egypt in the hundred and forty-third year, he returned and went up against Israel.
And he went up to Jerusalem with a great multitude.
And he proudly entered into the sanctuary, and took away the golden altar, and the candlestick of light, and all the vessels thereof, and the table of proposition, and the pouring vessels, and the vials, and the little mortars of gold, and the veil, and the crowns, and the golden ornament that was before the temple: and he broke them all in pieces.
And he took the silver and gold, and the precious vessels: and he took the hidden treasures which he found: and when he had taken all away he departed into his own country.
And he made a great slaughter of men, and spoke very proudly.
And there was great mourning in Israel, and in every place where they were.
And the princes, and the ancients mourned, and the virgins and the young men were made feeble, and the beauty of the women was changed.
Every bridegroom took up lamentation: and the bride that sat in the marriage bed, mourned:
And the land was moved for the inhabitants thereof, and all the house of Jacob was covered with confusion.
And after two full years the king sent the chief collector of his tributes to the cities of Juda, and he came to Jerusalem with a great multitude.
And he spoke to them peaceable words in deceit: and they believed him.
And he fell upon the city suddenly, and struck it with a great slaughter, and destroyed much people in Israel.
And he took the spoils of the city, and burnt it with fire, and threw down the houses thereof, and the walls thereof round about:
And they took the women captive, and the children, and the cattle they possessed.
Not long after this, however, Judas Maccabeus began to win battles against the hated foreigners. He defeated Apollonius, who had “gathered together the Gentiles, and a numerous and great army from Samaria, to make war against Israel” (3:10-11). And then an army led by “Seron, captain of the army of Syria” (vv. 13-24).
Naturally, these setbacks infuriated king Antiochus IV (vv. 27-33):
Now when king Antiochus heard these words, he was angry in his mind: and he sent and gathered the forces of all his kingdom, an exceeding strong army.
And he opened his treasury, and gave out pay to the army for a year: and he commanded them, that they should be ready for all things.
And he perceived that the money of his treasures failed, and that the tributes of the country were small because of the dissension, and the evil that he had brought upon the land, that he might take away the laws of old times:
And he feared that he should not have as formerly enough, for charges and gifts, which he had given before with a liberal hand: for he had abounded more than the kings that had been before him.
And he was greatly perplexed in mind, and purposed to go into Persia, and to take tributes of the countries, and to gather much money.
And he left Lysias, a nobleman of the blood royal, to oversee the affairs of the kingdom, from the river Euphrates even to the river of Egypt:
And to bring up his son Antiochus, till he came again.
So it is apparent that the profligate Antiochus “Epiphanes” was ever seeking more and more plunder and wealth. Just like Gog.
Moreover, due to the vastness of the Seleucid empire, Antiochus could draw on what Ezekiel says of Gog, “the many nations with you” (38:6). These included (vv. 5-6) “Persia”, to where Antiochus would march to replenish his treasury, “Cush”, included in his conquest of Egypt, “and Put will be with them, all with shields and helmets, also Gomer with all its troops, and Beth Togarmah from the far north with all its troops”, all lands belonging to the Seleucid empire.
Later Antiochus’s general, Nicanor, will march against the Jews with “no fewer than twenty thousand armed men of different nations”, or, as The Jerusalem Bible puts it, “an international force” (2 Maccabees 8:9).
From a reading through of 1 and 2 Maccabees one learns that the Maccabean family would have to face wave after wave of massive forces over a lengthy period of time. In other words, the assault by Gog upon Israel was not simply just one concentrated invasion at one point in time, as was the case with Sennacherib’s Assyrian army of 185,000. No, it was a prolonged affair. And it saw one Seleucid king succeed another.
Ezekiel, who knew the broad outline of the war, summarised it as follows whilst reverting to apocalyptic language (38:14-20):
Therefore, son of man, prophesy and say to Gog: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: In that day, when my people Israel are living in safety, will you not take notice of it? You will come from your place in the far north, you and many nations with you, all of them riding on horses, a great horde, a mighty army. You will advance against my people Israel like a cloud that covers the land. In days to come, Gog, I will bring you against my land, so that the nations may know me when I am proved holy through you before their eyes. This is what the Sovereign LORD says: You are the one I spoke of in former days by my servants the prophets of Israel. At that time they prophesied for years that I would bring you against them. This is what will happen in that day: When Gog attacks the land of Israel, my hot anger will be aroused, declares the Sovereign LORD. In my zeal and fiery wrath I declare that at that time there shall be a great earthquake in the land of Israel. The fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the beasts of the field, every creature that moves along the ground, and all the people on the face of the earth will tremble at my presence. The mountains will be overturned, the cliffs will crumble and every wall will fall to the ground’.
Gog’s war machine would be no amateur assortment of troops, but a well-oiled and well-armed fighting force that properly understood war (vv. 4-5): “… your horses, your horsemen fully armed, and a great horde with large and small shields, all of them brandishing their swords. Persia, Cush and Put will be with them, all with shields and helmets …”.
Likewise, the forces of Gorgias, one of the “mighty men of the king’s friends” (1 Maccabees 3:38, 4:7): “And they saw the camp of the Gentiles that it was strong, and the men in breastplates, and the horsemen round about them, and these were trained up to war”.
And, later, the troops of king Antiochus V, son of the now-deceased “Epiphanes” (1 Maccabees 6:28-30):
Now when the king heard this, he was angry: and he called together all his friends, and the captains of his army, and them that were over the horsemen.
There came also to him from other realms, and from the islands of the sea hired troops.
And the number of his army was an hundred thousand footmen, and twenty thousand horsemen, and thirty-two elephants, trained to battle.
V. 35: “And they distributed the beasts by the legions: and there stood by every elephant a thousand men in coats of mail, and with helmets of brass on their heads: and five hundred horsemen set in order were chosen for every beast”.
V. 39: “Now when the sun shone upon the shields of gold, and of brass, the mountains glittered therewith, and they shone like lamps of fire”.
V. 51: “And [Antiochus] turned his army against the sanctuary for many days: and he set up there battering slings, and engines and instruments to cast fire, and engines to cast stones and javelins, and pieces to shoot arrows, and slings”.
But all of this massed force will ultimately be in vain, for this is to be a victory, not of Gog’s, but of the Lord’s (38:21-23):
I will summon a sword against Gog on all my mountains, declares the Sovereign LORD. Every man’s sword will be against his brother. I will execute judgment on him with plague and bloodshed; I will pour down torrents of rain, hailstones and burning sulfur on him and on his troops and on the many nations with him. And so I will show my greatness and my holiness, and I will make myself known in the sight of many nations. Then they will know that I am the LORD.’
Historians writing about the Hellenistic era can tend to downplay the significance of the Jewish resistance as being of minor concern to the Seleucid kings, who, they estimate, had far bigger fish to fry.
That would probably have been the case had not the Seleucids had the misfortune to have encountered Judas Maccabeus, undoubtedly one of the greatest military tacticians and intrepid warriors in Jewish history.
Despite the fact that 1 and 2 Maccabees record victory after victory by the Maccabean-led Jews over armies - some of massive size and strength - sent against them by successive kings and governors, and commanded by some of their most illustrious generals, historians seem at pains to play it all down as being of no great import.
That is a common pattern that one finds with regard to biblical history and archaeology. There seems to be a predisposition by would-be scholars to give little or no credit to Israel, to minimalise, or even to annihilate from the historical record, the claims and achievements of Israel. And, ironically, the Israelis can be at the forefront of this, as witness Israel Finkelstein’s boast to have rid history of King Solomon.
Less radically than Finkelstein, but still following a minimalising tendency, Peter Green will describe the Jewish-led resistance of the Maccabees as “a comparatively minor affair” (Alexander to Actium: The Hellenistic Age, 1990, p. 497):
For the clarification of Hellenistic history it should always be borne in mind that the Jewish problem, including the nationalist revolution under Judas Maccabeus … was, from the viewpoint of Alexandria and, subsequently, Antioch, a comparatively minor affair, involving local tribal politics, and significant chiefly because of its strategic setting between Idumaea and Samaria, on the marches of Coele Syria ….
Green is right insofar as he notes Israel’s “significance” in relation to its geographical setting. Did not the prophet Ezekiel have Gog describe it thus (38:12): “I will plunder and loot and turn my hand against the resettled ruins and the people … living at the center [navel] of the land [earth]”?
The fact that king Antiochus “Epiphanes” had, to his chagrin, completely under-estimated the power of the Jewish resistance, is not the same as to say that it was in actuality something “comparatively minor”.
The situation is quite well described at: http://www.zianet.com/maxey/inter3.htm
JUDAS (166 - 160 BC)
In the early days of this growing revolt against his authority and abuses, Antiochus again made a major mistake -- he vastly underestimated the power and zeal of this band of Jewish rebels. He assumed this was little more than a minor incident which would be quickly put down. Therefore, he sent out some of his less capable generals [sic], with only a small army, to seek out the rebels and put down the rebellion. It would prove to be a costly miscalculation.
These generals and their forces were simply not equal to Judas, who was possibly one of the greatest military minds in all of Jewish history! Even though greatly outnumbered, Judas and his rebels defeated general after general in battle. He overpowered General [Apollonius] near Samaria; he routed General Seron in the valley of [Beth-horon]; and in a tremendous victory south of Mizpah he conquered three generals, who led a combined army of 50,000 troops .... and he did it with only 6000 poorly equipped Jewish rebels!! The people of Israel gave Judas the nickname "Maccabeus" because of his great daring and success in "hammering" the enemy forces into the ground.
Antiochus soon realized he had a full-scale rebellion on his hands, and that it was far more serious than he had originally believed. He decided, therefore, to end the revolt in a most dramatic fashion, and to exterminate the Jewish people in the process. He sent Lysias, the commander-in-chief of the Seleucid army, along with 60,000 infantrymen and 5000 cavalry, to utterly destroy the Jews. This vast army was additionally commanded by two generals serving under Lysias -- Nicanor and Gorgias. This powerful army finally encountered Judas, who had a force of only 3000 poorly equipped rebels, in the town of Emmaus, which was just over 7 miles from Jerusalem. Judas managed to gather together another 7000 rebels, but was still terribly outnumbered. He prayed to God for strength and deliverance (I Maccabees 4:30-33), and God answered! They won a huge victory over the Seleucid army!
Judas then determined to enter Jerusalem and liberate the city, and also to purify the Temple and rededicate it to God. When they entered the holy city, the extent of the destruction which they beheld caused them to be overwhelmed by grief (I Maccabees 4:36-40). Their grief, however, soon turned to determination and action. They set about the task of driving the enemy out of the city, and also of cleaning up the Temple. On December 25, 165 BC (exactly three years after Antiochus had defiled the altar of God by offering a pig upon it), the Temple of God was rededicated to God with rejoicing and sacrifices. The celebration continued for eight days. This is the famous "Feast of Lights" (Hanukkah) which is still celebrated by the Jews to this day.
[End of quote]
“To exterminate the
entire Jewish race”
King Antiochus “Epiphanes”
It seems that, whilst the initial motivation of the invading armies had been plunder and loot, as anticipated also by the words Ezekiel will put into the mouth of Gog (38:12-13; cf. v. 10):
‘I will plunder and loot and turn my hand against the resettled ruins and the people gathered from the nations, rich in livestock and goods …’. Sheba and Dedan and the merchants of Tarshish and all her villages will say to you, “Have you come to plunder? Have you gathered your hordes to loot, to carry off silver and gold, to take away livestock and goods and to seize much plunder?”’,
the fury that the unexpected Maccabean victories had stirred up in the hearts of kings Antiochus, Lysias, and Nicanor, had so affected them that the primary motivation now appears to have become - as with wicked Haman (Esther 3:6) - to destroy the Jews completely.
Thus the furious Antiochus “Epiphanes”, returning from Persia (II Maccabees 9:4):
And swelling with anger … thought to revenge upon the Jews the injury done by them that had put him to flight. And therefore he commanded his chariot to be driven, without stopping in his journey, the judgment of heaven urging him forward, because he had spoken so proudly, that he would come to Jerusalem, and make it a common burying place of the Jews.
But it would mainly be the Jews doing the burying as according to Ezekiel 39:11: ‘On that day I will give Gog a burial place in Israel, in the valley of those who travel east of the Sea. It will block the way of travelers, because Gog and all his hordes will be buried there. So it will be called the Valley of Hamon Gog’.
Moreover, it would be the Jews who would be enjoying the abundant booty (I Maccabees 4:23): “And Judas returned to take the spoils of the camp, and they got much gold, and silver, and blue silk, and purple of the sea, and great riches”. (II Maccabees 8:25): “They seized the money from the people who had come to buy them as slaves”.
Moreover, king Antiochus himself would now die a most horrible death (9:8-12):
Thus he that seemed to himself to command even the waves of the sea, being proud above the condition of man, and to weigh the heights of the mountains in a balance, now being cast down to the ground, was carried in a litter, bearing witness to the manifest power of God in himself:
So that worms swarmed out of the body of this man, and whilst he lived in sorrow and pain, his flesh fell off, and the filthiness of his smell was noisome to the army.
And the man that thought a little before he could reach to the stars of heaven, no man could endure to carry, for the intolerable stench.
And by this means, being brought from his great pride, he began to come to the knowledge of himself, being admonished by the scourge of God, his pains increasing every moment.
And when he himself could not now abide his own stench, he spoke thus: It is just to be subject to God, and that a mortal man should not equal himself to God.
Continuing now with: http://www.zianet.com/maxey/inter3.htm
Having finally achieved the liberation of Jerusalem, and the restoration of their religious practices in the Temple, Judas and his rebels now turned their attention to the task of seeking to liberate all of Palestine from pagan control. Within a rather brief period of time they were able to regain possession of much of the land. However, their successes were short-lived, for Lysias, now acting as king after the death of Antiochus, who had died during a military campaign in Persia, gathered a large army and marched upon Jerusalem.
In the autumn of 163 BC, Lysias, and an army of 120,000 men and 32 war elephants, met Judas and his army 10 miles SW of Jerusalem. Lysias made the elephants drunk on grape and mulberry wine so they would stampede over the Jewish rebels (I Maccabees 6:34). This time Judas was unable to prevail, and although they killed 600 of the enemy soldiers, they were nevertheless forced to retreat into the city of Jerusalem. During this battle, Eleazer (the younger brother of Judas) died in a most heroic manner when he single-handedly attacked a large elephant that he believed to be carrying the enemy king (I Maccabees 6:42-46). Lysias surrounded Jerusalem in the hopes of starving the Jews into submission. But during this siege he learned that one of his rivals was marching against his own capital city in an effort to overthrow him and take the throne. Being anxious to return home and defend his throne, he made an offer of peace to Judas -- the Jews would be allowed to worship their God unmolested, if they would remain politically loyal to the Seleucid Empire. Judas agreed to these terms, and Lysias and his army departed.
[End of quote]
At this point we read that (2 Maccabees 12:1): “When these covenants were made, Lysias went to the king, and the Jews gave themselves to husbandry”, for the Jews were apparently, according to Ezekiel (38:12), “stock-breeders and tradesmen”.
Nicanor
Contrary to the view above that king Antiochus had “sent out some of his less capable generals”, the highly-regarded Nicanor, for instance, was “ranked as Illustrious” (I Maccabees 7:26), and was “in the closest circle of the King’s Friends” (II Maccabees 8:9). Now, Nicanor’s brief was brutally straightforward: “Ptolemy immediately appointed Nicanor son of Patroclus … and sent him with more than 20,000 troops of various nationalities to wipe out the entire Jewish race. Ptolemy also appointed Gorgias, a general of wide military experience, to go with him”.
And: (I Maccabees 7:26): “… king [Demetrius] sent Nicanor … who was a bitter enemy to Israel: and he commanded him to destroy the people”.
It was on this occasion, when faced with Nicanor, that Judas Maccabeus would remind his army of the great Jewish victory over Sennacherib’s massive force of 185,000 (7:41).
Just as Ezekiel had foretold the anticipation of the merchant nations for Jewish booty (38:13): “Sheba, and Dedan, and the merchants of Tarshish, with all the young lions thereof, shall say unto thee, Art thou come to take a spoil?”, so do we read in 2 Maccabees 8:10-11:
Nicanor determined to make up for the king the tribute due to the Romans, two thousand talents, by selling the captured Jews into slavery. So he immediately sent to the towns on the seacoast, inviting them to buy Jewish slaves and promising to hand over ninety slaves for a talent, not expecting the judgment from the Almighty that was about to overtake him.
And again (v. 34): “The thrice-accursed Nicanor, who had brought the thousand merchants to buy the Jews …”.
Nicanor, as we read earlier in this series, had come against the Jews with an “international” force, and this claim is further substantiated by I Maccabees 6:29: “There came also to [Nicanor] from other realms, and from the islands of the sea hired troops”.
General Nicanor’s final effort to defeat the heroic Judas Maccabeus is narrated in 1 Maccabees 7:43-49:
And the armies joined battle on the thirteenth day of the month Adar: and the army of Nicanor was defeated, and he himself was first slain in the battle.
And when his army saw that Nicanor was slain, they threw away their weapons, and fled:
And they pursued after them one day's journey from Adazer, even till ye come to Gazara, and they sounded the trumpets after them with signals.
And they went forth out of all the towns of Judea round about, and they pushed them with the horns, and they turned again to them, and they were all slain with the sword, and there was not left of them so much as one.
And they took the spoils of them for a booty, and they cut off Nicanor's head, and his right hand, which he had proudly stretched out, and they brought it, and hung it up over against Jerusalem.
And the people rejoiced exceedingly, and they spent that day with great joy.
And he ordained that this day should be kept every year, being the thirteenth of the month of Adar.
And once again, more elaborately, in 2 Maccabees 15:25-36:
Nicanor and his troops advanced with trumpets and battle songs, but Judas and his troops met the enemy in battle with invocations to God and prayers. So, fighting with their hands and praying to God in their hearts, they laid low at least thirty-five thousand, and were greatly gladdened by God’s manifestation.
When the action was over and they were returning with joy, they recognized Nicanor, lying dead, in full armor. Then there was shouting and tumult, and they blessed the Sovereign Lord in the language of their ancestors. Then the man who was ever in body and soul the defender of his people, the man who maintained his youthful goodwill toward his compatriots, ordered them to cut off Nicanor’s head and arm and carry them to Jerusalem.
When he arrived there and had called his compatriots together and stationed the priests before the altar, he sent for those who were in the citadel. He showed them the vile Nicanor’s head and that profane man’s arm, which had been boastfully stretched out against the holy house of the Almighty. He cut out the tongue of the ungodly Nicanor and said that he would feed it piecemeal to the birds and would hang up these rewards of his folly opposite the sanctuary. And they all, looking to heaven, blessed the Lord who had manifested himself, saying, “Blessed is he who has kept his own place undefiled!”
Judas hung Nicanor’s head from the citadel, a clear and conspicuous sign to everyone of the help of the Lord. And they all decreed by public vote never to let this day go unobserved, but to celebrate the thirteenth day of the twelfth month—which is called Adar in the Aramaic language—the day before Mordecai’s day.
Though the Seleucids had intended for the Jews to be lying dead in heaps, as food for birds and worms, this turned out to be the fate, instead, of their vaunted leaders, such as king Antiochus, dying of worms and foul stench, and Nicanor, his tongue fed “piecemeal to the birds”.
Conclusion about Gog and Magog
This certainly pertains to the era of the Seleucid tyrant-king, Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, and his ill-fated general, Nicanor, who, Judas Maccabeus assured, went completely off his head.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0