Saturday, February 24, 2024

Essenes and Cistercians

“Essene and Cistercians alike maintained a belief in the founding of a “New Jerusalem”.” A. Butler and S. Dafoe The following interesting passages are taken from the book, The Knights Templar Revealed. The Secrets of the Cistercian Legacy (Magpie Books, 2006), by A. Butler and S. Dafoe: Pp. 43-44: …we can find no monastic institution anywhere near as similar to the Essene communities as that of the … Cistercians. … it is worth itemizing some of these similarities: • The Essene specifically chose remote desert locations for their settlements, as did the Cistercians, for the word “desert” is specifically mentioned in the Order of the Cistercians. Both groups deliberately sought seclusion and redemption through both work and prayer. • Both brotherhoods wore white. It isn’t known if the Essene placed the same reliance on sheep rearing as did the Cistercians, but the likelihood is that they did, and their garments, like those of the Cistercians, were undoubtedly of non-dyed and possibly bleached wool. • Cistercians and Essene alike showed a great obsession with cleanliness and sanitary living conditions. This was not an exclusive consideration of all monastic settlements by any stretch of the imagination. The Essene may or may not have practised total immersion as a form of repeated baptism. There is no written evidence that this was the case and the cisterns found at Qumran and other locations may merely have been a means of retaining water in an extremely arid area. The Cistercians were expected to wash their heads, hands and arms daily. This might seem a perfunctory accession to cleanliness when seen from our modern perspective, but in medieval terms it was viewed with surprise and even alarm by some agencies. Like the Essene, the Cistercians made superhuman efforts to supply all parts of their monasteries and other establishments with ample water for all manner of uses. The layout of a typical Cistercian abbey might incorporate a modified stream, as at Fountains Abbey in Yorkshire, England, as well as waste water channels and other indications of an ingenious effort to supply every part of the establishment with running water. Similar efforts were made at Qumran as well as at the Minoan palace of Knossos, where the supply of fresh water to all parts of the building were broadly similar, as were precautions taken for drainage and the disposal of sewage. We dare to suggest the Minoan/Philistine know-how, amassed over many centuries, might easily have been employed in the planning and building of settlements such as Qumran. • Essene and Cistercians alike maintained a belief in the founding of a “New Jerusalem”. …. • By their very nature both the Essene doctrine and that of the Cistercians harked back to the dawn of Judaism and the founding of the First Temple by Solomon. It should be remembered that the Templars were actually named after this institution (the poor Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon). Comment: Judaism never called it the Temple of Solomon, but the Temple of Yahweh. The article continues: House of Solomon … The fascination that both the Cistercians and the Templars held for this early period of Jewish history is quite without parallel and set the standard for the Old Testament interest prevailing in Europe at the time. • Both groups believed that the final battle, preparatory to the creation of the New Jerusalem, would represent a physical as well as a spiritual struggle. … one of the documents found at Qumran is known as the War Rule Scroll and it details the last and greatest battle that would have to be fought against the forces of darkness. This is not simply a hypothetical document based on spiritual beliefs. On the contrary, it gives very specific military advice and instructions. … the form of armaments to be carried, together with the clothing and headgear that should be worn. Beyond this, it specifies a system of signals to be used at times of war. This is a strange document to have been compiled by a body that generally existed to wage spiritual rather than tangible war against its enemies. Nevertheless, it is more than paralleled in the case of the Cistercians …. [End of quote] For a compelling identification of the Essenes as the (Herodians)-scribes of the New Testament, see Marvin Vining’s Jesus the Wicked Priest. How Christianity was born of an Essene Schism (2008). See also my (Damien Mackey’s) article: The “Essenes” in the Bible (5) Damien Mackey | The University of Sydney - Academia.edu

The “Essenes” in the Bible

by Damien F. Mackey “[Otto] Betz rightly concludes that the Herodians mentioned in Mark are the Essene Scrolls authors”. Marvin Vining I: “Herodians” Marvin Vining, author of the controversial book, Jesus the Wicked Priest. How Christianity was born of an Essene Schism (2008), considered an insight into the subject by Otto Betz to have been crucial for his own biblical identification of the enigmatic Essenes. And I, in similar fashion, owe it entirely to Marvin Vining for his having fully identified the Essenes, who would probably otherwise have continued to remain a complete mystery to me. Vining’s important chapter 2, “Identifying the Essenes in the New Testament”, will break completely new ground as far as I am concerned. In # 13 of that chapter, “Herodians”: A Minor New Testament Name for the Essenes”, he writes, leading up to Betz (p. 28): Many scholars have contributed to the identification of the Essenes in the New Testament. C. Daniel once uncovered a key historical reference to the Essenes that unraveled a great many mysteries. … He found that Josephus recorded the story of an Essene named Manaemos (Ant. 15.371-79). When Herod the Great was still a school boy, long before he took the throne, Manaemos predicted that Herod would become king. This prediction by Manaemos found favour with Herod, as Vining tells continuing Josephus. “And”, Josephus writes, “from that moment on [Herod] continued to hold the Essenes in honor” (Ant 154.379). The Essenes became Herod’s favorite sect, on whom he would often bestow special favors. For example, Herod excused them from an oath of loyalty (Ant 15.371). It is reasonable, then, to conclude that the common people would have nicknamed the Essenes the “Herodians”. That the Essenes were the “Herodians” already opens up for us a whole new vista. Thus Vining continues (pp. 28-29): …. We now have good reason to believe the Essenes were called Herodians. How does that help us? The Gospels of Mark and Matthew contain references to the Herodians (Mk 3:6; 8:14-21; Mk 12:13 // Mt 22:16), and these passages answer a great many open questions. Otto Betz (a leading Dead Sea Scrolls scholar with whom I had the honor of corresponding before he died) commented that New Testament scholarship has always had difficulty identifying the Herodians, for it was assumed that they must have been political delegates of King Herod. … But who: Herod the Great? Herod Antipas? Herod’s dynasty? None of these interpretations ever made sense. The Herodians we find in the Gospels appear to be a priestly sect in league with the Pharisees against Jesus. The Herodians’ interests were not merely political but religious in nature, primarily so. Like the Pharisees they were concerned with what Jesus had to say about the Torah and the prophets. The new identification of the “Herodians”, as Essenes (and there is more to come, see II:), will marvellously enable Marvin Vining to explain one of Jesus’s seemingly most obscure parables, “The feeding of the multitudes” (Mark 8:14-21). P. 29”: “[Jesus] phrased a warning to the disciples in what seems to my generation’s eyes just about the most esoteric parable that Jesus ever gave”. Vining, after recounting this parable, will proceed on p. 30 to tell of how the meaning of this parable had long “baffled” him, with no commentator on it being helpful. “Only when I read the fine work of Yigael Yadin, who published the Temple Scroll found in Cave 11, did I finally discover the accurate interpretation. Here follows Vining’s account of it: Yadin found a passage in the Temple Scroll that dealt with rituals accompanying the Feast of Milluim, a time of ordination, a dedication of the priesthood during the first seven days of the month of Nisan (Ex 29; Ez 43:18-27). According to the Temple Scroll, the Essenes had modified the Torah’s procedure for cleansing of the altar during the Feat of Milluim (11Q19 XV, 9-14; cf. Ex 29; Ez 43:18-27). Instead of offering up twelve baskets of bread for each of the twelve weeks of the Holy Presence in the Temple, as did the Pharisees, the Essenes altered their ritual. On each of the seven days of celebration, the Essenes gathered a basket of bread together with a ram, as a waive offering. Thus when Jesus warned the disciples to “beware the leaven of the Pharisees and the Herodians”, and then, in that corresponding order, reminded them of the number of baskets gathered after his two feedings, (a sympathetic association: Pharisees = twelve baskets, Herodians = seven baskets), he was referring to the respective rituals of each for the Feast of Milluim. Jesus saw himself as the “bread of life” (Jn 6:33-35), who, as God’s Son, could offer eternal life. He was both the single sacrificial lamb and loaf of bread the disciples needed (Mk 8:14), by whom they and the multitude had all just been consecrated priests of the new era. The miraculous feeding of the multitudes was an ordination from God. …. II: Scribes On pp. 32-33, Marvin Vining will write of what he describes as “the cornerstone for this entire restoration”: In James H. Charlesworth’s Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls … a chapter written by Otto Betz offers an additional correlation between the Essenes and Herodians by bringing forth another passage in which they are mentioned, Mark 3:6. In so doing, Betz confronts me with a stunning revelation that appears in chapter 7 (section 73). That one piece of scholarship is the cornerstone for this entire restoration, as you will eventually see. For now it is enough that we confirm that the Essenes were called Herodians in the Gospels, where they are in league with the Pharisees against Jesus. This is easily done, for Mark records that Jesus antagonized two Jewish sects in the synagogue, the “Pharisees and Herodians” (3:1-6). The latter sect, the Herodians, were singled out for their extremely rigid observance of Sabbath laws, a characteristic trait of the Essenes (War 2:143-49). Betz mentions a parallel situation to this incident found in Matthew…. where Jesus cited and ridiculed a statute peculiar to the Scrolls, the prohibition against rescuing an animal fallen into a pit on the Sabbath (Mt 12:11; cf. CD XI, 13-14). Betz rightly concludes that the Herodians mentioned in Mark are the Essene Scrolls authors. With this knowledge, we are immediately able to assess Jesus’s relation with the Essenes. We are given solid biblical evidence that Jesus directed much of his preaching against the Essenes, just as he did his other well-known spiritual enemies, the Pharisees. Clearly the Essenes/Herodians were opposed to Jesus, as we expected to find given their vast differences in doctrine. But this is just the beginning. Though now entirely confident that the Herodians of the Gospels were the Essenes, Vining must yet come to terms with the meagre references to the Herodians as opposed to the historically well-known Essenes. He commences on p. 33: The Herodians are very seldom mentioned in the Gospels, so seldom that it seems unreasonable to believe they were the popular Essenes that Josephus, Philo, and other historians record. Could the Herodians have been a derogatory nickname the Gospel writers used only on occasion? It seems so. This opens the way (his # 14 “A Door is Opened”) for Marvin Vining to identify the Essenes by the name by which they are more frequently known in the Scriptures: A parallel citation to Betz’s synagogue incident, Mark 3:1-6, is found in Luke 6:6-11. The two groups in league against Jesus are not called Pharisees and Herodians, as in Mark’s version; Luke calls them Pharisees and scribes (Mk 3:6 // Lk 6:7). A little faith that the citations are indeed parallel, that they refer to the same event and persons, and we have just uncovered an unbelievably valuable prooftext. The Essenes/Herodians must have been the same New Testament group as the scribes. What a door has just opened! Now that the biblical identity of the Essenes has been fully established, this may be a good opportunity to return to Josephus’s tale (considered in I:) of Herod ‘the Great’ and Manaemos. According to my reconstruction of this Herod, he was a Phrygian. Hence it is somewhat unlikely that he would have had contact with an Essene when Herod “was still a school boy”. There may be a different underpinning to this story. It calls to mind the account in Matthew 2 of the encounter between King Herod and the Magi, seeking the “infant king of the Jews”. It is notable, now, that King Herod enquired of the scribes, that is, the Essenes (2:4): “[King Herod] called together all the chief priests and the scribes of the people, and enquired of them where the Christ was to be born”. Here we have the key elements of Matthew’s account: King Herod; a boy who would be king; and the Essene scribes, who were very Messianic in their outlook. The Essene scribes would immediately have been able to inform Herod that the Christ was to be born (v. 5): “At Bethlehem in Judaea”, based on the prophet Micah (5:1). Perhaps Manaemos was one of their number, who stepped forward at the critical moment to provide the king with this biblical information. Whether King Herod rewarded with favours the scribes for their assistance in this most pressing matter, we cannot say at this stage. Marvin Vining will go on to develop this identification wonderfully and convincingly. This is a must read. There are other parts of his book, albeit interesting, that I would not endorse – some of which I would vehemently disagree with. III: Meaning of the name, “Essenes” In his # 16 “Etymology: the Essenes are “the Pious”,” pp. 37-39, Vining arrives at what is probably the true origin and meaning of whom we call “Essenes”: … we must seek the etymology for the name Essenes in … the historical writings. The English Essenes comes from the Latin Essenei, which was used by Pliny the Elder. In the Greek, the order is called Essaioi by Philo, and Essenoi by Josephus and an early Church father, Hippolytus. Epiphanius, also an early church father, described two divisions of Essenes, the Nazareans … in the north and the Osseaens in the south (Proem I 3.1-5; 19.1.1-3). Scholars have determined that these writers are all referring to the same group by examining their common doctrine, location, and similar characteristics. But the etymology still remains an enigma, for the name Essenes held no intrinsic meaning in Latin of Greek. It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the name had meaning in the original Semitic, which has probably come to us as a transliteration, such as Sadducees, meaning descendants of the Zadokite priests. If we are lucky, a word will pass meaningfully from one language and alphabet to another. … Why create confusion where none exists? If we place some faith, as we must, in the scholastic integrity of those who have gone before us, we see that Josephus and Philo were trying to translate as best they could from the original Semitic. …, Clearly the Essenes derived their name from and were known as the “holy” or the “sanctified”. Within the same word-field, it is not difficult to imagine that they were known as the “pious”, sometimes translated in the Bible as the “faithful ones” or “saints” (I Sam 2:9a; Ps 30:4a). It is the last derivation that finally allows us to translate back into the Semitic. The work has already been done. Nearly a hundred years ago, an excellent scholar named Ginsburg collected more than twenty possible derivations from various scholars and concluded that the most logical was the Aramaic hsa, whose plural is hysn, the equivalent of the Hebrew hasid, usually translted as “the pious”. … Several nineteenth-century scholars had independently arrived at this conclusion – most notably Emil Schürer – and it is still the reigning view. The only apparent weakness of the derivation is that hysn, the plural of hsa, never occurs in Palestinian Aramaic, but only in Syrian Aramaic, the first Yiddish, the Jewish language of the Persian exile. Yet … this is hardly a weakness. It only stands to reason that the Essenes originally drew their name from Syrian Aramaic, for it is during the Persian exile that they first emerged.

Thursday, February 22, 2024

A Nativity Shining Light of relevance to Israelite Magi

by Damien F. Mackey “Magi from the east came to Jerusalem”. Matthew 2:1 Part One: Were the Magi inspired pagans or Israelites? According to my recent article: Magi and the Persian factor (8) Magi and the Persian factor | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu the Magi of Matthew 2 definitely could not have been from Persia. Nor were they likely to have been, as I concluded, non-Israelites: “Now, from what has gone before, I think that there must be a very good chance that these, too [the Magi] - however many of them there may have been - must have been Israelites, albeit ‘enlightened’, rather than foreigners (gentiles), Persians or Nabateans”. Even the suggestion that the Magi were Zoroastrians may smack of a Hebrew element. Because, according to certain traditions, Zoroaster (Zarathustra) was actually the Jewish prophet Baruch: https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2562-baruch —In Arabic-Christian Legend: The Arabic-Christian legends identify Baruch with Zoroaster, and give much information concerning him. Baruch, angry because the gift of prophecy had been denied him, and on account of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, left Palestine to found the religion of Zoroaster. The prophecy of the birth of Jesus from a virgin, and of his adoration by the Magi, is also ascribed to Baruch-Zoroaster (compare the complete collection of these legends in Gottheil, in "Classical Studies in Honor of H. Drisler," pp. 24-51, New York, 1894; Jackson, "Zoroaster," pp. 17, 165 et seq.). It is difficult to explain the origin of this curious identification of a prophet with a magician, such as Zoroaster was held to be, among the Jews, Christians, and Arabs. De Sacy ("Notices et Extraits des MSS. de la Bibliothèque du Roi," ii. 319) explains it on the ground that in Arabic the name of the prophet Jeremiah is almost identical with that of the city of Urmiah, where, it is said, Zoroaster lived. However this may be, the Jewish legend mentioned above (under Baruch in Rabbinical Literature), according to which the Ethiopian in Jer. xxxviii. 7 is undoubtedly identical with Baruch, is connected with this Arabic-Christian legend. As early as the Clementine "Recognitiones" (iv. 27), Zoroaster was believed to be a descendant of Ham; and, according to Gen. x. 6, Cush, the Ethiopian, is a son of Ham. It should furthermore be remembered that, according to the "Recognitiones" iv. 28), the Persians believed that Zoroaster had been taken into heaven in a chariot ("ad cœlum vehiculo sublevatum"); and according to the Jewish legend, the above-mentioned Ethiopian was transported alive into paradise ("Derek Ereẓ Zuṭṭa," i. end), an occurrence that, like the translation of Elijah (II Kings ii. 11), must have taken place by means of a "vehiculum." Another reminiscence of the Jewish legend is found in Baruch-Zoroaster's words concerning Jesus: "He shall descend from my family" ("Book of the Bee," ed. Budge, p. 90, line 5, London, 1886), since, according to the Haggadah, Baruch was a priest; and Maria, the mother of Jesus, was of priestly family. …. [End of quote] The captivating tale of the Magi has been absorbed by other ethnicities-religions. For, as I wrote in my article: Magi incident absorbed into Buddhism? (4) Magi incident absorbed into Buddhism? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu quoting Holger Kersten: “At last, in 1937, various expeditions were dispatched from Lhasa to seek out the holy child according to the heavenly omens, in the direction indicated. Each group included wise and worthy lamas of highly distinguished status in the theocracy. In addition to their servants, each group took costly gifts with them …”. Interestingly, too, “the holy child” was aged 2 (cf. Matthew 2:16). Which Israelites could the Magi have been? We know at least the when of the Magi, the beginning of AD time, reign of Herod. We also know the where, that they were “from the east” (Matthew 2:1-2): After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, ‘Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him’. If they were Israelites, as I believe they must have been, then what was their east? Presumably they, like the prophet Job, were living east of the River Jordan (Job:1:2): “[Job] was the greatest man among all the people of the East”. His home, traditionally, was in Hauran, Ausitis (Uz), where lived the bene qedem. In the Book of Tobit, it is called “Ecbatana” (Bathania) (Tobit 7:1), which is Bashan. According to Jewish Virtual Library, article “Kedemites or Easterners”: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/kedemites-or-easterners KEDEMITES OR EASTERNERS (Heb. בְּנֵי קֶדֶם (benei kedem, bene qedem), adjective qadmoni, קַדְמֹנִי; Gen. 15:19) is a general designation for the peoples living on the eastern border of Syria and Palestine, from as far north as Haran (Gen. 29:1–4) to as far south as the northern end of the Red Sea (Gen. 25:1–6). In Israelite ethnology, all these peoples, and the Ishmaelites as well, who ranged from the border of Egypt to Assyria (i.e., the Middle Euphrates), and who included the inhabitants of Tema and Dumah (Gen. 25:12–18), were all related. Their center of dispersion was the Middle Euphrates region – called Aram-Naharaim (Gen. 24:10; Deut. 23:5), Paddan-Aram (Gen. 28:2, 5, 6, 7; 31:18 (or Paddan, Gen. 48:7)), "the country Aram" (Hos. 12:13), or simply Aram (Num. 23:7). From here Abraham and Lot moved to Canaan (Gen. 12:5). Lot eventually moved to Transjordan and became the ancestor of Moab and Ammon (Gen. 19:30ff.), while Abraham became the ancestor of all the other Kedemites, including the Ishmaelites, and of the Israelites as well. His son Isaac and the latter's son Jacob-Israel married wives from Abraham's original home-land, where Jacob even lived for 20 years. Hence the confession, "My father was a wandering/ fugitive Aramean who migrated to Egypt" (Deut. 26:5). The Israelites acknowledged all those peoples as their kin in contrast to the Canaanites. The Kedemites enjoyed among the Israelites a great reputation for wisdom. Not only does David quote a Kedemite proverb which he characterizes as such, but the wisdom of the Kedemites is rated only lower than Solomon's though higher than that of the Egyptians (I Kings 5:10), and Isaiah represents the Egyptian king's wise men as seeking to impress him by claiming descent from sages of Kedem (this, not "of old," is the meaning of qedem in Isa. 19:11). …. [End of quote] Now, given my re-dating of the Nativity to the time of Judas Maccabeus: Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus (5) Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu then we might expect to find the Magi amongst Transjordanian allies of the Maccabees. In I Maccabees 5 we read of Judas and his army crossing over the Jordan to deliver oppressed Jews, and there occurs the very interesting reference to “the land of Tobias” – that being (the Greek version of) the name of Job. Also mentioned here is Dathema, that is apparently right in Job-ian territory (Bashan): https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/hdb/d/dathema.html DATHEMA ( 1Ma 5:9 ). A fortress in Bashan. It may perhaps be the modern Dâmeh on the S. border of the Lejâ district, N. of Ashteroth-karnaim. And so we read (vv. 9-23): Now the nations in Gilead gathered together against the Israelites who lived in their territory and planned to destroy them. But they fled to the stronghold of Dathema and sent to Judas and his brothers letters that said, ‘The nations around us have gathered together to destroy us. They are preparing to come and capture the stronghold to which we have fled, and Timothy is leading their forces. Now then, come and rescue us from their hands, for many of us have fallen, and all our kindred who were in the land of Tobias have been killed; the enemy have captured their wives and children and goods and have destroyed about a thousand persons there’. While the letters were still being read, other messengers, with their garments torn, came from Galilee and made a similar report; they said that the people of Ptolemais and Tyre and Sidon and all Galilee of the gentiles had gathered together against them “to annihilate us.” When Judas and the people heard these messages, a great assembly was called to determine what they should do for their kindred who were in distress and were being attacked by enemies. Then Judas said to his brother Simon, ‘Choose your men and go and rescue your kindred in Galilee; Jonathan my brother and I will go to Gilead’. But he left Joseph, son of Zechariah, and Azariah, a leader of the people, with the rest of the forces in Judea to guard it, and he gave them this command, ‘Take charge of this people, but do not engage in battle with the nations until we return’. Then three thousand men were assigned to Simon to go to Galilee and eight thousand to Judas for Gilead. So Simon went to Galilee and fought many battles against the nations, and the nations were crushed before him. He pursued them to the gate of Ptolemais; as many as three thousand of the nations fell, and he despoiled them. Then he took the Jews of Galilee and Arbatta, with their wives and children, and all they possessed and led them to Judea with great rejoicing. Note, moreover, the likeness to the Book of Job 1:16, 17 and 18: “While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said …”, to: “While the letters were still being read, other messengers, with their garments torn, came from Galilee and made a similar report …” (I Maccabees 5:14). Did the Magi, like Job’s first generation of children, perish amidst turmoil, or were they still to be found living amongst those “rejoicing” Jews whom Judas Maccabeus led safely “to Judea”? King Herod no longer cast his dark shadow over the kingdom. Perhaps some Magi had perished at the hands of Timothy, and some had survived. One can only guess at this stage. Tobias (Job) had benefitted from family inheritances (Tobit 14:13): “He took respectful care of his aging father-in-law and mother-in-law; and he buried them at Ecbatana …. Then he inherited Raguel’s estate as well as that of his father Tobit”. He, as Job, would see to it that all of his surviving children likewise benefitted (Job 42:12-15): The LORD blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the former part. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys. And he also had seven sons and three daughters. The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch. Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job’s daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers. Now, in my much shortened revision, there was not much time lapse at all between late Job and the Birth of Jesus Christ. There are common elements with Job and the Magi; the East; wisdom; purity of gold (e.g., Job 23:10); camels (presumably); expecting a Redeemer (Job 19:25); wealth. Job (Tobias), whose father, Tobit, had quoted the prophet Amos (Tobit 2:6), would surely have known the Messianic prophecy of Micah, who was this very Amos: God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon (8) God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Micah’s prophecy had famously been repeated to King Herod after the Magi had arrived in Jerusalem (Matthew 2:3-6): When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the Law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. ‘In Bethlehem in Judea’, they replied, ‘for this is what the prophet has written: “But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel”.’ Of course the Magi already knew it, but they had gone directly to Jerusalem presuming (I think) that the royal Babe had now grown and would be ensconced in Jerusalem. Why did the Magi take so long to leave their home? Perhaps this was due to the turmoil of war that was raging in Israel at the time. Tobit (1:15) tells his son, Tobias, of the roads being unsafe for travel during the reign of Sennacherib, king of Assyria. Possibly, the Magi picked up (some of) their gifts for the Messiah in Jerusalem. It is interesting that the name of one of Job’s daughters, Keziah, or Cassia (42:14), has a close connection with frankincense and myrrh: https://www.earthsunessentials.com.au/product/cassia/ “Cassia features in folklore medicine often. It is even included in the Bible with Myrrh, Frankincense, and other oils and herbs”. Did Matthew (2:11) have Job 42:11 in the back of his mind when writing of the Magi’s visit to “the house”? All [Job’s] brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. … each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring. The road taken by the Magi from “the land of Tobias” to Jerusalem was not to be the way that these wise men (and women?) would return (Matthew 2:12): “… having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route”, avoiding Jerusalem this time. Intending to head NE, did they make a switch eastwards from the Central Ridge Route to the King’s Highway? Readers with a good knowledge of ancient biblical roads may be able to help out here. Conclusion The when of the Magi - the beginning of AD time, reign of King Herod ‘the Great’ (Maccabean era in my revision). The where of the Magi - they were “from the east” (Matthew 2:1-2), the Bashan region. The who of the Magi - certainly enlightened Israelites, likely family of the prophet Job. Part Two: What was the bright Star that the Magi saw? ‘Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him’. Matthew 2:2 While some of the best efforts to interpret the Magi Star have concluded, as we have read in: Solid attempts to interpret the biblical sky (3) Solid attempts to interpret the biblical sky | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu that it was a planet, say, Venus or Jupiter, none, I think, has been able fully to explain it in its precise detail - for example, the fact that “it stopped” (Matthew 2:9): “After [the Magi] had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was”. At last I have found an article that, for me, makes proper sense of the Nativity Star. Matthew Ervin, in December 2013, explained it as the Glory of God. He uses the word, Shekinah, which, however, is not found in the Bible. I would prefer: Glory of the Lord (כְבוֹד יְהוָה), Chevod Yahweh (e.g. 2 Chronicles 7:1). Matthew Ervin writes: https://appleeye.org/2013/12/15/the-star-of-bethlehem-was-the-shechinah-glory/ The Star of Bethlehem Was the Shekinah Glory …. Theories as to what the Star of Bethlehem was are myriad. The usual answers look to celestial objects ranging from real stars to comets. Indeed, the inquiry has been so wide sweeping that virtually every object appearing in the sky has been posited as the Bethlehem Star. However, when Scripture is examined the identity of the Star is evident. The Greek ἀστέρα or astera simply identifies a shining or gleaming object that is translated as star in Matthew 2:1-10. The magi specifically referred to it as, “His star” (v. 2). In addition, the behavior of this Star alone is enough to discount any natural stellar phenomenon. The Star led the magi from the east to the west [sic] toward Jerusalem (vv. 1-4). Then the Star moved from the north to the south in Bethlehem (v. 9). The Star would disappear and then reappear before it finally came to hover over where Jesus was staying (vv. 7-9). If not a regular stellar object then what exactly was the Star of Bethlehem? The synoptic narrative in Luke’s Gospel provides an answer: And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with great fear. Luke 2:8-9 (ESV) The glory of the Lord here is a powerful example of the Shekinah Glory. This type of glory is a visible manifestation of God’s presence come to dwell among men. The Shekinah was often accompanied by a heavenly host (e.g. Ezek. 10:18-19) and so it was at the birth of Christ (Luke 10:13). The Shekinah Glory declared Messiah’s birth to the shepherds (Luke 2:8-11). The Star of Bethlehem likewise declared to the magi that Messiah had arrived (Matt. 2:9-10). No doubt this is because Matthew and Luke were describing the same brilliant light in their respective gospels. Although the Shekinah takes on various appearances in Scripture, it often appears as something very bright. This includes but is not limited to a flaming sword (Gen. 3:24), a burning bush (Ex. 3:1-5; Deut. 33:16), a pillar of cloud and fire (Ex. 13:21-22), a cloud with lightning and fire (Ex. 19:16-20), God’s afterglow (His “back”) (Ex. 33:17-23), the transfiguration of Jesus (e.g. Matt. 17:1-8), fire (Acts 2:1-3), a light from heaven (e.g. Acts 9:3-8) and the lamp of New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:23-24). It was the Shekinah Glory that dwelled in the Holy of Holies. It was last in Solomon’s temple but departed as seen by Ezekiel (Ezek. 9:3; 10:4-19; 11:22-23). Haggai prophesied that the Shekinah Glory would return to the temple in Israel and in a superior way (Hag. 2:3; 2:9). And yet it would seem that this never happened for the Second Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. Perhaps though the Shekinah did return. The Star of Bethlehem was the Shekinah Glory declaring the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ and residing in His person. And why not? The Messiah was prophesied to come as a star (Num. 24:17), and Jesus is called the, “bright morning star” (Rev. 22:16). …. [End of quote] It would be most fitting for the prophet Haggai to foretell the return of the Glory cloud. For Haggai (an abbreviated name) was my Habakkuk, the Akkadian name of Tobias (= Job) from his years spent in Nineveh: Haggai as Job late in his life? (10) Haggai as Job late in his life? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And his father, Tobit, appears to have foretold the return of God’s glory in chapter 13, as I noted in my article (following a 2013 piece): Saint John Paul II on Tobit (10) Saint John Paul II on Tobit | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu I once read an intriguing article that valiantly attempted to identify Luke’s Shepherds, at the Nativity, with Matthew’s Magi. Upon examination, h0wever, the two entities appear to be really quite different – geographically speaking, for one. But what, I think, can now be identified as one, thanks to Matthew Erwin, is the Glory beheld by both the Shepherds and the Magi: … when Scripture is examined the identity of the Star is evident. The Greek ἀστέρα or astera simply identifies a shining or gleaming object that is translated as star in Matthew 2:1-10. The magi specifically referred to it as, “His star” (v. 2). In addition, the behavior of this Star alone is enough to discount any natural stellar phenomenon. The Star led the magi from the east to the west [sic] toward Jerusalem (vv. 1-4). Then the Star moved from the north to the south in Bethlehem (v. 9). The Star would disappear and then reappear before it finally came to hover over where Jesus was staying (vv. 7-9). If not a regular stellar object then what exactly was the Star of Bethlehem? The synoptic narrative in Luke’s Gospel provides an answer: And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with great fear. Luke 2:8-9 (ESV) …. The shining Glory God’s glory had been manifest, according to Matthew Erwin, in the Flaming Sword of Genesis; to Moses, in the Burning Bush, to the Exodus Israelites in the Pillar of Cloud; and to Israel, again, in the first Temple. But it had departed at the time of the Babylonian Exile and had not returned when the second Temple was completed. Matthew Erwin has really sewn this up: It was the Shekinah Glory that dwelled in the Holy of Holies. It was last in Solomon’s temple but departed as seen by Ezekiel (Ezek. 9:3; 10:4-19; 11:22-23). Haggai prophesied that the Shekinah Glory would return to the temple in Israel and in a superior way (Hag. 2:3; 2:9). And yet it would seem that this never happened for the Second Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. Perhaps though the Shekinah did return. …. The family of Job-Tobias knew, from what we now have written in Tobit 13, that the Glory of the Lord was going to return after the return from Exile. Job, as Haggai, now in his late old age, had advised the people, disappointed at the sight of the second Temple, that the Glory of the Lord would return. And return again it did, with the Birth of Jesus Christ, the New Temple, who would render obsolete the old stone Temple (pope Benedict XVI). In other words, the second Temple was only ever to be temporary, and would be dramatically replaced (destroyed even) by He who is the true Temple of God. The Shepherds saw the Light at close hand and were able to go directly to the stable. Their guiding Light conveniently stopped, just as the shining Cloud was wont to do during the Exodus (Numbers 9:17): “When the cloud moved from its place over the Tent, the Israelites moved, and wherever the cloud stopped, the Israelites camped”. The Magi saw it at a distance from Bethlehem. They had long been expecting it. Their ancestor, Tobit, had foretold its return, and his son, Haggai, confirmed it much later. The Magi, who - as descendants of Job, as I think - were undoubtedly clever and educated, did not really need, though, to be able to read the heavens and constellations (as Job almost certainly could, Job 38:31-33) to identify the Star. They were expecting it and they simply had to wait until they saw it. This was a manifestation for Israel, to be understood by Israel, which is a solid reason why I think that the Magi mut have been Israelites, not gentiles. The Nativity Star of relevance to Israel determines the ethnicity of Matthew’s Magi. Conclusion The when of the Magi - the beginning of AD time, reign of King Herod ‘the Great’ (Maccabean era in my revision). The where of the Magi - they were “from the east” (Matthew 2:1-2), the Bashan region. The who of the Magi - certainly enlightened Israelites, likely family of the prophet Job. The Star of the Magi - the Glory of the Lord. The resplendent Christ Child appeared again, with his holy Mother, at Pontevedra, Spain, 10th December, 1925 “elevated on a luminous cloud”. We read about it at: https://fatima.org/news-views/the-apparition-of-our-lady-and-the-child-jesus-at-pontevedra/ On July 13, 1917, Our Lady promised at Fatima: “If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved … I shall come to ask for the Consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays.” As Fatima scholar Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinité tells us, this first secret of Our Lady “is a sure and easy way of tearing souls away from the danger of hell: first our own, then those of our neighbors, and even the souls of the greatest sinners, for the mercy and power of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are without limits.” …. Circumstances of the Apparition …. The promise of Our Lady to return was fulfilled in December 1925, when 18-year-old Lucia was a postulant at the Dorothean convent in Pontevedra, Spain. It was here, during an apparition of the Child Jesus and Our Lady, that She revealed the first part of God’s plan for the salvation of sinners: the reparatory Communion of the First Saturdays of the month. Lucia narrated what happened, speaking of herself in the third person – perhaps, in humility, to divert attention from her role in the event: “On December 10, 1925, the Most Holy Virgin appeared to her [Lucia], and by Her side, elevated on a luminous cloud, was the Child Jesus. The Most Holy Virgin rested Her hand on her shoulder, and as She did so, She showed her a heart encircled by thorns, which She was holding in Her other hand. At the same time, the Child said: “‘Have compassion on the Heart of your Most Holy Mother, covered with thorns, with which ungrateful men pierce It at every moment, and there is no one to make an act of reparation to remove them.’ “Then the Most Holy Virgin said: “‘Look, My daughter, at My Heart, surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce Me at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You at least try to console Me and announce in My name that I promise to assist at the moment of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, shall confess … receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary, and keep Me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary, with the intention of making reparation to Me.’” The Great Promise and Its Conditions As Fatima author, Mark Fellows, noted: “The Blessed Virgin did more than ask for reparatory Communion and devotions on five First Saturdays: She promised Heaven to those who practiced this devotion sincerely and with a spirit of reparation. Those who wonder whether it is Mary’s place to promise eternal salvation to anyone forget one of Her illustrious titles: Mediatrix of all Graces.” …. Our Lady promises the grace of final perseverance – the most sublime of all graces – to all those who devoutly practice this devotion. The disproportion between the little requested and the immense grace promised reveals the great power of intercession granted to the Blessed Virgin Mary for the salvation of souls. Furthermore, this promise also contains a missionary aspect. The devotion of reparation is recommended as a means of converting sinners in the greatest danger of being lost. Much has been written on the Five First Saturdays devotion. Therefore, here I provide only a brief summary of the conditions. For more information, see The Magnificent Promise for the Five First Saturdays (Section III, pp. 8-16). …. 1. The First Saturday of five consecutive months: This request was the culmination of a whole movement of devotion, consistent with a series of papal decisions giving the forerunners of this new devotion: a. The 15 Saturdays in honor of Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary (plenary indulgence granted by Pope Leo XIII, 1889). b. The 12 First Saturdays of the month (officially approved by Pope St. Pius X, 1905). c. The Devotion of Reparation on the First Saturdays of the month (new indulgences granted by Pius X, 1912). At Pontevedra we see two new elements: the reduction of the number of Saturdays required; and assurance of receiving at the moment of death “all the graces necessary for salvation,” instead of merely indulgences for the remission of punishment for sins already pardoned. Knowing our inconstancy, Our Lady asks for only five Saturdays – the number of decades on our Rosary. 2. Confession: Though the confession is not required to be made on the First Saturday itself … it is preferable – as far as possible – that it be made on a day close to the First Saturday. 3. Communion of Reparation: Frère Michel tells us: “The Communion of Reparation, of course, is the most important act of the devotion of Reparation. All the other acts center around it. To understand its meaning and significance, it must be considered in relation with the miraculous Communion of autumn 1916; already this Communion was completely oriented to the idea of Reparation, thanks to the words of the Angel.” …. 4. Recitation of the Rosary: In each of the six apparitions of 1917, Our Lady asked the children to pray the Rosary every day. 5. The 15-minute meditation on the 15 Mysteries of the Rosary: In addition to praying the Rosary, Our Lady asks for a separate 15 minutes of meditation on the Mysteries of the Rosary. But, as Sister Lucia has explained, not all 15 Mysteries need to be meditated upon each month. One may, by their choice, meditate on only some of the Mysteries each month. …. 6. The intention of making Reparation: As Sister Lucia has written, this condition is the principal one, and concerns the general intention with which all the other five conditions must be fulfilled. They must each be accomplished “in the spirit of Reparation” towards the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Without this general intention, without the desire to make Reparation to Our Lady to console Her, all these external acts are by themselves insufficient to obtain the magnificent promise of obtaining, at the moment of death, all the graces necessary for salvation. ….

Matthew, in his Genealogy, may not have omitted any king of Judah

by Damien F. Mackey “Had Matthew included all these names, the generations would have numbered twenty instead of fourteen. Fourteen, for Matthew’s purposes, was very important (cf. Matt 1:17)”. Mitch Chase A typical assessment of Matthew the Evangelist’s list of the Kings of Judah (1:7-11) – and one with which I would fully have agreed some time ago – is clearly laid out in this short piece (2013) by Mitch Chase: https://mitchchase.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/why-are-there-missing-kings-in-matthew-1/ Why Are There Missing Kings in Matthew 1? Matthew’s genealogy is edited, and by that I mean he has omitted certain kings in the second section (Matt 1:6b-11). Here are his fourteen generations represented by names: Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asaph, Jehoshaphat, Joram, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amos, Josiah, and Jechoniah. In 2 Kings, it is clear that between the reigns of Joram and Uzziah are three other kings: Ahaziah (2 Kgs 8:25-29), Jehoash (2 Kgs 12:1-21), and Amaziah (2 Kgs 14:1-22). Matthew condenses the genealogy by omitting these three rulers. This is not historical ignorance or oversight. Matthew explains in 1:17 that he has a numerical design to the genealogy of 1:2-16. And since he wants to show fourteen generations, some kings have to be left out. Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah were all evil kings, so we’re not missing anything edifying. They were a trinity to ignore! Then between Josiah and Jechoniah (aka Jehoiachin), Matthew omits Jehoahaz (2 Kgs 23:31-34) and Jehoiakim (2 Kgs 24:1-2). Again the reason appears to be his literary design. The last reigning king in the Davidic line before the exile was not Jechoniah, however. It was Zedekiah, Jechoniah’s uncle. Zedekiah, then, is another Matthean omission. Why leave out the last king of Judah? Grant Osborne is probably right: Matthew believed the Babylonian exile began under Jechoniah’s reign and so focused on him (Matthew, ZECNT, 66-67). In summary, what were the omissions Matthew made in the second section of his genealogy (Matt 1:6b-11)? (1) Ahaziah (2) Jehoash (3) Amaziah (4) Jehoahaz (5) Jehoiakim (6) Zedekiah Had Matthew included all these names, the generations would have numbered twenty instead of fourteen. Fourteen, for Matthew’s purposes, was very important (cf. Matt 1:17). [End of quote] I would no longer accept this method of appraisal. Firstly, I have by now written several articles identifying Mitch Chase’s (2) Jehoash, and (3) Amaziah, as, respectively, Uzziah and Jotham. For example: Early prophet Zechariah may forge a link with Joash, Uzziah of Judah (7) Early prophet Zechariah may forge a link with Joash, Uzziah of Judah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And Mitch Chase’s (5) Jehoiakim, I have identified with Manasseh. For example: Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah far from straightforward (7) Matthew's Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah far from straightforward | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu As for Mitch Chase’s (1) Ahaziah, (4) Jehoahaz, and (6) Zedekiah, I have until very recently given very little consideration to these names. But that has now changed, with a recent article of mine being about (4) Jehoahaz, appearing in Matthew’s list, so I suggest, under two alter ego names: Amon and Jehoiachin. Thus: Whatever did happen to King Jehoahaz of Judah? (7) Whatever did happen to King Jehoahaz of Judah? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And I hope shortly to do a similar type of resuscitation with Mitch Chase’s (1) Ahaziah. As for Mitch Chase’s (6) Zedekiah, only a few days ago I had written this about him: I am not interested, since Matthew appears to have deliberately omitted him. For, as Mitch Chase himself has rightly noted: “Why leave out the last king of Judah? Grant Osborne is probably right: Matthew believed the Babylonian exile began under Jechoniah’s [Jehoiachin’s] reign and so focused on him (Matthew, ZECNT, 66-67)”. As in the cases of Jehoahaz and Ahaziah, I am now having serious second thoughts as well about Zedekiah - that he may, in fact, be a duplicate of Manasseh (= Jehoiakim). While I am well aware that any attempt to identify Zedekiah as Manasseh/Jehoiakim will encounter some awkward chronological difficulties, there initially do appear to be certain promising points of comparison. For instance: - Original name, Manasseh, Mattaniah (for Zedekiah) has phonetic (if not meaning) similarity; - Jehoiakim, Zedekiah reigned for 11 years; - Jehoiakim, Zedekiah had Egypt as an ally; - Jehoiakim, Zedekiah fully wicked; - Jehoiakim, Zedekiah revolted against King Nebuchednezzar and went into captivity. So, rather than lean on the latter part of the quote above: “Matthew believed the Babylonian exile began under Jechoniah’s [Jehoiachin’s] reign and so focused on him”, I may now be more inclined to lean on its first part: “Why leave out the last king of Judah?” [Meaning Zedekiah – but who may not have been the last]. I am now disinclined, as well, to think that the number 14 was important to Matthew, as Mitch Chase thinks: “Had Matthew included all these names, the generations would have numbered twenty instead of fourteen. Fourteen, for Matthew’s purposes, was very important (cf. Matt 1:17)”. I now think that this may have been an artificial gloss later attached to the Genealogy. Whilst I am now inclined to believe that no Kings of Judah may have been omitted from Matthew’s genealogical list, I am of the opinion that there are some unwarranted duplications in the text as we now have it: (Tentatively) I think that Abijah was the same as Asa; (Confidently) I think that Hezekiah was Josiah; and that Amon (Haman) was Jehoiachin.

Tuesday, February 20, 2024

Whatever did happen to King Jehoahaz of Judah?

by Damien F. Mackey To get right to the point: King Jehoahaz of Judah has not been omitted from Matthew’s Genealogy at all. He is there under two alter ego names: Amon and Jehoiachin. And Amon-Jehoiachin is the Haman of the Book of Esther. The record of the life of Jehoahaz, qua Jehoahaz, can be read in a paltry few verses in 2 Kings 23:30-34 and in 2 Chronicles 36:1-4. 2 Kings 30 …. And the people of the land took Jehoahaz son of Josiah and anointed him and made him king in place of his father. Jehoahaz King of Judah 31 Jehoahaz was twenty-three years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. His mother’s name was Hamutal daughter of Jeremiah; she was from Libnah. 32 He did evil in the eyes of the LORD, just as his predecessors had done. 33 Pharaoh Necho put him in chains at Riblah in the land of Hamath so that he might not reign in Jerusalem, and he imposed on Judah a levy of a hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold. 34 Pharaoh Necho made Eliakim son of Josiah king in place of his father Josiah and changed Eliakim’s name to Jehoiakim. But he took Jehoahaz and carried him off to Egypt, and there he died. 2 Chronicles 1 And the people of the land took Jehoahaz [Joahaz] son of Josiah and made him king in Jerusalem in place of his father. Jehoahaz King of Judah 2 Jehoahaz was twenty-three years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. 3 The king of Egypt dethroned him in Jerusalem and imposed on Judah a levy of a hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold. 4 The king of Egypt made Eliakim, a brother of Jehoahaz, king over Judah and Jerusalem and changed Eliakim’s name to Jehoiakim. But Necho took Eliakim’s brother Jehoahaz and carried him off to Egypt. These two mini biographies provide us with almost the same details, and wording, but also with a few important variations from the one to the other. Matthew the Evangelist, in his Genealogy of the Kings of Judah (1:7-11), completely omits Jehoahaz, qua Jehoahaz, even though the latter did actually reign for a short period of time in Jerusalem. I am using the phrase “Jehoahaz, qua Jehoahaz”, because, although we know extremely little about this king under that name, there is, so I believe, far more to King Jehoahaz of Judah than is given in the two OT sections above (2 Kings and 2 Chronicles). King Jehoahaz (var. Joahaz, 2 Chronicles 36:1) of Judah was, in fact, a highly significant person in the history of Israel, as we are going to learn. To get right to the point: King Jehoahaz of Judah has not been omitted from Matthew’s Genealogy at all. He is there under two alter ego names: Amon and Jehoiachin. And Amon-Jehoiachin is the Haman of the Book of Esther: King Amon's descent into Aman (Haman) (4) King Amon’s descent into Aman (Haman) | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Jehoahaz as Haman-Amon-Jehoiachin Points in favour • Chronologically, Jehoahaz was contemporaneous with Jehoiachin. • Like Jehoiachin, Jehoahaz “reigned in Jerusalem three months” (cf. 2 Kings 24:8; 23:31). • Very much like Amon, “twenty-two years old” (2 Kings 21:19), Jehoahaz “was twenty-three years old when he became king” (23:31). • The mother of Jehoahaz was Hamutal (2 Kings 23:31), whom I have identified as the Hammedatha in Esther 3:1: “Haman son of Hammedatha”. • Jehoahaz, who “did evil in the eyes of the LORD, just as his predecessors had done” (23:32), was, in this regard, just like Amon (21:20) and Jehoiachin (24:9). I had identified the name “Haman” (var. Aman) of the Book of Esther as Egyptian, Amon – and rightly, I think: Evil persecutor of the Jews, Haman, had Egyptian name (7) Evil persecutor of the Jews, Haman, had Egyptian name | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu My case would now be strengthened considerably if - as I am now arguing - Haman was the same as King Jehoahaz of Judah, who was actually taken captive into Egypt by pharaoh Necho. So we have some welcome coincidences here, further enhancing my previous articles of revision: Jehoahaz/Jehoiachin reigned for “three months”; Jehoahaz’s mother was Hamutal, identified as Haman’s parent, Hammedatha; Jehoahaz was taken captive to Egypt, so an Egyptian name could be expected. Points not in favour • Whilst Jehoiachin, Jehoahaz “reigned in Jerusalem three months” (cf. 2 Kings 24:8; 23:31), Amon “reigned in Jerusalem two years” (21:19). • Very much like Amon, “twenty-two years old” (2 Kings 21:19), Jehoahaz “was twenty-three years old when he became king” (23:31), but Jehoiachin “was eighteen years old when he became king” (24:8). • The mother of Jehoahaz was Hamutal (2 Kings 23:31), but she is not given as the mother of Amon, of Jehoiachin. • Jehoahaz died in Egypt according to 23:34, whereas Haman died in Susa. The rather slight differences in lengths of reign could be accounted for by co-regency. Amon, Jehoiachin, Jehoahaz – all young at the beginning of reign. The mother is admittedly problematical. Hamutal, for Jehoahaz, is not matched by: (Amon) “His mother’s name was Meshullemeth daughter of Haruz; she was from Jotbah” (21;19). (Jehoiachin) “His mother’s name was Nehushta daughter of Elnathan; she was from Jerusalem” (24:8). Grandmother, aunt, may perhaps also be applicable here. We know how tricky genealogies can be. The 2 Chronicles version of Jehoahaz does not mention that he died in Egypt.

Monday, February 19, 2024

King Amon’s descent into Aman (Haman)

Part One: Honing in on the ever malevolent king Amon by Damien F. Mackey If Haman is Amon, then that would account for the origin of the name Haman, which I had previously imagined must have been Jehoiachin’s Persian name. For instance, the famous Persian name Achaemenes can be rendered as Hakhamanish (containing the element haman). Amon itself, though, is very much an Egyptian name, and we know that pharaoh Necho, at about that time, had a certain influence in naming young kings of Judah (2 Kings 23:34). How could this young king of Judah have managed to achieve such a degree of wickedness, when, as according to 2 Chronicles 33:21: “Amon was two and twenty years old when he began to reign, and reigned two years in Jerusalem”? Not very long a reign, not very old in years, for Amon to have surpassed in wickedness (v. 23) his father, Manasseh, who “reigned in Jerusalem fifty-five years”. My Revised Amon My explanation for how king Amon of Judah was able to amass such an appalling record of “evil in the sight of the LORD” would be that the count of his reign had continued into a long period of captivity. I would take as an example of this king Jehoiachin of Judah, who, having “reigned in Jerusalem three months” before having been taken captive to Babylon by Nebuchednezzar (2 Kings 24:8-12), continued to have his regnal years counted there in exile, so that we read further on (25:27): “In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the year Awel-Marduk became king of Babylon …”. King Jehoiachin is a particularly apt comparison - at least according to my revision - because he would continue in his evil ways (“trespassed more and more”) culminating in his rôle as the terrible Haman during the Medo-Persian era. See e.g. my article: If King Belshazzar made Daniel 3rd, who was 2nd? (10) If King Belshazzar made Daniel 3rd, who was 2nd? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu But king Jehoiachin now - in my steps here towards a deeper revision - becomes even more apt given that his alter ego, Haman, enables for a virtual name comparison with Amon, leading to my proposed new identification of (Jehoiachin)-Haman with Amon king of Judah. Haman is in fact called Aman (even closer to the name, Amon) in a version of Tobit 14:10, where he has been confused with Nadab (or Nadin), which is the correct reading. {Haman and Nadin, my ‘Holofernes”, belong to two entirely different eras} My new suggestion (Haman = Amon) does admittedly affect certain biblical sequences as we currently have them (e.g. Amon can now no longer be the father of king Josiah) - as well as affecting information pertaining to who was the mother of Amon. If Haman is Amon, then that would account for the origin of the name Haman, which I had previously imagined must have been Jehoiachin’s Persian name. For instance, the famous Persian name Achaemenes can be rendered as Hakhamanish (containing the element haman). Amon itself, though, is very much an Egyptian name, and we know that pharaoh Necho, at about that time, had a certain influence in naming young kings of Judah (2 Kings 23:34). Scholars dearly wish that they knew more about Amon, given that the Bible dismisses him, qua Amon, in just a few verses. “It is rather unfortunate that so little is known of the reign of Amon, king of Judah; for he lived evidently in a critical period”. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1420-amon-king-of-judah However, if Amon has the alter egos that I have proposed for him in this article, then we can actually know quite a lot about him. The Jewish Encyclopedia here recalls a Rabbinic comment on the extreme wickedness of King Amon of Judah: The fact that Amon was the most sinful of all the wicked kings of Judah (II Chron. xxxiii. 23) is brought out in the Talmud (Sanh. 103b) as follows: (Sanh. 104a) Ahaz suspended the sacrificial worship, Manasseh tore down the altar, Amon made it a place of desolation [covered it with cobwebs]; Ahaz sealed up the scrolls of the Law (Isa. viii. 16), Manasseh cut out the sacred name, Amon burnt the scrolls altogether [compare Seder Olam, R. xxiv. This is derived from the story of the finding of the Book of the Law, II Kings, xxii. 8]; Ahab permitted incest, Manasseh committed it himself, Amon acted as Nero was said to have done toward his mother Agrippina. And yet, out of respect for his son Josiah, Amon's name was not placed on the list of the kings excluded from the world to come. [End of quote] What does gel nicely - according to my revised view that Amon is Haman - is the situation of death of Amon (2 Kings 21:23): “Amon’s officials conspired against him and assassinated the king in his palace”, with the situation of death of Haman (Esther 7:9): “And Harbona, one of the eunuchs that stood waiting on the king, said: ‘Behold the gibbet which [Aman] hath prepared for Mardochai, who spoke for the king, standeth in Aman's house, being fifty cubits high’. And the king said to him: ‘Hang him upon it’.” Both deaths occurred violently, at the hands of officials, in the palace (house) of the offender. In the case of Amon, we get the added note that (2 Kings 21:24): “Then the people of the land killed all who had plotted against King Amon …”. The “land”, I believe, is Susa, and the Jews (now assisted by the Persian king) are in the midst of a major conflict, yet unresolved, with their enemies. So it may not be surprising to learn that there was a retaliation for the death of Amon-Haman, who had many friends and allies (Esther 5:10-11): “But dissembling his anger, and returning into his house, [Haman] called together to him his friends, and Zares his wife. And he declared to them the greatness of his riches, and the multitude of his children, and with how great glory the king had advanced him above all his princes and servants”. A concluding note New problems arise from this radical new proposal about King Amon of Judah, which places him much later in time than is usually accepted for him. I have already admitted this above. These problems will be elaborated upon, and hopefully addressed, as this article progresses. Part Two: Some implications of Amon’s being Jehoiachin-Haman “Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he was king [reigned] three months in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Nehushta daughter of Elnathan from Jerusalem”. 2 Kings 24:8 At the end of Part One I noted that “new problems arise from this radical new proposal about King Amon of Judah, which places him much later in time than is usually accepted for him”. These “problems” are not insignificant. First of all, this deeper revision must affect the sequence of the latter kings of Judah as currently set out in 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, etc. For instance, Amon can no longer be the father of Josiah as recorded in various places. E.g.: 2 Kings 21:24; 2 Chronicles 33:25; Jeremiah 1:2; Zephaniah 1:1; Matthew 1:10. And, considering that the royal sequence is also set out in the New Testament, in Matthew 1:6-11, then the Genealogy of Jesus Christ as we currently have it must be affected as well. According to another version of Matthew 1:10 (ESV), though, Josiah was the son of “Amos”, not Amon: “… Hezekiah [was] the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh the father of Amos, and Amos the father of Josiah …”. Bible Gateway adds the note to this: “Matthew 1:10 Amos is probably an alternate spelling of Amon; some manuscripts Amon; twice in this verse”. In actual fact, the names “Amos” and “Amon” are two entirely different names. The fact that “Amos” can appear instead of “Amon” may give me some hope now for thinking that there is a certain leeway for rejecting Amon as the father of Josiah. And, perfectly in accord with my revised view that King Amon of Judah was also the wicked Haman of the Book of Esther is Abarim’s association of these two names: http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Amon.html#.W5WkP-RNB9A Associated Biblical names ♂♕☀Amonאמון אמן ♂Haman Other related problems that arise from my deeper revision are the different ages and reign lengths attributed to the supposedly two kings, but whom I am identifying as one, plus three different female names ‘claiming the right’ to be the king of Judah’s mother: 2 Kings 21:19: “Amon was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem two years. His mother’s name was Meshullemeth daughter of Haruz; she was from Jotbah”. 2 Kings 24:8: “Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he was king [reigned] three months in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Nehushta daughter of Elnathan from Jerusalem”. Esther 3:1: “After these events, King Xerxes honored Haman son of Hammedatha …”, she being queen Hamutal (Hammutal) of 2 Kings 23:30 according to my revision. Part Three: Re-casting the sequence of Judaean kings “Now after this he (King Manasseh) built a wall without the city of David, on the west side of Gihon, in the valley, even to the entering in at the fish gate, and compassed about Ophel, and raised it up a very great height, and put captains of war in all the fenced cities of Judah.” 2 Chronicles 33:14 With King Amon of Judah identified in this present series with Haman of the Book of Esther - described as a “king” in Queen Esther’s prayer (14:10), “to magnify forever a mortal king” - and whom I have previously identified with King Jehoiachin (var. Coniah) of Judah, and hence having now detected a duplicating sequence embedded in our various lists of Judaean kings, it becomes necessary to attempt to re-cast the royal list without any such duplications. Let us turn again the Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah in Matthew 1, to that part of Matthew’s list from King David to Jeconiah (= Amon) (vv. 7-11): David was the father of Solomon … Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa, Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram, Jehoram the father of Uzziah, Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah, and Josiah the father of Jeconiah …. As has often been pointed out, four known kings (Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah and Jehoiakim) are missing from Matthew’s list here (Jehoahaz now needs to be added), making it seem to many to be artificially constructed. D. M. Williams, for instance, will wonder about three of these missing Judaean kings, in his “A word on the skipped generations in Matthew’s genealogy”: https://resurrectingraleigh.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/a-word-on-the-skipped-generations-in-/ But in addition to the striking features of the schema, there are some nettlesome ones as well: namely, Matthew has to skip a few kings in order to make the second block of fourteen “work” (compare, for instance, 1:8-9 with 1 Chronicles 3:11-12–what happened to Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah?) and the final block, if you count, actually only has thirteen generations. One question which came up in our study yesterday was basically What are we to make of this? Are we now resting our faith on a lie? If Jesus was not born precisely forty nine generations after Abraham, is our faith in vain? [End of quote] I have wondered especially about the omission of the mighty kings, Joash and Amaziah, who, though they erred, do not appear to have been so consistently bad as, say, Ahaz, or Manasseh, who are included in the list. But, in the end, I had acquiesced to arguments connecting them with the Omride queen, Athaliah - although that would apply more directly to king Jehoram (who was married to her, 2 Kings 8:18), who is not omitted from the list. But now, with duplications recognised (if I am on the right track), there is no longer need for Joash and Amaziah to be excluded from the list. With Amon now folded into Jeconiah (or Jehoiachin) as according to this series, and with Amon no longer recognised as the father of Josiah, but rather one named “Amos” thus being recognised, then, finally - and what I have long wondered about - Hezekiah can now be identified with his mirror-image Josiah. Manasseh now becomes the wicked Jehoiakim, another of those kings who has been left out of Matthew’s genealogical list. And “Amos”, the father of Josiah, becomes Ahaz, the father of Hezekiah. The name Amos, or Amoz, is only a consonant different from Ahaz. This would therefore be my emended list: Hezekiah [=Josiah] the father of Manasseh [=Jehoiakim], Manasseh the father of Amon [=Jehoiachin] …. If Manasseh were Jehoiakim, then that would explain, for one, why the prophet Jeremiah names Manasseh as the reason for the Babylonian enmity (Jeremiah 15:4): “I will make them abhorrent to all the kingdoms of the earth because of what Manasseh son of Hezekiah king of Judah did in Jerusalem”, even though Jehoiakim was just as evil and was, conventionally speaking, far closer in time to the Babylonian troubles than was Manasseh. Again it would explain the strong tradition of the prophet Isaiah’s being martyred during the reign of king Manasseh. “Michael A. Knibb writes: "The Martyrdom of Isaiah is a Jewish work which has come down to us as part of a larger Christian composition known as the Ascension of Isaiah".” http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/ascensionisaiah.html Un-mentioned in the Bible in connection with king Manasseh, qua Manasseh, this incident can (I think) be related to the martyrdom of the prophet Uriah (var. Urijah) during the reign of Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 26:23): “And they fetched forth Urijah out of Egypt, and brought him to Jehoiakim the king; who slew him with the sword, and cast his dead body into the graves of the common people”. Uriah now becomes Isaiah. Incidentally, the prophet Uriah was “fetched forth” from Egypt by an “Elnathan” (v. 27), who may well be the same as the father of king Jehoiachin’s mother, “Nehushta daughter of Elnathan” (2 Kings 24:8): “His mother’s name was Nehushta daughter of Elnathan …”. Unlike king Amon/Jehoiachin, who evolved into Haman, and who “humbled not himself before the LORD [BUT WHO] trespassed more and more”, his similarly long-reigning (in captivity) father, king Manasseh/Jehoiakim, thankfully, “had humbled himself” (2 Chronicles 33:22, 23). The conversion of King Manasseh is told in vv. 11-13: Therefore the LORD brought against them the army commanders of the Assyrian king; they captured Manasseh with hooks, shackled him with chains, and transported him to Babylon. In his distress, he began to appease the LORD, his God. He humbled himself abjectly before the God of his ancestors, and prayed to him. The LORD let himself be won over: he heard his prayer and restored him to his kingdom in Jerusalem. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD is indeed God. As we read at the beginning, king Manasseh began the rebuilding and fortifying of Jerusalem. I would tentatively identify king Manasseh/Jehoiakim with the “Sheshbazzar prince of Judah” of Ezra 1:8: “Cyrus king of Persia brought these out in the charge of Mithredath the treasurer, who counted them out to Sheshbazzar the prince of Judah”. “Sheshbazzar” would of course have been the king’s Babylonian name, given to him in captivity. As we do not hear any more about Sheshbazzar, he, now aged (if he were Manasseh), may well have died not long afterwards – or simply left the overseeing of the remaining building work to younger men. Part Four: Who was the actual mother of King Amon of Judah? “After these events, King Ahasuerus honored Haman son of Hammedatha …”. Esther 3:1 Having alter egos for King Amon of Judah, whilst serving to solve certain problems according to the findings of this series, also adds a few complications as I noted in Part Two: “Other related problems that arise from my deeper revision are the different ages and reign lengths attributed to the supposedly two kings, but whom I am identifying as one, plus three different female names ‘claiming the right’ to be the king of Judah’s mother: 2 Kings 21:19: “Amon was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem two years. His mother’s name was Meshullemeth daughter of Haruz; she was from Jotbah”. 2 Kings 24:8: “Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he was king [reigned] three months in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Nehushta daughter of Elnathan from Jerusalem”. Esther 3:1: “After these events, King Ahasuerus honored Haman son of Hammedatha …”, she being queen Hamutal (Hammutal) of 2 Kings 23:30 according to my revision”. Actually, I have already partly solved the problem of ‘three mothers’ for the one king here by indicating that the otherwise unattested “Hammedatha”, of whom Haman was the “son”, was the same as the Jewish queen, Hammutal (or Hamutal). http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Hamutal.html#.W5cH5uRNB9A “There is only one Hamutal in the Bible, and she is the mother of kings Jehoahaz and Zedekiah of Judah (2 Kings 23:31, 24:18, Jeremiah 52:1)”. {That these kings could have more than the one name is attested by Zedekiah originally having been Mattaniah (2 Kings 24:17)} As to whether either Meshullemeth (above), said to be the mother of Amon, or Nehushta (above), said to be the mother of (Amon’s alter ego) Jehoiachin, was the actual biological mother, I have not looked into the matter yet deeply enough to make any sort of judgment. One possibility to be considered is that Meshullemeth and Nehushta were the same person, though with different patronymics due to possible differentiation between father and grandfather. But, whatever may be the case, we have easily managed to reduce three ‘mothers’ to two. Differing ages and reign lengths: Amon … twenty-two years old … he reigned in Jerusalem two years; Jehoiachin … eighteen years old … he … [reigned] three months in Jerusalem, can readily be accounted for by co-regency.

Sunday, February 18, 2024

If King Belshazzar made Daniel 3rd, who was 2nd?

by Damien F. Mackey Question: I have a question concerning Belshazzar and the Babylonian kingdom. Daniel was offered to be the third ruler of the kingdom if he could tell the interpretation of the writing on the wall. The question was asked, Was [sic] there two rulers in the kingdom at that time or was there only one king? http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2007/10-08c.html That is a perfectly legitimate question to ask, and it is one that I have attempted to answer, and will do so again here, by modifying what I previously wrote about it under the same title: If King Belshazzar made Daniel 3rd, who was 2nd? But, firstly, here is the answer given to this question at La Vista Church of Christ: ________________________________________ Answer: "Then Belshazzar gave the command, and they clothed Daniel with purple and put a chain of gold around his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom" (Daniel 5:29). In most kingdoms there would be the current king, the heir apparent, and then the chief counselor. After Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 B.C., Babylon had a series of short-lived kings. Nebuchadnezzar's son, Evil-Merodach, succeeded his father, but was assassinated two years later. His brother-in-law, Neriglissar, came to the throne, but he died four years later. His infant son, Labashi-Marduk, was next in line, but was assassinated. He was followed by the last king of Babylon, Nabonidus. Babylonian kings were required [to] attend a yearly new year ceremony and pledge their loyalty to the Babylonian god, Marduk. Nabonidus, however, chose to give loyalty to another god, the moon god Sin. This caused such an uproar in Babylon that Nabonidus left the city and put his son, the crown prince Belshazzar, in charge. This explains the third in line offer. Belshazzar was second after his father, Nabonidus, and offered to put Daniel directly under himself. …. [End of quote] This “Answer”, doggedly following the textbook succession of neo-Babylonian kings, which contains duplicates, is doomed to be wrong. It does succeed, however, in identifying the correct historical person as the “King Belshazzar” of the Book of Daniel, namely, Belshazzar son of Nabonidus. The latter, though, Nabonidus, who was the same as King Nebuchednezzar, was, by now, dead. Here follows the modified version of my original article: Introduction According to my new arrangement of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty, which - arguing for certain duplications in the sequence - involves an approximate halving of the number of kings conventionally listed: Aligning Neo-Babylonia with Book of Daniel (5) Aligning Neo-Babylonia with the Book of Daniel | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Some of the benefits of this restructuring, are that: • Nabonidus, considered by various scholars to have been the true paradigm for Daniel’s “Nebuchednezzar”, is now to be identified with Nebuchednezzar; • Belshazzar (= Amel-Marduk) is the last king of the dynasty, as according to Daniel; and • Belshazzar is immediately followed by the Medo-Persians. How it all works out in relation to Daniel King Belshazzar is now the Amel-Marduk (Awel-Marduk or Evil Merodach) who raised up the captive Judaean king, Jehoiachin (Coniah) (2 Kings 25:27-30): And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, that Evilmerodach king of Babylon in the year that he began to reign did lift up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah out of prison; And he spake kindly to him, and set his throne above the throne of the kings that were with him in Babylon; And changed his prison garments: and he did eat bread continually before him all the days of his life. And his allowance was a continual allowance given him of the king, a daily rate for every day, all the days of his life. Clearly, King Belshazzar (as Amel-Marduk) had made Jehoiachin second to himself, having “set [Jehoiachin’s] throne above the throne of the kings that were with him in Babylon”. Considering the short reign of Belshazzar as Amel-Marduk (c. 562-560 BC, conventional dates), and as Daniel’s Belshazzar (8:1): “In the third year of King Belshazzar’s reign, I, Daniel, had a vision, after the one that had already appeared to me”, a mere 2-4 years, Jehoiachin would presumably still have been second in the kingdom at the time of “Belshazzar’s Feast” (Daniel 5:1-29). The best that Daniel could be given, therefore, was “the third highest ruler in the kingdom”. First: King Belshazzar; Second: Jehoiachin; Third: Daniel. But the blasphemous numero uno would promptly lose his place at the top, for we read (5:30): “That very night Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans, was slain …”. His replacement at the top? V. 31: “And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old”. Presumably Jehoiachin retained a high place: He was the conspiratorial Haman of the Book of Esther, according to my: Haman un-masked (10) Haman un-masked | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Darius the Mede, though, appears to have employed a different system of government (Daniel 6:1-3): It pleased Darius to appoint 120 satraps to rule throughout the kingdom, with three administrators over them, one of whom was Daniel. The satraps were made accountable to them so that the king might not suffer loss. Now Daniel so distinguished himself among the administrators and the satraps by his exceptional qualities that the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom. The fierce revolt of the Babylonians against the king in support of Daniel (Daniel 14:27-30) may have opened the door for the advancement, again, of Jehoiachin, now as Haman. And so Darius the Mede, the “Ahasuerus” of the Book of Esther (3:1): “… promoted Haman … the son of Hammedatha, and advanced him and set his throne above all the officials who were with him”.