Wednesday, November 26, 2025

Can Joseph Barnabas be extended to incorporate Joseph Barsabbas?

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

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

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

Monday, November 24, 2025

Sea of Reeds

“Considering recent research and that yam suph means “Reed Sea,” the Exodus crossing’s most likely location is in the Isthmus of Suez, at Ballah Lake”. Associates for Biblical Research What follows could be read in conjunction with my (Damien Mackey’s) article: Exodus East Wind driving back the waters is a phenomenon observed in modern times (4) Exodus East Wind driving back the waters is a phenomenon observed in modern times The following article appears to be a most reasonable attempt to locate the place of crossing of the Israelites when fleeing from the pursuing Egyptians: Winter 2006 issue of Bible and Spade New Evidence from Egypt on the Location of the Exodus Sea Crossing: Part I Sea of Reeds There is general agreement among scholars today, both liberal and conservative, that yam suph means “Reed Sea.” The Hebrew suph definitely referred to a water plant of some sort (Kitchen 2003: 262), as indicated in Exodus 2:3–5 and Isaiah 19:6–7, where reeds in the Nile River are mentioned (Hoffmeier 2005: 81). In fact, it is probable that the Hebrew suph (“reed”) is an Egyptian loan word—from the hieroglyph for water plants (twf) (Huddlestun 1992: 636; Hoffmeier 1997: 204; 2005: 81–83). Unfortunately, a more precise identification to a specific water plant for suph is not presently possible. Still, the Bible is clear that the sea the Israelites crossed was the “Reed Sea.” This suggests a large body of water on Egypt’s eastern border that is identified with reeds. But where was it located? In the Bible, the name yam suph is used in reference to the Gulf of Aqaba (Ex 23:31; Nm 21:4; Dt 1:40, 2:1; 1 Kgs 9:26) and apparently the Gulf of Suez (Nm 33:10–11). That makes both legitimate candidates for the sea crossing location. While few scholars have posited the Reed Sea crossing point to be on the eastern Gulf of Aqaba, Robert Cornuke and Larry Williams have recently popularized that idea (Blum 1998). However, that location appears to be too far east of Goshen to fit the literal understanding of the Exodus itinerary (Hoffmeier 2005: 130–40; Franz 2000; Wood 2000). On the other hand, the popular view among conservative scholars has been to locate the Exodus crossing somewhere along the northern tip of the western Gulf of Suez. Unfortunately, the place names in the Exodus account do not fit that region very well. Neither has modern archaeological research added any support to this location for the Exodus sea crossing. Whether one chooses either gulf, the important issue is that the location was the yam suph. If the Gulf of Suez is chosen as the Exodus crossing site, the location must be based on Biblical and extra-Biblical data. The Gulf of Suez must not be chosen because it is called the Red Sea today, or even in antiquity. I propose that a literal and careful understanding of the Biblical text, in conjunction with the most recent research from the eastern Nile delta, suggests a location other than the Gulf of Suez. …. The land area north of the Gulf of Suez, all the way to the Mediterranean coast, is known today as the Isthmus of Suez. It includes the eastern Nile delta (where Goshen was located, east of the Nile’s Pelusiac branch; see Kitchen 2003: 254, 261), the marshy lakes to the east, and the desert beyond. In antiquity there were five lakes in this narrow strip of land: Ballah Lake, Lake Timsah, Great Bitter Lake and Little Bitter Lake. This entire area, from the northern limit of the Gulf of Suez to the Mediterranean coastline, is not at all as it was in antiquity. Evidence suggests that the Gulf of Suez extended further north in antiquity than it does today, although we do not presently know how far north (Hoffmeier 1997: 209). Also, the Mediterranean coastline during the second millennium BC was much further south than it is today (Scolnic 2004: 96–97; Hoffmeier 2005: 41–42), so the isthmus between the two was much narrower than today. What has remained consistent about the region throughout history is the fact that it has always been known for marshy freshwater lakes. Consequently, it should be of no surprise that the Suez Canal was cut directly through here in 1869. Egyptian texts use the hieroglyph for “reed” (twf) in reference to this region, suggesting they were prominent there (Huddlestun 1992: 636–37) and that the name was associated with that area (Hoffmeier 2005: 81–83). In fact, Hoffmeier, in agreement with Manfred Bietak, excavator of Rameses (see Wood 2004), has concluded that the hieroglyphic term p3 twfy (p3 being the definite article “the”) referred specifically to a particular reedy lake on Egypt’s eastern border—Ballah Lake (2005: 88). Noting Bietak’s important paleoenvironmental study of the region, Hoffmeier added that Tell Abu Sefeh, at modern Qantara East on the west side of the present Ballah Lake area, probably reflects the ancient Egyptian name for that lake (p3 twfy) and its Hebrew counterpart (yam suph) (2005: 88–89). Hoffmeier also points out that excavations at Tell Abu Sefeh have uncovered remains of an impressive harbor with quays that once handled multiple trading vessels (2005: 88). While archaeological evidence has identified remains later than the Exodus period, it is obvious that the Ballah Lake was once a substantial body of water on Egypt’s eastern border. Kitchen suggested that the Reed Sea terminology might have been used by the ancients for all the bodies of water in the series of reedy lakes that ran the full north-south length of the isthmus (2003:262). By extension, it was also applied to the last of these bodies of water—the Gulf of Suez. This would also explain Numbers 33:10, where the Israelites again passed yam suph (so-called “yam suph II” [Kitchen 2003: 271]) later in the Exodus narrative, after the miraculous yam suph crossing earlier. Maybe at that time, or even later, the same term also came to be used for still another “connected” body of water—the Gulf of Aqaba. Geological studies indicate that natural factors have produced great changes in both the Nile delta and Isthmus of Suez through the millennia. More recent human activity has changed the region most of all. Completion of both the old (1902) and new (1970) Nile River dams at Aswan have dramatically affected the river’s flow and greatly reduced its flooding. With the Nile flooding non-existent, the perennial flood safety valve—the Wadi Tumilat, running from the Nile to the Isthmus of Suez lakes—no longer served that need (Hoffmeier 1997: 207). An even greater impact on the isthmus lakes came from construction of the Suez Canal, completed in 1869. It drained much of the marshy area of the Ballah Lake (Hoffmeier 1997: 211; 2005: 43). Beyond the combined impact on the isthmus of these modern construction projects, the water level of the Gulf of Suez is presently lower than in antiquity. Apparently due to natural causes unrelated to either the Nile River dam or the Suez Canal, the Gulf of Suez is lower today and does not extend as far north into the isthmus as it once did (Hoffmeier 1997: 207–208). …. Eastern Frontier Canal For millennia man has desired to impact the Suez Isthmus region, but with minimal success. Ancient Egyptian texts and modern geological surveys have identified ancient canal lines cut between the marshy lakes in antiquity, called the Eastern Frontier Canal by their discoverers (Hoffmeier 2005: 42). Long before the Suez Canal, both native and foreign rulers cut canals through the Isthmus for a variety of reasons. Ancient documents mention canal construction by Pharaohs Sesostris I or III (12th Dynasty) [Mackey: The actual time of Moses], Necho II (610–595 BC) and the Persian king Darius (522–486 BC), as well as Ptolemy II (282–246 BC) (Hoffmeier 1997: 165, 169). Thus it was not surprising that geologists found evidence of a man-made canal joining the lakes in the northern sector of the isthmus. Probably cut for defensive purposes as well as for irrigation and navigation, it created a formidable eastern border barrier. Known portions of this canal are consistently 230 ft (70 m) wide at the top, an estimated 66 ft (20 m) wide at the bottom and 6.5 to 10 ft (2–3 m) deep. This ancient canal was wider than the original Suez Canal, 177 ft (54 m) across the top and 72 ft (22 m) at the bottom. While no one is suggesting that the Israelites crossed a canal, it was apparently an important feature in Egypt’s eastern border defense designed to make travel difficult. The adjacent embankments created by digging this canal would have added to the formidability of this border defensive system (Hoffmeier 1997: 170–71; Kitchen 2003: 260). Thus, crossing the sea in this region represented a true departure from Egypt. West of the lake-and-canal border was the cultivated land of the delta, with Goshen located on the eastern side, but still very much part of Egypt. East of the lakes was the desert where the Israelites would no longer be within Egypt proper (Hoffmeier 2005: 37, 43). Anyone who has visited Egypt can’t help but be struck by the stark contrast of green, cultivated Nile delta and the brown barren desert, in places just yards apart. …. Wadi Tumilat During prehistoric times (before 3200 BC) [sic], the Nile’s easternmost branch once passed through the Wadi Tumilat. Stretching 31 mi (52 km) from just west of modern Zagazig (ancient Bubastis) to Ismailiya (on Lake Timsah), it created a portion of the eastern edge of the Nile delta. While the course of this delta branch disappeared in historic times, and the present eastern branch is significantly further to the west, both historical and archaeological evidence indicate that ancient canals were cut from the Nile River eastward through the Wadi Tumilat (Hoffmeier 1997: 165; 2005: 41). This ancient watercourse apparently continued to flood periodically throughout history with the overflow of the Nile’s annual flooding (Hoffmeier 1997: 165; 2005: 43). Thus, the Wadi Tumilat may have been one of the reasons that the Isthmus of Suez became known for its marshy fresh water lakes and associated “reeds” (twf). The Wadi Tumilat was no doubt part of the Biblical Land of Goshen. It is within this very area of the Isthmus of Suez that topographical and archaeological research locates the initial sites mentioned in the Exodus itinerary. The valley’s very name today even hints at its place in the Exodus. The Arabic term “Tumilat” actually preserves the name of the Egyptian god Atum (Hoffmeier 2005: 62, 64, 69), and it would appear he was well respected in this region during the time of the Exodus. The store city of Pithom (Ex 1:11) is the Hebrew name for a site that would have been known in Egypt as pr-itm (“house [or temple] of Atum”) and it was probably located in the ancient Wadi Tumilat (Hoffmeier 2005: 58–59). In addition, the Exodus itinerary site of Etham was no doubt named after the same Egyptian deity (Hoffmeier 2005: 69). The region’s geography and the Exodus account fit together. The Israelites departed from Rameses to the north of Wadi Tumilat and headed south after the last plague (see Ex 13:17–14:3). They came to Succoth in the Wadi Tumilat then headed east to Etham in the vicinity of Lake Timsah. Turning north, they were overtaken by the pursuing Egyptians at Pi Hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea and before Baal Zephon (Ex 14:2). This was all still the green, cultivated area of the Nile delta—still Egypt proper. The Israelites were facing an impregnable border between them and freedom in the Sinai—the freshwater lakes with their interconnecting canals and a series of strategically located forts. It appeared to them and to Pharaoh that they had no place to go (Ex 14:3, 11–12). Horus Way There were three ancient main roads that left the Nile delta going east. One was a mining road from the southern delta near Memphis to the northern tip of the Gulf of Suez. A second exited from the eastern end of the Wadi Tumilat toward the Negev and the third was the international coastal highway (Shea 1990: 103–107; Kitchen 2003: 266–268; Hoffmeier 1996:181, 187–188; see Scolnic 2004: 95, fig.1). The Bible is very clear that the Israelites lived in Rameses from the beginning of the Sojourn (Gn 47:11) to the Exodus (Ex 12:37). It was also the starting point for Egypt’s direct road to Canaan, a northern route running along the ancient Mediterranean coastline. Also Egypt’s military highway to the east, there were 23 fortresses garrisoned with Egyptians troops at intervals along the way. The westernmost segment of the international highway, it was called the Horus Way by the Egyptians and “the road through the Philistine country” in the Bible (Ex 13:17). While the international highway is commonly known as the Via Maris (Latin, “Way of the Sea”), recent research has demonstrated this is a modern name, not an ancient one (Beitzel 1991). …. The Horus Way is pictured in relief by Pharaoh Seti I at the Karnak Temple of Amun, with eleven forts and even a waterway. With the waterway depicted vertically through the relief and Pharaoh Seti moving horizontally along the Horus Way, it can be assumed that the waterway is running north-south as the international highway heads east to Canaan. The waterway is labeled ta-denit, which means “the dividing waters.” While that name does not clarify if it is a canal or marshy lake, the very title and its north-south orientation suggest it is the border between the Nile delta (Egypt proper) and the desert to the east. Depicted as lined with reeds, it appears to at least be associated with a marshy lake (Hoffmeier 1996: 166–167). Sitting along the Horus Road and adjacent to the waterway is a site identified as Tjaru, a large town and important fortress on Egypt’s eastern border. While structures appear on both sides of the waterway, the name is on the desert side, an appropriate location to secure Egypt’s border. From Seti’s Karnak relief and the Egyptian text Papyrus Anastasi I, Gardiner identified 23 fortifications along the Horus Road, beginning with the border fort at Tjaru and ending with a fortress at Raphia in southern Canaan (Hoffmeier 1996: 183; 2004: 61; 2005: 41). In recent years geological and archaeological research in the North Sinai region have begun to identify many of these sites, even aligning the correct ancient names to their corresponding archaeological sites (Hoffmeier 2004: 64–65; 2005: 41). The key site along the Horus Way to identify is Tjaru, the road’s starting point on the Egyptian border. While Tjaru does not appear in the Exodus narrative, in at least one Egyptian source it is identified with the Exodus sea crossing location. A geographical listing of sites in The Onomasticon of Amenemope records the last two sites in Egypt’s northern frontier as Tjaru and p3 twfy (the Egyptian equivalent of the Hebrew yam suph). This association suggests that at least part of the yam suph was located nearby (Hoffmeier 2004: 65–66). Such identification can also be seen in Seti’s relief at Karnak, where Tjaru is located along the reedlined waterway. …. Understanding the Horus Way in New Kingdom Egypt offers a tangible explanation for the Biblical statement that the Israelites did not take “the road through Philistine country” (the Horus Way) directly to Gaza on the coast. In taking Egypt’s military road and facing the Egyptian-garrisoned forts along the way, together with the Egyptian army pursuing from behind, it would have been very difficult to not “change their minds and return to Egypt” (Ex 13:17). But this was not God’s plan. Instead, after leaving Pi Hahiroth and crossing the “sea” (the Egyptian border), God told the Israelites to go “by the desert road” (Ex 13:18) toward yam Suph II (Gulf of Suez) rather than into Canaan (Hoffmeier 1996: 181, 187–188). East of the border, the Israelites entered the “Desert of Shur” (Ex 15:22; 1 Sa 15:7; 27:8). Meaning “wall” in Hebrew, “Shur” may have referred to the eastern frontier canal and its accompanying embankments, in conjunction with the line of forts along the border (Scolnic 2004: 102; Hoffmeier 1996: 188). Thus, this desert was immediately on the other side of Egypt’s bordering “wall” of canals, embankments and forts. As this was the desert the Israelites entered immediately after crossing the sea (Ex 15:22), clearly the “desert of Shur” was in the northern Sinai east of the isthmus. Recent excavations have clearly identified Tjaru, the hieroglyphic name for the important city and military installation on Egypt’s eastern border. From this fort, the Pharaohs of the 18th and 19th Dynasties launched their military campaigns into Asia. Excavations have identified the 18th Dynasty (15th–13th century BC) remains of ancient Tjaru at modern Hebua I, just a few miles northeast of the Ballah Lake (Hoffmeier 1996: 186–187; 2004: 63; 2005: 91–104; Kitchen 2003: 260; Scolnic 2004: 112). This identification has helped scholars begin to place all the other sites prior to the sea crossing in the Exodus itinerary. ….

Thursday, November 20, 2025

An Astronomy that has meaning!

by Damien F. Mackey G. Mackinlay, following through Isaac Newton’s principle that the Jewish teachers frequently made figurative allusions to things that were actually present, suggested that “other allusions” unspecified by Newton, “such, for instance, as the comparison of the Baptist to the shining of the Morning Star”, must also indicate that the object of reference was present. Introduction As discussed previously, some laudable attempts have been made by scholars to identify the Nativity Star of the Magi. The complexity of such an enterprise is apparent from Frederick (“Rick”) A. Larson’s question: Could the star have been a meteorite; a comet; a supernova; a planet; or a new star? Whilst lawyer, Larson, will favour, for the Magi Star, the planet Jupiter, the two other scholars considered in my article: Solid attempts to interpret the biblical sky (3) Solid attempts to interpret the biblical sky | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Bruce Killian and G. Mackinlay, have opted for the planet Venus. Though Venus, again, will even play a rôle in Larson’s view of a bright conjunction with Jupiter. Frederick Larson is nothing if not thorough. He has picked up what he has called “The Nine Points of Christ’s Star” that he believes to be the key pieces in the puzzle of the sacred text, and he says he will not be satisfied with a final scenario that does not accommodate all nine of these. https://youtu.be/HIrwQJpD_OA Such is Larson’s thoroughness that even eight points for him will not suffice. His major difficulty will be with the fact that the Magi Star had stopped. But then it occurred to him that the planets, due to the optical phenomenon known as “retrograde motion”, actually appear to stop. Mars does a loop; Venus does a backflip; Jupiter inscribes a shallow circle. Important Chronological Notes While Larson has his Nine Points, I have interlaced previous articles on this subject with four Chronological Notes, the most relevant one here being this first one, on retrocalculation: * A very important comment on chronology (D. Mackey): Studies on the Star of the Magi and on other archaeoastronomical issues, with their retrocalculations of the night skies back into BC time, assume that our AD time is fixed, and that we actually live, today, a little over 2000 years after the Nativity of Jesus Christ. Not until revisionists like Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky came along were the standard BC calculations and ‘Dark Ages’ seriously questioned, and that has led to scholars today also rigorously testing AD time and its ‘Dark Ages’. See, e.g., Dr. Hans-Ulrich Niemitz: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/volatile/Niemitz-1997.pdf and Jan Beaufort’s summary: http://www.cybis.se/forfun/dendro/hollstein/hollstein0/beaufort/index.htm I, whilst not necessarily agreeing with all of what these writers have to say, think that there is enough in their theses, however, and that of those to whom they refer, to prompt one seriously to question the accuracy of the received AD dates. (I have since done this in various articles). Applying this note to Larson’s thesis, for instance, I have written: One of Larson’s nine points, his first in fact, has to do with this tricky subject of chronology. And this area of research may be his weak link, and may actually vitiate his whole argument. Larson has determined, based on an ancient version of the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, that the Birth of the Messiah had occurred in relation to the reign of Herod in 3-2 BC (***). *** A third chronological note This all becomes quite irrelevant, however, if I am correct in my view of Judas Maccabeus belonging to the approximate time of the Nativity of Jesus Christ …. Next I introduced: Bruce Killian, Venus The Star Of Bethlehem, whilst warmly praising Larson’s effort, has offered his own criticisms of Larson’s “The Star of Bethlehem” (2021): http://www.scripturescholar.com/VenusStarofBethlehem.pdf …. Fredrick Larson is a lawyer and does an excellent job of selling the wrong identification of the Star of Bethlehem. He identifies the Star of Bethlehem as Jupiter. He also notes that Jupiter is the largest of the planets, but that was unknown to the ancients who would see Venus as the most important because it was the brightest. He sees the king of the Jews identified in a month long shallow loop of Jupiter near Regulus the king star in the constellation of Leo. It does not “crown” this star but loops near it as it appears to loop like a Spiro graph drawing continuously in the sky. He then observed a close conjunction of Venus and Jupiter to indicate the conception of Jesus and he claims these two stars coming together was the brightest star anyone had ever seen. The problem is that Venus at its inferior conjunction is brighter than these two stars together. Finally he saw a link between the woman in Revelation 12 giving birth, but he fails to mention this happens each year and that it was not visible because it was during the day. He further presents the star guiding the magi to Bethlehem when they already knew that was where they were to go, but not identifying which of the many boys in Bethlehem was the newborn king. The stopping of Jupiter is when it reverses and goes into retrograde motion, but this point really does not even point to Bethlehem because when do you determine that this has occurred, visually you can’t, and when during the night? A miracle—many believe the star that guided the magi was simply a miracle. A light clearly called a star. Today we live at a time that planes fly over head all the time, God could have done this but why say a star guided them rather than an angel. It is clear from the information presented in this article that God was able from the foundation of the world to use the lights He set in the sky to guide the magi. I believe that most who hold this view do not recognize the special attributes of the planet Venus. These stars could be seen by all, but were faint, one would only see them if they were paying close attention. .... [End of quote] Bruce Killian would agree with Frederick Larson, though, about the Divine use of easy-to-read star tableaux. Regarding Killian’s hard BC dates (days and months), I added, recall my earlier warning about retrocalculations. George Mackinlay’s major contribution By far the most important contribution of the three, though, so I believe, is that of Lieutenant-Colonel G. Mackinlay, The Magi: How they recognized Christ's star (Hodder and Stoughton, 1907). He, too, had determined that the Star of Bethlehem was a planet, namely Venus in his case. He did not, back in his day, have the advantage of modern computer software, as has Larson, but was reliant on astronomical charts to put a date to the circumstances of Venus that he had determined had pertained to the chronology of Jesus Christ. Mackinlay - like Larson and others, relying heavily on the Scriptures - showed just how significant Venus was as “the morning star” and “the evening star”, and he quoted texts from the prophet Micah; including that fateful text without which King Herod (the Godfather of today’s abortionists) would never have condemned to death the children of Bethlehem. George Mackinlay also showed through Micah that the Baptist was symbolised as the morning star, heralding as it does the dawn (Christ). He was able to determine an internal chronology of Jesus Christ, and the Baptist, based on the periods of shining of the morning star, all this in connection with historical data, seasons and Jewish feasts. As said, the inherent weakness in such reconstructions as Larson’s, and even Mackinlay’s, is their presuming that the conventional dates for Herod and Jesus Christ are basically accurate - just as 539 BC is now wrongly presumed to be a certain date for King Cyrus of Persia - and that it is, therefore, simply a matter of finding an astronomical scenario within that conventional period and then being able to refine the dates using sophisticated modern scientific data. Happily, though, neither Larson’s nor Mackinlay’s scenario has that odd situation of the shepherds watching their sheep out in the open, in winter, that critics seem to latch on to every Christmas in order to ridicule St. Matthew’s account. Whilst I do not accept that Larson, Killian, or Mackinlay have managed, despite their valiant attempts, to identify the Magi Star, the contribution of Mackinlay on the chronological importance of the planet Venus I consider to be ground-breaking. Neither Killian’s nor Larson’s efforts - worthwhile though they assuredly are - can, I believe, match the coherent consistency of Lieutenant-Colonel G. Mackinlay’s model, that shows a Divine plan at work in every major phase of the life of Jesus Christ. Mackinlay was able to demonstrate how perfectly the eight year cycles of Venus wrap around the events of the life of Christ (who is also the “Sun of righteousness”), shining throughout the joyful occasions, but hidden during episodes of sadness and darkness. But not only does the Divine artist make use of the planet Venus in this regard. The Moon, too, in its various phases, and also the seasons (reflecting now abundance, now paucity), as Mackinlay has shown, also serve as chronological markers. Mackinlay’s harmonious theory has, to my way of thinking, the same sort of inherent consistency as has Florence and Kenneth Wood’s explanation, in Homer’s Secret ‘Iliad’ (http://www.amazon.com/Homers-Secret-Iliad-Night-Decoded/dp/0719557801), that the battles between the Greeks and Trojans as described in The Iliad mirror the movements of stars and constellations as they appear to fight for ascendancy in the sky. Since George Mackinlay’s thesis is far too detailed to do justice to it here, with all of its diagrams and detailed astronomical explanations always interwoven with the Scriptures, the interested reader is strongly advised to read the entire book. Mackinlay commences with the example of Saint John the Baptist and his association also with the morning star. (This symbolism has an Old Testament precedent, too, in Joseph’s astronomical dream, Genesis 37:9-10, according to which people are represented by heavenly bodies). Let us begin. Simile of St. John the Baptist to the Morning Star The figurative use of the morning star in reference to the Baptist is evident from the prophet Malachi’s description of the Christ’s forerunner: “My messenger, and he shall prepare the way before Me” (Malachi 3:1); because, as noted by Mackinlay (p. 39), “the same figure of speech is supported by Malachi 4:2, where the Christ is spoken of as the Sun of righteousness, who shall arise with healing in His wings”. That this definitely is the right association of scriptural ideas is shown by the reference made by Zechariah, the father of St. John the Baptist (Luke 1:76), to these two passages in the Old Testament. Thus, on the occasion of St. John’s circumcision, Zechariah prophesied of him: “You shall go before the face of the lord”, and, two verses later, he likens the coming of the Christ to “the Dayspring [or Sunrising] from on high”, which shall visit us. We note further that this same passage from Malachi, with reference to the Baptist, was quoted also by Mark the Evangelist (1:2); by the angel of the Lord who had appeared to Zechariah before his son’s birth (Luke 1:17); by the Baptist himself (John 3:28); by Jesus during his ministry (Matthew 11:10; Luke 7:27); and by the Apostle Paul at Antioch (Acts 13:24-25). These quotations are all the more remarkable because they were made at considerable intervals of time the one from the other. Jesus used the words more than three decades after they had been spoken to Zechariah by the angel, announcing that Christ’s forerunner would be born. And St. Paul referred to the very same passage in the Book of Malachi some fourteen years after Jesus had spoken them. St. John the Evangelist wrote of the Baptist: “The same came for a witness, that he might bear witness to the Light, that all might believe through him. He was not the Light, but came that he might bear witness to the Light” (John 1:7, 8). George Mackinlay, commenting on this passage (p. 41), says that “The Light par excellence is the Sun, and the Morning Star, which reflects its light, is not the light itself, but is a witness of the coming great luminary”. All four Evangelists record the Baptist as stating that the Christ would come after him: a statement in perfect harmony with the comparison of himself to the morning star (see e.g. Matthew 3:2; Mark 1:7; Luke 3:16 and John 1:15). On three memorable occasions St. John the Baptist preceded and also testified to Jesus: viz. some months before Jesus’s birth (Luke 1:41, 44); shortly before Jesus’s public ministry (Matthew 3:11); and by his violent death at the hands of Herod, about a year before the Crucifixion (Matthew 14:10). Alluding to the Baptist’s martyrdom, Jesus said: “Even so shall the Son of Man also suffer” (Matthew 17:12, 13). The figure of St. John the Baptist as the morning star is therefore a most appropriate one. Object of Reference Always Present George Mackinlay, following through Isaac Newton’s principle that the Jewish teachers frequently made figurative allusions to things that were actually present, suggested (p. 56) that “other allusions” unspecified by Newton, “such, for instance, as the comparison of the Baptist to the shining of the Morning Star”, must also indicate that the object of reference was present. “We may reasonably conclude”, he added, “that the planet was then to be seen in the early morning before sunrise”. Mackinlay realised that if Newton’s principle really worked in this instance, it would enable him to “find an indication of the dates of the ministries of Christ and of John, and consequently of the crucifixion”. Making use of calculations made by expert astronomers at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, Mackinlay, himself a professional observer, drew up a chart recording the periods when Venus appeared as the morning star for the period AD 23-36 – “a period which covers all possible limits for the beginning and ending of Christ’s ministry”. {One will need to refer to Mackinlay’s own chart reproducing the astronomical data that he had received. I have already listed various chronological precautions that I believe must seriously affect dating methods, including Mackinlay’s}. From Mackinlay’s diagram we learn that the morning star shines continuously on the average for about seven and a half lunar months at the end of each night, giving at least an hour’s notice of sunrise; but if we include the period when it is still visible, but gives shorter notice, the time of shining may be lengthened to about nine lunar months. An eight years’ cycle containing five periods of the shining of the morning star - useful for practical purposes - exists between the apparent movements of the sun and Venus, correct to within a little over two days. The morning star is conventionally estimated (see previous comment on chronology) to have begun to shine at the vernal equinox, AD 25, and eight years afterwards, viz. in AD 33, it began again its period of shining at the same season of the year; and so, generally, at all years separated from each other by eight years, the shinings of the morning star were during the same months. From the historical data available, it is conventionally agreed that the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ occurred between the years AD 28 – 33. Of necessity, then, the three and a half years’ ministry (Mackinlay is of the view that Christ’s public ministry lasted “the longer period” of between three and four years, whilst he also discusses “the shorter period” of less than three years) would have begun in one of the years AD 24-29 (conventional dating). We shall proceed now to examine in more detail those passages in the Gospels that refer to St. John the Baptist as the morning star. (a) Beginning of the Baptist’s Ministry At the very beginning of his ministry, the Baptist referred to the prophecy in Malachi 3:1, in which he himself is likened to the morning star, when he said: “He who comes after me is mightier than I” (Matthew 3:2, etc.). Now, according to Isaac Newton’s principle of scriptural interpretation, that figures are taken from things actually present, the morning star would have been shining when the Baptist began his ministry; thus the witness in the sky, and the human messenger, each gave a prolonged heralding of the One who was to come. If we refer to the Gospel of Matthew (3:8, 10 and 12), we find St. John the Baptist using three figures of speech at the beginning of his ministry: 1. “Now is the axe laid to the root of the trees” – presumably to mark the unfruitful trees to be cut down (see also Matthew 7:19). 2. “Every tree that does not bring forth good fruit is cut down …”. 3. “His winnowing fork is in his hand, and He will clear his threshing floor, and gather his wheat into the granary, but the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire”. As Mackinlay has noted (p. 60), these three figures used by St. John all refer to the time of harvest, which would have taken place within the month of the Passover, “as the place where John began his ministry was the deep depression ‘round about Jordan’ (Luke 3:3), where the harvest is far earlier than on the Judaean hills”. Now, according to Mackinlay’s chart, the morning star was shining during the month after the Passover (April or May) only in the years AD 24, 25 and 27, in the period AD 24-29. Hence we conclude that St. John the Baptist began his ministry in one of these three years. (b) Beginning of Jesus’s Ministry The Baptist again bore witness just before the beginning of Jesus Christ’s public ministry, when he proclaimed to the people: “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, for He was before me’” (John 1:15); and he repeated that statement the next day (John 1:30) – again bearing out the simile of the morning star and the rising sun. George Mackinlay, analysing what time of year this was, is certain that it must have been a good deal later than the beginning of St. John’s own ministry; “probably at least four or five months, to allow time for the Baptist to be known and to attract public attention”, he says (p. 61). It could not have been earlier than the latter part of August, he goes on; and “it must also have been long before the following Passover”, for several events in Jesus’s ministry “occurred before that date”. Mackinlay suggests that Jesus Christ most likely began his public ministry, “which we must date from the marriage in Cana of Galilee”, before November, “because there would have been leaves on the fig tree” when Nathanael came from under it (John 1:47, 48) (pp. 61-62). Jesus approvingly called Nathanael “an Israelite indeed” (John 1:47). Unlike the hypocrites who loved to pray so as to be seen by men (Matthew 6:5), Nathanael had carefully hidden himself for quiet prayer under cover of his fig tree, and so he was greatly surprised that Jesus had seen him there. In Scripture, the state of the vegetation of the fig tree is used to indicate the seasons of the year (see Matthew 24:32). We are informed that when the branch of the fig tree “becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near”. From the Song of Songs (2:13), we read of the season when “the fig tree puts forth her green figs”; and the fading of the leaf of the fig tree is mentioned in Isaiah 34:4. From this scriptural detail, relating to seasons, Mackinlay is able to narrow even further the choice of years (from AD 24-29) for the beginning of the two ministries. “We must reject AD 24, for the morning star definitely was not shining between the months August to November of that year”, he writes (p. 63). This leaves us with only two options, viz. AD 25 and 27. At this stage Mackinlay makes a further assumption – previously he had asked the reader to assume for the time being that “the shorter period’ choice for the length of Jesus’s ministry be put aside – in relation to the date AD 27. Whilst admitting that AD 27 would fulfil the necessary conditions given above “if we suppose that Christ began His ministry within a month or six weeks from the time of John’s first appearance”, Mackinlay elected to put aside this date for reasons that would become apparent later on. “He must increase, but I must decrease”. The next reference to St. John the Baptist under the figure that we are considering is: “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30). According to F. Meyer, the Baptist “knew that he was not the Light, but sent to bear witness of it, not the Sun, but the Star that announces the dawn …” (Life and Light of Men, p. 42). St. John’s words may have foreshadowed his imprisonment as well, as Mackinlay thinks, for “they were uttered after the first Passover, which took place, according to the assumption which we have just made, in AD 26, but before the Baptist was cast into prison” (pp. 63-64). Consequently, he adds, we may assume that St. John the Baptist spoke these words about the beginning or the middle of April. Meyer may not have been correct, however, in concluding his otherwise beautiful metaphor above by saying that “the Star”, which represents the Baptist, and which “announces the dawn”, also “wanes in the growing light” of the Sun. The waning of a celestial body appears to be the scriptural symbolism for the destruction of wickedness. The seeming annihilation of the stars caused by the rising of the sun, was an ancient figure of speech used to typify the triumph of good over the powers of darkness and evil. George Mackinlay suggests that this may be the image intended by St. Paul when he spoke of “The lawless one, whom the Lord shall bring to nought by the manifestation (in Greek, “shining forth”) of His coming” (II Thessalonians 2:8); and he adds that the figure of the rising sun extinguishing the light of the stars “is associated with conflict, punishment and judgment, which certainly did not represent the relationship between Christ and His forerunner John” (p. 65). Undoubtedly, rather, the impression that the Evangelist was intending to convey in this instance was one of the morning star decreasing in the sense of its non-appearance in the sky at the end of each night, as the increasing power of the sun’s heat and light became manifest. The planet Venus moves further and further away from its position as morning star, and increases its angular distance on the other side of the sun as the evening star. According to Mackinlay, in the year 26 AD Venus began to appear as the evening star “shortly before midsummer” (p. 64). Interestingly, George Mackinlay’s chart indicates that it is the more probable explanation of the non-appearance of Venus in the sky at the end of the night as being the more appropriate figure to depict the decreasing of St. John the Baptist, which is fulfilled in the circumstance under consideration. Imprisonment of St. John the Baptist It is likely, as W. Sanday has noted (Outlines from the Life of Christ, p. 49), that the imprisonment of the Baptist took place after the Passover, and before the harvest of AD 26 (John 4:35); and soon after St. John had stated that “He must increase, but I must decrease”. Sanday considered that the events surrounding the Passover (of John 2:13-4:45) did not occupy more than three or four weeks, and when Jesus arrived in Galilee (see Matthew 4:12) the impression of his public acts at Jerusalem was still fresh. Sanday thought that his estimation of the date of the Baptist’s imprisonment was “somewhat strengthened by the fact that the Synoptic Gospels record no events after Christ’s Baptism and before John was delivered up, except the Temptation (Matthew 4:12; Mark 1:14 see also Luke 4:14); and because the Apostle Paul said that “as John was fulfilling his course, he said, ‘What do you suppose that I am? I am not He. No, but after me One is coming, the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to untie’.” (Acts 13:25)”. These words tend to place the end of the Baptist’s career rather early, because the message here referred to was proclaimed by him when he announced the Messiah, in autumn of AD 25 (John 1:26, 27). Following George Mackinlay (p. 64), we therefore estimate that St. John the Baptist was imprisoned about the middle or end of April, AD 26, when, as is apparent from Mackinlay’s chart, the morning star, appropriately, was not shining. “He was a burning and shining lamp” The next reference to St. John the Baptist under this simile is a very striking one. Jesus speaks of him as “a burning and shining lamp; and you were willing to rejoice for a season in his light”. (John 5:35). Mackinlay has suggested that, because the definite article is used twice in the Greek version of this passage, “it therefore seems to indicate some particular light” (p. 67). Though St. John was in prison, Jesus said of him at this time: “You sent to John, and both was and still is a witness to the truth” (John 5:33). Regarding the phrase “to rejoice for a season in his light”, Dr. Harpur tells of a custom in the East for travellers by night to sing songs at the rising of the morning star because it announces that the darkness and dangers of the night are coming to an end (as referred to by Mackinlay, p. 68). In effect, then, Jesus was saying that the disciples of the Baptist were willing to rejoice in the light of the herald of day, which shines only by reflecting the light of the coming sun; but should rejoice now ever more since the sun itself had arisen – since “the Light of the World” had actually come. This interpretation harmonises with Jesus’s statement recorded a few verses on (John 5:39) that “you search the Scriptures … which bear witness of Me”; the inference again being – now that I have come, you ought to receive Me. All through this conversation, Mackinlay notes, “the subject is that of bearing witness” – by his own works; by the Father; by the Baptist; by the Scriptures and by Moses – “the whole pointing to the necessity of receiving the One to whom such abundant witness had been borne”. The time when Jesus made this particular statement about the Scriptures bearing witness to Him was just after the un-named feast of John 5:1, and before the Passover of John 6:4. It is often assumed, George Mackinlay informs us, that this un-named feast was Passover – but some have opted for naming it the feast of Purim, fixed several centuries earlier by the command of Queen Esther (Esther 9:32); or even the feast of Weeks at the beginning of June (p. 69). This does not affect our chronological scheme, however, for we learn from Mackinlay’s chart that the morning star was appropriately shining on each one of these feasts in AD 27. The Crucifixion But when we come to the last Passover, in the year AD 29, the herald of the dawn had just disappeared. George Mackinlay shows (p. 81) that the disappearance of the planet Venus harmonises perfectly with the record of the complete isolation of Jesus Christ at his Crucifixion, given as follows: (1) The disappearance of the witness John by death (Matthew 14:10). The forsaking of Our Lord by all his disciples (Matthew 26:56; Psalm 38:11; 49:20). (3The absence of any record of a ministry of angels, as after the Temptation (Matthew 4:11). The hiding of God’s face, when Christ uttered the cry: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46; Psalm 22:1). (5) In nature, the Sun’ light failed (Luke 23:45). (6) Being daytime, the Paschal Full Moon was, of course, below the horizon. Most relevant to our subject also is the following chapter from George Mackinlay’s book: Chapter Three: “A Star … out of Jacob” Mackinlay commences by establishing “the greater probability” of the following two facts: (a) That the Nativity of Jesus Christ was at least five months after the beginning of a period of shining of the morning star, and (b) That the Nativity was at a Feast of Tabernacles (p. 140). Firstly, we consider Mackinlay’s reason for believing that the Lord’s Nativity was: (a) Five months after a period of shining. To begin with, we must consider what reason there is for supposing that the morning star was shining at all when Jesus Christ was born. In Malachi 3:1, as we have seen already, St. John the Baptist is referred to under the figure of the morning star, as the forerunner of the Christ. But the morning star itself may be called “My messenger who shall prepare the way before Me”. It is not unusual for inanimate objects thus to be spoken of in Scripture, for instance in Psalm 88:38 we have “the faithful witness in the sky”, and in Psalm 148:3 the sun, moon and stars of light are exhorted to praise God. Consequently, as George Mackinlay has explained it (p. 141), “we can reasonably suppose that the Morning Star was shining at the Nativity”. Furthermore, he adds, if the morning star were the herald of the coming One, it is fitting to imagine that a somewhat prolonged notice should be given; for “it would be more dignified and stately for the one to precede the other by a considerable interval, than that both should come almost together”. We shall find Mackinlay’s supposition of a prolonged heralding by the morning star borne out by the following inference. According to the principle of metaphors being taken from things present, we could infer that the morning star was actually shining when Jesus Christ (in Matthew 11:10), quoting Malachi 3:1, spoke of the Baptist as “My messenger … before My face”. Consistently following the same line of thought, we may reasonably infer that the morning star was also shining more than thirty years earlier when Zechariah quoted the same scriptural verse– i.e. Malachi 3:1 – at the circumcision of his son, John (Luke 1:76). Even had this appropriate passage not been quoted at the time, Mackinlay suggests (p. 142), “we might have inferred that the herald in the sky would harmoniously have been shining at the birth of the human herald”. George Mackinlay further suggests from his inference that both Jesus and John were born when the morning star was shining, that “both must have been born during the same period of its shining”. [He shows this in his charts]. The Annunciation to Mary was made by the angel Gabriel in the sixth month after the announcement to Zechariah (Luke 1:13, 24, 26); and so it follows that the Baptist was born five to six months before Jesus. Since Mackinlay’s charts indicate that the periods of shining are separated from each other by intervals of time greater than six months, then both Jesus and his herald must have been born during the same period of shining. Consequently Jesus Christ was born at least five months after the beginning of a period of shining of the morning star. It will be noticed that some years in Mackinlay’s charts are omitted – this is due simply to lack of space – but no events recorded in the Gospels took place in these omitted years, nor were any of them enrolment (see below) or Sabbath years. (b) At a Feast of Tabernacles The Law, we are told by St. Paul, has “a shadow of the good things to come” (Hebrews 10:1). The various ordinances and feasts of the Old Testament, if properly understood, are found, according to George Mackinlay, “to refer to and foreshadow many events and doctrines of the New Testament” (p. 143). Again, A. Gordon had remarked that: “Many speak slightingly of the types, but they are as accurate as mathematics; they fix the sequence of events in redemption as rigidly as the order of sunrise and noontide is fixed in the heavens” (The Ministry of the Spirit, p. 28). The deductions drawn from Gospel harmonies attest the truth of his statement. We have already observed that the Sabbath Year began at the Feast of Tabernacles; the great feasts of Passover and Weeks following in due course. Jesus’s death took place at the Passover (Matthew 27:50), probably, George Mackinlay believes, “at the very hour when the paschal lambs were killed”. “Our Passover … has been sacrificed, even Christ” (1 Corinthians 5:7); the great Victim foretold during so many ages by the yearly shedding of blood at that feast. The first Passover at the Exodus was held on the anniversary of the day when the promise –accompanied by sacrifice – was given to Abraham, that his seed would inherit the land of Canaan (Exodus 12:41; Genesis 15:8-18). Jesus Christ rose from the dead on the day after the Sabbath after the Passover (John 20:1); the day on which the sheaf of first fruits, promise of the future harvest, was waved before God (Leviticus 23:10, 11). Hence we are told by Saint Paul that as “Christ the first-fruits” (1 Corinthians 15:20. 23) rose, so those who believe in him will also rise afterwards. This day was the anniversary of Israel’s crossing through the “Sea of Reeds” (Exodus 12-14), and, as in the case of the Passover, it was also a date memorable in early history, being the day when the Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (Genesis 8:4). The month Nisan, which had been the seventh month, became the first at the Exodus (Exodus 12:2). Thus Christ’s Resurrection was heralded by two most beautiful and fitting types, occurring almost – possibly exactly – on the same day of the year; by the renewed earth emerging from the waters of the Flood, and by the redeemed people emerging from the waters of the “Sea of Reeds”. Mackinlay proceeded to search for any harmonies that there may be between the characteristics of this Feast of Tabernacles and the events recorded in connection with the Nativity. As we have noticed previously, he says (p. 146), there were two great characteristics of the Feast of Tabernacles: 1. Great joy and 2. Living in booths (tents). 1. Great joy. The Israelites were told at this feast, “You shall rejoice before the Lord your God” (Leviticus 23:40), and “You shall rejoice in your feast … you shall be altogether joyful” (Deuteronomy 16:14, 15). King Solomon dedicated his Temple on a Feast of Tabernacles, and the people afterwards were sent away “joyful and glad of heart” (1 Kings 8:2, 66; 2 Chronicles 7:10). There was no public rejoicing at the Nativity of Jesus Christ, however; on the contrary, as George Mackinlay notes, “shortly afterwards Herod was troubled and all Jerusalem with him” (Matthew 2:3). But though He was rejected by the majority, we find the characteristic joy of Tabernacles reflected in the expectant and spiritually-minded souls. Before the Nativity both the Virgin Mary and Elizabeth rejoiced in anticipation of it (Luke 1:38, 42, 44, 46, 47). At the Nativity an angel appeared to the shepherds and brought them good tidings of great joy; and then “suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, ‘Glory to God in the highest’.” The shepherds then came to the infant Saviour and returned “glorifying and praising God” (Luke 2:9-20). Forty days after the Nativity, at the Purification, Simeon, who had been waiting a long time for the consolation of Israel, and the venerable Anna who was a constant worshipper, joined in with their notes of praise and gladness (Luke 2:22-38). And lastly the wise men from the East “rejoiced with exceeding great joy” when they saw the star indicating where the Saviour was, and they came into the house, saw the young Child with his Mother, and presented the gifts that they had brought (Matthew 2:9-11). This “Mother”, the Virgin Mary, is the ultimate “Star” pointing to Jesus Christ, her Son. John Paul II’s encyclical, Redemptoris Mater (1987), is full of allusions to the Blessed Virgin Mary as ‘our fixed point’, or star ‘of reference’. To quote just this one example (# 3): …. The fact that she “preceded” the coming of Christ is reflected every year in the liturgy of Advent. Therefore, if to that ancient historical expectation of the Saviour we compare these years which are bringing us closer to the end of the second Millennium after Christ and to the beginning of the third, it becomes fully comprehensible that in this present period we wish to turn in a special way to her, the one who in the “night” of the Advent expectation began to shine like a true “Morning Star” (Stella Matutina). For just as this star, together with the “dawn,” precedes the rising of the sun, so Mary from the time of her Immaculate Conception preceded the coming of the Saviour, the rising of the “Sun of Justice” in the history of the human race. 2. Living in booths. According to George Mackinlay (pp. 147-148), the living in booths finds a parallel in the language of the Apostle John, when he wrote concerning the Birth of Jesus, “The Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us” (John 1:14); and Our Lord himself used a somewhat similar figure when he spoke of his body thus “Destroy this Temple, and in three days I shall raise it up” (John 2:19) – words misunderstood by his enemies and afterwards quoted against him (Matthew 26:61; 27:40). It was at the Feast of Tabernacles that the glory of God filled the Temple that King Solomon had prepared for Him (2 Chronicles 5:3, 13, 14), and it would seem to have been at the beginning or first day of the feast, the fifteenth day of the month. Consequently, in Mackinlay’s opinion (p. 148) “it would appear to be harmonious that the Advent of the Lord Jesus in the body divinely prepared for him (Hebrews 10:5) should also take place at the same feast and most suitably on the first day of its celebration”. It will be noticed that the glory of God did not cover the tent of meeting when the Israelites were in the wilderness, and did not fill the tabernacle, at the Feast of Tabernacles. But it did so on the first day of the first month of the second year after the departure from Egypt (Exodus 40:17, 34, 35). We must remember that there was no Feast of Tabernacles in the wilderness, nor was the Sabbath Year kept at this stage; but both of these ordinances were to be observed when the Israelites entered into the Promised Land (Exodus 34:22). No agricultural operations were carried out during the forty years of wandering in the wilderness. As the Feast of Tabernacles inaugurated the Sabbath Year, Mackinlay judged (p. 149) that the glory of God filled the temple on the first day of the feast, “as that would be in harmony with what happened in the tabernacle in the wilderness when the glory of the Lord filled it on the first day of the only style of year then observed”. A. Edersheim, writing about the Feast of Tabernacles, says (The Temple, note on p. 272): “It is remarkable how many allusions to this feast occur in the writings of the prophets, as if its types were the goal of all their desires”. For further reading, see my articles: The Magi and the Star that Stopped (3) The Magi and the Star that Stopped and: Magi were not necessarily astronomers or astrologers (3) Magi were not necessarily astronomers or astrologers

Sunday, November 16, 2025

More Kings of Israel missing from Chronicles

by Damien F. Mackey “During the reign of Asa of Judah (c. 911-870 B.C.E.), Israel runs through seven kings: Nadab, Baasha, Elah, Zimri, Tibni, Omri, and Ahab (ca. 910-853 B.C.E.)”. Robin Gallaher Branch In previous articles, we learned that two truly great kings of Israel were missing entirely from the Books of Chronicles. One was Omri, a king whose House is attested later, even by the Assyrians (Akkadian:𒂍𒄷𒌝𒊑𒄿 … bīt-Ḫûmrî): Great King Omri missing from Chronicles (2) Great King Omri missing from Chronicles The other was Jeroboam II: Great King Jeroboam II missing from Chronicles (2) Great King Jeroboam II missing from Chronicles He, in fact, appears to have left far less traces (biblical or historical) than has Omri. For, as we read in this last article: …. Without the brief record in the Book of Kings and cursory mentions in two prophetic works, the name of this man would not be preserved (2 Kgs 14:23-15:8; Amos 1:1; 7:9-11; Hos 1:1). Even the parallel account of the history of the Divided Monarchy neglects to mention Jeroboam, even in passing. Chronicles does not so much as hint of his existence, even in regnal synchronisms. This king of unusually long reign and reported strong position is not attested to in Assyrian, Aramean, Hamathite, Babylonian, or Egyptian annals or inscriptions. Furthermore, the known history of the ancient Near East for his period is surprisingly sparse; very little has been preserved. The extent of the historical record is related in the Book of Kings: In the fifteenth year of Amaziah son of Joash king of Judah, Jeroboam son of Jehoash king of Israel became king in Samaria, and he reigned forty-one years. He did evil in the eyes of the LORD and did not turn away from any of the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, which he had caused Israel to commit. He was the one who restored the boundaries of Israel from Lebo Hamath to the Sea of the Arabah, in accordance with the word of the LORD, the God of Israel, spoken through his servant Jonah son of Amittai, the prophet from Gath Hepher. The LORD had seen how bitterly everyone in Israel, whether slave or free, was suffering; there was no one to help them. And since the LORD had not said he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven, he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam son of Jehoash. As for the other events of Jeroboam’s reign, all he did, and his military achievements, including how he recovered for Israel both Damascus and Hamath, which had belonged to Judah, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel? Jeroboam rested with his fathers, the kings of Israel. And Zechariah his son succeeded him as king. (2 Kgs 14:23-29 NIV4) The sources for Jeroboam’s forty-year reign are, unfortunately, not only brief but sketchy as well. Very few details about his military accomplishments, economic prosperity, or administrative ability are known. The extrabiblical sources for this period of time are also very limited. Jeroboam’s father is recorded as having paid tribute to the Assyrians a few years prior to Jeroboam’s accession. The usurper of the throne of Jeroboam’s son also received mention for a similar action some ten years after Jeroboam’s death. The Samaria Ostraca likely date to the time of Jeroboam, but their interpretation and implications are somewhat unclear. The Zakkur and Pazarcik stelae both record contemporaneous events, but far to the north of Israelite territory. Assyrian annals concentrate on the troublesome events of home, and any western excursions receive very little detail. No inscriptions have been found from the smaller nations neighboring Israel. [End of quotes] My now standard solution to problems such as these is to look to find an alter ego for one who, while known to have been famous, is yet poorly attested. See e.g. my article on this phenomenon: More ‘camera-shy’ ancient potentates (2) More 'camera-shy' ancient potentates As far as the quote goes from Robin Gallaher Branch: “During the reign of Asa of Judah (c. 911-870 B.C.E.), Israel runs through seven kings: Nadab, Baasha, Elah, Zimri, Tibni, Omri, and Ahab (ca. 910-853 B.C.E.)” this would not be the ultimate conclusion that I have reached in my articles, however, according to which, for example, Baasha/Ahab was just the one king of Israel: Baasha as Ahab (2) Baasha as Ahab And, again, Zimri was Jehu, at a time later than King Asa of Judah: Following a biblical trail to Zimri, King of Israel (2) Following a biblical trail to Zimri, King of Israel And there may be other duplicates as well. This immediately takes pressure off King Asa’s reign having to have co-existed with “seven kings” of Israel (Robin Gallaher Branch). Moreover, it needs to be pointed out that, of the supposed “seven kings” of Israel listed above by Robin Gallaher Branch, five of these (as I count it) are not even mentioned (at least by those names) in Chronicles, these five being: NADAB; ELAH; ZIMRI; TIBNI; OMRI. Even the highly significant king, Baasha, is mentioned only briefly there (2 Chronicles 16:1-6), two chapters after which (18:1) Ahab (who I believe to have been this very Baasha) emerges. None of the supposed four kings between Baasha and Ahab (namely, Elah, Zimri, Tibni, Omri) receives even the least mention in Chronicles. And about Baasha’s predecessor, Nadab, we read: https://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1249 “... Kings appeals to “the book of the chronicles of the kings” for further details about various matters that are not recorded in 1 & 2 Chronicles. For example, regarding Nadab, the second king of Israel, 1 Kings 15:31 states: “Now the rest of the acts of Nadab, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?” However, none of Nadab’s acts are recorded in 1 & 2 Chronicles. (In fact, the inspired chronicler records very little activity of the kings of the northern kingdom.) ...”.

Saturday, November 15, 2025

Aram and Edom are often confused

by Damien F. Mackey “… Cushan is an Edomite king who subjugated the tribe of Judah whose territory was adjacent to Edom …”. jewishvirtuallibrary In the first two of three cases given here, (i) Balaam and (ii) Cushan-rishathaim, so-called, Aram occurs where I think the correct geography would be Edom. Whereas, in the third case, conversely, (iii) Hadad, the foe of King Solomon, the story is situated in Edom, when I think it should be Aram. (i) Case of Balaam Following a clue from W. F. Albright, I wrote an article: Baleful Balaam son of Beor (1) Baleful Balaam son of Beor according to which Balaam was an Edomite: “Balaam was an ancient Edomite sage”, wrote W.F. Albright (“The Home of Balaam”, Jstor, 1915), whilst himself failing to connect “Balaam son of Beor” (Numbers 22:5) - as do some commentators - with “Bela son of Beor”, who “became king of Edom” (Genesis 36:31). James B. Jordan is one who has proposed such a connection, whilst in the same article including the prophet Job amongst the list of Edomite kings (“Was Job an Edomite King? (Part 2)”, 2000). Job, though, was not Edomite king, but a Naphtalian Israelite: Job’s Life and Times (2) Job’s Life and Times Job would have lived almost a millennium after Balaam and the Edomite king, Jobab, with whom Jordan (as do others) had hoped to identify Job. Jordan has written as follows on this Genesis 36 list of Edomite kings: http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-131-was-job-an-edomite-king-part-2/ … Genesis 36:31-39 provides us a list of seven kings over Edom, followed by an eighth. 1. Bela ben Beor from Dinhabah 2. Jobab ben Zerah from Bozrah 3. Husham from Teman 4. Hadad ben Bedad from Avith 5. Samlah from Masrekah 6. Saul from Rehoboth 7. Baal-Hanan ben Achbor 8. Hadar/d from Pau …. The third Edomite king was Husham, the second was Jobab, and the first was Bela son of Beor. I suggest that this Bela is to be linked with Balaam son of Beor (Numbers 22:5). We know that there were already kings in Edom at this time, because one such king denied Moses passage through his territory (Numbers 20:14-21). If this king was Bela son of Beor, Balaam would possibly be his brother. The name Bela is written bela` while the name Balaam is written bil`am. The E in Bela is short, and could easily shorten further to an I if the name is extended, as it is in the name Bilam: Bela is accented on the first syllable, while Bil`am is accented on the second, after a break in sound. Thus, it is entirely possible that Bela and Balaam are the same person. The name seems to be a shortened form of Baal, which means "lord, husband, eater." Bela, as first king of Edom, would be "Lord/Husband/Eater," while Balaam means "Lord/Husband/Eater of a People." (Compare the Babylonian god Bel with the Canaanite god Baal for a similar association.) The lord of a people is their husband, and "eats" them into himself as a body politic, as part of his body. …. Whether Bela and Balaam were the same person or not, the fact that they are both sons of Beor, the only mention of any "Beor" in the Bible, indicates the strong possibility that they were at least brothers, and thus contemporaries. …. Now, assume that Bela and Balaam are the same person. Moses put this man to death right at the end of the wilderness wanderings (Numbers 31:8 — and the mention of Balaam the son of Beor alongside five kings of Midian heightens the possibility that Balaam was Bela, king of Edom). …. [End of quote] (ii) Case of Cushan-rishathaim I explained the geographical situation for this oppressor of Israel in my article: Cushan rishathaim was king of Edom (1) Cushan rishathaim was king of Edom “Therefore the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and he sold them into the hand of Chushan rishathaim ... and the children of Israel served Chushan rishathaim eight years”. Judges 3:8 The version of the Bible from which I recently read this verse, Judges 3:8, had Cushan rishathaim as “king of Edom”; whereas I had usually read him as being a “king of Aram Naharaim”. There is, of course, a fair bit of distance between Edom, to the south of Israel, and Aram Naharaim, in Upper Mesopotamia. Armed with this new piece of information, I decided to re-visit the list of Edomite kings to be found in Genesis 36, in anticipation of perhaps finding there a name like Cushan (כּוּשַׁן). Having previously thought to have identified Balaam in that Edomite list (following Albright): William Foxwell Albright a conventional fox with insight ‘outside the box'’ (1) William Foxwell Albright a conventional fox with insight 'outside the box' and knowing that Balaam (at the time of Joshua) to have pre-existed Cushan (the time of Othniel), I checked for an appropriate name not far below King No. 1 in the list, Bela ben Beor (or Balaam son of Beor): 1. Bela ben Beor from Dinhabah 2. Jobab ben Zerah from Bozrah 3. Husham from Teman 4. Hadad ben Bedad from Avith 5. Samlah from Masrekah 6. Saul from Rehoboth 7. Baal-Hanan ben Achbor 8. Hadar/d from Pau King No. 3 looked perfect for Cushan, or Chushan: namely, Husham (or Chusham, חֻשָׁם). Later I would learn that other scholars (see below) had already come to this same conclusion (i.e., Husham = Cushan). In the following brief article, the jewishvirtuallibrary will query both long names associated with this enemy of Israel, the “Rishathaim” element and the “Naharaim” element. “The second element, Rishathaim ("double wickedness"), is presumably not the original name”, and: “The combination Aram-Naharaim is not a genuine one for the period of the Judges”: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/cushan-rishathaim CUSHAN-RISHATHAIM (Heb. כּוּשַׁן רִשְׁעָתַיִם), the first oppressor of Israel in the period of the Judges (Judg. 3:8–10). Israel was subject to Cushan-Rishathaim, the king of Aram-Naharaim, for eight years, before being rescued by the first "judge," *Othniel son of Kenaz. The second element, Rishathaim ("double wickedness"), is presumably not the original name, but serves as a pejorative which rhymes with Naharaim. The combination Aram-Naharaim is not a genuine one for the period of the Judges, since at that time the Arameans were not yet an important ethnic element in Mesopotamia. In the view of some scholars, the story lacks historical basis and is the invention of an author who wished to produce a judge from Judah, and raise the total number of judges to twelve. Those who see a historical basis to the story have proposed various identifications for Cushan-Rishathaim: (1) Cushan is to be sought among one of the Kassite rulers in Babylonia (17th–12th centuries; cf. Gen. 10:8). Josephus identifies Cushan with an Assyrian king. Others identify him with one of the Mitannian or Hittite kings. (2) Cushan is an Egyptian ruler from *Cush in Africa (Nubia; cf. Gen. 10:6; Isa. 11:11, et al.). (3) The head of the tribe of Cush, which led a nomadic existence along the southern border of Palestine. Such Cushite nomads are mentioned in the Egyptian Execration Texts of the first quarter of the second millennium B.C.E. and in the Bible (Num. 12:1; Hab. 3:7; II Chron. 14:8; 21:16). (4) Aram (Heb. ארם) is a corruption of Edom (Heb. אדום) and Naharaim is a later addition. Thus, Cushan is an Edomite king who subjugated the tribe of Judah whose territory was adjacent to Edom. (5) Cushan is from central or northern Syria, and is to be identified with a North Syrian ruler or with irsw, a Hurrian (from the area of Syria-Palestine) who seized power in Egypt during the anarchic period at the end of the 19th dynasty (c. 1200 B.C.E.). In his campaign from the north to Egypt, he also subjugated the Israelites. Othniel's rescue of the Israelites is to be understood against the background of the expulsion of the foreign invaders from Egypt by the pharaoh Sethnakhte [sic], the founder of the 20th dynasty. BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. Taeubler, in: HUCA, 20 (1947), 137–42; A. Malamat, in: JNES, 13 (1954), 231–42; S. Yeivin, in: Atiqot, 3 (1961), 176–80. Point 4 above: “... (4) Aram (Heb. ארם) is a corruption of Edom (Heb. אדום) and Naharaim is a later addition. Thus, Cushan is an Edomite king who subjugated the tribe of Judah whose territory was adjacent to Edom”, will now be viewed as the relevant one, with the addition of Husham the Temanite as the actual identification of this “Edomite king”. Avrāhām Malāmāṭ has, I think, managed to sew it all up, following Klostermann. In “Cushan Rishathaim and the Decline of the Near East around 1200 BC” (Jstor 13, no. 4, 1954), Malāmāṭ wrote (p. 232): The second component of the name Cushan Rishathaim is even more obscure and is undoubtedly a folkloristic distortion of the original form. ... Among the various efforts to ascertain the original name, those of Klostermann and Marquart have found the widest acceptance. Klostermann's proposal was that רִשְׁעָתַיִם originally represented [` נ] תימ ה ש[א]רֵ, “chieftain of the Temanites”, and identified כּוּשַׁן with חֻשָׁם, “(Husham) of the land of the Temanites”, who is third in the list of the kings of Edom (Gen. 36:34). .... Understandably, those who proposed that Cushan Rishathaim reigned in the south of Palestine could not believe the name Aram-Naharaim or Aram (Judg 3:10) to be the genuine form. They accepted the emendation of Aram to Edom, a proposal made as far back as Graetz. Naharaim was considered as a later gloss inserted for the sake of rhyming with Rishathaim. .... Consequently, our passage was viewed as the echo of a local struggle between the Edomites (or Midianites) and Othniel the Kenizzite, the leader of a southern clan related to the tribe of Judah. .... Given the lack of detail associated with the oppression of Israel by Cushan, this scenario appears to make more sense than my previous notion that Cushan was a significant Mesopotamian (perhaps Assyrian) king controlling Palestine. It was more of “a local struggle”. This now means that I must also re-consider Dr. John Osgood’s view (as previously discussed) that the Khabur culture in the north was archaeologically reflective of the period of domination by Cushan. We would need to look instead for a localised cultural dominance. (iii) Case of Hadad Solomon’s Adversaries I Kings 11:14-22: Then the Lord raised up against Solomon an adversary, Hadad the Edomite, from the royal line of Edom. Earlier when David was fighting with Edom, Joab the commander of the army, who had gone up to bury the dead, had struck down all the men in Edom. Joab and all the Israelites stayed there for six months, until they had destroyed all the men in Edom. But Hadad, still only a boy, fled to Egypt with some Edomite officials who had served his father. They set out from Midian and went to Paran. Then taking people from Paran with them, they went to Egypt, to Pharaoh king of Egypt, who gave Hadad a house and land and provided him with food. Pharaoh was so pleased with Hadad that he gave him a sister of his own wife, Queen Tahpenes, in marriage. The sister of Tahpenes bore him a son named Genubath, whom Tahpenes brought up in the royal palace. There Genubath lived with Pharaoh’s own children. While he was in Egypt, Hadad heard that David rested with his ancestors and that Joab the commander of the army was also dead. Then Hadad said to Pharaoh, ‘Let me go, that I may return to my own country’. ‘What have you lacked here that you want to go back to your own country?’ Pharaoh asked. ‘Nothing’, Hadad replied, ‘but do let me go!’ But was this Hadad really a Syrian (Aramite), rather than an Edomite? 2 Samuel 10:13 Commentaries: So Joab and the people who were with him drew near to the battle against the Arameans, and they fled before him. Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible And Joab drew nigh, and the people that were with him, unto the battle against the Syrians,.... Fell upon them; attacked them first, began the battle with them; rightly judging, that if they, being hired soldiers, were closely pressed, they would give way, which would discourage the Ammonites, who depended much upon them; and the fight, according to Josephus (x), lasted some little time, who says, that Joab killed many of them, and obliged the rest to turn their backs and flee, as follows: and they fled before him: the Syriac and Arabic versions in this verse, and in all others in this chapter where the word "Syrians" is used, have "Edomites", reading "Edom" instead of "Aram", the letters "R" and "D" in the Hebrew tongue being very similar. (x) Ut supra. (Antiqu. l. 7. c. 6. sect. 2.) ….

Thursday, November 13, 2025

Bloody Ugaritic cycle of Baal-Anat draws upon famed biblical warriors

by Damien F. Mackey “Just as Anat purges both "field" and "house," so Jehu purges both "field" and "house." Just as Anat adorns herself and puts on paint, so Jezebel adorns her self and puts on paint”. Michael S. Moore As Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky was able to demonstrate, the spectacular corpus of Ugarit (modern Ras Shamra) has been dated far too early by the historians of antiquity. On this, see my article: Ugarit (Ras Shamra), Hebrew, the Greeks (3) Ugarit (Ras Shamra), Hebrew, the Greeks The typical view dates them early. Thus: Ugaritic texts - Wikipedia The Ugaritic texts are a corpus of ancient cuneiform texts discovered in 1928 in Ugarit (Ras Shamra) and Ras Ibn Hani in Syria, and written in Ugaritic, an otherwise unknown Northwest Semitic language. Approximately 1,500 texts and fragments have been found to date. The texts were written in the 13th and 12th centuries BCE. The most famous of the Ugarit texts are the approximately fifty epic poems; the three major literary texts are the Baal Cycle, the Legend of Keret, and the Tale of Aqhat. The other texts include 150 tablets describing the Ugaritic cult and rituals, 100 letters of correspondence, a very small number of legal texts (Akkadian is considered to have been the contemporary language of law), and hundreds of administrative or economic texts. …. Naturally, the commentaries on these texts tend to follow the conventional dating. Thus Michael S. Moore, taking the textbook view, will have the Ugaritic mythology influencing the supposedly later biblical texts. While this is the usual knee-jerk default, the reality is the other way around. JEHU'S CORONATION AND PURGE OF ISRAEL by MICHAEL S. MOORE Fuller Theological Seminary, U.S.A. Michael S. Moore commences: Article-Jehus-Purge.pdf …. This paper will attempt a new reading of the Jehu tradition by reading it alongside the Baal-Anat cycle from Ugarit (KTU 1.3 i-iii). To anticipate my conclusions, I will argue that Jehu's coronation and purge is most likely a multi-leveled parody of a well-known religious tradition, and further, that its primary goal is to narrate an important episode in Israel's history in a way that appropriately ridicules the religious traditions of Israel's enemies. …. Parodying the "purge" What follows next is literarily fascinating. As is well-known, ever since KTU 1.3 came to light in 1930,43 scholars have puzzled over Anat's behavior.44 To explain it, some have tried to tie her myth to a seasonal calendar, supposing Anat's "bloodbath" to be a primitive attempt to revive the land's "vegetative spirit."45 Some have hypothesized that Anat's devotees may have engaged in some sort of homeopathic ritual for which the myth is a blueprint—perhaps a "ritual combat" designed to provoke Baal into ending the sterility of summer and sending down the autumn rains.46 Whatever the anthropological possibilities, others have noticed a number of intertextual parallels between this myth and various sections of the Hebrew Bible.47 Ph. Stern, for example, takes M. Smith's48 suggestions about Anat generally and applies them to Psa. xxiii, pointing out a number of common references to "tables among enemies," the destruction of both "house and valley," and the "house of the deity."49 Before his death, P. Craigie proposed that the Song of Deborah parallels the Anat myth in at least five ways: (1) Deborah, like Anat, has a male warrior assistant; (2) Deborah, like Anat, is a leader of warriors; (3) Deborah "dominates" (tdrkp) on the battlefield, just as Anat is a mistress of "dominion" (drkt); (4) Anat is a "maiden" (rhm), so too Deborah is a "maiden" (rhm); and (5) Deborah, like Anat, commands a military host of stars.50 Craigie believed that Dtr was quite aware of this tradition, whether or not it ever found a home in a specific cult dedicated solely to Anat.51 With regard to the myth's structure, however, J. Lloyd has helpfully suggested that Anat engages in two separate battles because at the root of this myth lies the primordial desire of conquerors to perfect their military conquests with corresponding religious sacrifices. Citing epi graphic and iconographie evidence from Moab, Egypt, and Ugarit, Lloyd suggestively proposes that conquerors cannot declare total vic tory until prisoners-of-war are brought before the (statue of the) appropriate deity, and put to death. "It is only once the actions of war are carried out within the microcosm of the temple itself that perfection is achieved."52 Assuming Lloyd is correct, I am inclined to think that the narrator of II Kings ix-x might be deliberately parodying the Anat tradition in order to propel his anti-Baalist program to a higher intensity-level. Just as Anat purges the earth, so Jehu purges Israel. Just as Anat purges both "field" and "house," so Jehu purges both "field" and "house." Just as Anat adorns herself and puts on paint, so Jezebel adorns her self and puts on paint. The following chart breaks down all the parallels I can find into subcategories of characterization, plot, and theme.53 Jehu's purge (II Kings ix 14-x 36) Anat's purge (KTU 1.3 i-iii) Characterization • One purging tool: Jehu One purging tool: Anat • Two enemies (Joram & Ahaziah) Two "enemies" (Gapnu & Ugar) • Jehu stacks 70 "heads" (rō'šîm) Anat kicks "heads" (riš) around like "balls" • Jehu "fills his hand" with the Anat's signature weapon is her "bow" bow (qešet) (qšt) 54 • Jezebel adorns herself Anat adorns herself • Jezebel uses pûk on her eyes Anat uses ánhb on her eyes ("snail ("antinomy") dye") • Jezebel looks out a window Anat closes "the gates" • Jezebel's "palms" (kap) Anat proudly wears the "palms" (kp) are barely visible of warriors on her belt • Jezebel's "skull," "feet" and "hands" Anat's "liver," "heart," "knees" and are her only remains "fingers" participate in her victory Plot • Two battles: one in the field, Two battles: one in the field, one in the one in Baal's "house" (bêt) "palace" (bht) of Anat • Jehu "meets" (qārâ) several Anat "meets" (qry) "pages" (ģlm) officials before final battle before final battle • Jehu meets Joram at Naboth's Anat meets enemies at the "foot "field" of the rock" (bšt ģr) • Jehu shoots an arrow (hēsî) Anat shoots "old men" (šbm) through sickly Joram's heart with her "shafts" (mt) • House of Baal has a "city" Anat fights "between two cities" in it (îr) (bn qrytm) • Jezebel mocks her enemies Anat mocks her enemies • Jezebel's "blood" (dâm) spatters Anat plunges her knees into "blood" (dm) Theme • Justice Purgation • Prophetic covenant Priestly power • "House" "House" • Reward for obedience Celebration of enemies' defeat Characterization Keeping in mind Jemielity's cautions about satire's "generic instability" and "controlled chaos",56 I want to emphasize at the outset of these comparisons that no literary comparison can ever be "certain,"57 especially when informed scholars cannot agree on matters as basic as tablet placement and/or narrative sequence. Some of these parallels will seem more convincing than others. Still, the main characters in these two traditions enact "flat" roles as purifying agents.™ Anat purges both valley and town on behalf of Baal, her master and lord. Jehu likewise purges Israel on behalf of Yahweh, his master and lord. In the Canaanite myth, Anat "raises her voice" against two low-level deities, Gapnu and Ugar, and vigorously defends her brother Baal from further divine attack.59 In the Hebrew story, Jehu does not even bother to converse with, he simply exterminates the kings of Israel and Judah (Joram and Ahaziah), and by so doing the narrator immediately deflates these kings' exaggerated self-image, paralleling them, how ever subtly, with Canaanite demi-gods at "the lowest level of the divine assembly."60 Moreover, each agent focuses on the "perfection" (Lloyd's term) of their respective purges; i.e., each purges something "outside" (field/wilder ness) as well as something "inside" (city/temple). In the Canaanite text, Anat does this by kicking her enemies' heads around like soccer balls and wearing their palms into battle like war-trophies.61 In the Hebrew text, Jehu stacks up his enemies' heads before Samaria's gate, then forces his foes to look at them while he makes a speech.62 Further, since myths are intentionally designed to be fluid and repetitious, several of these parallels easily shift back and forth between similarly "flat" characters, whether the parallel is between Anat-Jehu or Anat-Jezebel.63 Just as Anat mocks her enemies, so Jezebel mocks hers, calling Jehu "Zimri" (the infamous assassin-king who precedes the Omrides).64 And while we might speculate why Anat adorns herself,65 Jezebel's motives seem a bit more obvious. Jezebel paints her eyes because Anat paints her eyes. Jezebel puts on antimony (pûk) because Anat puts on murex (ánhb). Whether this is warpaint or mascara is never stated in either text, but Dtr seizes on it to heighten his satire and intensify his parody. Apparently he wants to satirize this Phoenician queen on several levels, even down to the details of her personal toilette.66 This parody continues on into the narrative about her death. In the myth, Anat's liver "swells with laughter" as she "washes her hands in the blood of the guards, her fingers in the gore of the warriors."67 In Dtr, however, Jezebel's "skull" no longer laughs, nor do her "hands" write false letters, nor do her "feet" any longer walk on family land stolen away from murdered Israelites. Just as Anat sheds her enemies' blood, so Jehu sheds his enemies' blood. Readers even nominally familiar with the Baal-Anat cycle would have no problem grasping these parallels. ….