Biblically Compatible Archaeology and Geography

    by   Damien F. Mackey       “Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected”.   2 Timothy 3:8       Jannes and Jambres not Egyptians   The tendency, a natural one, is to suspect that the two characters to whom St. Paul refers in 2 Timothy 3:8, “Jannes and Mambres [Jambres]”, were Egyptians (e.g., magicians) who had ‘resisted Moses to his face’ when Moses was still back in the land of Egypt. Here it will be suggested, instead, that the pair were Israelite troublemakers for Moses, whose bitter opposition to the great man would lead to their terrible demise.       In the course of my attempts over the years to set Moses in an historical Egyptian setting I have generally tried also to take into account “Jannes and Mambres” as Moses’ contemporaries. But this has hardly been an easy task – especially when

    by   Damien F. Mackey     “… your conclusion: “Judas the Galilean” who “appeared in the days of the census”, according to Gamaliel, may just be that required link between the Maccabees and the census of Luke 2." seems "minimalistic" after many findings here and there. What are historical implications of your findings? ”   A Reader   This particular correspondent has written in full, commencing with reference to my article:   Maccabees need to be greatly lowered on the time scale   https://www.academia.edu/36414256/Maccabees_need_to_be_greatly_lowered_on_the_time_scale     Hi Damien, I read your article on Maccabees, which does record several interesting literary parallels. But your conclusion: “Judas the Galilean” who “appeared in the days of the census”, according to Gamaliel, may just be that required link between the Maccabees and the census of Luke 2." seems "minimalistic" after many f

    by   Damien F. Mackey     “But if the Temple is indeed depicted on the Bar Kochba coins (e.g., as a national symbol) then there is a way to check your hypothesis - "our" Bar Kochba could depict only magnificent Herod's Temple, while "your" Bar Kochba - only the previous one, a puny hut”. Canadian Reader’s comment     Canadian reader:   …. Is your paper [not referenced by this reader] academic? Much of what you write is known. See e.g., this paper which can be also found on Academia: https://sci-cult.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/1-BELENKIY_formatted-corrAB_reformatted.pdf Cheers ....   Damien Mackey: … But then you're quite wrong in writing that: "Much of what you write is known". Who else today, but I, writes about Epiphanes as Hadrian (supposed to be some 300 years apart)? Or who else argues that there was no Second Jewish Revolt after the First one? ….   Canadian reader:   Damien, I am

  by   Damien F. Mackey           N. Grimal refers to another Aha (that being the name of Abraham’s proposed contemporary, Hor-Aha) as living at the same time as Khety II.       The king of Egypt at the time of Abram (Abraham) I have identified, e.g. in my article:   From Genesis to Hernan Cortes. Volume Four: Era of Abraham   https://www.academia.edu/41229801/From_Genesis_to_Hernan_Cortes._Volume_Four_Era_of_Abraham   as the first ruler of the First Dynasty, the very long-reigning Menes Hor-Aha (‘Min’). And I have been able - following the structure of the Book of Genesis ( toledôt and chiasmus) - to link that ruler with Abimelech known to Abram (Genesis 20:2) and to Isaac (26:1).     Whilst Abimelech ( אֲבִימֶ֙לֶךְ֙ ) is a Hebrew name, meaning “ My Father is King”, I noted that it had a structure and meaning rather similar to that of the supposedly Second Dynasty king, Raneb, or Nebra:   that is, “Father R