Thursday, October 16, 2025

Exodus East Wind driving back the waters is a phenomenon observed in modern times

“Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and all that night the Lord drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land. The waters were divided, and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left”. Exodus 14:21-22 We read at: RedSeaCrossingExodusIsraelBallahLakes Map of Israel's crossing of the Red Sea at Ras el Ballah, "Cape Ballah" (Baal-Zephon?) or Qantara and Lake Menzaleh? 20 November 2009 (Revisions through 27 October 2021) Exodus 14:21 and 27 has a sea being pushed back by a strong east wind during the night, then, in the morning, with the wind dissipated (?) the sea "returns to its strength" and refills its formerly empty bed. "Where" was such a phenomenon "documented"? Eventually I found an account of the eastern half of Lake Menzaleh having its shallow waters pushed back by a gale force east wind exposing its lake bottom in January of 1882. It appears then that such a phenonemon is documented for shallow Egyptian marsh-lakes, Menzaleh's waters being generally 4 to 7 feet in depth with a few exceptions according to European visitors to the area in the 1800's. Red Sea in Hebrew is called Yam Suph, yam= sea, suph= reed, "sea of reeds," suggesting an area possessing a fresh water environment for the reeds and marsh grasses to grow in, suiting the area of Lake Menzaleh. Professor Humphreys (2004) sought to explain the drying up the Red Sea via physcial phenomena. He argued that "wind setdown" was the mechanism that created a passage in the sea. He said this worked only on large bodies of water (he noted it being documented at Lake Erie in the United States). Wind setdown "removes" water whereas wind setup "adds" water. He noted some thought the crossing was at the Gulf of Suez. He dismissed this location however because only a wind from the northwest could blow back this gulf's waters exposing dry land and the Bible said it was an east wind. He then noted that at the Gulf of Aqaba it would take a wind from the northeast to blow black the waters and expose the sea's bottom. He favored Aqabah as the crossing point of the Red Sea, despite the fact that an east wind could not blow back the gulf's waters only a northeast wind could do this. He was apparently unaware of the 1882 report of an east wind blowing back Lake Menzaleh's waters in this lake's eastern sector near the mouth of the Suez Canal. This lake is roughly 43 miles in length and 12 miles wide so it is big enough for wind set-down to work (cf. pp. 246-252. Colin J. Humphreys. The Miracles of Exodus: A Scientist's Discovery of the Extraordinary Natural Causes of the Biblical Stories. HarperCollins. 2004) A British officer who lived in Egypt reported a phenomenon that somewhat paralled the Exodus account as related by Professor Kent (1914) of Yale University: "...Major-General Tulloch, who states that the shallow waters of Lake Menzaleh, which lies only a short distance to the north and is subject to the same conditions, were driven back by the wind for seven miles, leaving the bottom of the lake dry (Journal of the Victorian Institute, Vol. XXVIII, p. 267, and Vol. XXVI, p. 12)." (pp. 113-114. Charles Foster Kent. Biblical Geography and History. New York. Charles Scribner's and Sons. 1914, 1916, 1926) C.R. Conder (1915) stated that Tulloch beheld this wonder in 1882 (the Suez Canal was completed by 1869): "In 1882 Sir Alexander Tulloch saw the waters of Lake Menzaleh driven back more than a mile by the east wind." (C. R. Conder. "Exodus, the Route." James Orr. Editor. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 1915) Professor Haupt of Johns Hopkins University (1904) noted that the receding water was in the eastern portion of Lake Menzaleh, near ancient Pelusium and the mouth of the Suez Canal (the mud-flats area west of Pelusium and et-Tina, which as late as 1856 was subject to flooding by the Nile which left its characteristic dark silt): "In my paper on Archaeology and Mineralogy...I mentioned the fact that Major-General Tulloch observed that under a strong east wind the shallow waters of Lake Manzaleh at the northern entrance to the Suez Canal receded for a distance of seven miles. There is therefore no reason for doubting the historical character of the passage of the Red Sea." (p. 149. Paul Haupt. "Moses' Song of Triumph." The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures. Vol. 20. No. 3. April. 1904) Another account has the 1882 east wind diminishing the water level by 6 feet (my note: A depth capable of drowning Pharaoh's army!): "Major General Tulloch of the British Army (Proceedings of the Victoria Institute. XXVIII, pp. 267-280) reports having witnessed the driving off of water from Lake Menzaleh by the wind to such an extent as to lower the level 6 feet, thus leaving small vessels over the shallow water stranded for a while in the muddy bottom." (BibleExplore.Com, "Red Sea," on the internet) A variance of 7 feet was documented for Lake Erie in the United States between Buffalo New York and Toledo, Ohio: "The power of the wind to affect water levels is strikingly witnessed upon Lake Erie in the United States, where according to the report of the Deep Waterways Commission for 1896 (165, 168) it appears that a strong wind from the southwest sometimes lowers the water at Toledo Ohio on the western end of the lake to the extent of more than 7 feet, at the same time causing it to rise at Buffalo at the eastern end a similar amount..." A description of Lake Menzaleh (1868) has its depth as 4-5 feet, 43 miles long, 12-11 miles wide and full of marsh reeds: "...Lake Menzaleh...the bottom is a mixture of mud and sand, generally covered in reeds, but quite level; so that the greatest depth of the lake does not vary more than 6 or 8 inches, being rarely much under 4 feet, and seldom materially above it, except where the sea enters." (p. 386. General Francis Rawdon Chesney. Narrative of the Euphrates Expedition: Carried on by the Order of the British Government During the years 1835, 1836 and 1837. London. 1868) Bonar (ca. 1843?) understands Lake Menzaleh's deeper parts are 10 feet, but mostly 4 to 5 feet: "...Lake Menzaleh...It is nowhere more than ten feet deep, and in general only four or five...at evening we entered a canal among immense reeds...we reached San about ten...the ruins of Zoan..." (Andrew Bonar. The Biography of Robert Murray M'Cheyne. Note: M'Cheyne lived 1813-1843) ("Red Sea," BibleExplore.Com) Tulloch's account of the eastwind blowing away Lake Menzaleh's waters appears in his published military memoirs of 1903, he witnessed the event apparently at the end of January of 1882 while he was at Port Said inspecting the Suez Canal's embankments for acts of sabotage. The dried up Menzaleh Lake was to the west side of the canal "as far as the eye could see" (Haupt's 7 miles?). Of interest here is that the wind apparently began blowing during the day, continued all through the night and was still blowing in the morning and the lake bed was empty. Yahweh, overnight, dries up Yam Suph, and Lake Menzaleh, overnight, is dried up too: ""We landed at Port Said the end of January...I made a curious discovery. An easterly gale came up very rapidly, and at last was so strong, driving the sand from the dry side into my face, that I had to cease work. Next morning the wind having a good deal gone down, I went on to the canal bank again, when, to my astonishment, I noticed that Lake Menzaleh on the west side of the canal had disappeared beyond the horizon in that direction, and that the Arabs were walking on the mud where the day before large boats had been floating. When thinking over this extraordinary effect of wind on shallow water, it suddenly flashed upon me that I was witnessing a similar event to that which had taken place between three to four thousand years ago, at the time of the passage of the so-called Red Sea by the Israelites. Subsequently, when I had time for it, I examined the shores of the Bitter Lakes, and came to the unquestionable conculsion that the Red Sea of Pharaoh's day extended to the head of the Bitter Lakes, and it was here the passage took place, and that the description of it in Exodus is literally correct, word for word." (pp. 245-246. Major-General Sir Alexander Bruce Tulloch, K.C.B., C.M.G. Recollections of Forty Years' Service. London & Edinburgh. William Blackwood & Sons. 1903) My note: In the 1880s many scholars believed that the head of the Gulf of Suez in antiquity was at Lake Et-Timsah, which included the Bitter Lakes, hence, probably Tulloch's notion that the Red Sea Crossing was at the Bitter Lakes. Today we know the head of the Suez Gulf has always been at its present location at least since the days of the Pharaohs. The evidence? Archaeologists have found ancient Egyptian mining camps on the Suez Gulf's shore revealing its level today was nearly the same 5000 years ago. DeLesseps visited in 1856 Pelusium before the Suez Canal was built and crossed the mud-flats on camels which sank a bit into the mud, by December no sinking occurred: "The rise of waters this year had been less than usual, and had dried up quickly, and at the end of December we crossed these seas of mud dry-footed and without our camels sinking into it at all." (p. 47. Joseph Everett Nourse. The Maritime Canal of Suez: From its Inauguration, November 17, 1869 to... Naval Historical Foundation. Washington, D.C. 1974, using source material from 1884?) I note that such mud could clog pharaoh's chariot wheels. The "drying up" of a sea's bed by an east wind pushing the waters away near the Pelusium and et-Tina mud-flats (which are subject to Nile inundations) seems to _identify_ the "pre-biblical source" for the biblical story as being this area. Below a map from the 1897 Encyclopedia Britannica showing the northern mouth of the Suez Canal, where in 1882, an east wind blew away a portion of Lake Menzaleh's waters for a distance of 7 miles from the vicinity of the canal's entry point. I have set my compass to create a 7 mile arc from Port Said, the canal's entry point, to show the viewer what 7 miles looks like from any given direction from Port Said. I have colored the exposed lake bed yellow (I am using the map's scale, marked off in numbers every 2 miles, 0-10, in the upper right corner to determine the 7 mile arc from) The area exposed "may have been" even greater extending along the whole of the eastern coast of Menzaleh from Said to Qantara/Kantara if the "line of view" from Said is restricted to only 7 miles? The 4/5 foot drop in water on the east side of Menzaleh probably caused a 4/5 foot height increase on the west side of the lake as happened at Lake Erie. Note: Tulloch said it was on the west side of the Suez Canal that the waters of lake Menzaleh had blown away; the canal's high embankment would prevent the lake water east of the canal from being blown away. So the "yellow" area on the below map should more properly be restricted to the area west of the Suez Canal's entry. Below, a map of Ras el Ballah, alternately called Ras el Moyeh ("Cape of Water"), on the west side of the Ballah inlet showing water on either side of two tracks. The Pink track from Salhieh in the delta takes one north to Qatieh in the northern Sinai; the Orange route goes to Bir Abou Rouq. I understand that Baal-Zephon is Ras el Ballah and Pi-ha`hiroth is the northern opening or "mouth" to the El Kraieh marsh east of Ras el Ballah. Israel probably used the orange track "to cross the Reed Sea" (Ex 14:21-22). Israel camped before Baal-Zephon (Ras el Ballah) on the orange route, west of the marsh-ford in front of Ras el Ballah. Going from west to east, as Israel passed over the dried up marsh-ford, she saw a "wall of water" on either side, the deeper waters of the Ballah inlet colored in a deeper blue, the lighter blue lined areas are marshy ground with green marker for tufts of sedge or swamp grasses and reeds, hence its name Yam Suph "sea of reeds" (Exodus 14:22). Note that this track does cross the marsh-swamp, there apparently was a shallow ford at this location which "might" dry up at times (Map of 1826, Paris, France. Titled "Canal de Suez" sheet no. 31. Surveyed 1797-1799 by Napoleon Bonoparte's Corps of Engineers and Cartographers). Note: Bir Abou Rouq is transcribed variously as: Abou-el-Rouq; Abou Erouq; Abu Ruk; Abu Rukk; Bir Abou el Rouq; Bir Abou Erouq; Bir Abou Rouq; Bir Abu el-Uruq; fountaine d' Abou el `Arouq (cf. p. 1132. Vol. 2. Herbert Verreth. The Northern Sinai From the 7th Centrury BC till the 7th Century AD, A Guide to the Sources. Leuven, Belgium. 2006. Available for download on the internet as two PDF files). The transcription Erouq, for me, most closely parallels the biblical Hiroth (Pi-Ha`Hiroth). Erouq is described as possessing "two wells and a few palm trees" according to Verreth, and cared for by a Bedouin family. So Hiroth appears to be possibly preserved in Erouq. The problem? The proper pronounciation in Hebrew is not Hiroth, its Chiroth/Khiroth which is best preserved at the marsh of El Kraieh (Karach, Karash on various maps). Verreth translates Ras el Ballah as "Cape of [lake] Ballah," noting it is alternately called Ras el Moyeh "the Cape of the Lakes" (Verreth. p. 827. Vol. 1) but I understand "lake" is birket while moyeh means "water" (Aramaic moyeh= water; Hebrew: mayim= water; Egyptian: mu= water; Arabic ma= water; vulgar Egyptian: moyeh= water), so I would translate "Cape of Water" or "Headland of Water." This headland appears on a map of 1885 as Ras el Ballah el Ras el Moyeh, "the headland or cape of Ballah/Water." Ballah's water is from Nile flooding via Lake Menzaleh; Menzaleh is classed as a "salt-marsh" (17% salinity in 1926), so Ballah would be a salt-marsh too. Exodus 14:22 RSV, "...Israel went into the midst of the sea on dry ground _the mayim_ being a wall to them on their right hand and on their left." Both "water" and "waters" in Hebrew is mayim (Strong 4325), is there a relationship here to Ras el Moyeh, "the Cape of the Water"? The "waters" Israel passed through on her right and left hand as shown on the above map? In other words "the water/waters" Israel passed through at Baal-Zephon (Ras el Ballah?) are alluding to Ras el Moyeh, "the Cape of Water." Below, another view of the track from Salhieh on the edge of the Egyptian delta (viewer's left, not shown on this image) to Ras el Ballah, "the Headland of Ballah," which lies on the west side of the Ballah inlet and its marshes. To the ESE of Ras el Ballah is Bir Abou rouq (marked by two concentric red circles, other, later maps' `Ruk, Aruk, Erouq, `Uruq). A track in orange marker passes through the southern swamps of the Ballah inlet east of Ras el Ballah to Bir Abou Rouq. At Rouq one has two tracks in orange to go south to Lake Et-Timsah (Etham?). The western track goes directly to Lake Et-Timsah, the middle track (orange) passes by Timsah on its east side headed for the Bitter Lakes region. The far right orange track heading east of Bir Abou Rouq takes one to Bir el Makdal (probably Pi-ha`hiroth's and Baal-Zephon's Migdol). Alternately, Migdol might be the below map's conical "Ruines" tell ENE of Ras el Ballah. Without explanation Hazlitt identifies Migdol, classical Magdolum, with Ras el Moyeh! If he is correct then Migdol/Magdolum at Ras el Moyeh puts Israel at Ras el Ballah (cf. p. 212. "Migdol." William Hazlitt. The Classical Gazetteer of Ancient Geography, Sacred and Profane. London. Whittaker & Company. 1851). As Israel, after crossing Yam Suph, is headed for the wilderness of Etham, Israel could have taken any of the three orange tracks at Bir Abou Rouq to Birket Et-Timsah. The first orange track going south (viewer's left) from Bir Abou rouq takes one directly to Et-Timsah via Marais de Karach (the 1799 marsh of Karach, 1885: El Kraieh), the second orange track headed south bypasses Et-Timsah's east side. The third orange track (viewer's right) continues to Bir El Makdal (my proposal for Migdol of the Red Sea Crossing). From Makdal a track goes due south headed for the Bitter Lakes called Murrat in Arabic (The Exodus' "bitter waters of Marah"?). Bir el rouq (`Ruk, `Aruk, Erouq, `Uruq) may preserve the Exodus' Pi-ha`hiroth _if_ Hiroth is the correct pronounciation, if _not_, then Chiroth/Khiroth is preserved in El Kraieh (1885 map). In any event, Israel had to cross through or "ford" the marshy lower portion of the Ballah Inlet east of Ras el Ballah to get to Rouq and continue south to Etham/Timsah and Marah. From Pi-hahiroth, Baal-Zephon, and Migdol and the crossing of the Reed Sea Israel spent three days crossing the wilderness of Shur/Etham. She had herds of cattle (Ex 12:38) and cattle drives to Abilene, Texas did not exceed more than 10 to 15 miles a day. If the "waters" of Marah (Hebrew plural and singular: mayim) is an allusion to more than one water source the two salt-marshes of Murrat, today's two Bitter Lakes would seem to fit the bill; Murrat in Arabic means "bitter" and Hebrew Marah also means "bitter." Three days to cross the wilderness of Shur/Etham from Pi-ha`hiroth at 10 to 15 miles a day suggests that the crossing point of the Red Sea is roughly 30 to 45 miles north of some location at the two Bitter Lakes. 15 miles south of Bir Abou rouq (Pi-ha`hiroth?) we are in the vicinity of Lake Et-Timsah (Etham?); at 25 miles we are at the northern part of the Great Bitter Lake (al-Buhayrah al-Murrat al-Kubra); at 40 miles we are at the Little Bitter Lake (al-Buhayrah al-Murrat as-Sughra); at 45 miles we are just south of the Little Bitter Lake Please Click Here to access an interactive version of the below map and see the Ballah inlet in greater, clearer, more focused detail. The Jews in Jerusalem would know of these sites (Baal-Zephon/Ras el Ballah, etc.) via caravan merchants as they served as major sign posts along the way for the caravans plying their trade goods back and forth between Canaan/Judah and Egypt. The Jews apparently, by 562-560 BC when Genesis-2 Kings appears in its final format, understood that Yam Suph extended from in front of Egypt (Exodus 13:18; 14:21-22, 27) to the Solomonic ports of Elath and Ezion-Geber (Nu 33:35, 36, De 2:8, 2 Ch 20:36); a "huge" sea indeed, in their imagination, but they had, in error, confounded and conflated the reed marshes of Menzaleh, Ballah/Moyeh, Karash/Kraieh, Timsah and the Bitter Lakes with the gulfs of Suez and Aqabah. So the crossing of a shallow marsh ford under the eastern slopes of Ras el Ballah (my Baal-Zephon), which on occasion was probably dry, became Israel crossing the Reed Sea/Yam Suph extending from before Egypt all the way to Edom! In other words, because a great sea was envisioned as east of Egypt and extending to Edom, the crossing on dry land of this sea under the slopes of Baal-Zephon (Ras el Ballah) became Israel's God performing a wonderous miracle, allowing his people to flee Egyptian bondage. The humble marsh-ford at Ras el Ballah (Baal-Zephon) had _mistakenly_ come to be envisioned as the great depths of the sea of Suez and Aqaba and because of this error, a mighty miracle had been performed by God, the drying up of the Reed Sea for his people's benefit and salvation. I just now finally realized that the _only_ event that people would regard as "a miracle" would be the sudden drying up of a portion of Lake Menzaleh for a distance of 7 miles as reported by Tulloch. That is to say the sea that dried up under a wind's influence _is_ Lake Menzaleh rather than the Ballah inlet! Imagine yourself in the center of circle 7 miles in diameter: whichever direction you turn and face: north, east, south or west for a distance of 3 1/2 miles all you see is lake bottom where formerly there was water (assuming you can see 3 1/2 miles away). This would have to be regarded as a miraculous event worth remembering and recounting to anyone you chanced to come into contact with. To the degree that the Ballah Inlet is an extension of Menzaleh the two lakes probably came to conflated together into one great sea, Yam Suph, extending from Menzaleh to Edom. That is to say miracle of an east wind drying up the eastern half Menzaleh came to be conflated with the drying up of the Ras el Ballah ford which is an extension of the eastern half of Menzaleh. The main road from Egypt to Canaan and Judah passes by the east side of this lake. The local natives would surely pass on to the caravans passing over Qantara to Egypt the story of their Reed Sea (marshland) being dried up for a distance of eight miles by a wind and the caravaneers and merchants would pass this story on to the Jews in Jerusalem. So the Red Sea (Reed Sea, Yam Suph) that dried up was Lake Menzaleh, or at least a portion of it, probably the eastern part near Qantara. As the Qantara traderoute is the _major_ track leaving Egypt for Canaan and the most famous of the tracks going to and from Egypt, it would make sense that the Jews would associate the leaving of Egypt by their ancestors with this track which skirts the southeast edge of Lake Menzaleh. So the drying up Menzaleh or a part of it _plus_ a major track leaving Egypt for Canaan, became Israel's Egyptian Exodus and the miracle of the drying up of the Reed Sea; the east side of Manzela is very shallow and not navigable and is full of marshes, reeds, and miry mud-flats under Moses. There is a problem: The Qantara crossing is on the biblical "way to the land of the Philistines" which the Bible says Israel did _not_ take (Ex 13:17). This leaves, then, by default, the Ras el Ballah route as the body of water Israel crossed north of Etham (Et-Timsah?) and Marah (the Bitter Lakes?). Coptic pi-akhirot "place where the sedge grows" is another suggestion for Pi-ha`hiroth's Egyptian etymology (cf. the Jewish Encyclopedia on the internet). Sedge embraces various forms of marsh-growing plants including reeds and grasses. The appearance of a marsh with grasses and reeds in the midst of the Isthmus of Suez at Ras el Ballah and the El Kraieh marsh would be a remarkable sight for caravans crossing an otherwise arid wilderness from Judah to Egypt and would serve as a reference point for caravans which would cross this marsh-ford for Egypt. Below, a map (1848) showing that two caravan tracks leaving Egypt for the town of Katieh (Qatieh) in the Sinai cross the Ballah inlet, an extension of Lake Menzaleh. The German cartographer has grossly over simplified this area as revealed in the above 1797-1798 maps of this region by Napoleon's cartographers, nevertheless, in _both_ cases, a track must cross a body of water, the Ballah inlet. The northern track crosses the water at Qantara (on pre 1860 maps rendered Kantara or Tresor), the southern track crosses the Ballah inlet between Ras el Ballah, west of the inlet and Bir Abu Ruk (1797 Bir Abou rouq) east of the inlet. Red circles mark the possible sites for the crossing of the Red Sea (the Ballah inlet) on each of the below maps. The northern crossing of the Ballah inlet at Qantara is on the biblical "way to the land of the Philistines," a route the Bible says Israel did _not_ take (Ex 13:17), leaving by "default" the southern crossing of the Ballah inlet at Ras el Ballah. This map shows the area about Tineh (et-Tineh) and Pelusium (not on this map) were marshy and subject to inundations of the Nile before the Suez Canal was built. In this very area in 1882 near the mouth of the Suez Canal, Lake Manzelah's bottom was exposed for 7 miles by an east wind. Below, 1832 map, John Arrowsmith, London, notes "Inundations of the Nile" from Lake Menzaleh to Birket el Karash (El Kraieh marsh on 1885 map) south of Birket el Ballah. Below, 1853 map, Heinrich Keipert, Germany showing three tracks crossing the Ballah inlet. There are _two_ northern tracks from Taphne (Biblical Tahpanes, a colony of Greek mercenaries; Arabic: Safnas on an 1802 map) one to Pelusium the other to Katieh via the "Ruins of Magdolum" (Tell es Smoot on other 19th century maps). The third track is at Bir Abu Ruk (1797-1799 Bir Abou rouq) near the south end of Lake Ballah. For those wishing to argue Baal-Zephon is recalling Greek Dafnae, biblical Tahpanes, Arabic Safnas (1802 map) and Migdol being Tell es Smoot/Classical Magdolum (?) the Qantara land bridge would be "the crossing point" of the Red Sea. The second possible location for the crossing of the Red Sea would be at Ras el Ballah (Baal-Zephon?). Undoubtedly the Qantara crossing is the "major" exit point from Egypt, it was heavily guarded and several Forts or Migdols exist near this route that could be the Bible's Migdol. In favor of Qantara over Ras el Ballah is that the Qantara land bridge is nearer to the drying-up of Lake Menzaleh by a wind and the landbridge's height would provide a better view for Israel when she crossed over it on dry land and saw two walls of water on either side of her, the left-hand wall of water would be Lake Manzaleh and its marshes on its eastern periphery while the right-hand wall of water would be the Ballah inlet and its marshes. Against the Qantara proposal is that this land bridge never was submerged so an east wind pushing back waters here is not called for. Also against this proposal is that Qantara is part of the Way to the land of the Philistines, a route not taken by Israel. Both bodies of water (Menzaleh and Ballah) possess marsh and reeds making them candidates for the Reed Sea or Yam Suph. The Ballah inlet is part of Lake Menzaleh, in Jewish eyes, when Israel crossed "the sea that dried up by a wind" (the eastern shore of Menzaleh) this sea existed on both the Menzaleh and Ballah sides of the crossing point. Some notes on Yam Suph: Yam Suph (the Reed Sea) for the Exilic narrator (562-560 BC) apparently embraced (1) the marshes of Lake Menzaleh, (2) the marshes of Birket Ballah, (3) the marshes of Birket Karach/Karash, (4) the marshes at Birket Timsah, (5) the marshes of the two bitter lakes, (6) the gulf of Suez, and (7) the gulf of Aqabah. When Israel left Rameses she headed for the "way of the wilderness of Yam Suph" (Ex 13:18) at Etham (Ex 13:20), Birket Timsah, today's Et-Timsah, a marshy lake which periodically received its freshwater via Nile inundations before the Suez Canal was constructed in the 1860s. Then Israel turns about to Pi-ha`hiroth and camps at Yam Suph (Ex 14:1-2) leading Pharaoh to think they are lost in the wilderness west of Yam Suph, from Pi-ha`hiroth to Etham (Ex 14:3). After crossing Pi-ha`hiroth/Yam Suph they backtrack three days to Marah via the wilderness of Shur named after Abu Suweir (?) west of Lake et-Timsah where caravan routes intersect each other, today's Isthmus of Suez from Qantara to the Bitter Lakes called Murrah, meaning "bitter" in Arabic (Ex 15:23). However this 3 day backtrack is called the wilderness of Etham in Numbers 33:8. Both are correct as Shur (Hebrew shuwr) is probably Abu-Suweir-by-Lake-Et-Timsah. I suspect that Suweir/Timsah are but alternate names for the Isthmus of Suez between Ras el Ballah and Marah (the Bitter Lakes). Then Israel camps at Elim (Ayun Musa?), day 4 since the Red Sea crossing at Ras el Ballah ( Ex 15:27), Day 5 Israel camps at Yam Suph, south of Elim/Ayun Musa on the shore of the gulf of Suez (Nu 33:10-11), then they camp in the Wilderness of Sin (Nu 33:11). Israel later leaves Kadesh-Barnea to camp at Ezion-Geber on the Yam Suph (Nu 33:35-36). Numbers 21:4 has Israel at Mount Hor near Arad in the Negeb and Edom when Israel journeys to ":the way to the Red Sea" (Ezion-Geber). By comparing Exodus 14 with the Numbers 33 itinerary it is obvious to me that Yam Suph was _incorrectly envisioned_ as extending from Lake Menzaleh to the Gulf of Aqabah and Edom without any landbridge breaks in it (land passages do exist south of Ballah, south of Karach/Karash, south of Timsah, and south of the Bitter Lakes above the Suez Gulf but the Exilic narrator apparently was unaware of them. It is the pushing back of the sea's waters by a powerful east wind that allows Israel to escape Egypt and cross over into the Sinai. Because of the depth of Yam Suph at Elath and Ezion-Geber (the Gulf of Aqabah) Pharoh's army was portrayed as sinking in the depths of the sea when it returned to its strength in the morning watch when the wind stopped blowing (not a tidal action, not a tsunami, but an east wind setdown). The reality was that the shallow waters, varying from one to five feet on Lake Menzaleh's east side were what was blown away by a wind, but the Exilic narrator was apparently unaware of this, he knew only of Yam Suph/Aqabah's deep waters. The below map from the Bible and Spade website, based on Hoffmeier's research (figure 1. James K. Hoffmeier. Ancient Israel in Sinai, the Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition. Oxford University Press. 2005). I reject the notion of there being 3 Ballah Lakes as the maps made before the 1865 Suez Canal changed the Ballah topography reveal it was merely an inlet of Lake Menzaleh, the crossing of the Red Sea being Ras el Ballah, "the headland of Ballah," or "Cape Ballah," a prominent height or elevation west of the Ballah inlet crossing.Hoffmeier shows the Qantara landbridge area as being the site for Israel's crossing of the Reed Sea, yet the Bible says Israel avoided this location as it was part of the "way to the land of the Philistines." Contra Hoffmeier I understand that the area north of Qantara was periodically covered in water from Nile inundations, a shallow freshwater lake with marsh grasses and reeds and that this is "where" the sea's bottom was exposed by a wind for 7 miles as noted by Tulloch. So via a series of errors, not understanding the real geography of Yam Suph, the shallow marshes east of Egypt were confused and conflated with the depths of Yam Suph at Elath and Ezion-Geber (the Gulf of Aqabah). I find rather ironic that this confused geography is a "foundation stone" of sorts for Judaism, Christianity and Islam: Israel's Red Sea Crossing via a wind blowing back a sea's waters exposing its bed. Below, my route of the Exodus in pink marker -compare it with Hoffmeier's above map- Hoffmeier has the Crossing of the Reed Sea in the northern sector of Ballah, "the way to the land of the Philistines," whereas I have the crossing in the southern sector of Ballah; from Goshen (Fakoos) to Etham (Birket Tamsah, modern Lake Et-Timsah), "turning about" from Etham at the "edge of the wilderness" (lands receiving Nile water) to Pi-ha`hiroth by Baal-Zephon (Ras el Ballah, "the headland of Ballah," not on this map but west of the track crossing the southern tip of Birket Ballah, west of Beer Mooktool/Migdol (?). I associate the waters (mayim, can mean both water or waters) of Marah with the two Bitter Lakes called Murrah, the Septuaginta's Merra (for the map cf. Keith Alexander Johnston, London, 1861 Map at the David Rumsey Historical Maps Archive on the internet). Note: The ancient Egyptian language did not have the letter "L" instead they used "R." The word Baal-Zephon however does appear in inscriptions found in Egypt, not in Egyptian, but in _Greek_ at Tell Defenneh (Greek: Dafnae), a settlement for Greek mercenaries to guard Egypt's borders circa the 7th-6th centuries BC and into Greek Ptolemaic times of the the 3rd-1st centuries BC. This suggests for me that the word Baal-Zephon is really Greek, circa the 7th-6th century BC (the Exodus account being written in the Exile, in Babylonia circa 562-560 BC during the reign of the Neo-Babylonain King Evil-Merodach, Amel-Marduk, who reigned between those dates cf. 2 Kings 25:27), not Egyptian, and is "marker" that the Exodus account is very late (not written by Moses circa 1445-1404 BC for some Conservative Protestant scholars) and after the 7th century BC and settlement of Greek mercenaries at Dafnae (Jeremiah's circa 572 BC Tahpanhes Jer 43:7-9; 44:1; 46:14). Migdol or "fort" in Egyptian would be Maktar or Magtar. Jeremiah suggests that following the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians some Jews fled to Tahpanhes, where they would have come into contact with accounts in Greek of a Baal-Zephon. It is also possible that Greek mercenaries stationed in Judah to pacify it after Egypt conquered it (after killing king Josiah at Megiddo who opposed them) the Jerusalem Jews learned of a "Ras Ballah" in the northern part of the Isthmus near a major trade route going into Egypt. The Wikipedia on Baal-Zephon in Greek texts: "Gmirkin (2006) also notes that a Ptolemaic era geographical text in the Cairo Museum mentions the sites Baal Zephon and Migdol, listing four border guard stations and fortresses, the third being called 'Migdol and Baal Zephon thought to be located on a route to the Red Sea Coast..." Judaica Encyclopedia. Gale Group. Jewish Virtual Library: "BAAL-ZEPHON... is identified with a Migdal Baal-Zephon mentioned in a papyrus from the Hellenistic period (Cairo papyrus 31169)... W. F. Albright has identified Baal-Zephon with the Egyptian port Taḥpanḥes (Daphne). Michael Avi-Yonah BIBLIOGRAPHY: O. Eissfeldt, Baal Zaphon… (Ger., 1932); Bourdon, in: RB, 41 (1932), 541ff.; Albright, in: BASOR, 118 (1950), 17; EM, 2 (1965), 291–2; Aharoni, Land, 179; M. Dothan, in: Eretz-Israel, 9 (1969), 48–59. ADD. BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. Niehr, DDD, 152–54. Below, two maps of the Qantara area, 1826, Paris Map. "Canal de Suez," Sheet 31, Surveyed 1797-1799. Blue is deep water, blue lines on yellow is shallower water. Marshes exist on many of the "islands" scattered all about. The Orange line is the Qantir route from Salhieh on the eastern edge of the Delta to Qatieh in the northern Sinai east of Pelusium. The Pink route links Salhieh to Qatieh as well but it passes the east side of the Ballah inlet and crosses via a shallow ford at the southend of the Ballah inlet east of Ras el Ballah for Salhieh. In either case, a "reed sea" or "marsh" must be _forded_ on both routes leaving Salhieh, Egypt for Qatieh in the northern Sinai. That is to say, one cannot get away from the Egyptians without "crossing" (fording) a reed sea or marsh (Yam Suph, the Reed Sea?) at either Qantara or Ras el Ballah. Below, a map of 1885 showing the Suez Canal traversing the Ballah Inlet. It is more detailed than the preceding French map surveyed in 1797-1799. "Ras el Ballah el Ras el Moyeh" is shown as being to the west of six small lakes, ponds, or pools. "Missing" on the below map is the track from Bir Abou Rouq to Ras el Ballah going to Salhieh on the 1797-1799 survey. The below map however shows the marshes of El Kraieh as extending to the six pools. When the missing track from the 1799 survey is superimposed on the below 1885 map it appears that the track passed between the six pools. Perhaps El Kraieh preserves Pi-ha`hiroth rendered by some as Pi-ha`Chiroth or Pi-ha`Khiroth? If so, then Israel, camped "before" Pi-ha`Khiroth, is on the west side of the six pools of water on the below map, then, later, she passes between them (?) to Bir Abou Rouq. Migdol is Bir el Makdal "at the end of the track" from Salhieh, Ras el Ballah, and Bir Abou Rouq. The 1799 survey reveals two important tracks from Bir el Makdal to Egypt: (1) The northeastern track: Makdal, Rouq, Ras el Ballah, Salhieh; (2) Belbeis via Wadi Tumilat to Makdal. So biblical Migdol, is a key reference point for caravans to and from the Egyptian delta from Salhieh and Belbeis and I believe it is a reference point for the location of Pi-ha-Khiroth (the marsh of El Kraieh 1885), bounded on the north by Ras el Ballah (Baal-Zephon?) and on the east by the track from Makdal to Ras el Ballah from Bir el Makdal (Migdol?). Click here to visit the below interactive version of the map allowing scrolling and magnifying. The Graeco-Roman Geographer Strabo said that areas of marsh and pools were called barathra, were the 6 pools at Ras el Ballah called barathra? Ezekiel's Pi-beseth in Egypt was called by the Greeks Bubastis, apparently Hebrew pi- can become Greek bu-? Is barathra a Greek rendering of Pi-ha-hiroth, the six pools of Ras el Ballah in a marshy setting? If so, then the Pi-ha`hiroth Israel camped "before" was the six barathra pools surrounded by marsh east of Ras el Ballah. Strabo (Geography. Bk. 17.1.19-21): "Pelusium itself is surrounded by marshes and pools, which some call clefts or pits (barathra)." (p. 42. Vol. xliv. Robert Jameson. The Edinburgh New Philosophocal Review. Edinburgh, Scotland. October 1847 to April 1848) TANAKH, The Holy Scriptures (1985. Philadephia & New York. The Jewish Publication Society): Exodus 14:2 "Tell the Israelites to turn back and encamp before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, before Baal-zephon; you shall encamp facing it, by the sea...the Egyptians ...overtook them encamped by the sea, near Pi-hahiroth, before Baal-zephon...a strong east wind all that night...turned the sea into dry ground. The waters were split, and the Israelites went into the sea on dry ground, the waters forming a wall for them on their right and on their left...at daybreak the sea returned to its normal state..." Numbers 33:7-8 "They set out from Etham and turned about toward Pi-hahiroth, which faces Baal-zephon, and they encamped before Migdol. They set from Pene-hahiroth [Pi-hahiroth] and passed through the sea into the wilderness; and they made a three-days' jpurney in the wilderness of Etham and encamped at Marah." Pi-ha`hiroth is "between" Migdol and the sea: The marsh of el Karieh is between Bir el Makdal (Migdol) and the el Ballah lake. Alternately, if the 6 pools east of Ras el Ballah are Barathra/Pihahiroth, they are "between" Bir el Makdal on the east and Ras el Ballah on the west. Israel camps before Pi-ha`hiroth: Israel is on the westside of the northern opening to the El Kraieh marsh; alternately, if the 6 pools are bartahra/pihahiroth, Israel camps west of these pools. Israel is also camped "before" the sea and "before" Baal-Zephon: Israel is east of Ras el Ballah and west of the Ballah inlet, 6 pools and El Karieh marsh opening. Numbers 33:7-8 Pi-hahiroth "faces" Baal-zephon: East of Ras el Ballah is the northern opening of the El Kraieh marsh (Pi-ha-Khiroth?) and the 6 pools (barathra/pihahiroth?). Israel camps before Migdol: Israel is on the westside if the Ballah marsh-ford and on the track which will take them to Pi-ha`hiroth (the northern opening of the El Kraieh marsh and 6 pools or barathra/pihahiroth) and will also continue to the end of the track at Bir el Makdal (Migdol is before Israel as it is at the end of the track Israel will use to cross Yam Suph (Ballah marsh) south of Baal-zephon (Ras el Ballah?) to arrive at Pi-ha`hiroth. Pharaoh's pursuit of Israel is from Salhieh, said track crossing the Ballah marshes and splitting near Ras el Ballah (Baal-zephon?) one track goes north to Qatieh, or east to Bir Abou Rouq and Bir el Makdal (Migdal?) from which point Israel will turn south to the Bitter Lakes (Arabic: Murrah, biblical Marah?). Below: 24 November 2009 12:10 Noon, my proposal for the "Crossing of the Red Sea": The pink marker is my proposal for Israel's route from Qantir (Rameses?) in Goshen (Faqous?), via Salhieh to Etham (Lake Et-Timsah?) at the edge of the wilderness, then, from Etham, "turning back" to Yam Suph the "Reed Sea" at the Ballah marshes. Israel camps west of the Ballah marsh at the very end of the track from Salhieh (ancient Pharaonic Sile?), from which Pharaohs traditionally launched their military campaigns with chariots into Philista, Canaan and Syria. Israel waits like "bait" on this track for Pharaoh's direct arrival from Salhieh (track of small red circles). The track from Salhieh ends at Ras el Ballah (Baal-Zephon?); normally Pharaoh's army would turn north at Ras el Ballah, paralleling the east shore of the Ballah marsh inlet (Yam Suph?) to Qatieh and on to Syria. Upon Pharaoh's arrival Israel crosses the marsh ford south of Ras el Ballah on the track headed for Bir Abou Rouq; the sea is envisioned as engulfing Pharaoh's army at this ford south of Ras el Ballah. Israel continues from Pihahiroth, the north opening to the el Kraieh marsh (Marais de Karach) to Bir el Makdal (Migdal?) where she turns south on the track going to the Bitter Lakes, Arabic Murrah (the waters of Marah). As this track from Bir el Makdal to Marah is "east of Lake Et-Timsah," this wilderness is called alternately the wilderness of Etham or of Shur. Why Shur? There exists a track from Judah's Negeb crossing the Sinai and terminating near Lake Et-Temsah called by the bedouin the "Darb es Shuwr, "the way to Shuwr." Probably referring to Bir Abou Suweir on the north side of Wady Tumilat, just west of Lake Timsah, where several caravan tracks intersect each other for different parts of Egypt. The below map is sheet No. 2. Printed 1818 at Paris France. The Cartographic Survey was done circa 1797-1799 by Napoleon Bonoparte's Army personnel. "...the geographical setting of Exodus 14 is the area between the north side of the el-Ballah Lake system and the southern tip of the eastern lagoon... (p. 108. James K. Hoffmeier. Ancient Israel in Sinai, The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition. Oxford University Press. 2005) Hoffmeier's below map of the Crossing of the Red Sea is at the northern tip of Ballah Lakes (dark gray area) the light gray area is "wetlands," from Abu Sefeh to Ahmar and T-78 Migdol of Seti (?) (figure 10. James K. Hoffmeier. Ancient Israel in Sinai, The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition. Oxford University Press. 2005) To get one's bearings have a look at the location of Tell el-Herr on the above maps 1797-1865. Note: Hoffmeier's below map suggests that Lake Menzaleh (including the sites of et-Tineh and Pelusium) did _not_ exist in Ramesside times as he has the Mediterranean Sea near a "paleo-lagoon" and the Ballah Lake. An eastwind setdown would then (if this map is correct?) be limited to the lagoon and Ballah Lake. Hoffmeier's notion that the Pelusium mud flats did not exist appears to be indebted to a map by the Egyptologist Manfred Bietak (cf. Fig. 1. "Map of the Eastern Delta and a reconstruction of the ancient environment and Nile branches." facing p. 3. Manfred Bietak. Avaris, The Capital of the Hyksos, Recent Excavations at Tell el-Dab'a. London. British Museum Press. 1996). There is a problem, the Bible says that a "wall" of water appeared on either side of Israel as she crossed the dried up sea (Ex 14:29) and the Hebrew term suggests for some scholars the waters were "piled" or "heaped up" like a fortress wall. In this situation, we have a "miracle" as such does _not_ occur in Nature! Wind set down can push water back from a broad area but it can _not_ make a dry path in the middle of a sea with water piled up 7-30 feet or more like a high fortress wall as shown in the below pictures of the Crossing of the Red Sea by Israel: Below, a modern map of the sea area and of Lake Menzaleh where in late January of 1882 seven miles of lake bottom were exposed by a powerful east wind according to Major-General Tulloch. Below, a panorama view of Lake Menzaleh. Tanis (red square) is ancient Zoan where Israel dwelt and Moses performed God's miracles before Pharaoh (Psalm 78:12,43 ). Below a map showing this area was subject to flooding by the Nile as late as 1856 before the Suez Canal was built, its dark mud being recognized by DeLesseps on his visit to Pelusium, as being left by Nile inundations. In December the mud flats had dried and hardened allowing men and camels to walk where once there was a sea, the Menzaleh Lake being called a "sea" or Bahr in Arabic (For the below map cf. figure 19. James K. Hoffmeier. Ancient Israel in Sinai, The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition. Oxford University. 2005) Note: The dark line going from viewer's left to right is the remains of Pelusiac branch of the Nile ending near ancient Pelusium (Farama). The dark line going from bottom to top is the "eastern canal" ending in the vicinity of et-Tineh (Perhaps Pharonic Ta-Denit "The Dividing Water"? seen as Egypt's border?) Below, a map of Lake Menzaleh showing it lined by reeds and swamp grasses in Graeco-Roman times. Tanis is biblical Zoan where Israel dwelt (Psalm 78:12, 43) and it lies on a channel from the Nile lined in reeds emptying into Menzaleh, probably on this channel Moses was placed among the reeds in a reed basket. ….

Tuesday, October 14, 2025

Exodus Israelites march into Transjordan

by Damien F. Mackey It is the same point that has struck me and to which I have referred previously: namely, that a change in rule occurred while Moses was still in Midian. Thus Anati writes with reference to Exodus 2:23: “Here the biblical narrative signals a change of government in Egypt, an important clue in establishing a relative chronology”. PROFESSOR EMMANUEL ANATI ON MIDIAN After we read about the death of the patriarch Isaac, aged 180 (Genesis 35:28-29), the narrative proceeds, in Genesis 36, to list the descendants of Esau. Verses 31-43 are about the various Kings of Edom (v. 31): “These were the kings who reigned in Edom before any Israelite king reigned ….”. Professor Emmanuel Anati, when discussing the Midianites in the context of Moses’ father-in-law, Jethro, will refer to one of the Edomite kings (The Mountain of God, 1986, p. 202). Midian, he said, consisted of five tribes (Genesis 25:1-4), “the Midianite confederacy”, as he described it, and Midian was “defeated by Hadad, son of Bedad (36:35)”. Most relevant will be the first king mentioned in the Edomite list (36:32): “Bela son of Beor became king of Edom. His city was named Dinhabah”. He is the famous seer, “Balaam son of Beor”, of Numbers 22-24 – a true historical character. Also, in the Book of Numbers we read about a census taken “of the whole Israelite community” (1:2). Verses 5-15 list the heads of each tribal family. Two names in particular stand out for me (v. 6), “from Simeon, Shelumiel son of Zurishaddai”. These names recur again in the Book of Judith, which work commentators tend to dismiss as a ‘didactic’ or ‘historical fiction’ (Judith 8:1): “… Salamiel, Sarasadai”. The pair are listed towards the end of a sixteen-generation long Simeonite genealogy. Professor Anati also makes a point here about Egyptian dynastic chronology. It is the same point that has struck me and to which I have referred previously: namely, that a change in rule occurred while Moses was still in Midian. Thus Anati writes with reference to Exodus 2:23: “Here the biblical narrative signals a change of government in Egypt, an important clue in establishing a relative chronology”. One’s opting for, for instance, pharaoh Amenemes IV, the presumed last king of the Twelfth Dynasty, for the stubborn ruler of the Exodus (a recent suggestion), would not have taken into account that clue from Exodus 2:23 which seems to hint at a change of dynasty. Poor old Amenemes so-called IV has been variously touted by revisionists as the Exodus ruler, or his first born son, or even as Moses himself. Professor Anati, who has hypothesised that the location of Jethro’s Midianite tribe at the time of Moses’ sojourn was in and near the Uvda[h] Valley, believes that he has found archaeological evidence for their settlement there (op. cit., p. 204): My hypothesis is that Jethro’s tribe lived in the Uvda Valley as well as in other places in the southern Negev north of Eilat … recently archaeological explorations in these areas has brought to light important concentrations of small dwellings from the Early and the beginning of the Middle Bronze Ages … huts, agricultural structures, threshing-floors, and livestock enclosures, as well as the cult sites, altars and boulder-menhirs …”. Jethro, professor Anati had noted (p. 202) was also called Reuel, “shepherd of God”. The root of the name “Jethro” is itr, he says, “and implies superiority, as a superior man”. Jethro was undoubtedly the boss. Whilst on the subject of the Midianites and the Holy Mountain, professor Anati, commenting on the Divine name, will take a swipe at the JEDP version of it (p. 203): The term Elohim defines Yahweh as the God of the fathers, which is the third title after Elohim and Yahweh. The term Yahweh embraces the three tenses of the verb “to be”: was, is, and will be. The number three is repeated once again, for the third time, in the title of “God of the three fathers”, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God revealed himself three times in this narrative as the one and triune God, in three different manners: three names, three tenses, and the God of the three patriarchs. It is difficult to accept the hypothesis of those who see this extremely compact and coherent text as the merging of two distinct sources, the Elohim and Yahwetist traditions. …. In Numbers 13, Moses will send men “to spy out the land of Canaan”, one man from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. Here we are given an eye-witness account of the Promised Land at the time (vv. 21-25): So they went up and spied out the land from the Wilderness of Zin as far as Rehob, near the entrance of Hamath. And they went up through the South and came to Hebron; Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the descendants of Anak, were there. (Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.) Then they came to the Valley of Eshcol, and there cut down a branch with one cluster of grapes; they carried it between two of them on a pole. They also brought some of the pomegranates and figs. The place was called the Valley of Eshcol, because of the cluster which the men of Israel cut down there. And they returned from spying out the land after forty days. Spooked by the giants in the land, though, and by the large, fortified cities, the spies will advise against entering (vv. 27-29). Not so Joshua and Caleb, the only two of the Exodus generation who will ultimately enter the Promised Land (v. 39): “Then Caleb silenced the people before Moses and said, ‘We should go up and take possession of the land, for we can certainly do it’.” Dr. David Rohl writes that the name of Caleb (tribe of Judah) has been found at Gezer etched in Proto-Sinaitic script (From Eden to Exile: The Epic History of the People of the Bible, p. 227): A potsherd from the MB II-B stratum at Gezer (conquered by the Israelites) bears three Proto-Sinaitic signs scratched onto its surface. The letters k-l-b spell out the name Caleb (‘dog’), and, as we have seen, this was the name of the Israelite chieftain who led the war against the cities of the south. DR JOHN OSGOOD ON TRANSJORDAN Dr. John Osgood has provided a sound archaeological reconstruction of the Transjordanian region at the time of Israel’s incursion, meanwhile showing that the sites of Bab Ed–Dhra, Numeira, etc. - claimed by some to be Pentapolis (Sodom) – belonged, instead, to the Conquest era: https://creation.com/the-times-of-the-judges-mdash-the-archaeology-exodus-to-conquest The Times of the Judges—The Archaeology: (a) Exodus to Conquest Historical Framework Numbers 21 fills in some fascinating history about Trans Jordan. The following facts emerge, from the north downwards …: 1. The Amorite king, Og, ruled in Bashan in the far north. 2. It appears that the original kingdom of Sihon, the Amorite, was just north of the Wadi Zerqa, known in the Bible as the River Jabbok (Numbers 21:24) 3. It appears originally that the former king of Moab had ruled the area south of the River right down to the Wadi el Hasa (Wadi Zared) 4. Prior to Israel conquest of this area, Sihon had conquered the area between the River Jabbok and the Arnon River from the former king of Moab. It appears, importantly for our discussion, that he did not totally drive out the Moabites from this area but they served him (Numbers 21:29, where captivity is mentioned). 5. In the days of Israel’s conquest, Moab under Balak, king of Moab, was the territory between the Wadi el Hasa and Wadi Mujib (Arnon). …. The conquest by Israel of Trans Jordan extended from the Wadi Mujib right up north to include all the area of Bashan—in other words, all the area of Sihon and all the area of Og, king of Bashan. It explicitly did not include the main area of Moab, south of the Wadi Mujib …. These facts will give us the following guide archaeologically …: 1. The northern kingdom of Bashan should show evidence of Amorite civilization, here equated with EB III, which was ended by the MB I peoples, here called Israel. 2. The area of Gilead north of the Jabbok River but south of Bashan should have exactly the same pattern as that of Bashan EB III superseded by MB I civilization, where Israel settled. 3. The area between the Wadi Mijib (Arnon) and the Wadi Jabbok will show evidence of three phases, the lower phases representing Moabite culture, here defined as EB IV, a second layer representing Sihon’s civilization holding Moabites captive, here it will continue to be EB IV and then a third culture representing the Israelite conquerors (MB I). 4. In Moab south of Wadi Mujib we will meet with an EB IV culture which has arisen from a previous EB III culture, and which will continue on in that vein without explicit conquest by the MB I people. …. This pattern … is, in fact, exactly what we find from the archaeological reports presently at hand. EB IV in Trans Jordan is, in fact, defined most clearly in the area of ancient Moab. It will, however, include a portion which was occupied by the group known as the Midianites mentioned in Number chapter 31. The area where these Midianites lived can logically be identified if one bears in mind that the Midianites were associated geographically with the Moabites, and close to Israel’s encampment north of Moab in such a way that the social intercourse with the Midianite women at Beth–Peor could occur. And if one bears in mind that when Moses lived in the northern Sinai–Negev region during his forty years of exile from Egypt, he came in contact with this Midianite group and married one of their women. Then clearly the only geographical spot where these Midianites could have lived is in the western portion of Moab, east of the Dead Sea, and perhaps at its southern end …. It is just there that the cities of Bab Ed–Dhra, Numeira, etc. have been excavated, all of which show signs of destruction at the end of EB I and subsequent poor repopulation by the EB IV people (here defined as Moabites). …. These cities, five in all, have been suggested as possible candidates for Sodom and Gomorrah, the five cities of the plain. However, the narrative of Numbers 31, Moses’ attack on the Midianite cities, fits the details better, particularly when one views the nature of the destruction at these cities. It was not the type of geological destruction that the narrative of Sodom and Gomorrah would suggest, but far closer to that which would be wrought by human agency. The area between the Jabbok and the Wadi Mujib is the most interesting of these areas, especially as a number of sites have been excavated in this area providing consistent results, particularly at the sites of Iktanu and Tel Iskander. Prag … while discussing Tel Iktanu, points to two phases, both particularly emphasising red coloured ceramics, essentially of an EB IV phase with similarities to the Moabite area EB IV, and also states that these red slipped or burnished pottery of Iktanu phase 1 and southern type are not to be found in the areas north of the Wadi Zerqa (Jabbok). She saw the Jabbok as a border area, so that what in essence is occurring in this part of Trans Jordan is two phases of what might be called EB IV followed then by MB I, often built on different sites. Now this corresponds exceedingly well with the phases suggested for this area (see Figure 11 again), which was conquered from the former king of Moab by Sihon and then reconquered from Sihon by Israel. Down in the south, however, the red burnished wares continue on through all phases: “The essential point of interest for all these southern sites is that red slipped and burnished wares continued right through the pottery of early and late phases, though there does seem to be an increase in plain and non–red slip wares towards the end of the period at the expense of the red wares.” …. However, north of the Jabbok or the Wadi Zerqa, we meet the situation where Middle Bronze I sites are often built straight on sites that previously had to have Early Bronze III habitation, the Early Bronze IV of the south now being absent. “They indicate that in the region north of the Zerqa River in Trans Jordan, significant proportion of EB–MB sites (approximately half) were founded on the same position as a previous EB III or EB II settlement.” …. EB–MB in this discussion is the same as MB I. It is Kathleen Kenyon’s terminology. The sites in the north consistently show the evidence of destruction at the end of EB III wherever excavations have occurred, and a supplanting by the MB I people, a picture that is thoroughly consistent with the biblical narrative of the– Exodus and Conquest. This, however, identifies EB IV Trans Jordan pottery culture as Moabite (and also possibly Ammonite). The MB I people of Trans Jordan were the Israelites, who conquered the area of the former Amorites and settled instead in their place. From this Trans Jordan area under Moses, the Children of Israel next thrust across the Jordan River into Palestine under Joshua after the Reubenites, Gadites and the tribe of Manasseh had built cities and shelters for their families and their cattle (Numbers 32). The evidence of a relationship between the Trans Jordan MB I people and the Palestinian MB I has been obvious to several. Prag reports: “This raises the interesting point that settlement on the open Valley floor as in the Chalcolithic, EB–MB parts of the Iron Age, etc. may indicate a degree of unity, cultural or political on both sides of the Jordan, while a retreat to defensive positions as in the EBA and the rest of the Iron Age may indicate periods when the Jordan River was a political frontier between the hostile groups. It might be inferred therefore that Palestine and Transjordon belong to one political unit in the EB MB period and that there were no difficulties in passing the Jordan fords.” …. This is completely consistent with the biblical narrative, and the revised chronology here presented allows the biblical narrative to find its true place against the archaeological artifacts. Dever notes not only a cultural unity between the two, but also presupposes that the Trans Jordan people preceded the conquest of Palestine, an incredibly ironic statement in view of the fact that the Bible’s narrative of Israel’s conquest was not consulted for this. “The ER 1 V/MB I transitional phase in Transjordan was brief and rapidly gave way to a culture which expanded vigorously, chiefly into Palestine, where its fully developed expression is seen in the numerous sedentary and semi–sedentary MB I sites of southern Palestine. Elsewhere I have attempted to document this expansion and to distinguish geographical and cultural ‘Families’ in MB I.” …. It is most ironic that Dever can take this view and still not consult the Israelite conquest narrative, which is certainly the only written illustration of a culture that behaved in this manner in that part of the world. The next act of the Children of Israel prior to the Conquest across the Jordan River was the destruction of the Midianite enclave, apparently on the western side of Moab. This is narrated in Numbers chapter 31 and I believe illustrated archaeologically by the five cities in the southern Ghor of the Dead Sea. These five cities are known today as Bab edh Dhra, Numeira, es–Safi, Feifeh and Khanazir …. All the sites discovered or visited by Rast and Schaub belong to the Early Bronze Age (3150 2200 BC). Even more interesting is the fact that all of them came to an end in virtually the same period: Bab edh Dhra—from EB I to late EB III/beginning of EB IV. Numeira—EB III es Safi—EB I to EB III Feifeh—EB I to EB III Khanazir—EB III to EB IV Thus three of these cities existed from EB I to the end of EB III of EB IV. The other two were founded during EB III and came to their end at the end of EB III/beginning of EB IV. The Rast and Schaub survey also focuses our attention on the similarity in location and layout of these five cities. Moreover, at least three of these cities were destroyed by fire.” …. These five cities are cited as possible candidates for Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim and Bela by reference to the accepted chronology. However, their destruction was the type that man would create and not the fiery geological catastrophe that Genesis speaks of in reference to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. This is thus consistent with these five cities being the Midianite cities of Numbers 31. ….

Monday, October 13, 2025

Hiel of Bethel and the rebuilding of Jericho

by Damien F. Mackey “I built Qeriho” [or “Qericho” - Jericho] with prisoners from Israel”. King Mesha of Moab In e.g. my article: Unwrapping “Hiel of Bethel” (5) Unwrapping "Hiel of Bethel" the mysterious biblical character, Hiel (I Kings 16:34), was identified with King Mesha of Moab. Some of the reasons for this were: The Stele of Mesha affords the first clue towards our ascertaining who was the mysterious “Hiel of Bethel”, who rebuilt Jericho in the days of Ahab. For Mesha, a known (from the Moabite Stele) contemporary of Ahab and his sons – as was Hiel – records for us that he built Jericho (“I built Qeriho”, or “Qericho”), as he called it, “with prisoners from Israel”. This means that Mesha, a long time rival of Israel, must also have had some strong connection with (preferably control over) Israel’s city of Bethel. Until the days of Ahab’s son, Jehoram, Mesha was paying a large tribute to Israel (2 Kings 3:4). But he then revolted (3:1-27). Mesha further fits as Hiel insofar as Mesha, too, was known to have sacrificed his own sons (3:27), as Joshua had foretold that the (then un-named) restorer of Jericho would do (Joshua 6:26). For an accurate archaeology of the Old Testament, specifically from Abram (Abraham) through to the Judges, Dr. John Osgood has been something of a guru for me. He has absolutely pinned down the Genesis 14 rampage of the four kings at the time of Abram to the Late Chalcolithic period, while others were floundering around in the Middle Bronze I (MBI) period for Abram (Abraham), which is actually the archaeology for the Exodus Israelites. And Dr. Osgood has nailed this, too. No reasonable person ought now doubt that the MBI nomads were (not Abraham’s mob, but) the Israelites led by Moses and Joshua. And here, again, he authoritatively settles the matter of Hiel’s Jericho: https://assets.answersresearchjournal.org/doc/v17/jericho_dating_joshuas_conquest_of_canaan_comments_osgood.pdf Answers Research Journal 17 (2024): 221–222. The Walls of Jericho: Dating Joshua’s Conquest of Canaan—Comments J. M. Osgood, Independent Research, Bunjurgen, Queensland, Australia. Abstract Habermehl’s (2024) discussion of Jericho has presented a good case for the Conquest, but then Habermehl loses her way archaeologically regarding the building of Jericho under Hiel the Bethelite. …. In her recent paper, Habermehl (2024) has argued a good case for the archaeological horizon of the Conquest, and a number of revisionists including myself are in agreement with that identification. It is the only logical place where a significant change of culture occurs consistent with biblical predictions (Osgood 2020). However, Habermehl (2024) then claims the rebuilding of Jericho during Middle Bronze 1 by Hiel (1 Kings 16:34). This latter conclusion is illogical even against her own previous claims, as I will show. Now Habermehl (2018) has gone on record as claiming that the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt sits against the early Kingdom of Israel. I will not enter into the specifics of her conclusions here, but I have a difference of opinion on her claim, and I accept that general correlation. However, if that conclusion is held, and we know that the Eighteenth Dynasty is clearly associated with the Late Bronze age, then Hiel’s building was after the early part of Israel’s kingdom, during the time of Ahab. This, clearly by her own claims here, Hiel could not have rebuilt Jericho before or even during the Middle Bronze age. In fact, the likely horizon of that rebuilt Jericho would be around the Late Bronze/Iron 1 interface. Habermehl (2024) seems to place an arbitrary 500 years on the MB 1 (also known as EB/MB), a period I have argued suggests the nomadic then settling Israelites (Osgood 2020a, b), and so would not cover more than ca. 100 years. But I won’t labor that point. Habermehl tells us that “we note that the Bible does not say that Hiel built a city, but only a wall.” Really, then what do the words “Hiel of Bethel built Jericho” mean? It had a foundation (not specifically of a wall) and it had gates (1 Kings 16:34). But the archaeologists have clearly and categorically found a large city during Middle Bronze on the site of Jericho and therefore before Hiel. That city needs an explanation, as it won’t go away. This is where I am amazed at the blindness of both conventional and revisionist discussions, as if the pages of the book of Judges are stuck together and a whole saga of history is excluded. Namely, there was the attack on Jericho, the city of palm trees, by Eglon of Moab, and for 20 years that site was occupied by 10,000 of his troops (Judges 3:12–30, see also Deuteronomy 34:3; Judges 1:16; 2 Chronicles 28:15—the city of palm trees). Now a problem of understanding exists here, for if Eglon built on Jericho, why did he not fit into the curse uttered by Joshua? Examination of that curse and the story of Hiel will explain it. Although it was a curse, it cannot be claimed that it was a curse for anyone who rebuilt it, but was in fact a specific prophecy as well, under the inspirational guidance of the Holy Spirit. Hiel had taken on Baal worship, and a part of Baal worship was the deliberate sacrifice of children. Hiel killed his firstborn son Abiram, placed his small body in a ceramic jar as the Baal worshipers were wont to do, and buried it in the foundation of Jericho. In so doing he dedicated Jericho to Baal. And then when he set up its gates, he killed his youngest son Segub, placed that corpse in a ceramic jar, and buried it in the foundation of the gates, for the same reason. Joshua’s prophesy was a deliberate warning to Israel not to turn to Baal worship with which they were now familiar, and it had specific significance to Jericho which in the days of Joshua’s conquest was the first, and in that respect, the most important stage of their conquest. Where then do we place Jericho’s rebuilding? Certainly, in or after the Late Bronze age of Palestine, not the Middle Bronze age or before. And the Late Bronze of Jericho’s archaeological horizon is much affected by erosion and other damage. Conclusion Habermehl’s (2024) placement of the conquest of Jericho has merit and I believe is essentially correct. However, her time placement of the rebuilding of Jericho is illogical, incorrect, and full of misunderstanding. …. References Habermehl, Anne. 2018. “Chronology and the Gezer Connection—Solomon, Thutmose III, Shishak and Hatshepsut.” Journal of Creation 32, no. 2 (August): 83–90. Habermehl, Anne. 2024. “The Walls of Jericho: Dating Joshua’s Conquest of Canaan.” Answers Research Journal 17 (January 10): 1–8. https://answersresearchjournal.org/ archaeology/jericho-dating-joshuas-conquest-of-canaan/. Osgood, John. 2020a. “The Times of the Judges—Archaeology Exodus to Conquest.” In They Speak with one Voice: A Correlation of the Bible Record with Archaeology. Self published. Osgood, John. 2020b. “The Times of the Judges—The Archaeology 2.” In They Speak with one Voice: A Correlation of the Bible Record with Archaeology. Self-published

Sunday, October 12, 2025

Saint Luke Evangelist - thaumaturgist healer

by Damien F. Mackey Ananias and Luke share these commonalities: healing; holiness; disciple; follower of the risen Jesus Christ; friend of Paul; (likely) from Syria. Michael M. Canaris writes this of the poorly known “Ananias of Damascus, a saintly, unsung hero” (2019): https://catholicstarherald.org/ananias-of-damascus-a-saintly-unsung-hero .... On the day the church celebrates the Conversion of Saint Paul (Jan. 25) — this year the 60th anniversary of the calling of Vatican II — in contemplating the daily readings in such a way, it struck me for the first time that Ananias is at least as much a profile in courage in that narrative as is Saul, “who is also called Paul” (Acts 13:9). But this latter poor servant of the church has received infinitely less praise than his more famous counterpart. Let’s begin with the narrative in Acts of the Apostles 9, where Saul is on his way to Damascus to continue wreaking havoc upon the Christian community he loathes, and is knocked to the ground by a blinding light (the biblical narrative doesn’t tell us whether he was on foot or on a horse, though we often see him flung from the latter in artworks, like those by Caravaggio and Veronese). Saul encounters Christ, is struck blind, and needs to be led to the city by hand. All this is quite familiar to the majority of us. But most of us pay little attention to the parallel scene. Separately, Jesus also appears to Ananias in a vision. He is already in Damascus and already a “disciple.” The Lord calls him and he responds immediately, “Yes, Lord.” Jesus directs him to go to the Street called Straight (in Latin, the Via Recta), which still exists amidst the bombs raining down on modern-day Syria, and to restore sight to Saul. Ananias’ response is understandably hesitant: “Lord, I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your holy people in Jerusalem. And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.” (“…um, of which I am one, Your Divine Majesty,” we could creatively add!). But Christ emphatically says “Go!” — making clear that it is through this unworthy instrument that he plans to offer the message of redemption to the nations outside of Israel. And so Ananias confidently approaches his sworn enemy, to whom incredible power has been given to decimate those with whom he disagrees, and the first words out of his mouth are ones not too often repeated today in our discourse with those who hate or vilify us: “Brother Saul.” He goes on to say “the Lord — Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here — has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” It is he who likely baptizes the greatest missionary in the history of the church, and causes the scales to fall from his eyes. It’s not necessarily Paul’s faith, but Ananias’ that brings about the transformation. And while Ananias is mostly lost to the sands of history after this encounter, his co-believers with all the litanies praising them and basilicas named for them initially do not help or welcome Paul, “for they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was really a disciple.” It’s only Ananias, and eventually Barnabas, who are moved with compassion at the Pharisaical former tentmaker, and offer an olive branch of trust, at great personal peril. Beyond this snippet, we know very little about Ananias. His name, which was not a terribly uncommon one in the ancient world, literally means “Favored by God”. …. [End of quotes] Who was Ananias? I would like to venture the suggestion here that Ananias of Damascus may be a potential candidate for the famous St. Luke himself. If so, then Ananias will no longer have to suffer being, as in the words (above) of Michael Canaris, “lost to the sands of history”. In various articles now I have attempted to fill out other New Testament [NT] characters using alter egos, in most cases allowing for a character to have two names - both a Hebrew and a Greek name - which, however, can also be a cause of duplication. For instance: • John the Baptist as Gamaliel’s Theudas: Gamaliel's ‘Theudas’ as John the Baptist https://www.academia.edu/36424851/Gamaliels_Theudas_as_John_the_Baptist • Nathanael of Cana as Stephen Protomartyr: St. Stephen a true Israelite https://www.academia.edu/30843387/St_Stephen_a_true_Israelite {Also Gamaliel, again, his “Judas the Galilean” as Judas Maccabeus - same name, “Judas”, in this case} • And then there is the un-named: Was Apostle Barnabas the Gospels’ “rich young man”? https://www.academia.edu/36824565/Was_Apostle_Barnabas_the_Gospels_rich_young_man Paul (Greco-Roman name) is otherwise called Saul (Hebrew name) in the Book of Acts (cf. 9:1 and 23:1). Connecting Ananias and Luke My main point of connection between Ananias and Luke would be the healing of Paul’s blindness, due to the intervention of Ananias, with the fact that the converted Paul will refer to his friend Luke as a “healer” (various “physician”). Thus Colossians 4:14: “Luke the beloved physician greets you, as does Demas”. The Greek word used here to describe Luke is ἰατρὸς, which can mean - apart from “physician” or “doctor” – “healer” (the sense in which I am taking it). “[Greek] ἰατρός (iatros), [Latin] medicus: physician, healer, one who provides healing services; Mt.9:12, Mk.2:17, Mk.5:26, Lk.4:23, Lk.5:31, Lk.8:43, Col.4:14”: https://resoundingthefaith.com/2018/04/%E2%80%8Egreek-%E1%BC%B0%CE%B1%CF%84%CF%81%CF%8C%CF%82-iatros-latin-medicus/ As Ananias (if that is who Luke was), the Evangelist was also a healer, thaumaturgist, even a mystic-visionary (cf. Acts 9:12). Note, too, the close bond between Paul and Luke, as we would expect if Luke were Paul’s healer, Ananias. Paul calls Luke “beloved”, ἀγαπητὸς. In 2 Timothy 4:11, Luke is found to have remained steadfastly loyal to Paul (not always easy): “Luke alone is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is very useful to me for ministry”. That closeness is reinforced in Philemon 1:24: “... Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers”. I have previously quoted Fr. Jean Carmignac (who has persuasively argued for an early dating of the NT books), in my article: Fr Jean Carmignac dates Gospels early https://www.academia.edu/30807628/Fr_Jean_Carmignac_dates_Gospels_early as stating that: “... It is sufficiently probable that our second Gospel [that is, Mark], was composed in a Semitic language by St. Peter the Apostle” (with Mark being his secretary perhaps). And Fr. Carmignac has this to say about what he considers to be Paul’s praise of Luke (p. 52): St. Paul speaks in [2 Corinthians] 8:18 of a person whom he describes thus: That brother whom all the Churches praise for his preaching of the gospel. …. If it is a question of the preaching of the Gospels, this would not be a distinctive designation, for it would apply to all the collaborators of St. Paul. In order that the Gospel be a motive for special recognition throughout all the Churches and characterize one brother from all the others, isn’t it because this brother, alone of all the others, is the author of a Gospel? Thus it would be a question of Luke, whose Gospel would then have been spread throughout all the Churches. Many commentators have understood this allusion of St. Paul, in this way, beginning with Origen (cited by Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, bk. 6, chap. 25, no. 6). [End of quote] Ananias is referred to as a “disciple” (Acts 9:10), a word that is frequently used by commentators to describe Luke as well. Finally, Luke is considered likely to have been a native of Syrian Antioch - though that is not definite. Ananias himself resided in Syrian Damascus. Ananias and Luke share these commonalities: healing; holiness; disciple; follower of the risen Jesus Christ; friend of Paul; (likely) from Syria. * * * A reader, commenting on my recent article: A more appropriate location for the Temple in Jerusalem (5) A more appropriate location for the Temple in Jerusalem | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu has written: Thank you, Mr. Mackey. I have long thought the traditional temple mount was the wrong location and was curious about the city of David's location. I look forward to reading your paper. then adding to this: I have a question about whether Luke, the writer of the Gospel is Lucius of Cyrene, and also whether Theophilus to whom he wrote was the same Theophilus that was High Priest? …. While the reader may, perhaps, be right on both counts, I personally would favour Ananias, first, for Luke. {I have wondered might the historian, Nicolaus of Damascus, be a garbled version of Luke} On Theophilus, my own preference would be for he as Luke’s disciple, Paul: Luke’s Theophilos (3) Luke's Theophilos | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Paul (Saul) may just possibly have been a descendant of King Saul, Israel’s first king: history - Is there any evidence that Paul was a descendant of Jonathan? - Christianity Stack Exchange Is there any evidence that Paul was a descendant of Jonathan? …. Paul being a descendant of Jonathan would have some appeal from a devotional perspective since Jesus' more direct saving of Paul could be viewed as fulfilling the covenant of friendship between David and Jonathan and their descendants (1 Samuel 20:42). From Philippians 3:5 we know that he was from the tribe of Benjamin (like Jonathan) and Paul's other name, Saul, might be more common among descendants of King Saul than among Benjaminites generally. On the other hand, with the purging of the house of Saul (2 Samuel 9:3 indicates that Mephibosheth might be the bottleneck as a sole survivor) there might have been few if any descendants of Jonathan in the first century A.D. Is there any other evidence supporting or falsifying this possibility or is this merely a wild speculation where even tradition is silent? Optional bonus question: Has this speculation been written about earlier in Church history? (Allegory and other somewhat fanciful conceits seem to have been more popular earlier in Church history, so I would not be surprised if someone had considered this possibility given its devotional attractiveness.) …. Saint Luke kept returning to Damascus incident “St. Luke considered this [Damascus] event so pivotal that he recounted it three times, at critical moments in his book [Acts]”. Carsten Peter Thiede A possible further indication that I may be on the right track in identifying the evangelist Luke with Ananias, the healer of St. Paul at Damascus, is the fact that Luke when writing the book of Acts recalls the incident on several occasions. We read about this in Carsten Peter Thiede’s highly significant book, The Jesus Papyrus: The Most Sensational Evidence on the Origins of the Gospels Since the Discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2000, pp. 118-119): St. Luke considered this event so pivotal that he recounted it three times, at critical moments in his book. The first version is his own (Acts 9:1-9) a straightforward narrative account told at the chronologically appropriate moment. The second version is St Paul’s; in Acts 22:5-21, he addresses the Jews in Jerusalem …. St. Paul’s version of the Damascus experience is geared towards a Jewish audience, its idiom and the explanation he employs founded on ‘the Law of our ancestors’ (22:3). In Acts 26:12-23 St. Paul tells the story a second time. The setting is a court appearance before the authorities at Caesarea Maritima … King Herod Agrippa II [sic] and … procurator Festus …. St. Paul … addresses them in Greek. He also tailors his story to his audience, making no allusion on this occasion to ‘the Law of our ancestors’. …. Benedictus “… redacted in a Semitic language” ‘… to show mercy to our ancestors and to remember his holy covenant, the oath he swore to our father Abraham …’. Luke 1:72-73 “The Benedictus, reproduced in Luke 1:68-79, is composed of three strophes each having seven stichs”, wrote Fr Jean Carmignac (The Birth of the Synoptics, Franciscan Herald Press, 1984, p. 27). Strophe, in poetry, a group of verses that form a distinct unit within a poem. The term is sometimes used as a synonym for stanza …. https://www.britannica.com/art/strophe stich (Noun). A verse, of whatever measure or number of feet, especially a verse of the Scriptures. https://www.definitions.net/definition/stich Fr. Carmignac continues (pp. 27-28): The first begins with the biblical and Qumranic formula: Blessed (be) the Lord the God of Israel; the third begins, as frequently is the case at Qumran, with the personal pronoun: And you, child. The second strophe has in its first stich: to show mercy to our fathers, in which the expression to show mercy translates the verb hânan, which is the root of Yôhânân (= John); then follows the second stich: and he remembers his holy covenant, in which he remembers translates the verb zâkar, which is the root of Zâkâryâh (= Zachary); then the third stich: the oath which he swore to our father Abraham, uses, in two different forms, the root shâba‘ (to swear, or to take an oath), which is the root of Elîshâba’ at (= Elizabeth). Is it by chance that the second strophe of this poem begins by a triple allusion to the names of the three protagonists: John, Zachary, Elizabeth? But this allusion only exists in Hebrew: the Greek or English translation does not preserve it …. This piece falls under Fr. Carmignac’s section: “The Semitisms of Composition”. Let us examine … cases in which the composition itself is based on Semitic … that is, cases in which the text itself would not exist in its present form if it had not been composed in a Semitic language …. .… redacted in a Semitic language. …. Luke’s Theophilos “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught”. Luke 1:1-4 Who was Luke 1:3’s “Most Excellent Theophilos”? In Greek, kratiste Theophile (Κράτιστε Θεόφιλε). Now if Luke the Evangelist, whom Paul calls “beloved healer [physician]” (Colossians 4:14), ὁ ἰατρὸς ὁ ἀγαπητὸς, was Ananias of Damascus, who healed Paul of his blindness, then he might have returned Paul’s generous description of him with the phrase he uses in Luke 1:3, Excellent, or noble, Friend of God. In other words, Luke was addressing Paul himself, a new convert to Christianity, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. There must have been a strong bond between the pair, Luke (Ananias) being Paul’s catechist. Later, in Acts 1:1, Luke the Evangelist will superscript the book more simply: “In my former book [Gospel], Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach”. Various famous and important people have been suggested as candidates for Luke’s enigmatic Theophilos. One of these is the philosopher, Philo Judaeus. And I think that, in his name, there is a meeting with Luke’s Theo-Philos. Thus it may be time to connect, all as one, Paul, Theophilos, and the Philo who was apparently both known to, and contemporaneous with, Saint Peter. Further on Philo, though, see my article: Apollonius of Tyana, like Philo, a fiction (5) Apollonius of Tyana, like Philo, a fiction Dugan King, contributing to the Bible Hermeneutics site, has written the following intriguing piece, hopefully arguing for Philo Judaeus as the biblical “Theophilus” (no doubt needing modifications): https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/4058/is-lukes-theophilus-an-actual-person-or-an-allegorical-person I have been doing research in theological history and philosophy of the first century and stumbled across another strong theory as to whom Luke may have been addressing as Theophilus. I believe it could have been the full name of Philo Judaeus of Alexandria also known as Jedidiah HaCohen. Jedidiah was Philo's Hebrew name ... meaning friend or beloved of God ... and this hints at the possibility that Philo was a shortened version of Theophilus ... having the same meaning. Combine this with the fact that Philo was the greatest religious philosopher of the first century ... perhaps the Great Teacher mentioned in the writings of the Essenes ... for it was clearly the eclectic teaching and exegesis of Philo and his "Logos" that laid the spiritual foundation upon which Christianity, Gnosticism, Rabbinical Judaism, Islam, Theosophy and Hermeticism are outgrowths. Philo's teachings created the various streams of religious philosophy that have rained down upon civilization with such force as to replace pagan polytheism with Abraham's monotheism all across the world. Jesus taught the Logos ... the Word of God ... and declared it to be "The First Begotten Son of God" ... an idea originating with Philo [sic] and stated with such eloquent force that the Roman Emperors had to quit fighting it and embrace it in order to get their grip on it and change it from within ... so as to make it more conducive to Roman Imperial designs. I have also discovered hundreds of allegorical clues hidden in the works of Philo that suggest he had a very close relationship with Jesus or Yeshua of the Nazarenes ... who very likely grew up in Alexandria during his flight from Herod. Because Philo was a Roman magistrate ... he was not able to come forward with what he knew about the early life of the historical Jesus without drawing Imperial attention to himself ... but the Life of Jesus is mirrored and traced throughout Philo's writings ... especially in his theology and focus on the Essenes. It appears to me very likely that … Philo [was] descended from the last Hasmonean Princess of Judea ... King Herod's captive bride ... Queen Mary or Mariamne I. It appears that Philo and his brother Alexander the Alabarch were not only high ranking Princes of the Hasmonean/Herodian dynasty ... but Roman magistrates working as Alexandrian customs agents and ambassadors to the Judeo/Claudian Imperial Family of Rome ... and intermarried with the family of King Herod Agrippa ... also a descendent of Queen Mary/Mariamne I ... the captive bride murdered by Herod. We can see Philo's teachings in the Book of Hebrews ... in the writings of Luke, in the first paragraph of John's Gospel and in Macabbees IV. If Luke was addressing Philo Judaeus as Theophilus ... or perhaps Jedidiah ... then it means that Luke was writing prior to the time of Philo's death ... possibly around 50 A.D. The works of Philo Judaeus and Flavius Josephus are important supplements to the New Testament .... …. Combine this knowledge with the archeological discoveries of the past 300 years ... and artifacts such as the shroud of Turin ... it leaves no doubt that Jesus ... Yeshua the Nazarene ... was and is a historical figure who impacted the world in many ways ... a spiritual/intellectual/philosophical tour de force with the One God of Abraham at the summit. Exactly what Philo intended. ….

Friday, October 10, 2025

Exodus Pharaoh could still gather sufficient horses after the Plagues

“The text specifies that the plague struck the livestock in the field. This detail is critical for understanding the scope of the destruction. The verse does not imply that all livestock throughout Egypt were eradicated”. Edward D. Andrews Damien Mackey’s note: Once again, now in Exodus 9:6, there appears that controversial Hebrew word, kol (כֹּל), “all”, “the whole”, “everything”, together with the Hebrew word miqneh (מִקְנֵה), “cattle”, “livestock” - the overall phrase typically being translated as “all the livestock”. As others, and I, have often explained, the word kol is not necessarily to be taken in a global context – this can happen most notably in the Flood narrative where it then serves those who would hopefully argue for a worldwide Noachic Flood. Anyway, Edward D. Andrews appears to have this matter, and others, well in hand, as he answers the question: How Did Pharaoh Obtain Horses to Pursue Moses in Exodus 14 If All the Livestock Had Died in Exodus 9? - Updated American Standard Version How Did Pharaoh Obtain Horses to Pursue Moses in Exodus 14 If All the Livestock Had Died in Exodus 9? The seeming contradiction in the biblical text regarding the survival of Pharaoh’s horses in Exodus 14 after the livestock were said to have perished in Exodus 9 has long been a topic of inquiry. To resolve this issue, a careful examination of the text using the Historical-Grammatical method of interpretation is necessary. The goal is to assess the context, word usage, and the overall narrative flow while remaining faithful to the inspired Scriptures. This examination underscores the inerrancy of the Bible and the consistency of its accounts when properly understood. ________________________________________ The Death of Livestock in Exodus 9 In Exodus 9:1-7, God sent the fifth plague upon Egypt: a devastating pestilence targeting the livestock in the fields. The passage reads: “Behold, the hand of Jehovah will fall with a very severe plague upon your livestock that are in the field, the horses, the donkeys, the camels, the herds, and the flocks. But Jehovah will make a distinction between the livestock of Israel and the livestock of Egypt, so that nothing of all that belongs to the people of Israel shall die.” (Exodus 9:3-4, ESV) The text specifies that the plague struck the livestock in the field. This detail is critical for understanding the scope of the destruction. The verse does not imply that all livestock throughout Egypt were eradicated. Rather, only those exposed in the fields succumbed to the plague. Livestock that may have been sheltered or kept in stables were unaffected. This differentiation is further emphasized in Exodus 9:6: “And the next day Jehovah did this thing. All the livestock of the Egyptians died, but not one of the livestock of the people of Israel died.” The phrase “all the livestock of the Egyptians died” reflects the totality of livestock affected by the plague in the specific category mentioned—those in the fields. It is not a statement about every single animal across all Egypt, as will be evidenced later. ________________________________________ Surviving Livestock Post-Plague The narrative of Exodus provides further clues that some Egyptian livestock survived the plague. Exodus 9:20-21, during the warning for the seventh plague (hail), states: “Then whoever feared the word of Jehovah among the servants of Pharaoh hurried his slaves and his livestock into the houses, but whoever did not pay attention to the word of Jehovah left his slaves and his livestock in the field.” This passage explicitly mentions the existence of livestock after the fifth plague. Egyptians who feared Jehovah’s warning took steps to protect their remaining animals by sheltering them indoors. This demonstrates that the earlier pestilence had not eradicated all livestock, as some were either protected or acquired after the fifth plague. These surviving animals were vulnerable to the subsequent hail plague, as described in Exodus 9:25: “The hail struck down everything that was in the field in all the land of Egypt, both man and beast.” The pattern remains consistent: animals left exposed in the fields suffered the consequences of the plague, while those sheltered survived. ________________________________________ The Role of Horses in Exodus 14 By the time of the Red Sea crossing in Exodus 14, Pharaoh had access to a significant number of horses and chariots for his pursuit of the Israelites: “And he took six hundred chosen chariots and all the other chariots of Egypt with officers over all of them.” (Exodus 14:7) This passage raises the question: Where did Pharaoh’s horses come from? Based on the evidence, there are several plausible explanations that align with the biblical text: 1. Surviving Horses From Earlier Plagues As established, not all livestock perished during the fifth plague. Horses kept indoors or protected during subsequent plagues would have survived. Pharaoh’s stables, housing his most valuable warhorses, would likely have been prioritized for protection, ensuring that his military capabilities remained intact. 2. Acquisition of Livestock After the Plagues Pharaoh and the Egyptians could have acquired livestock, including horses, from neighboring regions not affected by the plagues. Egypt was a major power in the ancient Near East and had trade relationships with other nations. It is reasonable to conclude that Pharaoh replenished his livestock to sustain the economy and military operations. 3. Gradual Recovery Between Plagues The plagues were not instantaneous or without intervals. The text indicates time gaps between the plagues, providing an opportunity for Egypt to recover to some extent. Livestock from regions unaffected by the plagues, such as Goshen (where the Israelites lived), may have been seized or appropriated by the Egyptians to replace their losses. ________________________________________ Contextual and Linguistic Considerations Understanding the Bible’s language and narrative style is crucial to resolving apparent difficulties. The use of phrases like “all the livestock of the Egyptians died” in Exodus 9:6 reflects a common Hebrew idiom for extensive destruction rather than absolute eradication. Similar usage is found in other biblical passages, such as: • Genesis 41:57: “All the earth came to Egypt to buy grain” does not mean every single person on the planet, but rather people from many nations. • Matthew 3:5: “Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to him,” does not imply every individual. The hyperbolic style emphasizes the magnitude of the event without requiring absolute literalness in every detail. This understanding aligns with the Historical-Grammatical method, respecting the original audience’s linguistic and cultural framework. ________________________________________ Theological Implications The survival of Pharaoh’s horses and chariots underscores God’s sovereignty and strategic purpose in delivering Israel. Jehovah’s actions in the plagues demonstrated His power over Egyptian gods and the natural order, while also setting the stage for the climactic Red Sea event. Pharaoh’s pursuit and subsequent destruction serve as a powerful testimony to God’s deliverance of His people and judgment upon those who oppose Him. As recorded in Exodus 15:1, the Israelites praised Jehovah for their deliverance: “I will sing to Jehovah, for he has triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea.” This passage highlights the ultimate futility of Pharaoh’s reliance on his military might, despite his ability to muster horses and chariots for the pursuit. ________________________________________ Conclusion The apparent contradiction in the survival of Pharaoh’s horses in Exodus 14 after the fifth plague in Exodus 9 is resolvable through a careful reading of the text. The plague affected only livestock in the fields, leaving others unharmed. Subsequent plagues provided additional opportunities for survival or acquisition of animals. By considering context, linguistic usage, and historical realities, the consistency of the biblical account is evident. This reinforces the reliability of Scripture and highlights the providence of God in His dealings with both Egypt and Israel.

Monday, October 6, 2025

If you were to suffer a nasty fall, would anyone today help you up?

by Damien F. Mackey “How hard is it to ask someone if they are OK, or offer a hand to help them up? It takes less than 30 seconds. Are we all so consumed with our own selves that we can’t spare that time to help someone in need”. Madeline Crittenden Here are two diametrically opposed reactions to individuals experiencing nasty, embarrassing falls in Sydney (Australia). Case One: A well-appointed young businessman in a suit and carrying a brief case came a cropper on his way down the stairs at Central Station. He hit the ground rather hard and his case, mobile phone, keys, etc., all went flying. Immediately (no exaggeration) three to four people rushed towards him and gathered up his belongings, while he - thankfully not too much the worse for wear - began dusting himself off. Did those three or four intend to rob him? No, they were there only to help. And he was soon on his way again. Case Two: Same city (Sydney, Australia) as Case One. A totally opposite response. Has the obsession with mobile phones and like devices begun turning people into brain-dead zombies with psychopathic tendencies? Apparently a psychopath can be one who, when on the way up the road to buy, say, ice cream or French fries, will casually walk past a terrible accident scene without a pause, or hint of compassion, and, with the mind focussed entirely on the food store, continue his/her march down the street. Quite the opposite of the Good Samaritan, but channelling the Rich Man who totally ignored poor Lazarus. And we know to where that leads! Anyway, let Madeline Crittenden tell the story (Sunday Telegraph, 5th October, 2025, Opinion 103): Decency down for count The disintegration of society is no more evident than on George St at 2.30pm on Sunday. The scene. A young, obviously pregnant woman is making her way to the light rail. Handbag in one hand, a delicious selection of Mr Wong leftovers in the other. The incessant construction works taking place along the strip of shops and restaurants are a clear winner when up against a stiletto sandal and a pregnant waddle. The stiletto is captured in a divot in the footpath and the woman is no longer upright. Instead, she is sprawled on the busy sidewalk – her handbag metres ahead to the left, the doggy bag, mercifully saved, in her iron grip. Pride nowhere to be seen, however, the expectation of a helping hand ever present. Instead, hordes of people begin to step over her. How do I know this tale of woe? I am the woman. As I lay splayed upon the ground, my new pants shredded at the knee with the skin beneath them gently bleeding I tried to get up but I am now carrying a lot more weight and I was very clearly struggling. The hoped-for helping hand was not forthcoming. Instead, I yell: “I am pregnant, what is wrong with you people?” as they avoid eye contact and continue their march down the street. It was only when he heard this that a man, clearly a rough sleeper, leapt to my aid, helped me up and said, “S…, you’re pregnant, luv? Do you need an ambulance?” I politely declined the ambulance and asked him just to help me up. Still, no one else offered to step in, my bag still metres ahead. My phone even further. …. Since when has it become common practice not to have a skerrick of human decency and avert one’s eyes when someone is in need. How hard is it to ask someone if they are OK, or offer a hand to help them up? It takes less than 30 seconds. Are we all so consumed with our own selves that we can’t spare that time to help someone in need. When did society become so fractured, so self-centred that we lost the compassionate part of our personalities. …..