Friday, November 28, 2025

What of Ron Wyatt’s Egyptian chariot wheels in the Red Sea?

Marine biologist, Dr. Robert Carter has pointed out numerous problems identifying the coral-encrusted structures Ron Wyatt found as chariot wheels, including the fact that “many species of coral will grow a large, flat plate on a stalk-like projection, giving the appearance of an axle and wheel to those not accustomed to coral growth forms”. Bryan Windle wrote on this controversial matter in 2018: Fake News In Biblical Archaeology – Bible Archaeology Report Fake News In Biblical Archaeology In a world of fake news and internet hoaxes it’s important to carefully check your sources before you inadvertently spread misinformation. The world of archaeology is no exception to sensationalistic stories and purported “discoveries” that turn out to be flat-out false. This is especially true in the world of biblical archaeology, which has seen its fair share of fake finds. Unfortunately, this sometimes takes in undiscerning Christians and occasionally even “experts” who are overly invested in the news. So, to help clarify things and to put an end to the urban myths I continually hear touted by well-meaning people, here are five archaeological discoveries that are simply not true. 1) Egyptian Chariot Wheels in the Red Sea …. This is probably the “discovery” I hear people repeat most often. Maybe you’ve heard it too: “Archaeologists have discovered Egyptian chariot wheels and bones in the Red Sea, which proves the story of the Exodus and the crossing of the Red Sea in the Bible.” This claim seems to have originated in 1993 through a newsletter put out by the “Wyatt Archaeological Research.” …. I didn’t know Ron Wyatt and I have no animosity towards him. However, the following information makes me question his claims: a) Ron Wyatt was not an archaeologist (he was a nurse anesthetist). This, in and of itself does not mean that he could not make a discovery. Many archaeological digs have volunteers helping them; some of these volunteers even make important discoveries. The interpretation of the discovery is done by trained archaeologists, however. One archaeologist has said archaeology is 10% excavation and 90% interpretation. Ron Wyatt had no training to interpret the discoveries he says he made. b) Ron Wyatt was [sic] never carried out a systematic excavation that was licensed by the Israeli government. Joe Zias, the former Curator of Archaeology and Anthropology for the Israel Antiquities Authority said, “Mr. Ron Wyatt is neither an archaeologist nor has he ever carried out a legally licensed excavation in Israel or Jerusalem …. We are aware of his claims which border on the absurd as they have no scientific basis whatsoever nor have they ever been published in a professional journal. They fall into the category of trash which one finds in tabloids such as the National Enquirer, Sun etc. It’s amazing that anyone would believe them.” …. c) Ron Wyatt never published any of his supposed finds in a peer-reviewed archaeological journal. Publishing something in your own newsletter or on your own website does not pass the checks-and-balances peer-review. Dr. Scott Stripling, the Director of Excavations at Shiloh, led by the Associates for Biblical Research, says that the goal of archaeology is not excavation, but publication. d) Ron Wyatt never made any of his supposed discoveries available for trained archaeologists to examine. e) Ron Wyatt never adequately addressed inconsistencies in some of his stories, such as how he discovered the supposed chariot wheels at a depth of 200 feet using scuba equipment designed for depths of 125-130 feet. f) Marine biologist, Dr. Robert Carter has pointed out numerous problems identifying the coral-encrusted structures Ron Wyatt found as chariot wheels, including the fact that “many species of coral will grow a large, flat plate on a stalk-like projection, giving the appearance of an axle and wheel to those not accustomed to coral growth forms.” …. f) People, like respected geologist John Baumgartner, who knew Ron Wyatt and worked closely with him, have testified that he was dishonest with his discoveries, misrepresented the views of others, and intentionally deceived people. …. Despite these serious deficiencies, those who uncritically follow Ron Wyatt continue to promote his almost 100 biblically-related “discoveries,” (all of which were made within a decade! Clearly these people don’t know how archaeological excavations are conducted in the real world.). These alleged discoveries include: Noah’s Ark the fire and brimstone balls from the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah The tower of Babel The Ark of the Covenant The original 10 commandment tablets Goliath’s sword The site of Jesus’ crucifixion, including the blood Jesus in an “earthquake crack” beneath the crucifixion site that he claims he had analyzed and showed it only contained 24 chromosomes instead of 46. The list of fantastical discoveries should, in and of itself, raise questions about any discovery Ron Wyatt claimed to have made. This didn’t stop his “discovery” of chariot wheels spreading. It has been repeated in articles and books and documentaries though. In actual fact, Ron Wyatt’s work has universally debunked by respected archaeologists and scholars. In fact, even two ministers in his own denomination (Seven Day Adventist) wrote an entire book called, “Holy Relics or Revelation: Examining the claims of Ron Wyatt” and concluded that his work was largely a hoax. …. The Egyptian chariot wheel story gained new a new life when it appeared in an online article in World News Daily, which claimed, “Egypt’s Antiquities Ministry announced this morning that a team of underwater archaeologists had discovered that remains of a large Egyptian army from the 14th century BC, at the bottom of the Gulf of Suez, 1.5 kilometers offshore from the modern city of Ras Gharib.” …. Those who were taken in by this hoax obviously didn’t read the disclaimer at the bottom of the article which read, “World News Daily Report assumes all responsibility for the satirical nature of its articles and for the fictional nature of their content.” To be clear, no chariot wheels from the Egyptian army that drowned chasing Moses and the children of Israel as described in Exodus 14 have ever been found. In contrast to hoaxes like this, there is good research being done by respected scholars and archaeologists that has confirmed numerous details of the biblical account of Israel in Egypt … identified the likely Pharaoh of the Exodus … and highlighted evidence for the actual date of the Exodus. …. Damien Mackey’s comment: Unfortunately even these have the Pharaoh of the Exodus from the wrong Egyptian Kingdom. Bryan Windle continues: Ron Wyatt supporters will often claim that his discoveries were suppressed because of professional jealousy. I know numerous biblical archaeologists personally, and I have interviewed numerous others. They are humble and frequently collaborate and support each other’s work, even if they don’t always agree with each other’s conclusions. “Professional jealousy” is an inaccurate description of the real world of biblical archaeology. The reality is that the Associates for Biblical Research (www.BibleArchaeology.org), a group of Christian archaeologists and scholars who are dedicated to demonstrating the historical reliability of Scripture, often promote the findings of other archaeologists who have made legitimate discoveries in a controlled archaeological excavation. The reason they do not promote Ron Wyatt’s work has nothing to do with professional jealousy; it has everything to do his unsubstantiated, unscholarly, and, quite possibly, fraudulent claims. 2) The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife The “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” is a credit-card sized papyrus which has been shown to be fraudulent. …. In 2012, Harvard University professor, Karen King, announced the discovery of a papyrus that was written in Coptic (an ancient Egyptian language) that read, “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife…” and may have referred to Mary Magdalene. King provocatively named it the “Gospel of Jesus’s Wife” and dated it to the fourth century AD, maintaining that it might have been copied from a second-century AD “gospel.” …. Almost immediately, scholars began to suspect it was a modern-day forgery, as one pointed out that the text and line breaks appeared to be copied from another papyrus that had been published in a 1924 book. Eventually Ariel Sabar, an investigative journalist from The Atlantic did an expose that tracked town the true original owner of the papyrus, a former Egyptology student named Walter Fritz who had at one time run an art website that sold pieces that looked like ancient manuscripts. Fritz eventually admitted to being the owner of the papyrus. While he never admitted to forging it, he did stress that he had never once claimed the papyrus was authentic. …. Karen King eventually conceded that the papyrus is likely a forgery and that its owner had lied to her about its provenance. Sadly, as is all too common in cases like this, the original announcement was met with great interest and picked up by news networks around the world, while the retraction generated little interest and coverage. People interested in following the discovery of new manuscripts related to the Bible would be better off following an expert organization, such as the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts at www.csntm.org or the Current Events updates at www.BibleArchaeology.org. Goliath’s Skeleton – In the Bible, Goliath is the great Philistine warrior who is described as being over nine feet tall (1 Sa 17:4). In February 2018, a news story made its way around social media proclaiming that Goliath’s skeleton had been discovered. The sensationalistic claim went on to declare: “Diggers in Israel believe they’ve made a giant discovery. For they’re convinced they’ve come across Goliath’s skull! And what’s more, they say, the stone from David’s slingshot is still embedded in the forehead.” Archaeologist Dr. Richard Martin says: “We found the skull in the Valley of Elah, in the foothills of the Judean Mountains, where David’s battle with Goliath took place. The skull is huge and clearly belongs to a man of enormous stature.”…. Some of the photos which accompanied the fake “Goliath Skeleton” story. Photo Credit: Snopes.com The story is essentially recycled from a 1993 article that appeared in the tabloid Weekly World News. Some of the accompanying pictures were actually taken from a 2008 photoshop contest from the website Worth 1000, called “Archaeological Anomalies 12,” in which participants submitted pictures that were intended to “create and archaeological hoax.” One of the pictures was an actual photograph, but it was of a sculpture done by Italian artist Gino De Domonicis called “Calamita Cosmica” (“Cosmic Magnet”), which is in the Museo Nazionale delle Arti del XXI Secolo in Rome. …. Rather than being taken in by obvious tabloid trash, there is real research being done by actual archaeologists on the Philistine people. The recent discovery at the Philistine city of Gath of a proto-semitic inscription dating to the 10th century BC with a name that etymologically very close to Goliath, demonstrates that names like this were common at the time the Bible says they are. …. In 2016, a cemetery was excavated at the city of Ashkelon, which demonstrated that Philistine burial practices were different than their Canaanite and Israelite neighbors. …. To date, no giant skeletons have been found there. …. IBSS - Other Views - Ron Wyatt Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies …. Other Views: Ron Wyatt ________________________________________ Ron Wyatt has made many amazing claims. Amazing claims demand amazing proof which Wyatt lacks. 1. He claims to have found Noah's Ark. Answers in Genesis has written articles showing his claims are false. See Could this be Noah’s Ark? 2. He claims to have found the Ark of the Covenant in a quarry outside Jerusalem. His pictures of the Ark are blurred so it could be any thing. To see the pictures from Wyatt's website see http://www.wyattarchaeology.com/ark.htm What Wyatt probably saw was an ossuary which is a box where bones are placed. Knights in medieval times probably also mistook ossuaries for the Ark of the Covenant. For more information see web page at Ron Wyatt's Discoveries 3. Wyatt claims to have found Sodom and Gomorrah, but what he found was just a geological feature of salt. 4. Wyatt claims to have found Mt. Sinai at Jabal al Law as does Bob Cornuke. See the Gold of the Exodus. 5. Wyatt claims to have found where Israel crossed the Red Sea, but there is no proof. He has supposedly planted a wheel in the water. Richard Rives Richard RIves is the president of Wyatt Archaeological Research. Richard RIves has taken over for Ron Wyatt who passed away in 1999. He has a museum about one hour south of Nashville, TN. For more information see his website at www.wyattmuseum.com. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Richard RIves was interviewed by Stephen Meyers, president of the Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies in 2012. …. A Great Christian Scam Gray Amirault states, "I will tell you enough here to hopefully convince you WAR (Wyatt Archaeological Research) is a Christian con game. Ron Wyatt is either very psychologically ill or one of the greatest liars I have ever come across. Full article at A Great Christian Scam and also see Wyatt Archaeological Research Fraud Documentation. Holy Relics or Revelation is a book exposing the false claims of Ron Wyatt. Wyatt claims to have found the Ark of the Covenant, Noah's ark, and much more. Cost is $14.95 plus shipping and handling ($4). Order this paperback book now by phone with a credit card, Visa, MasterCard, or Discover Card. Call 1-215-423-7374. More product info Click Here. A Great Christian Scam A Great Christian Scam By Gary Amirault This article generated enough interest to warrant complete documentation of the Wyatt Archaeological Research findings on the Tentmaker website. ________________________________________ Well, I hardly know how to begin this story. What I have been through the last couple of weeks sounds like something out of an Indiana Jones movie. As a matter of fact, part of this story deals with the subject matter of one of the Indiana Jones movies-the Lost Ark. It actually deals with two lost arks, Noah's and Moses'. The major difference between the Indiana Jones story and this one is that the Hollywood movie is fiction. What I am about to tell you is true. In this short article, I will only be able to highlight some of the important parts. I will give more details on an audio tape which you may order. This story began a couple of weeks prior to this issue of Dew going to press. In the book review section, I was going to review a book by Dr. Ernest Martin entitled The Secrets of Golgotha. His new up-dated version was scheduled to be released in the latter part of November. I had read his earlier version and found it interesting enough to write a favorable review. …. As I was working on the review of Dr. Martin's book, I came across some information which placed the site of Jesus' crucifixion at a different sight from Dr. Martin's location. I called the ministry who published this information. Dr. Martin places the crucifixion on the Mount of Olives. Ron Wyatt of Wyatt Archaeological Research (WAR) placed the site on Mount Moriah. Before releasing information on Dr. Martin's book, I felt I should look at the evidence from WAR. They sent me two videos and three books. One video was a two hour presentation entitled Discovered, Noah's Ark. The other video was entitled Presentation of Discoveries which presented a video presentation of several very significant archaeological discoveries made by Ron Wyatt. I also received three books entitled Discovered!-Mount Sinai, Wyatt Archaeological Research "Discovered" Volume, and The Ark of the Covenant. Since the crucifixion location was what I was working on, I watched the video entitled Presentation of Discoveries and read The Ark of the Covenant first since these were supposed to contain the material on the crucifixion. What I saw on the video and read in the small spiral-bound book made my jaws drop. I saw video clips and photographs of ancient sites and artifacts which just seemed unbelievable. This man, Ron Wyatt, believed he had verified the true discovery of Noah's Ark approximately 15 miles from the main peak of the Ararat Mountains, discovered the cities of Sodom and Gomorroh, revealed exact location of the Red Sea Crossing of Israel, showed in incredible video and photographs the original Mount Sinai, and to top it all off, he laid claim to having discovered the exact stake hole for the beam which held Jesus Christ. The crowning achievement was the discovery of the lost Ark of the Covenant buried 20 feet below the crucifixion site. He claimed the Ark was sprinkled by the blood of Jesus Christ when his side was pierced and the earthquake opened a crack which opened the way for His blood to literally drop down onto the Mercy Seat of the Ark. As I watched this video and read the book, I could hardly believe my eyes. If this was all true, why hasn't every television channel broadcasted these amazing discoveries. But then some of it has appeared on television. His work on Noah's ark was aired on the television program 20/20, the Today Show, Discovery Channel as well as others. Wyatt's video on Noah's Ark was full of top quality scientists, archaeologists, government officials, and Hugh Downs and Barbara Walters, all seeming to acknowledge that this structure 15 miles south of the central peak of the Ararat Mountains was indeed, Noah's Ark. I could hardly believe my eyes! But when watching Ron Wyatt make his presentation on the video, looking into his watery eyes as he described the blood of Christ sprinkling the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant, I couldn't call him a liar. He looked like one of the most humble, loving men I have ever seen. This video of the Ark of the Covenant was filmed at a convention of a large world-wide Christian Women's organization. The Christian astronaut James Irwin seemed to be involved with the Noah's Ark video. The videos and books were full of names of prominent people in Christian, scientific and archaeological, circles. I cannot properly describe to you how effective the scenes on the video and Ron Wyatt's presentation were. You would have to see the video to know what I am trying to poorly convey. All I can say is this: I used to be in the advertising business and know how presentations are put together to make you buy something. Having been a successful sales manager, I know a great deal about techniques of persuasion. I have seen behind the scenes of many Christian organizations and have uncovered many power-driven, money-making deceptive practices by "respectable" Christian leaders. I have shown how many Christian publishers take dead men and women's books and edit them to change their doctrines to make the books more marketable. I have read many books uncovering some behind the scenes activities of some of the major Christian television broadcasting companies. I know about the many frauds going on in many of the healing and evangelistic ministries. I have read books like Marjoe revealing how the "World's Youngest Evangelist" was nothing but a money making con orchestrated by his greedy evangelist mother and father. I have talked to Amazing Randi the magician who exposed the evangelist Peter Popoff by showing on the Johnny Carson Show how Popoff's so-called "word of knowledge" was nothing but a radio receiver in his ear from which he was fed information about people in the audience. (Incidentally, even after being exposed as a fraud to the entire country, Amazing Randi, the magician told me Peter Popoff is still making millions still conning gullible Christians.) I said all the above and could say much more just to let you know, as a result of what I know about deception in the Christian world, I don't get suckered easily. Yet after watching the video and reading the book about the Ark of the Covenant, based on his presentation, I had to believe he was telling the truth even though my mind said, "This can't be!" I got the address of Wyatt Archaeological Research from a person who writes a Christian newsletter and travels the country teaching Bible. I called him and asked him whether he believed what Ron Wyatt had presented. He said he did. This man has spent a great deal of time studying Biblical times. I told him I wanted to check things out. He gave me the address and telephone number of the people who had first introduced him to Wyatt Archaeological Research material. (I will use the initials WAR for rest of the article.) I called this number and talked with the wife of a man who had become a close confidant to Ron Wyatt. This woman, who would consider herself a devoted Christian, told me that at first she was extremely doubtful about what Ron Wyatt was claiming. But after several meetings and having her husband minister with Ron Wyatt, she was convinced he was one of the most sincerely Christian men she had ever met. She mentioned her husband shared some of the material from WAR in an audio tape which has been reproduced by many people and has gone all over the world. She said every week they get responses from all over the world wanting more information. I asked her for a copy of the tape. She gave me the name of a Christian bookstore in Portland, Oregon which sold the tape. I called the store and asked for a review copy. (Publications such a Dew that review books etc., often get review copies free.) The man, who sounded like he might own the store, told me it would cost $2.50 plus $2.00 postage and I could put it on my credit card. I hated to spend the money, but I did. So now I had a newsletter writer and Bible teacher tell me they believed Wyatt's claims, a wife of an associate of Wyatt's who put him on a pedestal, and a Christian bookstore selling audio tapes that promoted Ron Wyatt's discoveries. I called a friend of mine about this information and he informed me that one of the leading international Creation Science organizations was recommending Wyatt's materials. This friend of mine gave me 3 or 4 telephone numbers of Creation Science groups in the United States. He thought perhaps they might have some information on WAR. At this point, things began to explode. I received about thirty pages of faxes of different articles from one of the leading Creation Science research organizations. These articles stated that Wyatt's research was at the best based only on circumstantial evidence to being an outright fraudulent. Another Creation Science organization whose present head comes from Australia, did a soft-shoe dance on a telephone interview with me. He basically said all of Wyatt's evidence for his discoveries is circumstantial, but he wouldn't rule it out. I later found out his organization not only promoted WAR's discoveries, but actually sold WAR's materials to their organization's supporters. This leading Creation Science spokesperson was so concerned for his position and job, that he would not acknowledge that he promoted a fraud. And we wonder why the Creation Science scientists have a difficulty establishing credibility. This article cannot go into all the details dealing with all the scientific tests and archaeological evidence against almost all of WAR's claim to fame. For those of you who want the addresses for more information, I will happily forward them to you. I want to focus on something else. One of the articles about Ron Wyatt which was faxed to me came from Christian Information Ministries International, whose editor is Bill Crouse. He did some investigation of Ron Wyatt and his organization and discovered some of Wyatt's information about himself in a brochure his Christian booking agency produced for him was untruthful. Bill Crouse spoke with Jeff Roberts and Associates, about the false information in the brochure they used in booking Wyatt into churches. (Yes, many Christian celebrities use booking agencies to get speaking engagements in churches) Quoting from the Ararat Report of May-June 1988 from Christian Information Ministries, it says, "It lists Ron as graduating from the University of Michigan with honors in Pre-med and as having finished all the requirements for both M.A. and Ph.D. in antiquities. It also lists him as being a Korean war veteran." Christian Information Ministries when checking this out found none of the above to be true. According to Bill Crouse, when Ron Wyatt's booking agency Jeff Roberts and Associates, located in Hendersonville, Tennessee, was questioned about the discrepancies in the brochure, they admitted the brochure needed to be re-written, but they did not know who was to blame for the inaccuracies. I called this agency up to find out what their views of Ron Wyatt were today, 7 years later. First, I got a run-around. Then, the receptionist was told to tell me that it was too far in the past to remember. Imagine yourself as a small Christian booking agency and the man who claims to have found the Ark of the Covenant with the blood of Jesus Christ still on it wants to give you the honor of announcing it to the Christian world. It is your job to get this incredible information to the Christian world and seven years later, you don't remember anything about it? I told the lady to tell her boss, that as a Christian, he should be ashamed of himself. He was promoting one of the greatest scams I have ever come across in my life and now the head of this "Christian" booking agency is not willing to warn the Christian community of this con artist. Why? Because it would leave egg on his face and he would rather see the name of Jesus Christ dragged through the mud and thousands of innocent Christians being taken into this con, than to admit his part in this deception. As I followed this story as far as my income would allow, I found many others, like the heads of this booking agency, willing to hide their involvement in this rip-off and allowing the show to go on to avoid the risk of "losing their credibility or reputation." A head of a Creation Science organization, Professors at seminaries, people who lost thousands of dollars investing in WAR, owners of Christian book stores, heads of large Bible teaching organizations, all just shoved the thing under the rug or were still promoting what I now see as probably the most incredible scam I have ever seen. Hollywood would have a difficult time creating a "Sting" movie as incredible as what I have come across the last few days. Perhaps more incredible to me than the fact this con could go on as long as it has, is the response of many Christian leaders to this perpetration. I think the most honest response I got in this whole investigation came from a non-believer from a television studio. He said, "I became involved for the money." Thank you, non-Christian for a little honesty. I can't cover most of what I discovered in the several days of investigative calls all over this country. I'll try to put all that in an audio tape complete with the details of how to get this information for yourself. I will tell you enough here to hopefully convince you WAR is a Christian con game. Ron Wyatt is either very psychologically ill or one of the greatest liars I have ever come across. One of the individuals who I interviewed, who lost approximately 30,000 thousand dollars to Ron Wyatt, went to Israel with him, supposedly to see some of these sights and record them on film. An assignment editor of a major television station in Nasheville went with them. Not only did this individual not see any of these incredible discoveries, but his wife was told by one of Ron Wyatt's sons that the chariot wheels that Ron supposedly discovered in the Gulf of Aqaba were planted there by Ron. Mr. Wyatt gave this couple some coins which he supposedly found at the Ark of the Covenant site. Again, one of Wyatt's sons informed the wife that Wyatt bought those coins. Gentle, soft-spoken Ron verbally abused an Arab car rental agent when the agent told Mr. Wyatt that his son was to young to drive the vehicle. This couple and the television man returned with nothing to show for the ten's of thousands of dollars he gave to Ron. Later, Ron returned and asked for $10,000 dollars more. This man told Ron he would give him the money if he agreed to take a lie detector test and sign a statement agreeing to allow this man to use the results of the test any way he wanted. Ron tried to get the money without agreeing to take the test, but when he saw that he would not get another dime without the test, he finally signed the statement and took the test. In the words of the man who put Ron Wyatt through the test, as told by the man who gave Ron Wyatt all the previous money, "He failed just about everything except his name." After this, Ron Wyatt physically threatened the man who had Wyatt sign the statement. I also found out one of the so-called scientific apparatuses Ron Wyatt used to determine that he verified the true Noah's Ark, was a device advertised in the back of treasure hunter magazines. It was nothing but a glorified "divining rod." It had absolutely no scientific value whatsoever, yet leading ancient antiquities professors, Creation Science people with advanced degrees in geology, and newsmen fell for a modern version of the old water "divining rod." I hope you understand the reason I am writing this story is really not to expose one man, Ron Wyatt. There are thousands of Ron Wyatt's in the Christian community. One of them may be in your pulpit. What I want to expose is what causes us to fall for these kind of schemes. After I listened to the tapes and read the books, listened to Ron Wyatt give his explanations on the telephone for an hour, talked to his wife a couple of times, and spend almost an hour with the wife of one of Ron Wyatt's associates, I believed Ron Wyatt was telling the truth. I could not call him a liar. Everything about him seemed very Christ-like. His videos showed well known people support his views. But I had an obligation to those who read Dew and receive Tentmaker material to search the matter further. It cost several days of time and probably hundreds of dollars, but it uncovered the lie which was so beautifully packaged. This scam had its beginning as early as 25 years ago. It is still going on, ever increasing in deception. Many leaders in the Christian community know it is a lie, yet they keep their mouths shut either because they do not want people to know they fell for it, or because they made money themselves from it, or because they are running a small version of a scam themselves and just don't want people to get too disgusted with things like this because it might shut down their little scam. I have to admit, I believed this man was telling the truth. Should you see the video, you will see that it was put together very well and Ron Wyatt certainly deserves an Emmy for his performance. I have never seen such an amazing performance in my life. ….

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.) ...”.