Monday, September 15, 2025

King David’s Hymnody impacted ancient world

by Damien F. Mackey “Psalm 104 is almost a duplicate of the Egyptian Hymn to Aten”. Facts About Religion There is an abundance of articles, and some YouTube videos, too, drawing parallels between the incredibly alike Psalm 104 of King David of Israel and pharaoh Akhnaton’s (Akhenaten’s) Hymn to the Aton (Aten). The following example neatly tabulates comparisons between these ancient texts: https://factsaboutreligion.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/psalm-104-is-almost-a-duplicate-of-the-egyptian-hymn-to-aten/ Psalm 104 is almost a duplicate of the Egyptian Hymn to Aten. On the wall of a 14th century BCE tomb in Egypt archaeologists found a beautiful hymn to the god Aten. What is really strange is that the Pharaoh Akhenaten (1352-1336) who lived in an era when everyone believed in many gods, chose to believe in only one, Aten. In fact, many scholars have argued that Pharaoh Akhenaten is the earliest documented example of a monotheist in history, though others argue that he was a henotheist (thought many gods existed, but chose to worship only one.) What’s really curious about the Great Hymn to the Aten is that it closely mirrors Psalm 104 in the Hebrew Bible as a song of praise to the creator, though written hundreds of years before. Biblical scholars and historians disagree as to whether these two hymns are actually related by way of influencing one another, or whether both were independently written. In any case, the similarities are fascinating. A logical conclusion could be that King David (c. 1000 BC) was indebted to Akhnaton, more than three centuries before David, for the inspiration to compose his Psalm 104. Some would put it more bluntly. It was a case of plagiarism on the part of the Bible! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDI3cMDzqEY Biblical Plagariasm? | Akhenaten’s Hymn to Aten Vs. Psalm 104 | Audiobook And so we must suppose it must have been - that is, until Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky turned things upside down and inside out in his Ages in Chaos (1952) and Oedipus and Akhnaton (1960) reconstructions of ancient history, demonstrating that pharaoh Akhnaton actually belonged to the C9th BC, rather than to the C14th - necessitating now that King David could not possibly have known about Akhnaton and his Hymn, whose advents were still some centuries in the future. From this superior chronological base, Dr. Velikovsky was able most convincingly to identify a succession of Syrian (Amurru) kings approximately contemporaneous with Akhnaton and the El Amarna (EA) age, Abdi-ashirta and Aziru, with, respectively, Ben-Hadad and his successor Hazael – two mighty Syrian kings well known from the Old Testament. This was an aspect of Dr. Velikovsky’s challenging revision that was very well received. Already, his new revision (written far earlier than today’s so-called New Chronology), was proving itself to be fruitful. See my recent article: An accurate revision of history is a ‘tree’ bearing ample fruit (5) An accurate revision of history is a 'tree' bearing ample fruit And it doesn’t stop there. I, building on this far preferable chronology for Akhnaton and the El Amarna (EA) period, have been able to show that Dr. Velikovsky’s Aziru/Hazael composite was the same ruler as the Syrian ‘condottiere’, Arsa (Irsu)/Aziru, of the Great Harris Papyrus, who invaded Egypt and who overthrew the gods there. AI Overview “The "Arsa (Irsu)" or Aziru mentioned in the Great Harris Papyrus is a Syrian who took control of Egypt and its gods …”. Dr. Velikovsky had really missed a trick here. From there, it not such a great step to identify the foreign invader, Aziru/Hazael/Arsa, as pharaoh Akhnaton himself who so greatly undermined the national Egyptian gods. And, as one will find upon reading my article: Akhnaton’s Theophany (5) Akhnaton's Theophany the new chronology cuts even deeper yet, into the Bible, fully accounting for Akhnaton’s celebrated monotheism – for monotheism (not henotheism, or something else) indeed it was. With EA re-located now to the C9th BC, then the United Kingdom of Israel (Saul, David and Solomon, c. 1000 BC) could be estimated by Dr. Velikovsky to have corresponded in time with the rise of the magnificent Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt (c. C16th BC, conventional dating) – in whose later stages we encounter Akhnaton. Relevant for this article is Dr. Velikovsky’s establishing of twin pillars of revision: Hatshepsut as the biblical “Queen Sheba” and pharaoh Thutmose III as the biblical “Shishak king of Egypt”, who despoiled the Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem shortly after King Solomon had passed away. These twin identifications have had to undergo a rocky ground-breaking of trial and error, however, before they could be securely established as pillars of revision. For Dr. Velikovsky, an intuitive genius who could arrive at right identifications, often took quite wrong paths, adopting spurious methodologies and archaeologies, to get there. Quite the opposite of some of his critics, who, fussing over and analysing minute details, and belabouring the reader with endless charts and numbers, hardly ever seem to arrive at any satisfactory conclusions. For my same conclusions as Dr. Velikovsky in these two instances, but with significantly different arguments, see e.g., for “Sheba”: The vicissitudinous life of Solomon’s pulchritudinous wife (8) The vicissitudinous life of Solomon's pulchritudinous wife and: The Queen of Beer(sheba) (8) The Queen of Beer(sheba) While, for “Shishak”, see: Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III’s march on Jerusalem (8) Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III's march on Jerusalem That background sets us up, now, to consider Davidic (Solomonic) and biblical influence in the inscriptions of Hatshepsut, who had grown up as a princess in Israel. In my article: Solomon and Sheba (8) Solomon and Sheba I gave the following examples in which biblical wisdom can be glimpsed amidst the stiff and formulaïc Egyptian inscriptions: …. Scriptural Influence (i) An Image from Genesis After Hatshepsut had completed her Punt expedition, she gathered her nobles and proclaimed the great things she had done. Senenmut and Nehesi had places of honour. Hatshepsut reminded them of Amon's oracle commanding her to ‘... establish for him a Punt in his house, to plant the trees of God's Land beside his temple in his garden, according as he commanded’ …. At the conclusion of her speech there is further scriptural image ‘I have made for [Amon-Ra] a Punt in his garden at Thebes ... it is big enough for him to walk about in’; Baikie … noted that this is ‘a phrase which seems to take one back to the Book of Genesis and its picture of God walking in the Garden of Eden in the cool of the evening’. This inscription speaks of Amon-Ra's love for Hatshepsut in terms almost identical to those used by the Queen of Sheba about the God of Israel's love for Solomon and his nation. Compare the italicised parts of Hatshepsut's ‘... according to the command of ... Amon ... in order to bring for him the marvels of every country, because he so much loves the King of ... Egypt, Maatkara [i.e. Hatshepsut], for his father Amen-Ra, Lord of Heaven, Lord of Earth, more than the other kings who have been in this land for ever ...’ …. with the italicised words in a song of praise spoken to Solomon by the Queen of Sheba ‘Blessed be the Lord your God, who has delighted in you and set you on the throne as king for the Lord your God! Because your God loved Israel and would establish them for ever ...’ (II Chronicles 98) …. (ii) An Image from the Psalms When Hatshepsut's commemorative obelisks were com¬pleted, she had the usual formal words inscribed on them. However, Baikie states that …: ‘The base inscriptions ... are of more importance, chiefly because they again strike that personal note which is so seldom heard from these ancient records, and give us an actual glimpse into the mind and the heart of a great woman. I do not think that it is fanciful to see in these utterances the expression of something very like a genuine piety struggling to find expression underneath all the customary verbiage of the Egyptian monumental formulae’. In language that ‘might have come straight out of the Book Psalms’, the queen continues, ‘I did it under [Amon-Ra's] command; it was he who led me. I conceived no works without his doing .... I slept not because of his temple; I erred not from that which he commanded. ... I entered into the affairs of his heart. I turned not my back on the City of the All-Lord; but turned to it the face. I know that Karnak is God's dwelling upon earth; ... the Place of his Heart; Which wears his beauty ...’. Baikie continues, unaware that it really was the Psalms and the sapiential words of David and Solomon, that had influenced Hatshepsut's prayer: ‘The sleepless eagerness of the queen for the glory of the temple of her god, and her assurance of the unspeakable sanctity of Karnak as the divine dwelling-place, find expression in almost the very words which the Psalmist used to express his ... duty towards the habitation of the God of Israel, and his certainty of Zion's sanctity as the abiding-place of Jehovah. ‘Surely I will not come into the tabernacle of my house, nor go up into my bed; I will not give sleep to mine eyes, or slumber to mine eyelids. Until I find out a place for the Lord, an habitation for the mighty God of Jacob. - For the Lord hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation. This is my rest for ever; here will I dwell; for I have desired it’.’ (iii) An Image from Proverbs In another related verse of the Punt reliefs about Amon-Ra leading the expedition to ‘the Myrrh-terraces ... a glorious region of God's Land’, the god speaks of creating the fabled Land of Punt in playful terms reminiscent of Solomon's words about Wisdom's playful rôle in the work of Creation (Proverbs 8:12, 30-31). In the Egyptian version there is also reference to Hathor, the personification of wisdom …: ‘... it is indeed a place of delight. I have made it for myself, in order to divert my heart, together with ... Hathor ... mistress of Punt …’. Interestingly, the original rôles of Hathor and Isis in the Heliopolitan ‘theology’ were similar to those of Moses's sister and mother (the god Horus reminding of Moses). Grimal … says ‘Isis hid Horus in the marshes of the Delta ... with the help of the goddess Hathor, the wet-nurse in the form of a cow. The child grew up ...’. In The Queen of Sheba - Hatshepsut, I had compared this Egyptian account with the action of Moses's mother and sister in Exodus 2:3-4, 7, 10. (iv) Images from the Song of Songs In the weighing scene of the goods acquired from Punt (i.e. Lebanon), Hatshepsut boasts ….: ‘[Her] Majesty [herself] is acting with her two hands, the best of myrrh is upon all her limbs, her fragrance is divine dew, her odour is mingled with that of Punt, her skin is gilded with electrum, shining as do the stars in the midst of the festival-hall, before the whole land’. Compare this with verses from King Solomon's love poem, Song of Songs (also called the Song of Solomon), e.g. ‘My hands dripped with myrrh, my fingers with liquid myrrh; Sweeter your love than wine, the scent of your perfume than any spice; Your lips drip honey, and the scent of your robes is like the scent of Lebanon’ (4:10-11; 55). (cf. 4:6, 14; 5:1, 5). [Hyam] Maccoby … went so far as to suggest that the Song of Songs was written by Solomon for the Queen of Sheba/Hatshepsut. Clearly, the poem is written in the context of marriage (e.g. 3:11). We read, partly following Maccoby …: l. ‘To a mare among Pharaoh's cavalry would 1 compare you, my darling’ (1:9). This reference to Egypt is strange for an Israelite girl, but natural if the beloved was an Egyptian. 2. ‘Black am I but beautiful, O daughters of Jerusalem, like the tents of Qedar, like the curtains of Solomon. Do not gaze at me because I am swarthy, because the sun has blackened me’ (16). A darker complexion would not be surprising in an Egyptian woman. 3. Perhaps the sentence ‘Who is she that cometh out of the wilderness ... perfumed with myrrh and frankincense, with all the fragrant powders of the merchant?’ (3:6), refers to the visit by the Queen of Sheba, who brought a great store of perfumes. She gave Solomon ‘a very great store of spices ... there came no more such abundance of spices as these which the Queen of Sheba gave to King Solomon’ (I Kings 10:10). 4. ‘My mother's sons were angry with me. They made me the keeper of the vineyards, but mine own vineyard I have not kept’ (1:6). It is a puzzle that the female here is represented as a humble vineyard-watcher but elsewhere she appears as a great lady. Maybe here she is speaking metaphorically about her country (and her native reli¬gion?) as a ‘vineyard’? The anger of her ‘brothers’ would be understandable, perhaps, if she were a princess of Egypt. Her involvement with Solomon would have unwelcome politi-cal and religious implications. 5. ‘O that you were as my brother ... I would lead you and bring you to my mother's house’ (8:1-2). She perhaps regrets that Solomon is not an Egyptian, who could live permanently with her. What has been presented here probably represents only a very small portion of Israel’s wisdom influence upon the ancient nations. The only other theme that I shall touch on here, most relevant to King David of Israel, is the notion of the king as shepherd. I have already written something about this in my article: Shepherd King contemporaries of King David (10) Shepherd King contemporaries of King David And compare this one: “Prince Rim-Sîn, you are the shepherd, the desire of his heart”, with the shepherd David’s being “a man after my own heart” (Acts 13:22). CONTEMPORARY SHEPHERD KINGS One could describe David’s life during his service to King Saul, as, ‘never a dull moment’. King Saul was indeed a mercurial character, totally unpredictable. Naturally, Samuel had been nervous about visiting Jesse of Bethlehem for the purpose of anointing one of his sons to the kingship (I Samuel 16:1-2): The LORD said to Samuel, ‘How long will you mourn for Saul, since I have rejected him as king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and be on your way; I am sending you to Jesse of Bethlehem. I have chosen one of his sons to be king’. But Samuel said, ‘How can I go? If Saul hears about it, he will kill me’. Even the wise Samuel had been inclined to judge by appearances (“height”) the worth of Jesse’s sons (v. 6): “When they arrived, Samuel saw Eliab and thought, ‘Surely the LORD’s anointed stands here before the LORD’.” But, in an interesting glimpse into the Lord’s thinking, we then read (v. 7): “But the LORD said to Samuel, ‘Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart’.” Had not Saul himself, who would so miserably fail as king, been a man of the most striking height and appearance (I Samuel 9:2): “Kish had a son named Saul, as handsome a young man as could be found anywhere in Israel, and he was a head taller than anyone else”? David, the youngest of Jesse’s eight sons, was not even present (v. 11): “‘There is still the youngest’, Jesse answered. ‘He is tending the sheep’.” It is this characteristic that would mark David’s kingship, ‘tending his sheep’. He was, like Jesus Christ, a true “Shepherd King”, modelling himself upon “the Lord [who was his] Shepherd” (Psalm 22, Douay). Kings at this time (revised) came to describe themselves from this time onwards as Shepherds. For example (Hammurabi Stele): I, Hammurabi, the shepherd, have gathered abundance and plenty, have stormed the four quarters of the world, have magnified the fame of Babylon, and have elated the mind of Marduk my lord. And compare this one: “Prince Rim-Sîn, you are the shepherd, the desire of his heart”, with the shepherd David’s being “a man after my own heart” (Acts 13:22). Rim-Sin, king of Larsa, was an older contemporary of Hammurabi of Babylon. Rim-sin’s prayerful sentiments can be very David-like – even quasi-monotheistic: “-7......, who is fitted for holy lustration rites, Rim-Sîn, purification priest of An, who is fitted for pure prayers rites, whom you summoned from the holy womb ......, has been elevated to lordship over the Land; he has been installed as shepherd over the black-headed. The staff which strengthens the Land has been placed in his hand. The shepherd's crook which guides the living people has been attached at his side. As he steps forward before you, he is lavishly supplied with everything that he offers with his pure hands. 8-20Your attentive youth, your beloved king, the good shepherd Rìm-Sîn, who determines what should be brought as offerings for his life, joyfully pours out offerings for you in the holy royal cultic locations which are perfect for the cultic vessels: sweet-smelling milk and grain, rich produce of the Land, riches of the meadows, unending abundance, alcoholic drink, glistening wine, very sweet emmer beer fermented with pure substances, pure ...... powerful beer made doubly strong with wine, a drink for your lordship; double-strength beer, superior beer, befitting your holy hands, pale honey exported from the mountains, which you have specifically requested, butter from holy cows, ghee as is proper for you as prince; pressed oil, best oil of the first pressing, and yellow cream, the pride of the cow-pen, for the holy abode of your godhead. 21-26Accept from him with your joyful heart pure food to eat as food, and pure water to drink as water: offerings made for you. Grant his prayer: you are indeed respected. When he humbly speaks fair words to you, speak so that he may live. Guide him correctly at the holy lordly cultic locations, at the august lordly cultic locations. Greet him as he comes to perform his cultic functions. 27-37May his kingship exist forever in your presence. May he be the first of the Land, called (?) lord and prince. Following your commands he shall be as unshakeable as heaven and earth; may he be ...... over the numerous people. May the mother goddesses among the gods attend to his utterances; may they sit in silence before that which he says, and bring restorative life. May he create heart's joy for the population, and be the good provider for their days. May the terrifying splendour that he wears cover like a heavy raincloud the king who is hated by him. May all the best what he has be brought here as their offerings. 38-52The good shepherd Rim-Sîn looks to you as to his personal god. Grant him ...... a life that he loves, and bestow joy on him. May you renew it like the daylight. As he prays to you, attend to his ....... When he speaks most fair words to you, sustain his life power for him. May he be respected ......, and have no rivals. As he makes supplication to you, make his days long. In the ...... of life, ...... the power of kingship. May his correct words be ever ....... May he create heart's joy in his ....... ...... make the restorative ...... rest upon him, the lion of lordship. When he beseeches you, let his exterior (?) ...... shine. Give him ...... life ....... May you bring ...... for his life with your holy words. Hear him favourably as he lifts his hands in prayer, and decide a good destiny for him. 53-69As his life ......, so may it delight his land. Cast the four quarters at his feet, and let him be their ruler. Reclining in meadows in his own land, may he pass his days joyously with you ....... In the palace, lengthen the days and reign of Rim-Sîn, your compliant king who is there for you; whose name you, Acimbabbar, have named, ...... life. ...... the august good headdress. ...... due praise for his life. ...... the throne, and may the land be safe. May satisfaction and joy fill his heart. May ...... be good for his ....... Place in his hand the sceptre of justice; may the numerous people be bound (?) to it. Shining brightly, the constant ...... in his ....... Confer on him the benefit of months of delight and joy, and bestow on him numerous years as infinite in number as the stars in the lapis-lazuli coloured heavens. In his kingship may he enjoy a happy reign forever. 70-85May you preserve the king, the good provider. May you preserve Rim-Sîn, the good provider. May his reign be a source of delight to you. Lengthen the days of his life, and give him kingship over the restored land. For him gladden the heart of the land, for him make the roads of the land passable. For him make the Land speak with a single voice. May you preserve alive Rim-Sîn, your shepherd with the compliant heart. May his canals bring water for him, and may barley grow for him in the fields. May the orchards and gardens bring forth syrup and wine for him, and may the marshes deliver fish and fowl for him in abundance. May the cattle-pens and sheepfolds teem with animals, and may rain from the heavens, whose waters are sporadic, be regular for him. May the palace be filled with long life. O Rim-Sîn, you are my king!” Compare, for example, King David’s Psalm 60 (Douay), otherwise Psalm 61:6-7: ‘Increase the days of the king’s life, his years for many generations. May he be enthroned in God’s presence forever; appoint your love and faithfulness to protect him’. According to Timothy S. Laniak (Shepherds After My Own Heart: Pastoral Traditions and Leadership in the Bible, p. 63): “By the beginning of the second millennium BC [sic] Akkadian and Amorite kings were using conventional shepherd language to describe themselves”. When David - young, but mature beyond his years - indignant at the mockery being publicly and loudly uttered by the Gath-ite champion, Goliath - ‘defying the armies of the living God’ - was told by King Saul that he was not experienced enough to fight against the Philistine, he will apprise the king of the extreme dangers that he had already faced as a shepherd: ‘When a lion or a bear came and carried off a sheep from the flock, I went after it …’. Here follows David’s exchange on this occasion with King Saul (I Samuel 17:32-37): David said to Saul, ‘Let no one lose heart on account of this Philistine; your servant will go and fight him’. Saul replied, ‘You are not able to go out against this Philistine and fight him; you are only a young man, and he has been a warrior from his youth’. But David said to Saul, ‘Your servant has been keeping his father’s sheep. When a lion or a bear came and carried off a sheep from the flock, I went after it, struck it and rescued the sheep from its mouth. When it turned on me, I seized it by its hair, struck it and killed it. Your servant has killed both the lion and the bear; this uncircumcised Philistine will be like one of them, because he has defied the armies of the living God. The LORD who rescued me from the paw of the lion and the paw of the bear will rescue me from the hand of this Philistine’. Saul said to David, ‘Go, and the LORD be with you’. Young David had been taking supplies from his father Jesse back to his three oldest brothers, and then returning “to tend his father’s sheep at Bethlehem” (vv. 14-19). Now these were the very three sons, the “firstborn was Eliab; the second, Abinadab; and the third, Shammah”, whom Samuel had first considered for the anointing (I Samuel 16:6-9). Yet here they were frozen almost to a standstill in the face of the angry Goliath (“all the Israelites were dismayed and terrified”), while David, the youngest of them, was aflame with indignation. It is a famous story (17:1-11): Now the Philistines gathered their forces for war and assembled at Sokoh in Judah. They pitched camp at Ephes Dammim, between Sokoh and Azekah. Saul and the Israelites assembled and camped in the Valley of Elah and drew up their battle line to meet the Philistines. The Philistines occupied one hill and the Israelites another, with the valley between them. A champion named Goliath, who was from Gath, came out of the Philistine camp. His height was six cubits and a span. He had a bronze helmet on his head and wore a coat of scale armor of bronze weighing five thousand shekels; on his legs he wore bronze greaves, and a bronze javelin was slung on his back. His spear shaft was like a weaver’s rod, and its iron point weighed six hundred shekels. His shield bearer went ahead of him. Goliath stood and shouted to the ranks of Israel, ‘Why do you come out and line up for battle? Am I not a Philistine, and are you not the servants of Saul? Choose a man and have him come down to me. If he is able to fight and kill me, we will become your subjects; but if I overcome him and kill him, you will become our subjects and serve us’. Then the Philistine said, ‘This day I defy the armies of Israel! Give me a man and let us fight each other’. On hearing the Philistine’s words, Saul and all the Israelites were dismayed and terrified. Eliab, the oldest of Jesse’s boys, the one upon whom Samuel had first fastened, would severely reprimand his youngest brother for intruding into the army’s affairs, also implying that David may have been neglecting their father’s sheep. But we had already been told that David, who was only obeying his father’s instructions, anyway, had “left the flock in the care of a shepherd”. Here follows the feisty David’s exchanges with the Israelite soldiers and with Eliab (vv. 20-31): Early in the morning David left the flock in the care of a shepherd, loaded up and set out, as Jesse had directed. He reached the camp as the army was going out to its battle positions, shouting the war cry. Israel and the Philistines were drawing up their lines facing each other. David left his things with the keeper of supplies, ran to the battle lines and asked his brothers how they were. As he was talking with them, Goliath, the Philistine champion from Gath, stepped out from his lines and shouted his usual defiance, and David heard it. Whenever the Israelites saw the man, they all fled from him in great fear. Now the Israelites had been saying, ‘Do you see how this man keeps coming out? He comes out to defy Israel. The king will give great wealth to the man who kills him. He will also give him his daughter in marriage and will exempt his family from taxes in Israel’. David asked the men standing near him, ‘What will be done for the man who kills this Philistine and removes this disgrace from Israel? Who is this uncircumcised Philistine that he should defy the armies of the living God?’ They repeated to him what they had been saying and told him, ‘This is what will be done for the man who kills him’. When Eliab, David’s oldest brother, heard him speaking with the men, he burned with anger at him and asked, ‘Why have you come down here? And with whom did you leave those few sheep in the wilderness? I know how conceited you are and how wicked your heart is; you came down only to watch the battle’. ‘Now what have I done?’ said David. ‘Can’t I even speak?’ He then turned away to someone else and brought up the same matter, and the men answered him as before. What David said was overheard and reported to Saul, and Saul sent for him. It has been said: “One man’s meat is another man’s poison”. King Saul’s armour, which the huge Benjaminite wore easily, was nothing but cumbersome to the smaller man, David. To use another saying, it fell ‘all over him like a cheap suit’. Vv. 38-39: Then Saul dressed David in his own tunic. He put a coat of armor on him and a bronze helmet on his head. David fastened on his sword over the tunic and tried walking around, because he was not used to them. ‘I cannot go in these’, he said to Saul, ‘because I am not used to them’ So he took them off”. Then, it is back to his shepherding experience (v. 40): “Then he took his staff in his hand, chose five smooth stones from the stream, put them in the pouch of his shepherd’s bag and, with his sling in his hand, approached the Philistine”. Christians can regard David’s “five smooth stones”, symbolically, as the five wounds of Christ, and again, with the “sling”, as the five-decade Rosary. Thus Frits Albers introduced his book, “… five smooth stones …” (1998).

Saturday, September 13, 2025

The Bronze Serpent

‘As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life’. John 3:14-15 Jake Allstaedt has written (2020): https://www.1517.org/articles/jesus-is-our-bronze-serpent Jesus Is Our Bronze Serpent Looking at a bronze serpent on a pole cannot remove deadly venom coursing through your veins. But it can if God says it can. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16) is a well-known verse. What isn’t so well-known is the sentence right before it: “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life” (John 3:14-15). That short, seemingly obscure reference is a throwback to an event in the life of God’s people, the Israelites, as they journeyed in the wilderness after having been freed from slavery in Egypt. Understanding that story will enrich our understanding of who Jesus is and what He came to do for us. So, what happened? Throughout the Israelites’ journey in the wilderness God took care of them. He gave them bread from heaven and water to drink. God graciously provided for their every need, yet they turned against Him in the desire for something more than what they had: “And the people spoke against God and against Moses, ‘Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we loathe this worthless food’” (Numbers 21:5). Oh, there was food and water. God made sure of that. This complaint exposed their selfish discontentment with what they had been given. They were ungrateful, forgetting that they had been rescued from slavery. These gracious provisions weren’t enough; they wanted something more. God gave them something more: fiery serpents. These serpents bit the people and many died. It was because of these serpents that the Israelites realized that they had sinned against God. They asked Moses to pray for them, that God might take away the snakes. Moses did as the people asked and God had mercy on them. He commanded Moses to lift up a bronze serpent on a pole so that everyone who was bitten could look at it and live. Scientifically speaking, that doesn’t even make sense. Looking at a bronze serpent on a pole cannot remove deadly venom coursing through your veins. But it can if God says it can. God spoke. He attached His promise to that bronze serpent and the Israelites looked to it in faith—believing that God would save them through the way He provided. Let’s go back to John 3:14-15: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.” Jesus came to this world because deadly venom courses through our veins too. It’s called sin. Adam and Eve, our first parents, were “snake-bitten.” Like the Israelites in the wilderness, God graciously provided for their every need, yet they turned against Him in the desire for something more than what they had. The ancient serpent, Satan, tempted them and they gave in, bringing sin into their lives and into creation itself. The venom of sin has passed from generation to generation. You and I have it. Our kids have it. It’s why you’ll never have to teach your children how to be bad. It’s why our hearts are filled with so much hatred, violence, abuse, racism, pride, selfishness, jealousy, adultery—it’s why we journey through the wilderness of this life often craving something more than what God has graciously provided. We have a sin problem. We’ve inherited it and we commit it. This venom is deadly and it is killing us. But God has mercy on us. Immediately after Adam and Eve sinned, God promised a Savior who would crush the head of the serpent, undoing the deadly consequences of sin, while He himself would be bitten. This Savior, Jesus, the Son of God, was lifted up to death on the pole of the cross. When Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, he lifted up that which was killing the people. God, in effect, was declaring, “Look! That which is killing you is now hanging on a pole! I have put away the snake and its venom. I have put away your sin. Look to this serpent in faith and live!” Jesus is our bronze serpent—He became that which was killing us! St. Paul declares in 2 Corinthians 5:21: “For our sake he made him (that is, Jesus) to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” Jesus was “snake-bitten” for us. He became our sin on the cross—the sin we’ve inherited, the sins we have committed, and the sins we will commit—all of it hung on the pole of the cross in the person of Jesus. Look! The sin that is killing you is hanging on the pole of the cross! God has put away your sin. Look to Jesus in faith and live! Let’s read the words of John 3:16 one more time: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” God had mercy on Adam and Eve because He loved them. He had mercy on the Israelites because He loved them. Why does He have mercy on you? Because He loves you. One more time: Because He loves you. He loves us so much that, even though we’ve turned against Him, forgetting His goodness and craving more than He graciously provides, He sent His Son, Jesus, to become our sin and die our death to ensure that you will not perish, but have eternal life. That’s love right there. Anyone—anyone—who looks to Jesus in faith will not perish but have eternal life. 14th September, 2025 Feast of the Triumph of the Holy Cross

Friday, September 12, 2025

Peter as a potential descendant of the Simeonite prophet Jonah

by Damien F. Mackey Maybe Jesus called Peter “Simon son of Jonah” (Matthew 16:17) because Peter actually was a descendant of the prophet Jonah? First of all, there are several extraordinary likenesses between the stories of Peter and Jonah. James Jackson has picked up some of these at: https://jamesjackson.blog/2024/10/21/day-293-again-why-does-jesus-call-peter-simon-bar-jonah-in-matthew-16/ …. Why Does Jesus Call Peter Simon Bar-Jonah in Matthew 16? “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭16‬:‭4‬ ‭ESV‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬ ________________________________________ “And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭16‬:‭17‬ ‭ESV‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬ Through the Bible: Matthew 16 In Matthew 16, Jesus tells the Pharisees and Sadducees who ask Him to show them a sign that “no sign will be given to [them] except the sign of Jonah” (verse 4). This is a repeat of an earlier scene in Matthew (Matthew 12:38-42); only this time, Jesus doesn’t give the extended explanation of what He means by the sign of Jonah: For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Matthew 12:40) My question was, why repeat it at all? As I’ve said before, every word matters in the gospels. What is said, when it’s said, what is left out. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the human writers wrote exactly what God intended. So there has to be a reason. A possible answer may be that in Matthew 16:17, Jesus calls Peter “Simon Bar-Jonah” for the first and only time in Scripture. So is it a coincidence that Matthew repeats the “sign of Jonah” phrase, and calls Peter “Simon son of Jonah” just thirteen verses later? Again, in God’s inspired Word, there are no coincidences. Let’s look at the two stories: Peter has just made his great confession of Christ. It’s a great moment for him. He gets a new name. No longer is he Simon, son of Jonah, the prophet who was swallowed by a fish. Now he’s Peter, a name which means “rock.” And Jesus is going to build his church on this rock (see Day 293: What Did Jesus Mean by “Upon This Rock?”). Only, Peter doesn’t always seem very rock-like. Just a few verses later, Jesus is going to rebuke him and compare him to Satan (see Matthew 16:23). Later, Peter will sink even lower. Given a chance to speak up for Jesus, he denies him three times (see Matthew 26:69-75). Overcome with grief and shame, Peter flees the courtyard and weeps bitterly. So let’s think about Jonah. He was given a message. He didn’t want to proclaim it. So he ran, and was swallowed by a fish, where he stayed for three days. Then, the fish spits him back onto the beach, and God reinstates him as a prophet, giving him the same message he did at the beginning. (See Jonah 2:10-3:1) On the night Jesus was arrested, Peter was truly the son of Jonah. He was warming himself at a charcoal fire (John 18:18), when a servant girl asked him if he was one of Jesus’ disciples. At that moment, the Rock, who had once stood at the Gates of Hell and proclaimed Jesus as the Christ, had a golden opportunity to deliver God’s message. Instead, he denied that he even knew Jesus. Then he ran away and “wept bitterly.” I would imagine he spent the next three days feeling like he had sunk about as low as a person could sink. Kind of like being in the belly of a fish. After Jesus was resurrected, John’s gospel records an amazing scene between Jesus and Peter; a scene that “just so happened” to take place on a beach. And involved fish. And a charcoal fire. “When they got out on land, they saw a charcoal fire in place, with fish laid out on it, and bread. Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish that you have just caught.” So Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the net ashore, full of large fish, 153 of them. And although there were so many, the net was not torn.” ‭‭John‬ ‭21‬:‭9‬-‭11‬ ‭ESV‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬ And there on the beach, Jesus reinstated Peter. He gave Peter three chances to confess his love for Jesus—one for every time Peter had denied him. Then, just as God gave Jonah the same message as He had given him at the beginning (“Go to Nineveh, that great city, and preach against it”); Jesus repeated the same words to Peter in John 21:19 as He did in Matthew 4:19: “Follow me.” Beloved, we are all going to have our share of “Sons of Jonah” moments. Times when God tells us to do something, and we let fear, or selfishness, or rebellion swallow us up. But sin has a way of chewing us up and spitting us out, leaving us empty and washed up. That’s when Jesus says, “Come have breakfast.” He lovingly restores. He extends His invitation to follow Him. And we go from being a son of Jonah to a child of the king. [End of quote] This nice little piece by James Jackson does not, however, touch upon the amazingly like situations of Jonah wallowing in the sea, drowning, and being rescued by a great fish, and Peter wallowing in the sea, drowning, and being rescued by Jesus Christ, symbolised by a fish: The great fish in the Book of Jonah, apart from symbolising the “king of Nineveh” (Jonah 3:6), Nebuchednezzar, who swallows Israel whole, only to spit her out (Jeremiah 51:34), more benignly symbolises Jesus Christ as Saviour. +++++ The historical reconstruction of this era has proven to be extremely complex. It is all set out in step-by-step detail in my article: De-coding Jonah (1) De-coding Jonah In short, the prophet Jonah (var. Nahum) is, among his many guises, the great Isaiah; while Jonah’s “king of Nineveh” is, as implied by Jeremiah, King Nebuchednezzar - especially in his alter ego guise as the potent king, Esarhaddon, (like Nebuchednezzar suffering a terrible, enduring sickness; re-building Babylon; and attacking Egypt). For the pervasive Simeonite element amongst some famous prophets of Israel, including Jonah (Nahum)/Isaiah, see my article: God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon https://www.academia.edu/69393027/God_can_raise_up_prophets_at_will_even_from_a_shepherd_of_Simeon Although the prophets of Israel were traditionally Levites (Moses, Samuel, Jeremiah, and so on), a Simeonite family had once been selected to play a major prophetic rôle of long duration, commencing with the patriarchal Amos, an avowed non prophet (Amos 7:14-15): “Amos answered Amaziah, ‘I was neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but I was a shepherd, and I also took care of sycamore-fig trees. But the Lord took me from tending the flock and said to me, ‘Go, prophesy to my people Israel’.’” Amos was the same as Micah, who has come to be known as “Amos redivivus”: Prophet Micah as Amos (2) Prophet Micah as Amos and we find this same Micah, a Simeonite, named in the Book of Judith as the father of Uzziah (Isaiah) who was now stationed in “Bethulia”, the sacred northern fort of Bethel (Shechem) to which Amos himself, a southerner, had been sent to minister. Judith 8:14-15: “Then the Israelites came down from their town and found [Achior]; they untied him and brought him into Bethulia and placed him before the magistrates of their town, who in those days were Uzziah son of Micah, of the tribe of Simeon, and Chabris son of Gothoniel, and Charmis son of Melchiel”. That Jonah, under an alternative name of his as Nahum (cf. Tobit 14:8 KJV; 14:8 GNT), was a Simeonite, is the traditionally accepted view: https://www.monasticrepublic.com/en/orthodox-synaxarion/december/prophet-nahum?srsltid=AfmBOoo5FJ1_mxfGHzITh3__sDGBVtazsizT7n9ufI4mD8xS_RHF7O0j “Nahum is interpreted as "rest" or "comfort" to all. He was from the tribe of Simeon …”. Amos (Micah) I have also identified as the prophet Zephaniah (Sophonias), who is likewise considered to have been a Simeonite: https://www.oca.org/saints/lives/2021/12/03/103465-prophet-zephaniah “The Prophet Zephaniah (Sophonias) was a contemporary of the Prophet Jeremiah and the Prophetess Oldama. He was from the tribe of Simeon …”. “Oldama” here is Huldah, a prophetess, who, too, was Simeonite: the heroine, Judith: Judith and Huldah (4) Judith and Huldah This long-lived prophetic trio, Amos, Isaiah (Jonah) and Judith (under all of their various names), collectively played an enormous part in the history of Israel and Judah, during some its most tumultuous times. Whereas the Patriarch, Jacob, had been furious with his sons Simeon and Levi for their bloody ruse against the Shechemites, after their sister, Dinah, had been raped (Genesis 34), Judith, for her part, who completely ignores Levi in favour of her eponymous ancestor Simeon, is full of praise for what he had done (Judith 9:2-4): ‘O Lord God of my ancestor Simeon, to whom you gave a sword to take revenge on those strangers who had torn off a virgin’s clothing to defile her, and exposed her thighs to put her to shame, and polluted her womb to disgrace her; for you said, ‘It shall not be done’—yet they did it; so you gave up their rulers to be killed, and their bed, which was ashamed of the deceit they had practiced, was stained with blood, and you struck down slaves along with princes, and princes on their thrones. You gave up their wives for booty and their daughters to captivity, and all their booty to be divided among your beloved children who burned with zeal for you and abhorred the pollution of their blood and called on you for help. O God, my God, hear me also, a widow’. And she, too, will, like Simeon, take to the sword to slay the foe, the Assyrian “Holofernes”, who was intent upon seducing her (12:12) - Judith thereby being a symbol of the inviolate Jerusalem towards which the Assyrian army was heading with brutal intent. Peter - not only a son of Jonah, hence, possibly, a descendant of the prophet Jonah, a Simeonite - likewise bore the name of the eponymous Simeon. He was Simeon bar Jonah! And he, like Simeon and Judith before him, would brandish a sword (John 18:10): “Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus)”. Even the alternative name of Peter’s father, John (cf. John 1:42 and 21:15-17), recalls, in its Greek form of Ιωάννης, the Jonah like fish-man, Oannes (Uanna), of ancient legend (see my article, “De-coding Jonah”).

Wednesday, September 10, 2025

Regarding William H. Shea’s valiant attempts to identify Darius the Mede

by Damien F. Mackey “A prominent feature of this theory is that the author supposed that there was a separate Median kingdom between the rule of the Babylonians and the Persians. Evidence for this comes in particular from the figure of Darius the Mede who is taken as ruler over an independent Median kingdom. Since no such kingdom is known—and hence no such ruler, either—the book of Daniel is seen as lacking historicity, a product of a late and geographically-removed author”. Dr. William H. Shea Articles that include mention of Darius the Mede tend to occupy themselves with the question: Who was Darius the Mede?, rather than to offer any viable solution to the problem. And a problem it has proven to be. Steven D. Anderson, in Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal (2014), will begin with an Introduction to the Problem, as follows: The biblical book of Daniel describes a figure called Darius the Mede, the son of Ahasuerus, who is said to have assumed rule over the Neo-Babylonian Empire after the fall of Babylon to a Medo-Persian force (Dan 5:31[E] / 6:1[MT]; cf. Dan 11:1). Darius the Mede is a major character in Daniel 6, and the vision of Daniel 9 is said to have occurred during his reign. However, mainstream scholarship affirms that there never was such a person as Darius the Mede. The conventional view states that Cyrus the Persian conquered Media ca. 553 BC and deposed the last Median king. Cyrus, as king of Persia, reigned over the entire (Medo-)Persian Empire when Babylon fell in 539 BC. Evangelical Bible scholars have proposed various solutions to harmonize the book of Daniel with this version of history, but there remains a measure of dissatisfaction with these solutions. …. [End of quote] William H. Shea will do his best to identify the elusive Darius the Mede in his article, “Darius the Mede in his Persian-Babylonian setting” (Andrews University Seminary Studies, Autumn 1991, Vol. 29, No. 3, 235-257). Let us find out what he had to say. In his Introduction, Dr. Shea will recall a former view of his, that Darius the Mede was Gubaru the governor of Babylonia, and professor Lester L. Grabbe’s criticism of this: As an introduction to proposing his own theory about the unhistorical Darius the Mede, Grabbe has reviewed the various identifications proposed for Darius by various conservative interpreters. In concluding his review of J. C. Whitcomb's theory that Darius the Mede was Gubaru/ Gobryas, the governor of Babylonia from the middle of the reign of Cyrus to the middle of the reign of Cambyses, Grabbe affirms there is no evidence for it. In his review of my own work on this subject, Grabbe has also concluded, "Once it is recognized that Gubaru (the general who conquered Babylon for Cyrus) did not reign and that the 'unknown king' is actually Cambyses, Shea's argument simply evaporates." 2 Il-ester L. Grabbe, " Another Look at the Gestalt of 'Darius the Mede'," CBQ 50 (April 1988): 198-213. Next, Assyriologist D. J. Wiseman is brought into the picture, again as the target of Lester Grabbe: Grabbe has reserved the most unkind cut of all for D. J. Wiseman, the distinguished Assyriologist who published the chronicles of the first eleven years of Nebuchadnezzar. …. Wiseman advanced the theory that Darius the Mede was another name for Cyrus. He based this conclusion on an epexegetical or explicative translation of the waw in Dan 6:28, "the reign of Darius, even the reign of Cyrus the Persian. Let us stop right here. D.J. Wiseman was perfectly correct, I believe, in his proposing that Darius the Mede was Cyrus ‘the Great’. If in doubt, bring in a Wise Man (Wiseman). D.J. and his father P.J. have made an enormous contribution to biblical studies. See also my article: Preferring P. J. Wiseman to un-wise JEDP (7) Preferring P. J. Wiseman to un-wise JEDP D.J. Wiseman’s is the identification that I, myself, have embraced. See for example my article: King Cyrus favoured as ‘Darius the Mede’ (7) King Cyrus favoured as 'Darius the Mede' and, again: Was Daniel Twice in the Lions’ Den? (7) Was Daniel Twice in the Lions' Den Was Daniel Twice in the Lions’ Den? Part Two: A Habakkuk Clue (7) Was Daniel Twice in the Lions' Den? Part Two: A Habakkuk Clue But Darius the Mede/Cyrus was also the Neriglissar of the neo-Babylonian king lists: Why “Darius the Mede” is like a needle in a haystack (3) Why "Darius the Mede" is like a needle in a haystack And was, I further suspect, King Nebuchednezzar’s “chief of court officials”, Ashpenaz: Median connection needed for Neriglissar as Darius the Mede (3) A Median connection needed for Neriglissar as Darius the Mede With the removal out of the way of the major complication of: Who was Darius the Mede? we can now try to sort out those other significant characters, Gubaru and Cambyses, the former of whom Dr. Shea had once touted as a potential Darius the Mede. …. When new primary historical sources appear, the time comes to examine old historical theories. With the publication of additional neo-Babylonian contract tablets in the Cuneiform Text series from the British Museum … that is now the case with the question of Darius the Mede in the book of Daniel. What those tablets have now demonstrated precisely is where the Babylonian coregency of Cambyses should be located. They have done this by providing tablets whose dates overlap the end of Nabonidus' reign and the beginning of Persian rule dated in terms of the coregent year of Cambyses. … There could be no more convincing demonstration that the one (partial) year of Cambyses' coregency belongs in the first year of Cyrus' rule over Babylonia as "king of lands," beginning in the spring of 538 B.C. In past studies I have equivocated on this point … but with this new evidence in hand, there can be no question about it: Cambyses ruled Babylon with Cyrus from 1/1, in the spring of 538 B.C., until sometime between IX/25 and X/ 1 of that same year. At this time the contract tablets drop Cambyses' name and transfer his title, "king of Babylon," to Cyrus. …. …. Six of these tablets carry titularies with datelines which refer to the coregency between Cyrus and Cambyses which I have discussed previously in connection with the subject of Darius the Mede. The dates and titles in question read as follows: Text Date CT 55:731 Xl/-/l Cambyses (no title), Cyrus, King of Lands CT 56:142 Cambyses, King of Lands, Cyrus, King of Lands CT 56:149 11/7/1 Cambyses, King of Babylon, Cyrus, King [broken} CT 56:294 [brokenl Cyrus, King of Lands, Cambyses, King of Babylon CT 57:345 11/18/1 Cyrus, King of Lands, Cambyses, King of Babylon CT 57:369 [broken] Cyrus, King [broken], Cambyses, [broken] …. Based on this evidence, Dr. Shea will now be able to rule out Gubaru (Ugbaru) as having any possible claim to being Darius the Mede, as, say, a sub-king to Cyrus. The conclusion that Cambyses ruled Babylon as coregent with his father in 538 B.C. eliminates the possibility that Gubaru (Ugbaru), Cyrus' general who captured Babylon, might have served as king or quasi-king of Babylon at that time. A coregency of Cambyses and Cyrus might be acceptable, but a tri-regency involves too many rulers of Babylon to be historically reasonable. Since dates in Darius the Mede's first year are given twice in Daniel (9:1 and 11:1), Gubaru no longer is a reasonable candidate for that identification. His place in history has shrunk to the point that his identification with Darius in Daniel can no longer be sustained. …. But before we take this any further, I must ask who was Gubaru (Ugbaru), whose governorship of Babylon under Cyrus was apparently extremely short – far too short for him to qualify as a Darius the Mede? Well, I have identified this Gubaru (Ugbaru) with Ubāru, the long-time governor of Babylon under King Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’, in the latter’s guise as Esarhaddon. And this Ubāru I have identified, in turn, as Daniel himself: Prophet Daniel as Esarhaddon’s governor of Babylon, Ubāru (3) Prophet Daniel as Esarhaddon's governor of Babylon, Ubāru Dr. Shea now found himself free to embrace D.J. Wiseman’s insightful identification of Darius the Mede: …. With these points firmly established from the cuneiform evidence, we may now return to the question of Darius the Mede in the book of Daniel. Where does this new information leave us? It rules out both [sic] of the Gubarus as potential candidates for Darius the Mede. In that case we should examine another candidate who had previously been rejected for reasons which were not altogether sound. I would like to suggest that the one suggested by D. J. Wiseman—Cyrus himself—is the most appropriate identification to propose here as the correct one. …. As a matter of fact, I would like to suggest that once this proposal is appreciated in the way it should be, the data from the biblical text and ancient Near Eastern historical sources fit together in a manner that is harmonious and consonant to a major degree. The identification of Cyrus as Darius the Mede explains difficulties in the biblical text which had never been previously explained. If convergence of data is the test for a theory, the convergence present here offers strong support for this proposal, first put forward by Wiseman. …. (1) Darius the Mede has been identified with King Cyrus (D.J. Wiseman and Dr. Shea), and (2) Gubaru (Ugbaru) has been identified as Daniel, in his rôle as (long-term) governor of Babylon, Ubāru (Mackey), under Esarhaddon (= Nebuchednezzar). Daniel 2:48-49: Then the king placed Daniel in a high position and lavished many gifts on him. He made him ruler over the entire province of Babylon and placed him in charge of all its wise men. Moreover, at Daniel’s request the king appointed Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego administrators over the province of Babylon, while Daniel himself remained at the royal court. It remains to identify (3) the sub-king to Cyrus, Cambyses. The key to this situation, I think, is that, just before the demise of King Belshazzar, he made Daniel third in the kingdom. Why third?: If King Belshazzar made Daniel 3rd, who was 2nd? (4) If King Belshazzar made Daniel 3rd, who was 2nd? King Belshazzar, as Evil-Merodach, had already exalted Jehoiachin of Judah to second (2 Kings 25:27-30). While Daniel would shortly pass from the scene, “Jehoiachin the Captive” (I Chronicles 3:17) would be exalted again under King Cyrus (Ahasuerus), as “Haman … the Captive” [my favoured translation] (Esther 3:1-2): After these events, King Ahasuerus honored Haman son of Hammedatha [Hammutal], the Agagite [sic], 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. Haman’s name was actually Egyptian (Amon): Evil persecutor of the Jews, Haman, had Egyptian name (6) Evil persecutor of the Jews, Haman, had Egyptian name So I am presuming that his Medo-Persian given name, which he must have had, was Cambyses – not to be confused with the mighty king Cambyses, who conquered Egypt.

Wednesday, September 3, 2025

Comparing Ashurnasirpal so called II to Chaldean Nebuchednezzar the Great

by Damien F. Mackey Dreams, visions, superstition, megalomania, cruelty, fiery furnace, messing with the rites, building of Babylon, mysterious and enduring illness, madness, conquest of Egypt - these were some of the ‘symptoms’ exhibited by the bunch of Assyro-Babylonian (Persian) ‘kings’ whom I have lumped together as being various faces of the one historical Nebuchednezzar. Names such as: Esarhaddon who, deliberately reading the specified ritual number upside down, rebuilt Babylon, who also suffered a long, dreadful and alienating illness, and who attacked Egypt. Ashurbanipal whose 43-year reign was the same length as Nebuchednezzar’s, who apparently had a burning fiery furnace, and who absolutely smashed Egypt. Nabonidus who is regarded by some biblical commentators and historians as being the true model for the ‘Nebuchadnezzar’ of the Book of Daniel. Highly pious, superstitious, suffering from madness and foreboding dreams. Cambyses who was also quite mad, and whose other name was “Nebuchednezzar”, and who, too, conquered Egypt. Now I have some new candidates for consideration, Ashurnasirpal (especially II) and Nabopolassar (yet to be integrated), neither of whom have I found easy to place in a revised context. Ashurnasirpal has been, to date, a real headache for revisionists to place in any satisfactory way. And that same statement applies even more to his supposed son, Shalmaneser III, a great king who initially ended up straddling the mid-C9th BC right where Dr. I. Velikovsky had located the El Amarna [EA] period, prompting Velikovsky to attempt identifying Shalmaneser III with the Kassite ruler of Babylonia at the time of EA, Burnaburiash II (c. 1359 – 1333 BC, conventional dates). My suggested folding of ‘Middle’ and ‘Neo’ Assyria “As we know from the correspondence left by the royal physicians and exorcists … [Esarhaddon’s] days were governed by spells of fever and dizziness, violent fits of vomiting, diarrhoea and painful earaches. Depressions and fear of impending death”. Following on from my identification of Tukulti-Ninurta so-called I as the neo-Assyrian king, Sennacherib (a connection originally suggested by Phillip Clapham): Can Tukulti-Ninurta I be king Sennacherib? https://www.academia.edu/40246318/Can_Tukulti-Ninurta_I_be_king_Sennacherib I must now consider the possibility that “Ashurnasirpal”, said to have been the son-successor of a Tukulti-Ninurta (II), was the actual successor of Sennacherib, that is, Esarhaddon, who is, in turn, in my scheme of things, Nebuchednezzar himself: Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar https://www.academia.edu/38017900/Esarhaddon_a_tolerable_fit_for_King_Nebuchednezzar "As we know from the correspondence left by the roya1 physicians and exorcists … his days were governed by spells of fever and dizziness, violent fits of vomiting, diarrhoea and painful earaches. Depressions and fear of impending death ...”. Admittedly this is something of a long stretch in the present scheme of things. While, fittingly, the father of Tukulti-Ninurta I is said to have been a Shalmaneser – just as in my revision the father of (Sargon II =) Sennacherib was a Shalmaneser, his son is said to have been one Ashur-nadin-apli. Tukulti-Ninurta II, on the other hand, who was the father of Ashurnasirpal II, is said to have had a father named Adad-nirari (II). Tukulti-Ninurta II, though, does not even rate a mention in the index at the back of Marc Van de Mieroop’s text, A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC. Putting it all together, I would tentatively suggest this sequence: Shalmaneser (I, III); Tukulti-Ninurta (I, II); Ashur-nadin-apli-Ashurnasirpal (I, II) equates to, respectively: Shalmaneser (V); Sargon II-Sennacherib; Esarhaddon-Ashurbanipal-Nebuchednezzar “In the understanding of the people of the Near East at that time, [Ashurnasirpal II] really was “king of the world”.” Joshua J. Mark Joshua J. Mark tells us much about this great and cruel king in his article, “Ashurnasirpal II”: https://www.ancient.eu/Ashurnasirpal_II/ some of which I give here with my comments added: Ashurnasirpal II (reigned 884-859 BCE) was the third king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. His father was Tukulti-Ninurta II (reigned (891-884 BCE) whose military campaigns throughout the region provided his son with a sizeable empire and the resources to equip a formidable army. My comment: If the revision that I am putting together in this article - albeit tentatively - is heading in the right direction, then these dates for Ashurnasirpal and his father will be far too high. The “father”, Tukulti-Ninurta so-called II, who does not even rate an entry in the index at the back of Van de Mieroop’s book (as we have already found), stands sorely in need of a significant alter ego, that being, as I have suggested, none other than Sargon II-Sennacherib. Joshua J. Mark continues: Ashurnasirpal II is known for his ruthless military conquests and the consolidation of the Assyrian Empire, but he is probably most famous for his grand palace at Kalhu (also known as Caleh and Nimrud in modern-day Iraq), whose wall reliefs depicting his military successes (and many victims) are on display in museums around the world in the modern day. In addition to the palace itself, he is also known for throwing one of the most impressive parties in history to inaugurate his new city of Kalhu: he hosted over 69,000 people during a ten day festival. The menu for this party still survives in the present day. My comment: One of my alter egos for Ashurnasirpal is Esarhaddon, who was indeed interested in Kalhu: http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/nimrud/ancientkalhu/thecity/latekalhu/index.html .... Esarhaddon, however, took a great deal of interest in the city. Around 672 BC, towards the end of his reign, he rebuilt part of the city wall and made significant improvements to Fort Shalmaneser. He added a new terrace and created an impressive new entrance consisting of a vaulted ramp which led from a newly-rebuilt postern gate TT directly into the palace through a series of painted rooms. Inscriptions on both sides of the gate commemorated this construction work, as did clay cylinders which were perhaps originally deposited inside Fort Shalmaneser's walls .... It is possible that Esarhaddon's activities at Kalhu were intended as a prelude to reclaiming it as royal capital. There is some, albeit very limited evidence, that he may have lived at Kalhu briefly towards the end of his reign: a partially preserved letter mentions that the king's courtiers "are all in Kalhu", perhaps indicating that the court had moved there from Nineveh (SAA 13: 152). .... My comment: As for Ashurnasirpal’s being “ruthless”, his cruelty is legendary (see below). And in this he resembles his other alter ego, Ashurbanipal (‘Ashur is the creator of an heir’), whose name is almost identical to Ashurnasirpal (‘Ashur is guardian of the heir’). The following piece tells of Ashurnasirpal’s, of Ashurbanipal’s, overt cruelty: https://searchinginhistory.blogspot.com/2015/02/cruelty-instrument-of-assyrian-control.html Many Kings of Assyrian had displayed proudly their cruelty towards their enemies. Sometimes in reliefs or in their annals, New Assyrian [kings] gave detail[s] of their gory exploits against their opponents. King Ashurnasirpal laid out many of his sadistic activities in one of his annals. He liked burning, skinning, and decapitating his enemies. When he defeated a rebelling city, he made sure they [paid] a huge price. Disobedient cities were destroyed and razed to the ground with fire, with their wealth and all material riches taken by the king. Their youth and women were either burned alive or made into slaves or placed into the harem. In the City of Nistun, Ashurnasirpal showed how he cut [off] the heads of 260 rebelling soldiers and piled it together. Their leader named Bubu suffered horrific punishment. He was flayed and his skin was placed in the walls of Arbail. In the city of Suri, rebelling nobles were also skinned and were displayed like trophies. Some skin were left to rot but some were placed in a stake. Officials of the city suffered decapitation of their limbs. The leader of the Suri rebellion, Ahiyababa, underwent flaying and his skin was then placed in the walls of Niniveh. After Ashurnasirpal defeated the city of Tila, he ordered to cut the hands and feet of the soldiers of the fallen city. Other than that, some soldiers found themselves without noses and ears. But also, many defeated soldiers had their eyes gouged out. The heads of the leaders of the Tila were hang[ed] in the trees around the city. Ashurnasirpal was not alone in having a psychotic mind. Many of his successors followed his brutality towards enemies. .... The intellectual King Ashurbanipal also had a share of cruelty. Although he was known for his great library in Nineveh, he was not as merciful as he seemed. One time, an Arabian leader name Uaite instigated a rebellion. Ashurbanipal managed to defeat Uaite and captured him and brought back to Niniveh. There, he brought upon a humiliating punishment. He was tied like a dog and placed in a kennel alongside with dogs and jackals guarding the gates of the great Assyrian capital of Nineveh. .... The Book of Daniel’s “Nebuchadnezzar” was likewise an insane and cruel creature, he being perhaps “the basest of men” (Daniel 4:17): https://biblehub.com/commentaries/daniel/4-17.htm And setteth over it the basest of men — If this be applied to Nebuchadnezzar, it must be understood, either with respect to his present condition, whose pride and cruelty rendered him as despicable in the sight of God as his high estate made him appear honourable in the eyes of men; and, therefore, was justly doomed to so low a degree of abasement: or else it may be interpreted of his wonderful restoration and advancement after he had been degraded from his dignity. .... [Ashurnasirpal] reigned for 25 years and was succeeded by his son, Shalmaneser III, who reigned from 859-824 BCE. My comment: If the revision that I am putting together in this series - albeit tentatively - is heading in the right direction, then Ashurnasirpal’s reign was far longer than “25 years”, was 43 years. And Shalmaneser was by no means his “son”, but was his grandfather. Early Reign & Military Campaigns ... by the time Ashurnasirpal II came to the throne, he had at his disposal a well-equipped fighting force and considerable resources. He put both of these to use almost at once. He was not so much interested in expansion of the empire as in securing it against invasion from without or rebellion from within. My comment: Ashurnasirpal was, in fact, very much “interested in expansion of the empire”. When fitted with his alter egos, he becomes the conqueror of even the distant land of Egypt. He also was required, as an Assyrian king, to combat the forces of chaos and maintain order. The historian Marc Van De Mieroop writes, “The king, as representative of the god Assur, represented order. Wherever he was in control, there was peace, tranquility, and justice, and where he did not rule there was chaos. The king’s duty to bring order to the entire world was the justification for military expansion” …. While Ashurnasirpal may not have considered expansion a priority, he certainly took order in his realm very seriously and would not tolerate insubordination or revolt. His first campaign was in 883 BCE to the city of Suru to put down a rebellion there. He then marched to the north where he put down other rebellions which had broken out when he took the throne. He was not interested in having to expend more time and resources on future rebellions and so made an example of the rebels in the city of Tela. In his inscriptions he writes: I built a pillar over against the city gate and I flayed all the chiefs who had revolted and I covered the pillar with their skins. Some I impaled upon the pillar on stakes and others I bound to stakes round the pillar. I cut the limbs off the officers who had rebelled. Many captives I burned with fire and many I took as living captives. From some I cut off their noses, their ears, and their fingers, of many I put out their eyes. I made one pillar of the living and another of heads and I bound their heads to tree trunks round about the city. Their young men and maidens I consumed with fire. The rest of their warriors I consumed with thirst in the desert of the Euphrates. My comment: Interestingly, Joshua J. Mark (“Assyrian Warfare”) applies this horrific Suru episode instead to Ashurbanipal: The Assyrian kings were not to be trifled with and their inscriptions vividly depict the fate which was certain for those who defied them. The historian Simon Anglim writes: The Assyrians created the world's first great army and the world's first great empire. This was held together by two factors: their superior abilities in siege warfare and their reliance on sheer, unadulterated terror. It was Assyrian policy always to demand that examples be made of those who resisted them; this included deportations of entire peoples and horrific physical punishments. One inscription from a temple in the city of Nimrod records the fate of the leaders of the city of Suru on the Euphrates River, who rebelled from, and were reconquered by, King Ashurbanipal: “I built a pillar at the city gate and I flayed all the chief men who had revolted and I covered the pillar with their skins; some I walled up inside the pillar, some I impaled upon the pillar on stakes." My comment: In the Babylonian Chronicles Nebuchednezzar mentions his conquest of Suru: “The king of Suru; the king of Hazzati ...”. This treatment of defeated cities would become Ashurnasirpal II’s trademark and would include skinning insubordinate officials alive and nailing their flesh to the gates of the city and “dishonoring the maidens and boys” of the conquered cities before setting them on fire. With Tela destroyed, he moved swiftly on to other campaigns. He marched west, fighting his way through other rebel outbreaks and subjugating the cities which opposed him. The historian John Boardman notes that “a major factor behind the increasing resistance was probably the heavy tribute exacted by Ashurnasirpal…one has the impression that a particularly large amount of booty was claimed by this king and that corvee [forced labor] was imposed universally” (259). Ashurnasirpal II led his army on successful campaigns across the Euphrates River and all the way to the Mediterranean Sea, where he washed his weapons as a symbol of his conquests (an act made famous by the inscriptions of Sargon the Great of the earlier Akkadian Empire after he had established his rule). My comment: Ashurbanipal, likewise, ‘washed his weapons in the Sea’ (Warfare, Ritual, and Symbol in Biblical and Modern Contexts, p. 223): “Inscriptions from ... Ashurnasirpal II ... and Ashurbanipal ... record washing their weapons in the Mediterranean Sea and offering sacrifices ...”. Although some sources claim he then conquered Phoenicia, it seems clear he entered into diplomatic relations with the region, as he did also with the kingdom of Israel. The surviving populaces of the cities and territories he conquered were, as per Assyrian policy, relocated to other regions in the empire in order to distribute skills and talent. My comment: If Ashurnasirpal were also Esarhaddon-Ashurbanipal-Nebuchednezzar, as I am proposing, then he most certainly conquered Phoenicia, Israel, and more. For example: Esarhaddon: https://www.livius.org/sources/content/anet/291-esarhaddons-prism-b/ .... the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (r.680-669) tightened the Assyrian grip on the cities of Phoenicia. Sidon was sacked in 677/676 and its people were deported. In the next year, 676/675, the cities of Syria and Cyprus were ordered to contribute building materials for a monument in Nineveh. The inscription mentions two groups of contributing kings: those ruling over the Levantine cities and those ruling the colonies in the west. It also mentions their tributes. The text has attracted considerable attention because it also mentions King Manasseh of Judah, who ruled from 687 to 642. .... Esarhaddon's Prism B [1] I called up the kings of the country Hatti and (of the region) on the other side of the river Euphrates: Ba'al, king of Tyre; Manasseh, king of Judah; Qawsgabar, king of Edom; Musuri, king of Moab; Sil-Bel, king of Gaza; Metinti, king of Ashkelon; Ikausu, king of Ekron; Milkiashapa, king of Byblos; Matanba’al, king of Arvad; Abiba'al, king of Samisimuruna; Puduil, king of Beth-Ammon; Ahimilki, king of Ashdod .... Ashurbanipal: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/the-assyrians-of-ashurbanipals-time-were-just-as-into-pillage-and-destruction-as-isis/ Ashurbanipal overcame chaos by conquering Egypt, campaigning against Phoenician Tyre, and warring against the Elamites …. One of the most arresting sculptures in the exhibition shows him dining with his wife in the luxurious gardens of his palace in the aftermath of his victory over Elam. He reclines beneath a particularly luscious grapevine (his gardens were irrigated by a network of artificial channels); the head of the Elamite king is staked on the branch of a tree. .... Nebuchednezzar: https://www.thebiblejourney.org/biblejourney2/33-judah-after-the-fall-of-israel/king-nebuchadnezzar-of-babylon-invades-judah-/ ... in 589BC, Zedekiah rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar and Jerusalem was beseiged again for over a year and a half before finally falling in 587BC. The Temple was destroyed and the population was taken into exile in Babylonia (see 2 Kings 25:1-10). Nebuchadnezzar then proceeded to conquer Phoenicia in 585BC and to invade Egypt in 567BC. The dominance of Babylonia only came to an end when King Cyrus of Persia captured Babylon in 539 BC, and Babylonia became part of the Persian Empire (see Ezra 1:1). Joshua J. Mark continues: Having accomplished what he set out to do on campaign, he turned around and headed back to his capital city of Ashur. If there were any further revolts to be put down on his march back, they are not recorded. It is unlikely that there were more revolts, however, as Ashurnasirpal II had established a reputation for cruelty and ruthlessness which would have been daunting to even the most ardent rebel. The historian Stephen Bertman comments on this, writing: Ashurnasirpal II set a standard for the future warrior-kings of Assyria. In the words of Georges Roux, he ‘possessed to the extreme all the qualities and defects of his successors, the ruthless, indefatigable empire-builders: ambition, energy, courage, vanity, cruelty, magnificence’ (Roux 1992:288). His annals were the most extensive of any Assyrian ruler up to his time, detailing the multiple military campaigns he led to secure or enlarge his nation’s territorial dominion. From one raid alone he filled his kingdom’s coffers with 660 pounds of gold an equal measure of silver, and added 460 horses to his stables. The sadistic cruelty he inflicted upon rebel leaders was legendary, skinning them alive and displaying their skin, and cutting off the noses and the ears of their followers or mounting their severed heads on pillars to serve as a warning to others (79-80). .... His famous Standard Inscription told again and again of his triumphs in conquest and vividly depicted the horrible fate of those who rose against him. The inscription also let the dignitaries from his own realm, and others, know precisely who they were dealing with. He claimed the titles “great king, king of the world, the valiant hero who goes forth with the help of Assur; he who has no rival in all four quarters of the world, the exalted shepherd, the powerful torrent that none can withstand, he who has overcome all mankind, whose hand has conquered all lands and taken all the mountain ranges” (Bauer, 337). His empire stretched across the territory which today comprises western Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and part of Turkey. Through his diplomatic relationships with Babylonia and the Levant, he also had access to the resources of southern Mesopotamia and the sea ports of Phoenicia. In the understanding of the people of the Near East at that time, he really was “king of the world”. “Nebuchadnezzar Syndrome”: Dreams, visions: “Assurnasirpal built a palace and a temple for the dream god Mamu ...”: http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/nimrud/ancientkalhu/thepeople/assurnasirpalii/index.html Superstition: "Fear and Superstition in the Northwest Palace of Aššurnaṣirpal II". https://www.academia.edu/34275633/_Fear_and_Superstition_in_the_Northwest_Palace_of_ Megalomania, cruelty: “Ashurnasirpal II is the epitome of everything you would ever want out of a psychotically deranged vengeance-sucking ancient conquest-mongering megalomaniac who drove his jet-fuel-powered chariot across a road paved with corpses so he could kill a lion with his fists”. http://www.badassoftheweek.com/index.cgi?id=461274131521 Fiery furnace, lions’ den: “Many captives I burned with fire”. “The Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal II (883-859 BC) is reported to have maintained a breeding farm for lions at Nimrud”. http://www.jesuswalk.com/daniel/3_faithfulness.htm Messing with the rites (unorthodox): “Ashurnasirpal II holding a bowl, detail of a relief. Note the King’s facial expression, headgear, hair, earring, necklace, mustache, beard, wrist bracelet, armlets, daggers, and the bowl he holds with his right hand. The left hand holds a long royal staff. The King’s attire is superb. What is unusual in this scene is that the King’s royal attendant is “taller” than the King himself!” http://etc.ancient.eu/exhibitions/wall-reliefs-ashurnasirpal-ii-north-west-palace/ Mysterious and enduring illness: His prayer to the goddess Ishtar ... “lamentation over the kings underserved suffering for a persistent illness” (Donald F. Murray, Divine Perogative and Royal Pretension: Pragmatics, Poetics and Polemics ..., pp. 266-267): http://jewishchristianlit.com/Texts/ANEhymns/lamIshtr.html .... I have cried to thee, suffering, wearied, and distressed, as thy servant. See me O my Lady, accept my prayers. Faithfully look upon me and hear my supplication. Promise my forgiveness and let thy spirit be appeased. Pity! For my wretched body which is full of confusion and trouble. Pity! For my sickened heart which is full of tears and suffering. Pity! For my wretched intestines (which are full of) confusion and trouble. Pity! For my afflicted house which mourns bitterly. Pity! For my feelings which are satiated with tears and suffering. O exalted Irnini, fierce lion, let thy heart be at rest. O angry wild ox, let thy spirit be appeased. Let the favor of thine eyes be upon me. With thy bright features look faithfully upon me. Drive away the evil spells of my body (and) let me see thy bright light. How long, O my Lady, shall my adversaries be looking upon me, In lying and untruth shall they plan evil against me, Shall my pursuers and those who exult over me rage against me? How long, O my Lady, shall the crippled and weak seek me out? One has made for me long sackcloth; thus I have appeared before thee. The weak have become strong; but I am weak. I toss about like flood-water, which an evil wind makes violent. My heart is flying; it keeps fluttering like a bird of heaven. I mourn like a dove night and day. I am beaten down, and so I weep bitterly. With "Oh" and "Alas" my spirit is distressed. I - what have I done, O my god and my goddess? Like one who does not fear my god and my goddess I am treated; While sickness, headache, loss, and destruction are provided for me; So are fixed upon me terror, disdain, and fullness of wrath, Anger, choler, and indignation of gods and men. I have to expect, O my Lady, dark days, gloomy months, and years of trouble. I have to expect, O my Lady, judgment of confusion and violence. Death and trouble are bringing me to an end. Silent is my chapel; silent is my holy place; Over my house, my gate, and my fields silence is poured out. As for my god, his face is turned to the sanctuary of another. My family is scattered; my roof is broken up. (But) I have paid heed to thee, my Lady; my attention has been turned to thee. To thee have I prayed; forgive my debt. Forgive my sin, my iniquity, my shameful deeds, and my offence. Overlook my shameful deeds; accept my prayer; Loosen my fetters; secure my deliverance; Guide my steps aright; radiantly like a hero let me enter the streets with the living. ....

Monday, September 1, 2025

Jonah may have actually died in the ‘fish’ and gone to Sheol

‘I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me forever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O Lord my God’. Jonah 2:6 We read at: https://www.biblebro.net/jonah-died-in-the-whale/ Jonah Died In the Whale First note that this is not a greatly supported teaching … Like most bible believers, I once believed that Jonah miraculously lived in the belly of the whale for 3 days before he was spit up onto land to warn the people of Nineveh to turn to God. The more I studied the situation and the language, the more I realized that it’s a strong possibility that Jonah died in the whale and was resurrected. Jesus & Jonah Died and Went to Sheol Jonah is a type of Christ. Here’s what Jesus said: Matthew 12:39-40 – “But he (Jesus) answered and said unto them (religious leaders), An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” [Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly] – Yes, a whale’s belly, not just “a great fish” as some insist because of Jonah 1:17. [the Son of man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth] – Was Jesus alive in the ground? No, and neither was Jonah alive in the whale. Jesus died and went to Sheol, as did everyone who died in those days. …. Jonah 2:1-2 – “Then Jonah prayed unto the Lord his God out of the fish’s belly, And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the Lord, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice.” [the fish’s belly] – belly H4578 = the stomach, abdomen, inside or outside part of the belly. Note that this word is different than that used in “the belly of hell”. [the belly of hell] – belly H0990 = the belly, the womb, or of depth of Sheol (fig.). Hell H7585 = š ‘ôl; Sheol, the world of the dead, abode of the dead. In other words, Jonah’s soul was in the pits of hell. [Comment: Sheol was not exclusively hell]. The “belly” here is not describing the whale’s stomach, but Sheol. Jonah 2:6-7 – “I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me forever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O Lord my God. When my soul fainted within me I remembered the Lord: and my prayer came in unto thee, into thine holy temple.” [the bottoms of the mountains] – The bottoms of the seas, which were recorded to be the lowest parts of the earth, hence the gates of Hell (Job 38:16-17). In the resurrection of the wicked dead, the seas give up their dead, and so does death and hell (Rev 20:13). Note the connection between the bottoms of the seas and Hell. [the earth with her bars was about me forever] – He was in the eternal place of Sheol where the bars, or “gates of hell” (Matt 16:18) had him locked up. “I was going to stay in hell forever [sic], but you brought my dead body back to life, up from corruption. [thou brought up my life from] – You brought me back from the dead. See Acts 2:27. [my soul fainted] – “I prayed from the whale, passed out, died, prayed from Sheol, and was resurrected.”

Saturday, August 30, 2025

Chenephres was second Oppressor Pharaoh

“Merris married Khenephres and Mousos administered the land for him and became popular with the Egyptian people”. Artapanus We read this at: https://www.bereaninsights.org/nugget/moses-and-khenephres/ Moses and Khenephres … Do we have any evidence for Moses? Eusebius wrote Evangelicae Preparationis (Preparations for the Gospel) in which he refers to a Jewish historian Artapanus whose work didn’t survive. But we have chunks of it quoted by Eusebius and Clement in his Stromata. The story of Moses’ early life was recorded in some detail by Artapanus. According to Artapanus, Palmanothes was the Pharoah who persecuted the Israelites. He built a city called Kessan and founded a temple there and at Heliopolis. Mackey’s comment: The infanticidal “new king” of Exodus 1:8, who began the persecution of Israel, has various historical guises, none of which, however, corresponds really convincingly to “Palmanothes” - a name that does not appear to me to match up very well with any pharaonic name for that matter. The name of the next king, “Khenephres” (“Chenephres”), on the other hand, does match up very well with his historical counterparts, as we shall find. And the same comment goes for the woman, “Merris”, who married him. In fact, the nice correspondence between Chenephres and Merris and their respective historical counterparts - running like golden threads through various supposed dynasties - encourages me to believe that I am in quite the right era for my location of the historical Moses. Narrowing the focus for the moment, because the overall picture is extremely complex, I have fixed the era of Israel’s Oppression in the mighty Twelfth Dynasty: Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty oppressed Israel (2) Egypt's Twelfth Dynasty oppressed Israel The abundance of pharaohs Amenemes and Sesostris in this dynasty needs to be stripped down to just two, the “new king” of Exodus 1:8, Amenemes, and his successor, Sesostris. While an imaginative person may be able to recognise “Palmanothes” in the name Amenemes, it is easy to square up Sesostris Neferkare with the same name, “Chenephres” (Ka-nefer-re). OK, but how does “Merris” fit into this reconstruction? Now it gets a bit more complicated. The way that ancient Egyptian history has been cobbled together, painfully stretched out in a kind of ‘Indian file’ fashion - with an Old Kingdom, First Intermediate Period, Middle Kingdom, and Second Intermediate Period - it has become impossible to recognise the real fact that this is basically just the one kingdom. Thus the so-called ‘Middle’ kingdom’s Twelfth Dynasty (already met) has its counterpart(s) in Egypt’s Old Kingdom. In the case of the history of Moses, we must start, then, with the famous Pyramid Age Fourth Dynasty. The obscure founder, Khufu (Cheops), now gets properly filled out with the far better known Amenemes. Whilst the Sphinx-loving Sesostris can now be attached to his famous alter ego, the Giza Sphinx building, Khafra (Chephren) (again, “Chenephres”). This now enables us to bring in the historical “Merris”, wife of “Chenephres”, for Khafre/Chephren had married a Meresankh, which is the name Merris with an ankh. “Meresankh was married to Khafre, another son of Khufu …”: https://mused.com/stories/82/who-was-queen-meresankh-iii/ And further, as I wrote in the Twelfth Dynasty article above: We may be able to trace the rise of the 4th dynasty’s Khufu (Cheops) - whose full name was Khnum-khuefui (meaning ‘Khnum is protecting me’) - to the 6th dynasty, to the wealthy noble (recalling that the founding 12th dynasty pharaoh “had no royal blood”) from Abydos in the south, called Khui. An abbreviation of Khuefui? This Khui had a daughter called Ankhenesmerire, in whose name are contained all the elements of Mer-es-ankh, the first part of which, Meres, accords phonetically with the name Eusebius gave for the Egyptian foster-mother of Moses, “Merris”. At this point we can return to the bereaninsights.org article, though we still have not finished with “Chenephres” who must also be considered in another historical guise. [Palmanothes] had a daughter named Merris. She adopted a Hebrew child who grew up to become Prince Mousos [Moses]. Merris married Khenephres and Mousos administered the land for him and became popular with the Egyptian people. Mousos led a military campaign to Ethiopia lasting 10 years. When he returned Khenephres became jealous of Mousos who fled to Arabia. He lived with Raguel, a priest and ruler of the region and married the daughter of one of his sons Hobab. Khenephres died and Mousos returned to Egypt to a new pharaoh. The plagues hit Egypt and Mousos led the Israelites out of Egypt. The names are difficult to equate with Egyptian names but Kessan is likely to be Kes, which is in the delta area and thus Goshen (after the Hebrew text). This equates with On or Heliopolis in association with the cities of Raamses and Pithom. Moses married Zipporah, the daughter of Hobab (also called Jethro) the son of Raguel. Who was Khenephres (Grk)? Manetho names the third ruler of the 5th Dynasty as Nepherkheres (Egypt). The Egyptian equivalent is Khaneferre. There is only one pharaoh in the whole of Egyptian history has taken this name. After the death of Neferhotep I, Sobekhotep became the 23rd ruler of the 13th Dynasty. Sobekhotep’s full name is Khaneferre Sobekhotep IV. So Moses birth coincided with the reign of one of the most powerful Egyptian pharaohs. Mackey’s comment: While I agree with the article that Khaneferre Sobekhotep is, once again, our “Chenephres” - the name Khaneferre being a perfect fit - I believe that this, now Egypt’s Thirteenth Dynasty, needs some re-organising. That, whilst Neferhotep here was certainly a Thirteenth Dynasty ruler, following the collapse of the famous Twelfth Dynasty, Khaneferre Sobekhotep actually preceded Neferhotep. Once again we find that the king list has things muddled up. See also my article: Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences (3) Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences Apart from his having the ideal “Chenephres” name (Khaneferre/Neferkare), befitting our second Oppressor Pharaoh, he also had a Sobek (crocodile) name, Sobekhotep. And we know from the name of the last ruler of the Twelfth Dynasty, the female pharaoh, Sobekneferure, that this dynasty worshipped the Crocodile god. The succession, Amenemhet (Amenemes) and Sobekhotep, as given in the Thirteen Dynasty king list, must now be recognised as being our Twelfth Dynasty sequence of the two Oppressor Pharaohs, Amenemes and Sesostris. Back to the bereaninsights.org article, which concludes: David Rohl estimates Sobekhotep’s reign lasted 20 years from 1529 to 1510 BC. As it seems Sobekhotep married the daughter of the delta king Palmanothes. This was likely to have been a strategic alliance marriage. Colossal statues of Sobekhotep have been found in the Delta region indicating his influence in the area. He reigned long before Pi-Ramesse was founded in the 19th dynasty but other texts associated him with the city of Avaris. What about the land of Goshen and Moses’ town? Excavations in the eastern Delta north of the town of Fakus have established this to be the site of Pi-Ramesse, capital of the 19th and 20th Dynasties. An Austrian team of archaeologists, led by Manfred Bietak, have been excavating at Tel ed-Daba since 1960. They have established that the town of Tel ed-Daba sits on top of ancient Avaris, Fakis (Egypt) or Phacusa (Grk). Faiyum is the name given to the Delta basin which surrounds the inland sea. Pa-Yam, Fa-Kus, Pa-Kes all mean “the sea” cf Yam Suph / Suf – the Red or Reed Sea (Hebrew). This is the place the Septuagint names Kessan. These places are all within a stone’s throw from Avaris – Tel ed-Daba. An ancient manuscript has been found which is now kept in Arezzo in Italy which confirms much of this detail. In contrast to the claims that the story of Moses and the Exodus are pure fiction, we will see in following Nuggets the proof which debunks that view. There are still exciting revelations ahead of us. Hang on to your seat and make sure your seatbelt is fastened securely.