Josephus on martyrdom of Apostle James

“The current scholarly consensus is that this text is authentic”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ananus_ben_Ananus Josephus's account of the death of James as follows: Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a Sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.[3] The current scholarly consensus is that this text is authentic.[4][5][6][7] Moreover, in comparison with Hegesippus's account of James's death in his Hypomnemata, scholars consider Josephus's to be the more historically reliable.[8] …. Josephus. "20.9.1". The Antiquities of the Jews. Van Voorst 2000, p. 83. Richard Bauckham states that although a few scholars have questioned this passage, "the vast majority have considered it to be authentic" (Bauckham 1999, pp. 199–203). Feldman & Hata 1987, pp. 54–57. Flavius Josephus & Maier 1995, pp. 284–285. Painter 2004, p. 126.

So sad, you see, this Annas the Sadducee

“When Jesus entered the Temple and overthrew the moneychangers' tables, He caused a real financial hit to Annas and his family. The holy days, when a few million pilgrims traveled to Jerusalem, were their most lucrative times. Jesus' actions shut down their operations for a few days, cutting severely into their bottom line”. John Reiss Article taken from: https://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/library/weekly/id/1002/house-annas.htm The House of Annas by John Reiss CGG Weekly, May 1, 2020 ________________________________________ "There is no safety for honest men but by believing all possible evil of evil men." —Edmund Burke ________________________________________ The evangelist Luke writes in Luke 3:1-2: "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, . . . while Annas and Caiaphas were high priests, the word of God came to John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness." We know what happened at the end of this story: Pilate condemned Jesus Christ to crucifixion on Passover day in AD 31. But how much do we know about the people who conspired to put Him to death, Annas and Caiaphas, who were high priests at the time? These two men were Sadducees. The Sadducees did not leave any written records themselves, but The Jewish Encyclopedia summarizes their views and principles: • The Sadducees represented the powerful and wealthy, and their interests focused on the here and now. They tended to be astute politicians. • They conducted their lives to enrich themselves and protect their positions of power. • The Sadducees considered only the five books of Moses to be authoritative. In rejecting the prophets, they did not believe in a resurrection (Acts 23:8). The same verse says they did not believe in angels or demons either. • They judged harshly; mercy does not seem to have part of their character. Unlike the Pharisees, who maintained that the Oral Law provided for a correct interpretation of God's Word, the Sadducees believed only in the written law and a literal interpretation of it. For instance, instead of seeing "an eye for an eye" as a principle of comparative compensation, the Sadducees held that it meant a literal removal of the offender's eye. The New Standard International Encyclopedia says that the word Sadducee implies the meaning of "to be righteous," and suggests that they took their name from Zadok, the high priest during David's time, from whom all succeeding high priests claim their descent. Conversely, a legend posits that they took their name from another Zadok who followed Antigonus of Socho. Antigonus taught his disciples to serve God without thought of reward. Instead of recognizing this teaching as a moral principle, Zadok believed that it refuted the ideas of resurrection and life after death, wrongly concluding that people should seek to live luxuriously in the present. The most powerful Sadducee in the first century was Annas, also known as Ananus or Ananias. In Hebrew, his name was Hananiah, meaning "the grace of Yahweh." Because of his descent from Aaron, he was considered a legitimate high priest. He was born around 22 or 23 BC and lived until approximately AD 40, though the actual date of his death is unrecorded. Quirinius appointed him to the position of high priest in AD 6, which he filled until AD 15 when Valerius Gratus deposed him for executing lawbreakers for religious infractions, a practice Rome had forbidden. Evidently, he had a young Sabbath-breaker stoned. Accumulating impressive power at an early age, Annas used it well. Five of his sons, a grandson, and most famously, his son-in-law, Caiaphas, were also elevated to the high priesthood. His son, Eleazar, succeeded him (AD 16-17); then Caiaphas (AD 18-36); four other sons, Jonathan (AD 36-37, 44), Theophilus (AD 37-41), Matthias (AD 43), and Annas II (AD 63); and a grandson, Matthias ben Theophilus (AD 65-66). Historian Alfred Edersheim writes in The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (I, 263) that the Talmud describes the high priests of the time "in terrible language. . . . [The House of Annas] is included in the woes pronounced on the corrupt leaders of the priesthood," whose presence defiled the Sanctuary. Several nineteenth-century commentators speculated that the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16:19-31) refers to the House of Annas, implying their guilt in conspiring to kill Jesus' friend, Lazarus. In the parable, the rich man dressed in purple and fine linen (see Exodus 28:1-8) represents Caiaphas, and the "five brothers" were Annas' sons who followed him in the high priestly office. Although the Roman authorities appointed others to the high priesthood, the Jewish people considered Annas to be the high priest by divine law. Thus, he held authority over spiritual matters. He may also have been the richest man in Judea, controlling all Temple trade, that is, the moneychangers and their ilk. He also maintained his political influence as a kind of "boss of bosses." That the soldiers who arrested Jesus brought Him to Annas' palace first and then to Caiaphas attests to this fact (John 18:13). Annas sought to use his office to protect his power and influence while enriching his family. The House of Annas amassed a fortune by selling at outrageous prices things that faithful pilgrims needed for their sacrifices, including sheep, wine, and oil at the infamous "booths of the sons of Annas" on the Mount of Olives. They also owned market stalls in the Court of the Gentiles, and with this monopoly, they could extort high prices from the faithful. The depth of this family's corruption was notorious, including the huge profits they made from exchanging foreign monies into Temple coins for the required Temple tax. The House of Annas even took advantage of women. When a woman gave birth, the law required her to give an offering at the Temple, usually a sheep, but if poor, she could bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons, as a burnt offering and a sin offering (Leviticus 12:6-8). The House of Annas raised the cost of these birds to where poor women could not afford it, perhaps over twelve times the previous value. Matthew 21:12-13 relates the story of Jesus' and the moneychangers: Then Jesus went into the temple of God and drove out all those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers, and the seats of those who sold doves. And He said to them, ‘It is written, ‛My House shall be called a house of prayer,' but you have made it a den of thieves." When Jesus entered the Temple and overthrew the moneychangers' tables, He caused a real financial hit to Annas and his family. The holy days, when a few million pilgrims traveled to Jerusalem, were their most lucrative times. Jesus' actions shut down their operations for a few days, cutting severely into their bottom line. After He overturned the tables, the scribes and the chief priests sought to destroy Him (Mark 11:18). As one commentator, E.G. Lewis, states, "He raised their ire by striking at the source of their wealth and like a typical Mafia chieftain, Annas responded with violence." Joseph Ernest Renan, a French expert of ancient Middle Eastern languages and civilizations, writes in his Life of Jesus, "Annas was the principal actor in the terrible drama, and far more than Caiaphas, far more than Pilate, ought to bear the weight of the maledictions of mankind" (p. 231). As the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states in its article on Annas, "Caiaphas, indeed, as actual high priest, was the nominal head of the Sanhedrin which condemned Jesus, but the aged Annas was the ruling spirit." Such was the official religious authority in Judea during the life of Jesus and the early years of God's church.

Maccabees and Crusaders are substantially identical

“Modern authors tend to accept as an axiom that in the twelfth century, there existed a strong identification between crusaders and the Maccabean warriors. Penny Cole wrote, for example, that “in all essential ways the struggles of the Maccabees against the persecutor Antiochus . . . and by association, of the crusaders against Muslim infidel, are substantially identical”. Elizabeth Lapina See also Damien F. Mackey’s related article: Maccabees may aptly be compared with Crusaders (4) Maccabees may aptly be compared with Crusaders | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Elizabeth Lapina has written most intriguingly on this subject in her article: “Maccabees and the Battle of Antioch (1098)” (4) “Maccabees and the Battle of Antioch (1098)” | Elizabeth Lapina - Academia.edu …. It is unclear what exactly the crusaders and medieval chroniclers of the Crusades knew about the importance of Antioch within the cult of the Jewish martyrs in Late Antiquity. When describing the city, crusading sources do not mention the Maccabees. One of the rare exceptions is the so-called Charleville Poet, who claims that Antioch was very ancient: “the book of Maccabees asserts its [Antioch’s] existence, when the priest is said to have perished, next to Daphne.” the poet is apparently alluding to the assassination of the pious Priest Onias in the vicinity of the city, described in the Second Book of Maccabees (2 Macc 4:34). …. In general, medieval writers of history were always eagerly looking for biblical prototypes of later events and figures. While Maccabean martyrs hardly resembled crusaders, Maccabean warriors did. Maccabean warriors shared the name of the Maccabean martyrs, but, of course, not their fate, fighting Antiochus actively under the leadership of Judas Maccabeus. Both the Maccabean warriors and crusaders fought for control of the city of Jerusalem and took pride in the restoration of holy sites. While the Maccabees fought against a Pagan enemy, crusaders struggled against Muslims, whom they frequently associated with Pagans. Last but not least, both profited from divine help on the battlefield. Modern authors tend to accept as an axiom that in the twelfth century, there existed a strong identification between crusaders and the Maccabean warriors. Penny Cole wrote, for example, that “in all essential ways the struggles of the Maccabees against the persecutor Antiochus . . . and by association, of the crusaders against Muslim infidel, are substantially identical.” Indeed, Baldwin I, the second ruler and first Latin king of Jerusalem, was called a “second Maccabee” in the laudatory inscription on his tombstone. Describing the Battle of Tall Danith, in which Prince Roger of Antioch emerged victorious, Fulcher of Chartres exclaims as follows: “For when did victory of fighters ever depend upon the number of men? Remember the Maccabees, Gideon, and many others who confided not in their own strength but in God and in that way overcame many thousands.” …. For instance, in the ninth century, Rabanus Maurus, a monk and the archbishop of Mainz, argued that Mattathias (the father of Judas Maccabeus) was a “type” of Christ and his sons signified the community of saints. In the late tenth or early eleventh century, Aelfric, an abbot at the Anglo-Saxon monastery of Eynsham, included the story of Judas Maccabeus in his collection of saints’ vitae compiled for the edification of the laity. On the one hand, Aelfric acknowledged that warfare in defense of one’s home and one’s faith, such as the one that Judas Maccabeus had undertaken, was just. On the other hand, he emphasized that spiritual combat is of greater value than actual warfare. In the aftermath of the First Crusade, there was considerable questioning of old paradigms regarding warfare. Some began to argue that crusaders fought “for Christ” and hence could almost be equated with monks. This revalorization of warfare led, at least in part, to the increasing popularity of the Maccabean warriors. However, many authors writing about the First Crusade found the very outward resemblance between the Maccabees and crusaders disturbing. From their perspective, if the wars of crusaders were both physical and spiritual, the wars of the Maccabees lacked a spiritual dimension, since, of course, they had nothing to do with the Christian faith. Damien Mackey’s comment: But, see my articles: Religious war waging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus https://www.academia.edu/107036451/Religious_war_raging_in_Judah_during_the_Infancy_of_Jesus and: Shepherds of Bethlehem and the five Maccabees https://www.academia.edu/111517720/Shepherds_of_Bethlehem_and_the_five_Maccabees Elizabeth Lapina continues: …. Both Cafaro and Fulcher saw the crusaders as “new Maccabees” of a hybrid variety: they resisted actively, with sword in hand, just like Judas Maccabeus, but at the same time they were martyrs, just as the Priest Eleazar, the seven brothers and their mother. In this manner, the connection between the crusaders and Maccabees acquired a new meaning: the deeds of the crusaders surpassed the military exploits of the Maccabean warriors and, at the very least, equaled the spiritual victories of the Maccabean martyrs. …. The moment when crusaders came closest to resembling the Maccabees was during the Battle of Antioch. According to a number of sources, crusaders were able to emerge victorious thanks to divine intervention. For instance, the anonymous author of Gesta Francorum, one of the earliest narratives of the First Crusade, writes that there “appeared from the mountains a countless host of men on white horses, whose banners were all white.” he crusaders realized that “this was the succor sent by Christ, and that the leaders were St. George, St. Mercurius and St. Demetrius.” An obvious parallel to this and other narratives of celestial intervention in the Battle of Antioch is to be found in the Second Book of Maccabees, where there are several similar episodes. In one battle, for instance, “five resplendent men from heaven on horses with golden bridles . . . led on the Jews” (2 Macc 10:29–30). They “showered arrows and thunderbolts on the enemy till, blinded and disordered, they were utterly bewildered and cut to pieces” (2 Macc 10:30–31). There are several other biblical and non-biblical texts that mention celestial warriors or an entire celestial army. However, the only parallel that chroniclers of the Crusades acknowledge overtly is with the Second Book of Maccabees. William of Malmesbury, who included an extensive narrative of the First Crusade in his Deeds of the English Kings, uses the reference to the Maccabees to demonstrate that the miracle of saintly intervention in the Battle of Antioch was credible. Ater describing the miracle, he adds: “nor can we deny that martyrs have aided Christians, at any rate when fighting in a cause like this, just as angels once gave help to the Maccabees.” According to William, both the Maccabees and crusaders were fighting for a worthy cause and thus deserved divine help. Thus, William’s reference seems to be an example of a conventional use of Jewish heroes as prototypes of medieval warriors. …. Orderic Vitalis, the author of Ecclesiastical History, most of which was written between 1123 and 1137, represents the fourth strategy for undermining the standard connection between the crusaders and Maccabees. Orderic’s presentation of the Battle of the Field of Blood seems a response to that connection as raised, for instance, by Fulcher in the framework of the Battle of Tall Danith. As discussed above, Fulcher compared crusaders to Maccabees, who frequently won battles regardless of their numerical inferiority. he Battle of the Field of Blood took place just four years ater the Battle of Tall Danith; it was also fought relatively close to Antioch and involved the same crusading leader, Prince Roger of Antioch. But as its name suggests, the Battle of the Field of Blood was an unprecedented disaster for crusaders, with Prince Roger killed and his entire army annihilated. According to Orderic, just before the battle’s beginning, Bernard of Valence, the Patriarch of Antioch, warned Roger against engaging the enemy, begging him to wait for reinforcements. Abandoning the discourse of divinely-sponsored victory of the few over many, the patriarch gave Roger highly practical advice: “Temper your zeal with prudence, valiant duke, and wait for King Baldwin and Joscelin and the other loyal lords who are coming early to our assistance. Rash haste has brought many men to ruin and deprived great princes of life and victory.” The Patriarch supported his admonitions by citing historical precedent: Study ancient and modern histories, and ponder seriously over the fates of some remarkable kings. Call to mind Saul and Josiah and Judas Maccabeus, and the Romans who were defeated by Hannibal at Cannae, and take great care not to drag your subjects with yourself into a disaster of the same kind. Wait for your worthy allies . . . …. The Maccabean warriors and crusaders fought their wars on the same terrain, with Jerusalem being the ultimate goal. Both referred to the restoration of sites of worship and the possibility of freely practicing their faith in the city as the aims of their fighting and both profited from a remarkably similar type of miracle: the intervention of celestial agents on the battlefield. …. In canto XVIII of Dante’s Paradiso, completed shortly before the author’s death in 1321, the narrator meets eight rulers who have been admitted to paradise. The attribute shared by all eight is having defended the “true faith,” whether Judaism or Christianity, against “infidels.” Among these individuals, the narrator meets Duke Geofrey of Bouillon, one of the leaders of the First Crusade, and “the great Maccabee” (alto Maccabeo), presumably Judas. Clearly, by the fourteenth century, the controversy surrounding the comparisons between Christian and Jewish warriors was a thing of the past. It was no longer disquieting to find a crusader and a Maccabean warrior as neighbors in paradise.

Abram (Abraham), Egypt, the Four Kings

by Damien F. Mackey Abraham was the first of the Hebrew patriarchs and a figure highly revered by the three great monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. His name contains the “Father” element both in its original short form, Abram (אַבְרָם), “Exalted Father”, and after the Lord had changed it, to Abraham (אַבְרָהָם), “Father of many nations”, as explained in Genesis 17:4-5: ‘Behold, I make my covenant with thee, and thou shalt be a Father of many nations. Neither shall thy name anymore be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham …’. Abram came from Ur of the Chaldees. This was not the Ur in southern (Iraq) Mesopotamia, but Ur (or Urfa) near Haran (the Ebla tablets tell of “Ur in Haran”), not far from where Noah’s Ark had landed on the mountain Karaca Dağ. Pope Francis actually went to Ur in Iraq in 2021, as John Paul II had intended to do: https://aleteia.org/2024/09/01/pope-francis-crazy-gamble-his-historic-visit-to-iraq “But the head of the Catholic Church had no intention of reliving the disappointment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who reluctantly had to abandon his historic trip to Iraq to inaugurate the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000 in the land of Abraham, the father of believers”. Well, as they say, to Ur is human. There are various legends associated with Abram, his father, Terah, and Nimrod in Ur. Nimrod I have identified with Sargon of Akkad, and I think he was also Naram-Sin. Abram was, indeed, a (younger) contemporary of this Nimrod. Some of these legends seem to have borrowed from later events, such as the Magi star and Herodian infanticide (there is even one about Abram thrown into a fiery furnace). What is sure is that the son, Abram, was far more Godly than was his idolatrous father, Terah. A Jewish writer for Chabad.org tells this story of Abram, Terah and Nimrod: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/112333/jewish/Nimrod-and-Abraham.htm Nimrod and Abraham The Two Rivals Nimrod's Humble Heritage Nimrod the mighty hunter was one of the sons of Kush. Kush was the son of Ham, the lowest and least important of Noah's three sons. Nimrod came from a line which was cursed by Noah: "Cursed be Canaan, a slave of slaves shall he be unto his brothers." By birth, Nimrod had no right to be a king or ruler. But he was a mighty strong man, and sly and tricky, and a great hunter and trapper of men and animals. His followers grew in number, and soon Nimrod became the mighty king of Babylon, and his empire extended over other great cities. As was to be expected, Nimrod did not feel very secure on his throne. He feared that one day there would appear a descendant of Noah's heir and successor, Shem, and would claim the throne. He was determined to have no challenger. Some of Shem's descendants had already been forced to leave that land and build their own cities and empires. There was only one prominent member of the Semitic family left in his country. He was Terah, the son of Nahor. Terah was the eighth generation removed, in a direct line of descendants from Shem. But Nimrod had nothing to fear from Terah, his most loyal and trusted servant. Terah had long before betrayed his family, and had become a follower of Nimrod. All of his ancestors were still living, including Shem himself, but Terah left his ancestral home and became attached to Nimrod. Terah, who should have been the master and Nimrod his slave, became the slave of Nimrod. Like the other people in that country, Terah believed that Nimrod received his kingdom as a gift from the "gods," and was himself a "god." Terah was prepared to serve Nimrod with all his heart. Indeed, he proved himself a very loyal and useful servant. Nimrod entrusted into his hands the command of his armies and made Terah the highest minister in his land. Terah was short of nothing but a wife. So he found himself a wife, whose name was Amathlai. They looked forward to raising a large family, but they were not blessed with any children. The years flew by, and Terah still had no son. His father was only twenty-nine years old when he, Terah, was born. But Terah was getting closer to seventy than to thirty, and yet there was no son! He prayed to Nimrod and to his idols to bless him with a son, but his prayers were not answered. Little did he know that Nimrod felt happy about Terah's misfortune. For although Nimrod had nothing to fear from Terah, he could not be sure if Terah's sons would be as loyal to him as their father. Therefore, he was inwardly very pleased that his servant Terah had no children, and probably would never have any. But he could not be, sure, and Nimrod was not taking chances. He ordered his stargazers and astrologers to watch the sky for any sign of the appearance of a possible rival. The Rise of Abraham One night the star-gazers noticed a new star rising in the East. Every night it grew brighter. They informed Nimrod. Nimrod called together his magicians and astrologers. They all agreed that it meant that a new baby was to be born who might challenge Nimrod's power. It was decided that in order to prevent this, all new-born baby-boys would have to die, starting from the king's own palace, down to the humblest slave's hut. And who was to be put in charge of this important task? Why, Terah, of course, the king's most trusted servant. Terah sent out his men to round up all expectant mothers. The king's palace was turned into a gigantic maternity ward. A lucky mother gave birth to a girl, and then they were both sent home, laden with gifts. But if the baby happened to be a boy, he was put to death without mercy. One night, Nimrod's star-gazers watching that new star, saw it grow very bright and suddenly dart across the sky, first in one direction then in another, west, east, north and south, swallowing up all other stars in its path. Nimrod was with his star-gazers on the roof of his palace, and saw the strange display in the sky with his own eyes. "What is the meaning of this?" he demanded. "There can be only one explanation. A son was born tonight who would challenge the king's power, and the father is none other than Terah." "Terah?!" Nimrod roared. "My own trusted servant?" Nimrod's Rage Nimrod had never given a thought to Terah as becoming a father at the age of seventy. However, if he did become a father, he would surely be glad to offer his first-born son to his king and god! Nimrod dispatched a messenger to Terah at once, ordering him to appear together with his newly born son. That night Terah and his wife Amathlai had indeed become the happy parents of a baby boy, who brought a great light and radiance into their home. Terah had hoped it would be a girl, and he would have no terrible decision to make. Now he could not think of giving up this lovely baby, born to him at his old age after such longing. He had managed to keep his wife's expectancy a secret. None of his servants knew about the birth of his son. There was a secret passage leading from his palace to a cave in the field. He took the baby to that cave and left it there. As he was returning to the palace, past the servants' quarters, he suddenly heard the cry of a baby. What good fortune! Terah cried. It so happened that one of his servants had given birth to a boy about the same time as his own son was born. Terah took the baby and put him in silk swaddling and handed him to his wife to nurse. Just then the king's messenger arrived. When Terah with the baby in his arms appeared before Nimrod, Terah declared: "I was just about to bring my son to you, when your messenger came." Nimrod thought it was mighty loyal of Terah to give up his only son, born to him in his old age. Little did he know that it was not Terah's son who was brought to die, but a servant's. Abraham Emerges For three years little Abraham remained in the cave, where he did not know day from night. Then he came out of the cave and saw the bright sun in the sky, and thought that it was G d, who had created the heaven and the earth, and him, too. But in the evening the sun went down, and the moon rose in the sky, surrounded by myriads of stars. "This must be G d," Abraham decided. But the moon, too, disappeared, and the sun reappeared, and Abraham decided that there must be a G d Who rules over the sun and the moon and the stars, and the whole world. And so, from the age of three years and on, Abraham knew that there was only one G d, and he was resolved to pray to Him and worship Him alone. A life full of many and great adventures began for Abraham …. So much for the fantastic legends. But was Abraham real? For one, the name Abram has been found at Ebla, not far from Abram’s Haran (map). And, the city of Nahur in the Mari archive may reflect the name of Abram’s grandfather, Nahor (Genesis 11:22), whose name was passed on to Abram’s brother, Nahor (v. 27). The other brother was Haran, the name of the place in which Abram settled after Ur. THE REAL ABRAHAM The Ebla Tablets and the Abraham Tradition David Noel Freedman …. Of particular interest are the names of places and persons. We find an extensive area of overlap between the Ebla tablets and the biblical text. Among the many personal names in both the Bible and the tablets are the following: Abram, David, Esau, Ishmael, Israel, Micaiah, Michael, and Saul. We have normalized the spelling of these names to conform to the biblical pattern, but the spelling in Eblaite is so close in all cases that there can be no question of the identity of the names. (In no case can we say the persons are identical, however.) In some cases, notably that of David (which in Eblaite is spelled da-ud-um), the name is not known from any other source in ancient times. Such occurrences point back to a common basis in language and culture for the ancestors of the Israelites and the people of Ebla. Actually, this is no surprise, because the Bible, while not mentioning Ebla, does point to this region as the fatherland of the Israelites. The patriarchs came to Canaan from Haran, where elements of their kinship group continued to live long after Abraham and his family had departed. A bride was brought from there for Isaac; and Jacob returned to his kinsmen there when prudence called for a rapid removal from Canaan. Haran is not very far away from Ebla, and is often mentioned in the Ebla texts. If an archive exists at Haran at the same stratigraphic level, and is ever found, those tablets should contain even more specific information about the patriarchs and their forebears, and should have closer contacts and correlations with the Bible. As it is, Ebla draws from the common pool of terms, names, and traditions which was shared by the biblical people. …. There may be even more relevant information than this, but Ebla, like Göbekli Tepe, has had something of a lid put on it by agenda-driven powers that be. In the Hindu religion: https://www.reddit.com/r/religion/comments/z3g3pf/brahma_abraham_and_sarah_saraswati_how_related/#:~:text=Brahma%20and%20Sarasvati%20lived%20toge Brahma / Abraham and Sarah / Saraswati. How related are they? Brahma is father of All (RV7.97b), while Abraham is father of many nations (Gen 17:5) Brahma’s wife is his sister Sarasvati (SV7.96.2), and she was a great beauty (AV19.17; KenU3), while Abraham’s wife, Sarah, is also his sister (Gen 20:12) and is beautiful (Gen 12:14). Saraswati is known for being a goddess of water, the name means something like retains water. The River Saraswati (PraU1.6) has a tributary named Ghaggar, reflective of the name of Sarah’s maidservant, Hagar. Sarah from Hebrew (שרר sharar) means ruler and / or retains water. Brahma and Sarasvati lived together for 100 years, then had their first son, while Abraham was 100 and Sarah was 90 when they had Isaac (Gen 21.5). Brahma’s son (or grandson), Daksha, is killed as the offering sacrifice before all the gods, while Abraham almost offers his son Isaac. At the pleading of his father, Brihaspati (born from Brahma’s body, RV3.23.1) Daksha is resurrected with the head of a ram, while Abraham finds a ram caught in a bush to sacrifice in place of his son Isaac (Gen 22:1-13). Brahma’s hidden offering (AV19.42.1-2), relates to Abraham’s offering of a ram caught in a bush. There are many more overlaps. …. Archaeology of the Abrahamic Era When historians and archaeologists wrongly identify a particular biblical era, then that usually serves to vitiate the fine fabric overall. For instance, the conventional archaeologists have made a huge mistake - though probably a fairly excusable one in this case - by identifying the nomadic Abraham and his family with the nomadic Middle Bronze I (MBI) people, who were, in fact, the much later Exodus Israelites. Once such a tsunami of a mistake has been made, then it sends unwanted ripples all the way down the line. Thus, apart from the Era of Abraham now no longer being identifiable, the major Exodus and Conquest scenarios, too - which actually belong to MBI - can no longer be identified. And so on it goes. Nelson Glueck, rabbi academic and archaeologist, and his erudite colleagues, could perhaps be forgiven for seizing upon the MBI nomads as appearing to be the right people, in the right era and area, for the Abrahamites - especially since the MBI age has been dated c. 2000-1550 BC, including the correct chronology for Abraham. Well correct, that is, if one follows the conventional system, which, however, sadly, is nearly always wrong. Moreover, so great was the reputation of Nelson Glueck that no one of academic note was likely to gainsay him. Dr. John Osgood, a Creationist, to whom the credit goes, I believe, for being the first and only one to identify the archaeological era of Abram (Abraham), has this to say about Nelson Glueck’s archaeological identification (in “The Times of Abraham”): https://creation.com/the-times-of-abraham Present time placement of Abraham The accepted or evolutionary time scale for the Paleolithic to Iron Age sequence, when placed side by side with the known time relationships in the Scripture concerning Abraham, allows a placement of Abraham of somewhere around the Middle Bronze I period (abbreviated MB I variously referred to as Early Bronze IV (EB IV) in Palestine, or Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze (see Figure 1). The placement originally of Abraham in this time slot can be largely traced to Nelson Glueck, with support from William Albright. Nelson Glueck was one who asserted the correctness historically of Scripture, yet held an evolutionary chronology and so placed Abraham in Middle Bronze I. [Dr. Osgood’s Figure 1. Time scheme of the accepted evolutionary chronology]. ‘If one believes, as we do, in the validity of the historical memories of the Bible, and if one accepts as real flesh and blood human beings the personages reflected in the portrayals of the Biblical Patriarchs, then the Age of Abraham must be assigned to the Middle Bronze I period, ending in the nineteenth century B.C… The only archaeological framework in which the person and period of Abraham in the Negeb can be placed is Middle Bronze I.’2 In that same discussion, Nelson Glueck insists that the destructions of MB I settlements corresponded to the biblical account of the destruction inflicted by Chedorlaomer and his confederates (Genesis 14). However, apart from the statement of such, he offered no positive evidence to confirm that such an historical link-up can be made more secure than the simple statement of belief. William Albright was quick to ally himself with Nelson Glueck and established a belief that Abraham was one who plied a trade as a donkey caravaneer between Mesopotamia and Egypt. This is a belief that was Albright’s, but certainly does not conform to the Scriptures, in the literal sense. ‘Nelson Glueck was prompt to associate the biblical traditions of Abraham with the MB I remains in the Negeb; he also recognised the fact that the settlements from this age were connected with old caravan routes.’3 So the MB I period of Palestine has since been indelibly associated with the time of Abraham in the minds of many. …. A need for a re-evaluation In no way can it be said that the times of Abraham have been established. Moreover, there is much about the presently accepted archaeological time slot which makes one feel quite uneasy. Abraham was the product of a generation that can be traced in the Bible ten generations from the Flood, the Bible narrative giving the impression that only about 430 years elapsed from the time of the world wide [sic] catastrophic Flood until the times of Abraham in Canaan (see Figure 2). Yet on the accepted time scale we are to admit huge amounts of time for the development of civilizations prior to the times of Abraham. …. Dr. Osgood will then proceed to render obsolete (my opinion) all other different attempts at pin-pointing the archaeological era for Abraham. He will do so by analysing the campaign of the four invading kings of Genesis 14, including Amraphel king of Shinar – another of my alter egos for Nimrod (= Sargon of Akkad; Naram-Sin). I shall consider this episode later, for, firstly, Abram has to go to Egypt, to escape from a deadly famine. A comment on Dr. Osgood: It is intriguing that he who has succeeded so brilliantly in unveiling the archaeological era of Abram, and has written as well as any – if not better – on the MBI Israelites of the Exodus and Conquest, and has sorted out the important archaeology of Jericho, has also managed to arrive at a fatal (I think) archaeological conclusion that must inevitably have that unwanted ripple effect as referred to above. For Dr. Osgood has - along with other (now deceased) conservative Christian writers whom he admires, namely Drs. Donovan Courville and David Down - concluded that the important Hammurabi of Babylon was a Middle Bronze Age ruler, and a contemporary of Joshua. These three Christian doctors had all taken a ruler of Hazor, named Jabin, mentioned in the Mari (see map above) archive as being the King Jabin whom Joshua had defeated and killed (Joshua 11:1-10). Unfortunately for Drs. Courville, Down and Osgood, Jabin was something of a generic name for rulers of Hazor. There were several of them, one (Jabin), again, being later, at the time of the prophetess Deborah (Judges 4:2). And neither of these kings Jabin was the Jabin of the Mari archive contemporaneous with Hammurabi king of Babylon, who - as has now been determined beyond doubt - belonged centuries later still, to the time of King Solomon of Israel (c. 950 BC). It is not hard to imagine what chaos might be caused in the quest for establishing a workable biblico-historical model for the ancient world by having the hugely influential king Hammurabi off-set from his proper place in time to the tune of some 500 years! ABRAM IN EGYPT Inevitably, the conventional scholars, with their MBI location of the Era of Abraham, must arrive at a synchronism with dynastic Egypt that is far too late. Abram, as we shall find, arrived in Archaïc Egypt, before the Old Kingdom era of pyramid building. Conventional dating would place him after the Old Kingdom, in the so-called First Intermediate Period (FIP) - about which period I now have doubts. However, because Egyptian history does not follow the linear pattern of dynasties as conventionally assigned to it, with the consequence that some ‘folding’ is involved, a fluke may occur in this case, with the FIP’s Tenth Dynasty - assigned by some to Abram - being contemporaneous with the Archaïc period in which Abram truly belongs. Abram belonged to, as will be argued here, the time of both the first ruler of Egypt’s First Dynasty, the famous Menes (c. 3100BC), and to his alter ego in the (Ninth or) Tenth Dynasty, Nebkaure Khety (c. 2100 BC). Obviously, these dates are too early for Abram (c. 1870 BC, Dr. Osgood), and will need to be dragged down the timescale. Nelson Glueck’s collaborator for the MBI era of Abram, the celebrated Dr. W.F. Albright, will this time make a much better fist of it, by re-dating Menes and the beginning of dynastic Egyptian history to the time of Naram-Sin (above), who, as Albright concluded, had conquered Menes. Naram-Sin of Akkad, who I think was Nimrod, is still dated too early, though (c. 2254–2218 BC) for Abram, and will need (along with Menes) some chronological lowering. Some conservative Christians again, including Dr. David Down already mentioned, have suggested that the glorious Giza Pyramid-building Age of Egypt’s Fourth Dynasty (c. 2615 to 2495 BC) was the most appropriate time for Abram in Egypt. Matt McClellan has written of this estimation in his article for Answers in Genesis, “Abraham and the Chronology of Ancient Mesopotamia”: https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/abraham-and-the-chronology-of-ancient-mesopotamia/ However, there have been a number of scholars who have come out against the standard chronology in the recent past. …. There has been a concentrated effort to use this new research in ancient chronology to correlate biblical events with Egyptian chronology. Two separate studies have dated Abraham to sometime during the Early Dynastic or the Old Kingdom periods in Egypt. John Ashton and David Down (2006) have dated him to the Fourth Dynasty while this author (McClellan 2011, p. 155) has given a range of dates from the 2nd–6th Dynasties. …. Placing Abraham in this earlier period in Egyptian history also forces Abraham to be dated significantly earlier in Mesopotamian history. (Ur III and Isin-Larsa correspond to the Middle Kingdom in Egypt, and that time aligns better with the Mosaic period than with Abraham’s.) If Abraham is to be dated earlier in Mesopotamian history then in what period did Abraham live in Mesopotamia? What is interesting about the quote by Kitchen above is that he notes that there was another period in Mesopotamian history in which a coalition of kings could have existed; that is, the period before the Akkadian Empire. What is more interesting is that this is the time period that Freedman dated Abraham. So one has to ask whether or not this period could be the setting for Abraham’s life? …. While Matt McClellan is perfectly correct in commenting that “the Middle Kingdom in Egypt … aligns better with the Mosaic period than with Abraham’s”, Ur III, which actually belongs to the time of King Solomon, is irrelevant to both Abraham and Moses. There is some fairly solid tradition that associates Abram with Menes. But what about Nebkaure Khety? How might he connect with Menes? Both Dr. David Rohl and I had, some years ago now, and quite independently, concluded that Abram’s Pharaoh was a Khety (I had Khety III, and he had Khety IV). David Rohl had picked up the important clue that the Classical author, Pliny had called Abram’s Pharaoh Nebkare, close enough to Nebkaure (Khety). Pharaoh and Sarai One of the things that he inclined me to connect Pharaoh Khety with Abram were the words that the ruler of Egypt had uttered in Admonitions to his son, Merikare, that made me think of the Sarai incident that was not entirely the Pharaoh’s fault. Here is what I wrote on this previously: If the so-called Tenth Dynasty were really to be located this early in time … then this would have had major ramifications for any attempted reconstruction of Egyptian history. Having Abram’s Egyptian ruler situated in the Tenth Dynasty did fit well with my view then, at least, that Joseph, who arrived on the scene about two centuries after Abraham, had belonged to the Eleventh Dynasty (as well as to the Third, as Imhotep). Although I would later drop from my revision the notion of Khety (be he II, III or IV) as Abraham’s king of Egypt - not being able to connect him securely to the Old Kingdom era - I am now inclined to return to it. Previously I had written on this: So far, however, I have not been able to establish any compelling link between the 1st and 10th Egyptian dynasties (perhaps Aha “Athothis” in 1 can connect with “Akhthoes” in 10). Nevertheless, that pharaoh Khety appears to have possessed certain striking likenesses to Abram’s [king] has not been lost on David Rohl as well, who, in From Eden to Exile: The Epic History of the People of the Bible (Arrow Books, 2003), identified the “Pharaoh” with Khety (Rohl actually numbers him as Khety IV). And he will further incorporate the view of the Roman author, Pliny, that Abram’s “Pharaoh” had a name that Rohl considers to be akin to Khety’s prenomen: Nebkaure. …. There is a somewhat obscure incident in 10th dynasty history, associated with … Wahkare Khety III and the nome of Thinis, that may possibly relate to the biblical incident [of “Pharaoh” and Abram’s wife]. It should be noted firstly that Khety III is considered to have had to restore order in Egypt after a general era of violence and food shortage, brought on says N. Grimal by “the onset of a Sahelian climate, particularly in eastern Africa” [A History of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell, 1994, p. 139]. Moreover, Khety III’s “real preoccupation was with northern Egypt, which he succeeded in liberating from the occupying populations of Bedouin and Asiatics” [ibid., p. 145]. Could these eastern nomads have been the famine-starved Syro-Palestinians of Abram’s era - including the Hebrews themselves - who had been forced to flee to Egypt for sustenance? And was Khety III referring to the Sarai incident when, in his famous Instruction addressed to his son, Merikare, he recalled, in regard to Thinis (ancient seat of power in Egypt): Lo, a shameful deed occurred in my time: The nome of This was ravaged; Though it happened through my doing, I learned it after it was done. [Emphasis added] Cf. Genesis 12:17-19: But the Lord afflicted Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai .... So Pharaoh called Abram, and said, ‘What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? Why did you say, ‘She is my sister’? so that I took her for my wife? Now then, here is your wife, take her, and be gone’. When the Egyptian dynasties are taken not in single file, there occurs a nice symmetry: Abraham (dynasties 1 and 10) Joseph (dynasties 3 and 11) Moses (dynasties 4 and 12) It may now be possible to propose some (albeit tenuous) links between the era of Khety and what is considered to be the far earlier Old Kingdom period to which I would assign Abraham. N. Grimal refers to another Aha (that being the name of Abraham’s proposed contemporary, Hor-Aha) as living at the same time as Khety II. If Menes Hor-Aha (‘Min’) had really reigned for more than sixty years (Manetho-Africanus), then he is likely to have accumulated many other names and titles. …. Menes (‘Min’) Hor-Aha ‘Athothis’ would connect with Nebkaure Khety, or Akhtoes, perhaps through Athothis-Akthoes. Abram’s Pharaoh fits Menes Hor-Aha as being a very long-reigning monarch. I have not only identified the Pharaoh-Sarai incident (Genesis 12:10-20) with the later narrated Abimelech-Sarah incident (20:1-18), using toledôt arguments for the same incident but different authors, but I have further stretched this long-reigning ruler, Pharaoh-Abimelech, to include the somewhat similar Abimelech-Rebekah incident at the time of Isaac (26:1-11). It is notable that the once robust Pharaoh, who had coveted Sarai-Sarah, was now, at an older phase, warning about “one of the men” maybe coveting Rebekah (v. 10). Regarding my identification of Pharaoh with Abimelech, a colleague has pointed out that a chiasmus unites these two entities – a possible clue that this was one and the same person. It can also be shown archaeologically that Egypt had, at this time, encroached into southern Canaan, thereby accounting for why the Pharaoh is also called, as Abimelech, “king of the Philistines in Gerar” (v. 1). Finally, I have most tentatively suggested that Abimelech may have been the same as Mizraim’s (Egypt’s) son, the like-named Lehabim (c f. Genesis 10:13; I Chronicles 1:11). THE FOUR KINGS INVADE CANAAN Since Dr. J. Osgood, and he alone, has completely nailed the archaeology here, there is no need to do any more here than simply to quote the relevant part of his article, “The Times of Abraham”. Dr. Osgood, having archaeologically traced the invasion of the four kings to Late Chalcolithic En-gedi, writes: http://creation.com/the-times-of-abraham The remarkable thing about this [Late Chalcolithic] culture also was that it was very similar, if not the same culture, to that found at a place in the southern Jordan Valley called Taleilat Ghassul (which is the type site of this culture), and also resembles the culture of Beersheba. The culture can in fact be called ‘Ghassul culture’ and specifically Ghassul IV. The Ghassul IV culture disappeared from Trans Jordan, Taleilat Ghassul and Beersheba and the rest of the Negev as well as from Hazezon-tamar or En-gedi apparently at the same time. It is remarkable when looked at on the map that this disappearance of the Ghassul IV culture corresponds exactly to the areas which were attacked by the Mesopotamian confederate of kings. The fact that En-gedi specifically terminates its culture at this point allows a very positive identification of this civilization, Ghassul IV, with the Amorites of Hazezon-tamar. If that be the case, then we can answer Bar Adon’ question very positively. The reason the people did not return to get their goods was that they had been destroyed by the confederate kings of Mesopotamia, in approximately 1,870 B.C. in the days of Abraham. Now as far as Palestine is concerned, in an isolated context, this may be possible to accept, but many might ask: What about the Mesopotamian kings themselves? Others may ask: What does this do to Egyptian chronology? And still further questions need to be asked concerning the origin of the Philistines in the days of Abraham, for the Philistines were closely in touch with Abraham during this same period (Genesis 20). So we must search for evidence of Philistine origins or habitation at approximately the end of the Chalcolithic (Ghassul IV) in Palestine. All these questions will be faced. …. [End of quote] Much earlier than the MBI age, when the Exodus Israelites were wandering in the wilderness, four … kings swept through the Palestine of Abram’s (Abraham’s) day, destroying the Late Chalcolithic phase of En-gedi and the contemporaneous Amorite Ghassul IV culture which now ceased to exist. Dr. Osgood had also provided us with a corresponding archaeology for the Egypt of Abram’s day, the Gerzean culture, or Naqadah II. The following sections from Dr. Osgood’s “The Times of Abraham”, which encompass both the Egyptian and Philistine scenarios relevant to Abraham, are replete with archaeological syncretisms beneficial to my reconstruction here: But Egypt! At this stage there will be many objections to the hypothesis here presented, for it is totally contradictory to the presently held Egyptian chronology of the ancient world. However, I would remind my reader that the Egyptian chronology is not established, despite claims to the contrary. It has many speculative points within it. Let us continue to see if there is any correspondence, for if Abraham was alive in the days of the Ghassul IV culture, then he was alive in the days of the Gerzean culture of pre-Dynastic Egypt, possibly living into the days of the first Dynasty of Egypt. The correspondence between this period in Palestine and in Egypt is very clear, and has been solidly established, particularly by the excavations at Arad by Ruth Amiram10 and at Tel Areini by S. Yeivin.11 Such a revised chronology as here presented would allow Abraham to be in contact with the earliest kings of Dynasty I and the late pre-Dynastic kings, and this would slice a thousand years off the presently held chronology of Egypt. To many the thought would be too radical to contemplate. The author here insists that it must be contemplated. Only so will the chronology of the ancient world be put into proper perspective. Long as the task may take, and however difficult the road may be, it must be undertaken. In order to support the present revised chronology here held, the author sites another correspondence archaeologically, and this concerns both the Philistines and Egypt. The Philistine Question Genesis 20 makes it clear that Abraham was in contact with the Philistines, yet the accepted chronological record presently held does not recognise Philistines being in the land of Philistia at any time corresponding with the days of Abraham. Yet the Bible is adamant. The Scripture is clear that the Philistines were in Canaan by the time of Abraham, approximately 1850 B.C., or at least around the area of Gerar between Kadesh and Shur (Genesis 20:1), and Beersheba (Genesis 21:321) (see Figure 9). A king called Abimelech was present, and his military chief was Phicol (Genesis 21:22). …. We have placed the end of the Chalcolithic of the Negev, En-gedi, Trans Jordan and Taleilat Ghassul at approximately 1870 B.C., being approximately at Abraham’ 80th year. Early Bronze I Palestine (EB I) would follow this, significantly for our discussions. Stratum V therefore at early Arad (Chalcolithic) ends at 1870 B.C., and the next stratum, Stratum IV (EB I), would begin after this. Stratum IV begins therefore some time after 1870 B.C.. This is a new culture significantly different from Stratum V.112 Belonging to Stratum IV, Amiram found a sherd with the name of Narmer (First Dynasty of Egypt),10, 13 and she dates Stratum IV to the early part of the Egyptian Dynasty I and the later part of Canaan EB I. Amiram feels forced to conclude a chronological gap between Stratum V (Chalcolithic) at Arad and Stratum IV EB I at Arad. …. However, this is based on the assumption of time periods on the accepted scale of Canaan’ history, long time periods which are here rejected. The chronological conclusion is strong that Abraham’ life-time corresponds to the Chalcolithic in Egypt, through at least a portion of Dynasty I of Egypt, which equals Ghassul IV through to EB I in Palestine. The possibilities for the Egyptian king of the Abrahamic narrative are therefore:- 1. A late northern Chalcolithic king of Egypt, or 2. Menes or Narmer, be they separate or the same king (Genesis 12:10-20). [End of quote] So far, I have identified Abram’s (Abraham) Akkadian and Egyptian contemporaries: Nimrod (= Sargon of Akkad/Naram-Sin), conqueror of pharaoh Menes Hor-Aha (Nebkaure Khety). Nimrod is also Amraphel king of Shinar (14:1). Narmer may be either Naram-Sin, or Chedorlaomer of Elam. Genesis 14:1-4 introduces the four coalitional kings, and goes on to name the five kings of Pentapolis: At the time when Amraphel was king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam and Tidal king of Goyim, these kings went to war against Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboyim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar). All these latter kings joined forces in the Valley of Siddim (that is, the Dead Sea Valley). For twelve years they had been subject to Chedorlaomer, but in the thirteenth year they rebelled. The mighty Amraphel (Nimrod), first mentioned here, may initially have ruled the other three as subordinate kings, in the sense that a later Assyrian monarch will declare (Isaiah 10:8): “Are not my commanders [governors] all kings?” But legend has Chedorlaomer conquering Amraphel and assuming overall leadership, and this may be reflected in real history. The great Elamite king, Kutik-Inshushinak, allied to Naram-Sin, later won a victory over Akkad. He would be my candidate for the biblical Chedorlaomer. Someone has written on this, on Kutik-[Puzur]-Inshushinak: So, could Kutik-Inshushinak be Chedor-laomer? Last night I checked on the internet for Inshushinak and Lagamar. It seems these are both Elamite dieties [sic] of the underworld. Not hard to see them interchanged. Since Kutik can also be Puzur, then that closing k and the closing r can match -- the opening K can readily match the opening hard Ch -- and if the middle t can be a hard z, then that t is not a strong t, and thus not difficult to connect to a d sound. So Kutik-Inshushinak is not incompatible with Chedor-Lagamar -- Chedorlaomer of Genesis 14. The land of Elam had seemed to me to be well too far away from Canaan for a king from there to keep the Pentapolitan kings in submission for “twelve years”. Royce (Richard) Erickson unwittingly came to the rescue when he wrote a brilliant article (2020), shifting the whole land of Elam far, far to the NW: A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY https://www.academia.edu/44674697/A_PROBLEM_IN_CHALDAEAN_AND_ELAMITE_GEOGRAPHY None of the four invading kings was Mesopotamian (Dr. Osgood’s “confederate kings of Mesopotamia”, above). Possibly “Tidal king of Goyim”, for instance, was, like Sisera of the later Judges period (Judges 4:2), a military governor for the coalition stationed at Harosheth Haggoyim in what would later become northern Israel.

Martyrdom of the prophet Zechariah son of Berechiah

by Damien F. Mackey ‘And so upon you will come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the Temple and the altar’. Matthew 23:35 Could he be the same as Zechariah son of Jehoiada? Since Zechariah, son of the high priest Jehoiada, was a holy prophet murdered in the Temple court in Jerusalem at the command of king Joash of Judah, who is the same as Uzziah: Early prophet Zechariah may forge a link with Joash, Uzziah of Judah (DOC) Early prophet Zechariah may forge a link with Joash, Uzziah of Judah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu then he is a prime candidate for the holy man to whom Jesus Christ will refer in Matthew 23:35 and Luke 11:51 (who, however, omits any reference to “Berechiah”). It is hard to shake off the idea that Jesus must be referring to this Zechariah whom “they plotted against … and by order of the king they stoned him to death in the courtyard of the LORD’s Temple” (2 Chronicles 24:21). In this article, I shall be testing the validity of four possible candidates for the martyred “Zechariah son of Berechiah”, based on a few key points such as: era; name and patronymic; location of death by martyrdom As to era, Zechariah, son of the high priest Jehoiada, might seem somewhat too early to qualify. Jesus is giving a vast sweep of persecuted prophets, from the very beginning, Abel, until, one might presume, his own approximate time. Since the death of this first Zechariah, there were other martyrdoms as we are going to find. As to his name, Zechariah is, of course, a perfect fit. But his patronymic, Jehoiada, is not – differing, as it does, from Berechiah. Name difference, though, does not necessarily rule out identification. As to location of death by martyrdom, Zechariah, son of the high priest Jehoiada, might superficially appear to be, again, a perfect fit. However, on a closer inspection, while he was slain in the Temple courtyard, the Zechariah referred to by Jesus perished ‘between the Temple and the altar’. This is quite a serious difference. Conclusion Zechariah, son of the high priest Jehoiada, fits our criteria perfectly only as to his name, Zechariah, which is indeed a perfect fit. Could he be the same as Zechariah son of Jeberechiah? “The LORD said to me, ‘Take a large scroll and write on it with an ordinary pen: Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz’. So I called in Uriah the priest and Zechariah son of Jeberechiah as reliable witnesses for me”. Isaiah 8:1-2 Could Jesus have been referring to the Zechariah son of Jeberechiah, one of Isaiah the prophet’s reliable witnesses (as named in Isaiah 8:2)? Let us again apply out test: era; name and patronymic; and location of death by martyrdom. As to era, Zechariah, son of Jeberechiah may still perhaps be, like Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada, somewhat too early to qualify. As to his name, Zechariah is, of course, a perfect fit. And even his patronymic, Jeberechiah, is close to perfect, the name being related to Berechiah: Jeberechiah | The amazing name Jeberechiah: meaning and etymology (abarim-publications.com) As to location of death by martyrdom, this is quite irrelevant at this early stage, for we are not told that anyone of this exact description, “Zechariah son of Jeberechiah”, was ever martyred. Conclusion The names, Zechariah and Jeberechiah, are close to being a perfect fit. But, at this early stage, we have no evidence that this particular Zechariah experienced martyrdom. Could he be the same as the martyr Uriah (Urijah)? Whilst the later era is the most promising so far, the names, Uriah and Shemaiah, do not fit at all. Nor are we told that Uriah was martyred in the Temple. Surely, I had begun to think, Jesus was referring to the Martyrdom of Isaiah. This was significantly later in time than was the martyrdom of Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada. And it was later even still in my revised scheme, that collapses the era of king Hezekiah of Judah into the era of king Josiah of Judah, with my identification of the martyred Uriah, at the hands of king Jehoiakim, being the same incident as the famous martyrdom of Isaiah at the time of king Manasseh (= Jehoiakim). See e.g. my article: God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon (DOC) God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Let us once again apply our test: era; name and patronymic; and location of death by martyrdom. As to era, Uriah (Urijah), son of Shemaiah, is, as already noted, more promisingly later than was Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada (and Zechariah son of Jeberechiah). As to his name, Uriah is not a name related to Zechariah (though it could perhaps be construed as an abbreviation of the name). Moreover, his patronymic, Shemaiah, does not relate at all to Berechiah. I was still optimistic, however, considering that I have identified multiple names for Isaiah and his father: (i) Father of Isaiah was: Micaiah = Micah = Micah (of Judith) = Amos = Eliezer = Merari (Beeri) = Amittai = Zephaniah (ii) Isaiah was: Isaiah = Hosea = Uzziah (of Judith) = Jonah = Nahum = Asaiah = Uriah (Urijah) Surely, I had anticipated, the names Zechariah and Berechiah - or, at least, variants, thereof - will be findable amongst this vast litany of names of, respectively, Isaiah and his father. But where are they? As to location of death by martyrdom, it was definitely in Jerusalem (Jeremiah 26:20-23): Now Uriah son of Shemaiah from Kiriath Jearim was another man who prophesied in the name of the LORD; he prophesied the same things against this city and this land as Jeremiah did. When King Jehoiakim and all his officers and officials heard his words, the king was determined to put him to death. But Uriah heard of it and fled in fear to Egypt. King Jehoiakim, however, sent Elnathan son of Akbor to Egypt, along with some other men. They brought Uriah out of Egypt and took him to King Jehoiakim, who had him struck down with a sword and his body thrown into the burial place of the common people. However, this incident could have occurred in a public place in Jerusalem, or in the palace. At least there is nothing in the prophet Jeremiah’s account of it to suggest that it had occurred in the Temple itself. Conclusion Whilst the later era is the most promising one so far, the names, Uriah and Shemaiah - even given all of my multiple alter ego names for Isaiah and his father - do not fit at all. Nor are we told that Uriah was martyred in the Temple. There was a prophet Zechariah son of Berechiah “In the eighth month of the second year of Darius, the word of the LORD came to the prophet Zechariah son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo …”. Zechariah 1:1 Let us apply our usual test to this later prophet Zechariah, to determine how well he may fit the martyred “Zechariah son of Berechiah” referred to by Jesus Christ. As to era, Zechariah son of Berechiah, being considerably later than our previous latest one, Uriah, at the time of king Jehoiakim of Judah, would qualify very well indeed considering that, as I think, Jesus was giving a vast sweep of persecuted prophets, from the very beginning, Abel, until, one might presume, his own approximate time. As to name, Zechariah is, of course, a perfect fit. But so also, this time, is his patronymic, Berechiah. Namewise, at least, it is not difficult to imagine the prophet Zechariah son of Berechiah being Jesus Christ’s Zechariah son of Berechiah. As to location of death by martyrdom, there does not appear to be any scriptural evidence that the prophet Zechariah son of Berechiah was, under this specific name, actually martyred. Nor does there appear to be any solid extra-biblical tradition that Zechariah son of Berechiah had undergone martyrdom. Conclusions so far The first two martyrs considered in this series, Zechariah son of Jehoiada, and Uriah son of Shemaiah, are – I would estimate – (and apart from other considerations) too early in time to qualify for the Zechariah son of Berechiah to whom Jesus Christ had referred in Matthew 23:35. Jesus there is giving a vast sweep of persecution history, from the very beginning, to, one would imagine, his own approximate time. The so-called Minor Prophet, Zechariah son of Berechiah, son of Iddo is a far better prospect for Jesus’s prophet, having an identical name and patronymic, and being notably later than the other two. But, as pointed out above, there is no evidence whatsoever of his martyrdom specifically under the name of Zechariah son of Berechiah. This is obviously quite a substantial problem. A new consideration However, there may be a way out of this dilemma, but only in the context of a substantially reduced chronology such as mine, according to which the Maccabean age was far closer in time (than is customarily thought) both to the prophet Daniel and the Birth of Jesus Christ. On this, see e.g. my article: Jesus Christ himself is the ‘stone’ of Daniel 2 (4) Jesus Christ himself is the 'stone' of Daniel 2 | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The aged Maccabean martyr, Eleazer, now could then fit Jesus’s description as to chronology - closeness to his own time - and place of martyrdom, in the Temple. 2 Maccabees 6:18-31: The Martyrdom of Eleazar Eleazar, one of the scribes in high position, a man now advanced in age and of noble presence, was being forced to open his mouth to eat swine’s flesh. But he, welcoming death with honour rather than life with pollution, went up to the rack of his own accord, spitting out the flesh, as all ought to go who have the courage to refuse things that it is not right to taste, even for the natural love of life. Those who were in charge of that unlawful sacrifice took the man aside because of their long acquaintance with him, and privately urged him to bring meat of his own providing, proper for him to use, and to pretend that he was eating the flesh of the sacrificial meal that had been commanded by the king, so that by doing this he might be saved from death, and be treated kindly on account of his old friendship with them. But making a high resolve, worthy of his years and the dignity of his old age and the grey hairs that he had reached with distinction and his excellent life even from childhood, and moreover according to the holy God-given law, he declared himself quickly, telling them to send him to Hades. ‘Such pretence is not worthy of our time of life,’ he said, ‘for many of the young might suppose that Eleazar in his ninetieth year had gone over to an alien religion, and through my pretence, for the sake of living a brief moment longer, they would be led astray because of me, while I defile and disgrace my old age. Even if for the present I would avoid the punishment of mortals, yet whether I live or die I will not escape the hands of the Almighty. Therefore, by bravely giving up my life now, I will show myself worthy of my old age and leave to the young a noble example of how to die a good death willingly and nobly for the revered and holy laws.’ When he had said this, he went at once to the rack. Those who a little before had acted towards him with goodwill now changed to ill will, because the words he had uttered were in their opinion sheer madness. When he was about to die under the blows, he groaned aloud and said: ‘It is clear to the Lord in his holy knowledge that, though I might have been saved from death, I am enduring terrible sufferings in my body under this beating, but in my soul I am glad to suffer these things because I fear him.’ So in this way he died, leaving in his death an example of nobility and a memorial of courage, not only to the young but to the great body of his nation. Conclusion The 90-year old Eleazer would be my favoured candidate for Jesus’s Zechariah son of Berechiah, as to era; he being later than all of the others considered above, and thereby allowing for an historical sweep by Jesus: namely, Jerusalem (Eden) from Abel right down to his own era. name and patronymic; Here I would have to posit as second name for my candidate, as the name Eleazer does not appear to be related to Zechariah. Also, we are not given a patronymic in this case. location of death by martyrdom This is where I think that we really score, with Eleazer having been slain in Jerusalem, in the Temple, in the place of sacrifice, just like Zechariah son of Berechiah was.

Location of the Temple built by King Solomon

“Can you imagine the upheaval in political and religious thinking if the Temple Mount in Jerusalem is not the site of Solomon's [Temple]? And what if the stones of the Wailing Wall are not what tradition says?” Temple: Amazing New Discoveries That Change Everything about the Location of Solomon's Temple Paperback – April 30, 2014 by Robert Cornuke Dr (Author) ________________________________________ In a book that is being heralded as "an investigative masterpiece" with "astounding archaeological and prophetic implications," TEMPLE: Amazing New Discoveries That Change Everything About the Location of Solomon's Temple, by Robert Cornuke, is sending shockwaves through the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian worlds. Can you imagine the upheaval in political and religious thinking if the Temple Mount in Jerusalem is not the site of Solomon's [Temple]? And what if the stones of the Wailing Wall are not what tradition says? In this highly-researched, exciting book, the author proposes from current archaeological excavations and Scriptural corroboration that the true temple location is not where tradition teaches. This is must reading for anyone who wants to fit together the pieces of biblical records, current geo-politics, and prophecy. Says the author, "Let the adventure begin as we now take the Bible in one hand and a shovel in the other and dig up some long-lost buried bones of biblical history. Along the way we will walk unknown passageways, known only to the prophets of old, as we search for the true location of the lost temples …. https://www.amazon.com.au/Temple-Robert-Cornuke/dp/193977909X ________________________________________

King Jehoiakim cancelled out from Matthew’s Genealogy?

by Damien F. Mackey Why are several significant kings of Judah apparently missing from Matthew’s list of Davidic kings (1:6-11)? I have broached this subject once before. On that occasion, I was prepared to defer to a reasonable view that – [somewhat like with the cancel culture of today] – certain kings were deemed by St. Matthew to have been unworthy of their generation, and hence got cancelled out by the wise Evangelist. Apparently (and this is the operative word) missing are the following names when compared with a fuller list of Judaean kings in 1 Chronicles 3:9-17: AHAZIAH JOASH AMAZIAH …. JEHOIAKIM Four kings of Judah apparently missing from Matthew’s list. But what, then, about two other kings of Judah, Jehoahaz and Zedekiah, who get left right out of the conversation? Suggestions as to why omissions may be the case have not really been convincing. For instance: - An argument that these names were omitted because they were unworthy kings falls flat when, say, goodish-baddish kings, Joash and Amaziah, are compared with such bad, but non-omitted, kings as Ahaz (1:9) and Manasseh (1:10). - And, shortness of reign cannot be a criterion for omission even though the omitted Ahaziah only “reigned for one year” (2 Kings 8:26), for the combined total reigns of two omitted kings, Joash and Amaziah, was a massive 70 years. Moreover, King Amon who only “reigned for 2 years” (2 Kings 2:19), has not been omitted (Matthew 1:10). What may be the solution? Returning to my “operative word” apparently (missing), I shall be proposing here that Joash, Amaziah and Jehoiakim do feature in Matthew’s list, but under other names (alter egos). Since I first wrote this, I have tentatively concluded that even Ahaziah, Jehoahaz and Zedekiah are not missing from the Genealogy of Matthew. At this stage, though, I have only developed Jehoahaz in this regard: Whatever did happen to King Jehoahaz of Judah? (3) Whatever did happen to King Jehoahaz of Judah? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu King Joash is listed there as Azariah (= Uzziah) (1:8); and King Amaziah, as Jotham (1:9). But my main character of interest here is Jehoiakim, who, I believe, is to be found in Matthew’s genealogical list as Manasseh (1:10). Now, to identify the extremely wicked Jehoiakim with the likewise apostate Manasseh immediately solves some problems (though it will play havoc with the conventional chronology). To think of just a few problem solvers: 1. The already mentioned one of why Matthew apparently omitted Jehoiakim; 2. Why the prophet Jeremiah would name “Manasseh son of Hezekiah” as a cause of the Babylonian Exile (Jeremiah 15:4), when Jeremiah was an actual contemporary of the exiled Jehoiakim; 3. Jeremiah’s supposed prediction of the fate of Jehoiakim can puzzle biblical scholars. Thus Fr. G. Couturier (article “Jeremiah”, TJBC 19:68): “The burial of an ass (v. 19; cf. 36:30) has always troubled scholars, for Jehoiakim seems to have had a normal burial (2 Kgs 24:10)”. 4. Tradition, but not the biblical accounts, regarding King Manasseh, have the prophet Isaiah martyred during his reign. However, a prophet is pursued to his martyrdom during the reign of Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 26:20-23). Isaiah under an alternative name? 5. My re-arrangement serves to restore the biblical “Nebuchadnezzar” (see my relevant articles). There are obvious apparent chronological problems with my new interpretation of identifying a king, Jehoiakim, with one, Manasseh, of a presumed three generations earlier. That does not affect only Judaean history, but also the related Assyro-Babylonian history. For, whereas Manasseh is known to have been taken captive to Babylon by Ashurbanipal (of 43 years of reign), Jehoiakim is said to have been taken captive to Babylon by Nebuchednezzar (of 43 years of reign): [Hold that last thought] 2 Chronicles 33:11: “So the LORD brought against them the army commanders of the king of Assyria, who took Manasseh prisoner, put a hook in his nose, bound him with bronze shackles and took him to Babylon”. 2 Chronicles 36:6: “Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon attacked him and bound him with bronze shackles to take him to Babylon”. The Bible’s treatment of the reign of King Jehoiakim (qua Jehoiakim) is brief. As with King Nebuchednezzar of Babylon, a much fuller picture emerges when the king is re-assembled through all of his component parts. A NEW HISTORY OF KING MANASSEH -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My own account of King Manasseh is totally different from this – only eleven years of his reign actually occurred while he was seated upon the throne of Jerusalem, the rest was tallied up whilst he was still alive but no longer reigning. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The typical view of King Manasseh, son of the pious king Hezekiah, would be that approximately a decade of his long reign of 55 years had passed in co-regency with his father (c. 697–687 BC; sole reign; 687–643 BC, conventional dating). After that, Manasseh had embarked upon a long phase of wickedness, interrupted when Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal took him with hooks and chains to Babylon. Whilst in Babylon, Manasseh underwent a profound conversion to Yahweh. He was returned to Judah where he, at some point, involved himself in a massive re-building and fortifying program in Jerusalem, its Temple, altar, walls. This all occurred, presumably, about half a century or more before the reign of King Jehoiakim (who is my alter ego for Manasseh). But why did Jerusalem then need to be re-built? No enemy had attacked the city. Certainly Manasseh had profaned the Temple, but he had not pulled it down. My own account of King Manasseh is totally different from all of this – only eleven years of his reign actually occurred while he was seated upon the throne of Jerusalem, the rest was tallied up whilst he was still alive but no longer reigning. King Manasseh, now as Jehoiakim, an evil king, reigned for only 11 years before being dragged off to Babylon by King Nebuchednezzar (= Esarhaddon-Ashurbanipal). There, the king of Judah underwent a massive conversion and, afterwards, returned to Jerusalem. But no longer as king. For more on all this, see e.g. my article: De-coding Jonah (3) De-coding Jonah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Manasseh’s 55 years of reign must therefore be counted like those of his son, Coniah (Jehoiachin), whose 37th year, when he was set free in Babylon, occurred whilst he was in exile, in Babylon (2 Kings 25:27): “In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of King Jehoiachin of Judah, Evil-merodach ascended to the Babylonian throne. He was kind to Jehoiachin and released him from prison on April 2 of that year”. Evil-merodach was the elusive “King Belshazzar”, son of Nebuchednezzar, of Daniel 5 and Baruch 1:11, 12. He released Coniah and exalted him. (2 Kings 25:28): “He spoke kindly to [Coniah] and gave him a seat of honor higher than those of the other kings who were with him in Babylon”. A few years later, now during the Medo-Persian era, King Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther would similarly exalt Coniah, whose alter ego was Amon (an Egyptian name). He, King Amon of Judah, was the Aman, or Haman, of the Book of Esther. Esther 3:1-2: After these events, King Ahasuerus honored Haman son of Hammedatha, the Agagite [should read “captive”], elevating him and giving him a seat of honor higher than that of all the other nobles. All the royal officials at the king’s gate knelt down and paid honor to Haman, for the king had commanded this concerning him. But Mordecai would not kneel down or pay him honor. “Hammedatha”, above, was a woman, Hamutal, the queen mother at the time of Coniah-Haman (see e.g. Jeremiah 52:1).