Waging war on the gods of Egypt

by Damien F. Mackey “The ancient Israelites created “a historical saga so powerful that it led biblical historians and archaeologists alike to recreate its mythical past— from stones and potsherds,” said Israeli scholar and archaeologist Israel Finkelstein. …. In other words, according to them, the Exodus never happened. Critical scholars like Halpern and Finkelstein view the Israelites’ Exodus from Egypt as mere storytelling, but with a moral message”. Randall Price Introduction What a spiritually-filled and action-packed document the Book of Exodus is! Even before we have managed to reach Chapter 4 - the return of Moses to Egypt from the land of Midian - so many exciting, agonising, yet providential events have occurred. These are: - The enslavement of the growing nation of Israel - which had long had it good in the fertile region of Goshen where Joseph had settled it - by a new dynastic Pharaoh to whom Joseph meant little (Exodus 1:8); - the slaves set to task to build mighty store cities, Pithom and Raamses (v. 11); - the Pharaoh’s cruel order for male children to be slaughtered, to limit the birth-rate of the Israelites (v. 16); - the birth of Moses and his rescue from death - all strategically planned by his mother - by his being rescued from the water by the daughter of Pharaoh, she giving him the name, “Moses” (2:1-10); - the adult Moses going amongst his people and seeing their affliction, their fighting amongst themselves, and Moses killing an Egyptian overseer (vv. 11-12); - Pharaoh learning of this and determining to kill Moses, who flees for his life to the land of Midian (v. 15); - Moses then assists the seven daughters of the priest of Midian against some shepherds who had driven them from the well, Moses then watering their flock for them (vv. 16-17); - Moses identified by the priest’s daughters as “an Egyptian” (v. 19); - the priest welcomes Moses and gives him in marriage his daughter Zipporah (v. 21): - the couple has a son whom Moses names “Gershom” (v. 22); - during Moses’s long sojourn in the land of Midian the Pharaoh who had sought his life dies, and persecuted Israel groans in its misery (v. 23); - God hears their groaning and is concerned for them (vv. 24-25). All of that fascinating data takes us only, in fact, to Chapter 2 of the Book of Exodus. Is it simply story-telling, as many claim, “pure myth” (see below)? For, the burning question today is: Did it all really happen? Those Biblical minimalists Many historians, archaeologists and biblicists deny that the Book of Exodus is history, insisting that it is merely a type of didactic fiction, or the like. For example: https://israelmyglory.org/article/how-do-we-know-the-exodus-happened/ “The actual evidence concerning the Exodus resembles the evidence for the unicorn,” declared Pennsylvania State University Jewish Studies Professor Baruch Halpern. …. The ancient Israelites created “a historical saga so powerful that it led biblical historians and archaeologists alike to recreate its mythical past—from stones and potsherds,” said Israeli scholar and archaeologist Israel Finkelstein. …. In other words, according to them, the Exodus never happened. Critical scholars like Halpern and Finkelstein view the Israelites’ Exodus from Egypt as mere storytelling, but with a moral message”. Previously I have noted other views along these same lines: Today, people laugh at the very idea of the Plagues and the Exodus. The story of the Exodus, Michael D. Lemonick wrote in “Are the Bible Stories True?” (TIME, Sunday, June 24, 2001), “involves so many miracles” - plagues, the parting of the Red Sea … manna, from heaven, the giving of the Ten Commandments - that critics take it for “pure myth”. In this regard he referred to Fr. Anthony Axe, Bible lecturer at Jerusalem’s École Biblique, who has claimed that a massive Exodus that led to the drowning of Pharaoh’s army would have reverberated politically and economically throughout the entire region. And, considering that artefacts from as far back as the late Stone Age have turned up in the Sinai, Fr Axe finds it perplexing that - as he thinks - no evidence of the Israelites’ passage has been found. And I have been told by a learned Dominican priest that the Bible is all about Theology, and that Moses, Joshua, never wrote down anything. What is it with Dominicans and literal biblical interpretation? On this, see e.g. my article: Père M-J. Lagrange’s exegetical blancmange (2) Père M-J. Lagrange’s exegetical blancmange Now, in the following article we read of further such scepticism: Hebrews in Egypt before the Exodus? Evidence from Papyrus Brooklyn / Uncategorized / By Archae27 The presence of Hebrews in Egypt prior to their departure is a key component in the Exodus story, leading to the eventual formation of the Israelite nation and the subsequent settlement of Canaan. However, skepticism about the historical validity of the Exodus story has spread through both academia and the general public over the last century. One of the key problems for asserting the Exodus narrative as historical has to do with the supposed lack of archaeological confirmation for Hebrews living in Egypt. Current academic consensus views the events described in the book of Exodus as myth, without any indication of an historical core, and now a topic which the vast majority of scholars decline to investigate due to their certainty that the story is fictional. Scholars have made claims that according to archaeological investigations, “Israelites were never in Egypt …. The many Egyptian documents that we have make no mention of the Israelites’ presence in Egypt” (Zeev Herzog). Another archaeologist concluded that investigation of the Exodus story is pointless because of the alleged absence of evidence, stating that “not only is there no archaeological evidence for such an exodus, there is no need to posit such an event …. I regard the historicity of the Exodus as a dead issue” (William Dever). …. Maybe all of these biblical minimalists have a point? The point that they do have is that they are all right in a conventional context, but, unfortunately for them, the conventional context is all wrong. Indeed Fr. Anthony Axe, for instance, is right in saying that an event such as the Exodus would have had widespread political and economic ramifications; but because he has been conditioned to thinking according to the Sothic-based time scale, Fr. Axe is unable to see the wood for the trees, so to speak. For, contrary to the conventional view, the Egyptian chronicles do give abundant testimony to a time of catastrophe reminiscent of the Exodus, and archaeology does clearly attest the presence of an invasive people sojourning for a time in the Sinai/Negev deserts. Michael D. Lemonick, in “Are the Bible Stories True?”, will also cite the claim of Magen Broshi, curator emeritus of the Dead Sea Scrolls (d. 2020), that the Israeli archaeologists of the 60’s-80’s “... didn’t find a single piece of evidence backing the Israelites’ supposed 40-year sojourn in the desert”. But the reason for this is that is because they were always expecting to find such “evidence” in a New Kingdom context. I like to say that Israeli archaeologists are forever pointing to the wrong stratigraphical level for a biblical person or event while ‘standing in’, so to speak, the real archaeological level. Some independently-minded conventional scholars Professor Emmanuel Anati The error of looking to the New Kingdom for the Exodus scenario has already been pointed out by professor Anati. Commenting on Michael Lemonick’s reference to “Israeli archaeologists of the 60’s-80’s”, I have written previously: Not so professor Emmanuel Anati, who has realised that the conventional placement of a mild exodus to the Late Bronze Age, supposedly of Ramses II, is hopelessly inaccurate. Thus he has written (The Mountain of God, 1986): In the last 100 years, many efforts have been invested on finding some hints of the Israelites and their exodus in the Egyptian ancient literature. In the many Egyptian texts that date to the New Kingdom ... there is no mention of the flight from Egypt or the crossing of the "Red Sea". Not even the general historical and social background correspond. ... If all of this tradition has a minimal basis in historical fact, then it cannot have been totally ignored by the Egyptians. …. Nor, according to Professor Anati, did they ignore it: ... The relevant texts do not date to the New Kingdom at all, but to the Old Kingdom. In other words ... the archaeological evidence ..., the tribal social structures described in the Bible, the climatic changes and the ancient Egyptian literature all seem to indicate that the events and situations which may have inspired the biblical narrations of Exodus do not date to the thirteenth century BC but ... to the late third millennium [sic] BC. Professor Anati still accepts the conventional dating of the Old and New Kingdoms. But this only means that his discoveries are all the more meaningful, because he has not set out to make a chronological statement. Dr. Rudolph Cohen Dr. Cohen, Deputy Director of the Israeli Antiquities Authority (until 2005), when asked which Egyptian dynasty he considered to be contemporaneous with the Exodus events, nominated the Middle Kingdom’s 12th dynasty. That is very close to the mark. In this regard he referred to the Ipuwer Papyrus as describing the conditions in Egypt that could be expected as the result of the ten devastating plagues (cf. Exodus 7-12). Dr. Cohen (d. 2007), of course, was not the first to have suggested the relevance of the Twelfth Dynasty, or of the Ipuwer Papyrus, to the situation of the Israelites in Egypt and the Exodus. Dr. Donovan Courville had discussed in detail its suitability as the background for the enslavement and ultimate deliverance (Exodus 1:8-5:22). There is plenty of biographical detail to be found in the Book of Exodus, though recorded there in an extremely concise fashion. It has been left to revisionists to fill in the details, to read between the lines, because, as I wrote above, “the conventional context is all wrong”, their lines are often crooked. Well let us try to unpack the first 2 chapters of Exodus by providing it with a proper historical context. Revisionist scholars setting things straight Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky had presented a compelling case for both the Ipuwer and Ermitage papyrii’s being recollections of the plagues and devastation of Egypt: http://www.hermetics.org/exodus.html An important argument set forth by Velikovsky involves the papyrus of Ipuwer placed into the Leiden Museum in the Netherlands in 1828. This papyrus appears to relate events that occurred in the early ages of ancient Egypt. According to academicians it contains riddles or prophecies, however it openly relates a number of catastrophes that befell Egypt. The Nile turning to blood, the waters being undrinkable, the death of animals, the sky becoming dark, fires, earthquakes, hungry and destitute Egyptians are among these. If Velikovsky is correct then it disproves the contention that there is no trace of the events related in the Pentateuch recorded in Egyptian history. …. Israel’s enslavement The growth of the Israelite population in Egypt, broadly termed amu (‘Asiatics’), occurred during the reign of the dynastic founding king, Amenemes (Amenemhet), Twelfth Dynasty: “Both the teachings of Amenemhet and the Prophecies of Neferti make reference to Amenemhet having to deal with a large Asiatic (‛3mw) population within Egypt”: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2233&context=facpub Amenemes (Amenemhet), the founding king of the Twelfth Dynasty, was the “new king” of Exodus 1:8, who decreed the slaughter of the male Hebrew babies. Immense building works in the Goshen region, east of the Nile Delta occurred in this period. The presence, then, of Hebrew slaves and labourers is attested by the Brooklyn Papyrus (35.1446), potentially supporting the biblical narrative of the Hebrews’ presence in Egypt with its list of 95 names including 30 Semitic (Hebrew) names. It is dated to the Thirteenth Dynasty, some of whose officials, as we have found, served the Twelfth Dynasty. The occurrence of the name “Shiphrah” and other Hebrew (NW Semitic) type names in the late Middle Kingdom’s Brooklyn Papyrus had constituted an integral part of my detailed argument that Egypt’s: Twelfth Dynasty oppressed Israel https://www.academia.edu/38553314/Twelfth_Dynasty_oppressed_Israel Here is just a part of what I wrote there: The widespread presence of ‘Asiatics’ in Egypt at the time would help to explain the large number of Israelites said to be in the land. Pharaoh would have used as slaves other Syro-Palestinians, too, plus Libyans and Nubians. As precious little, though, is known of Cheops, despite his being powerful enough to have built one of the Seven Wonders of the World, we shall need to fill him out later with his 12th dynasty alter ego. In Cheops’ daughter, Mer-es-ankh, we presumably have the Merris of tradition who retrieved the baby Moses from the water. The name Mer-es-ankh consists basically of two elements, Meres and ankh, the latter being the ‘life’ symbol for Egypt worn by people even today. Mer-es-ankh married Chephren (Egyptian, Khafra), builder of the second Giza pyramid and probably, of the Great Sphinx. He would thus have become Moses’s foster/father-in-law. Moses, now a thorough-going ‘Egyptian’ (cf. Exodus 2:19), must have been his loyal subject. “Now Moses was taught all the wisdom of the Egyptians and became a man of power both in his speech and in his actions”. (Acts 7:22) Tradition has Moses leading armies for Chenephres as far as Ethiopia. Whilst this may seem a bit strained in a 4th dynasty context, we shall find that it is perfectly appropriate in a 12th dynasty one, when we uncover Chephren’s alter ego. From the 12th dynasty, we gain certain further elements that are relevant to the early era of Moses. Once again we have a strong founder-king, Amenemhet I, who will enable us to fill out the virtually unknown Cheops as the “new king” of Exodus 1:8. The reign of Amenemhet I was, deliberately, an abrupt break with the past. The beginning of the 12th dynasty marks not only a new dynasty, but an entirely new order. Amenemhet I celebrated his accession by adopting the Horus name: Wehem-Meswt (“He who repeats births”), thought to indicate that he was “the first of a new line”, that he was “thereby consciously identifying himself as the inaugurator of a renaissance, or new era in his country’s history”. Amenemhet I is thought actually to have been a commoner, originally from southern Egypt. I have thought to connect him to pharaoh Khufu via the nobleman from Abydos, Khui. “The Prophecy of Neferti”, relating to the time of Amenemhet I, shows the same concern in Egypt for the growing presence of Asiatics in the eastern Delta as was said to occupy the mind of the new pharaoh of Exodus, seeing the Israelites as a political threat (1:9): “‘Look’, [pharaoh] said to his people, ‘the Israelites have become far too numerous for us’.” That Asiatics were particularly abundant in Egypt at the time is apparent from this information from the Cambridge Ancient History: “The Asiatic inhabitants of the country at this period [of the Twelfth Dynasty] must have been many times more numerous than has been generally supposed ...”. Dr David Down gives the account of Sir Flinders Petrie who, working in the Fayyûm in 1899, made the important discovery of the town of Illahûn [Kahun], which Petrie described as “an unaltered town of the twelfth dynasty”. Of the ‘Asiatic’ presence in this pyramid builders’ town, Rosalie David (who is in charge of the Egyptian branch of the Manchester Museum) has written: It is apparent that the Asiatics were present in the town in some numbers, and this may have reflected the situation elsewhere in Egypt. It can be stated that these people were loosely classed by Egyptians as ‘Asiatics’, although their exact home-land in Syria or Palestine cannot be determined .... The reason for their presence in Egypt remains unclear. Undoubtedly, these ‘Asiatics’ were dwelling in Illahûn largely to raise pyramids for the glory of the pharaohs. Is there any documentary evidence that ‘Asiatics’ in Egypt acted as slaves or servants to the Egyptians? “Evidence is not lacking to indicate that these Asiatics became slaves”, Dr. Down has written with reference to the Brooklyn Papyrus. Egyptian households at this time were filled with Asiatic slaves, some of whom bore biblical names. Of the seventy-seven legible names of the servants of an Egyptian woman called Senebtisi recorded on the verso of this document, forty-eight are (like the Hebrews) NW Semitic. In fact, the name “Shiphrah” is identical to that borne by one of the Hebrew midwives whom Pharaoh had commanded to kill the male babies (Exodus 1:15). “Asian slaves, whether merchandise or prisoners of war, became plentiful in wealthy Egyptian households [prior to the New Kingdom]”, we read in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Amenemhet I was represented in “The Prophecy of Neferti” - as with the “new king” of Exodus 1:8 - as being the one who would set about rectifying the problem. To this end he completely reorganised the administration of Egypt, transferring the capital from Thebes in the south to Ithtowe in the north, just below the Nile Delta. He allowed those nomarchs who supported his cause to retain their power. He built on a grand scale. Egypt was employing massive slave labour, not only in the Giza area, but also in the eastern Delta region where the Israelites were said to have settled at the time of Joseph. Professor J. Breasted provided ample evidence to show that the powerful 12th dynasty pharaohs carried out an enormous building program whose centre was in the Delta region. More specifically, this building occurred in the eastern Delta region which included the very area that comprised the land of Goshen where the Israelites first settled. “... in the eastern part [of the Delta], especially at Tanis and Bubastis ... massive remains still show the interest which the Twelfth Dynasty manifested in the Delta cities”. Today, archaeologists recognise the extant remains of the construction under these kings as representing a mere fraction of the original; the major part having been destroyed by the vandalism of the New Kingdom pharaohs (such as Ramses II). The Biblical account states that: “... they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in mortar and in brick”. (Exodus 1:14). …. [End of quotes] For the historical Moses in a Twelfth Dynasty setting, see e.g. my articles: Moses in Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty (5) Moses in Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty Joseph in Egypt’s Eleventh Dynasty, Moses in Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty (5) Joseph in Egypt’s Eleventh Dynasty, Moses in Egypt's Twelfth Dynasty For the historical Moses and his flight to Midian to escape the wrath of Pharaoh, see e.g. my article: Moses, from the comforts of Egypt to the desert landscapes of Midian (5) Moses, from the comforts of Egypt to the desert landscapes of Midian For Moses during his sojourn in Midian, see e.g. my article: Moses, his marriage in Midian, and the holy Mountain of God (5) Moses, his marriage in Midian, and the holy Mountain of God This takes us into Chapter 3 of the Book of Exodus, and the spiritual Burning Bush episode: The Burning Bush theophany directing Moses back to Egypt (5) The Burning Bush theophany directing Moses back to Egypt Moses and the Burning Bush 3 Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. 3 So Moses thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up.” 4 When the Lord saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!” And Moses said, “Here I am.” 5 “Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.” 6 Then he said, “I am the God of your father,[a] the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God. 7 The Lord said, “I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering. 8 So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey—the home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 9 And now the cry of the Israelites has reached me, and I have seen the way the Egyptians are oppressing them. 10 So now, go. I am sending you to Pharaoh to bring my people the Israelites out of Egypt.” 11 But Moses said to God, “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt?” 12 And God said, “I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you[b] will worship God on this mountain.” 13 Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?” 14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.[c] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’” 15 God also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The Lord,[d] the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’ “This is my name forever, the name you shall call me from generation to generation. 16 “Go, assemble the elders of Israel and say to them, ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—appeared to me and said: I have watched over you and have seen what has been done to you in Egypt. 17 And I have promised to bring you up out of your misery in Egypt into the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—a land flowing with milk and honey.’ 18 “The elders of Israel will listen to you. Then you and the elders are to go to the king of Egypt and say to him, ‘The Lord, the God of the Hebrews, has met with us. Let us take a three-day journey into the wilderness to offer sacrifices to the Lord our God.’ 19 But I know that the king of Egypt will not let you go unless a mighty hand compels him. 20 So I will stretch out my hand and strike the Egyptians with all the wonders that I will perform among them. After that, he will let you go. 21 “And I will make the Egyptians favorably disposed toward this people, so that when you leave you will not go empty-handed. 22 Every woman is to ask her neighbor and any woman living in her house for articles of silver and gold and for clothing, which you will put on your sons and daughters. And so you will plunder the Egyptians.” Moses will be tasked with waging war on all of the gods of Egypt (Exodus 12:12). There have been terrific articles written on the subject of how each individual Plague was directed at one or other Egyptian god (including Pharaoh). For example, Joe LoMusio’s article: “Against the Gods of Egypt” - Identifying the Ten Plagues (5) "Against the Gods of Egypt" - Identifying the Ten Plagues Exodus 12:12 Against all the gods of Egypt, I will execute judgment: I am the LORD. Just before the tenth and final plague brought upon Egypt, God proclaims to Moses that the calamities befalling Pharaoh and his people were divine judgments against all the gods of Egypt. This astonishing statement is repeated in Numbers 33:4, where, referring to the Egyptians, we read, “Also on their gods the LORD executed judgments.” While both statements could be interpreted as relating only to the tenth and final plague, there is a greater possibility that all the plagues should be considered, as each of them can be understood as relating to the various gods and cult practices of the ancient Egyptians. ….

Brooklyn Museum Papyrus lists Exodus midwife name ‘Shiphrah’

by Damien F. Mackey The occurrence of the name “Shiphrah” and other Hebrew (NW Semitic) type names in the late Middle Kingdom’s Brooklyn Papyrus had constituted an integral part of my detailed argument that Egypt’s: Twelfth Dynasty oppressed Israel https://www.academia.edu/38553314/Twelfth_Dynasty_oppressed_Israel Here is just a part of what I wrote there: The widespread presence of ‘Asiatics’ in Egypt at the time would help to explain the large number of Israelites said to be in the land. Pharaoh would have used as slaves other Syro-Palestinians, too, plus Libyans and Nubians. As precious little, though, is known of Cheops, despite his being powerful enough to have built one of the Seven Wonders of the World, we shall need to fill him out later with his 12th dynasty alter ego. In Cheops’ daughter, Mer-es-ankh, we presumably have the Merris of tradition who retrieved the baby Moses from the water. The name Mer-es-ankh consists basically of two elements, Meres and ankh, the latter being the ‘life’ symbol for Egypt worn by people even today. Mer-es-ankh married Chephren (Egyptian, Khafra), builder of the second Giza pyramid and probably, of the Great Sphinx. He would thus have become Moses’s foster/father-in-law. Moses, now a thorough-going ‘Egyptian’ (cf. Exodus 2:19), must have been his loyal subject. “Now Moses was taught all the wisdom of the Egyptians and became a man of power both in his speech and in his actions”. (Acts 7:22) Tradition has Moses leading armies for Chenephres as far as Ethiopia. Whilst this may seem a bit strained in a 4th dynasty context, we shall find that it is perfectly appropriate in a 12th dynasty one, when we uncover Chephren’s alter ego. From the 12th dynasty, we gain certain further elements that are relevant to the early era of Moses. Once again we have a strong founder-king, Amenemhet I, who will enable us to fill out the virtually unknown Cheops as the “new king” of Exodus 1:8. The reign of Amenemhet I was, deliberately, an abrupt break with the past. The beginning of the 12th dynasty marks not only a new dynasty, but an entirely new order. Amenemhet I celebrated his accession by adopting the Horus name: Wehem-Meswt (“He who repeats births”), thought to indicate that he was “the first of a new line”, that he was “thereby consciously identifying himself as the inaugurator of a renaissance, or new era in his country’s history”. Amenemhet I is thought actually to have been a commoner, originally from southern Egypt. I have thought to connect him to pharaoh Khufu via the nobleman from Abydos, Khui. “The Prophecy of Neferti”, relating to the time of Amenemhet I, shows the same concern in Egypt for the growing presence of Asiatics in the eastern Delta as was said to occupy the mind of the new pharaoh of Exodus, seeing the Israelites as a political threat (1:9): “‘Look’, [pharaoh] said to his people, ‘the Israelites have become far too numerous for us’.” That Asiatics were particularly abundant in Egypt at the time is apparent from this information from the Cambridge Ancient History: “The Asiatic inhabitants of the country at this period [of the Twelfth Dynasty] must have been many times more numerous than has been generally supposed ...”. Dr David Down gives the account of Sir Flinders Petrie who, working in the Fayyûm in 1899, made the important discovery of the town of Illahûn [Kahun], which Petrie described as “an unaltered town of the twelfth dynasty”. Of the ‘Asiatic’ presence in this pyramid builders’ town, Rosalie David (who is in charge of the Egyptian branch of the Manchester Museum) has written: It is apparent that the Asiatics were present in the town in some numbers, and this may have reflected the situation elsewhere in Egypt. It can be stated that these people were loosely classed by Egyptians as ‘Asiatics’, although their exact home-land in Syria or Palestine cannot be determined .... The reason for their presence in Egypt remains unclear. Undoubtedly, these ‘Asiatics’ were dwelling in Illahûn largely to raise pyramids for the glory of the pharaohs. Is there any documentary evidence that ‘Asiatics’ in Egypt acted as slaves or servants to the Egyptians? “Evidence is not lacking to indicate that these Asiatics became slaves”, Dr. Down has written with reference to the Brooklyn Papyrus. Egyptian households at this time were filled with Asiatic slaves, some of whom bore biblical names. Of the seventy-seven legible names of the servants of an Egyptian woman called Senebtisi recorded on the verso of this document, forty-eight are (like the Hebrews) NW Semitic. In fact, the name “Shiphrah” is identical to that borne by one of the Hebrew midwives whom Pharaoh had commanded to kill the male babies (Exodus 1:15). “Asian slaves, whether merchandise or prisoners of war, became plentiful in wealthy Egyptian households [prior to the New Kingdom]”, we read in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Amenemhet I was represented in “The Prophecy of Neferti” - as with the “new king” of Exodus 1:8 - as being the one who would set about rectifying the problem. To this end he completely reorganised the administration of Egypt, transferring the capital from Thebes in the south to Ithtowe in the north, just below the Nile Delta. He allowed those nomarchs who supported his cause to retain their power. He built on a grand scale. Egypt was employing massive slave labour, not only in the Giza area, but also in the eastern Delta region where the Israelites were said to have settled at the time of Joseph. Professor J. Breasted provided ample evidence to show that the powerful 12th dynasty pharaohs carried out an enormous building program whose centre was in the Delta region. More specifically, this building occurred in the eastern Delta region which included the very area that comprised the land of Goshen where the Israelites first settled. “... in the eastern part [of the Delta], especially at Tanis and Bubastis ... massive remains still show the interest which the Twelfth Dynasty manifested in the Delta cities”. Today, archaeologists recognise the extant remains of the construction under these kings as representing a mere fraction of the original; the major part having been destroyed by the vandalism of the New Kingdom pharaohs (such as Ramses II). The Biblical account states that: “... they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in mortar and in brick”. (Exodus 1:14). …. [End of quotes] Interesting to read, along somewhat similar lines, this piece by Hershel Shanks: http://cojs.org/first_person-_a_name_in_search_of_a_story-_hershel_shanks-_bar_24-01-_jan-feb_1998/ First Person: A Name in Search of a Story, Hershel Shanks, BAR 24:01, Jan-Feb 1998. An Egyptian papyrus reveals an Asiatic slave with a Biblical name—a midwife mentioned in Exodus It would be easy to tell you how a story in BAR develops, but I thought I would instead tell you how a story didn’t develop—at least not yet. The tip came from a lawyer, a faithful reader from Brooklyn named Harvey Herbert- An Egyptian hieroglyphic papyrus now in the Brooklyn Museum mentions an Asiatic slave named Shiphrah. Shiphrah, of course, is the name of one of the Hebrew midwives (the other is Puah) whom Pharaoh summoned to carry out his order that all boys born to the enslaved Israelites be killed (Exodus 1-15). Shiphrah (and Puah) didn’t obey Pharaoh, however; they were devoted to God, so they let the boys live. And here was an Asiatic slave with this same name mentioned in an Egyptian papyrus written in hieroglyphics. Was this for real? It certainly was. The problem was that it had been in the museum for a long time—since 1935. An entire book had been written on this papyrus in the 1950s. So what was new? Sad, but true, journalism seems to require novelty. An interesting fact that has been known for a long time, but of which we are unaware, somehow seems less interesting than a newly revealed fact. At least so it is with editors. So I began looking for a new, novel angle. I called a leading young Egyptologist at Johns Hopkins University, Betsy Bryan, who immediately recognized the papyrus I was speaking of. She was intimately familiar with it, as, she said, were most Egyptologists. But she knew the papyrus only from the Egyptological viewpoint, not from the Biblical viewpoint. She was able to tell me, however, that the publication of the papyrus was by a first-rate scholar, the late William Hayes. I next called the distinguished Biblical historian Abraham Malamat, of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He told me that the papyrus was a well-known text and that the great William Foxwell Albright had written a paper on it in 1954 (even before Hayes’s book came out), analyzing it from the Biblical viewpoint. Trying to think of a new angle, I asked myself whether the appearance of the name Shiphrah could be used to date the origins of the Biblical narrative. So I called Avi Hurvitz, a leading Hebrew University scholar in the development of the Hebrew language. He told me that my methodology was sound—if the name appeared only at a particular time, that could help date a text. Whether there was sufficient evidence in this case was another question. This would take a lengthy study. And I knew from past experience that we can rarely get scholars to do major studies for us, especially if the outcome is doubtful. We have to find out what scholars are working on and then see if that can be made interesting to our readers. So I have neither an author nor a subject. All I can do is report what to some (surely, to me) are previously unknown facts that have nevertheless been known to scholars for a long time- The papyrus was purchased by an American journalist and Egyptologist named Charles Wilbour on one of his regular winter sailing trips up the Nile, between 1881 and 1896, looking for Egyptian antiquities. On Wilbour’s death the papyrus was placed in a trunk and languished there until it was given to the Brooklyn Museum in 1935. It is reasonably certain that the papyrus originally came from ancient Thebes. It has been dated to about 1740 B.C.1 The back side of the papyrus contains a long list of slaves who are to become the property of the new owner’s wife. Each is identified as Egyptian or Asiatic. The Asiatic slaves, unlike the Egyptian slaves, almost all have Northwest Semitic names—nearly 30 of them. Among them is a female slave named Shiphrah. But she is not the only one. Another, according to Albright, has a name that is the feminine form of Issachar, one of the twelve tribes of Israel. Another is the feminine form of Asher, also one of the twelve tribes. Still other Northwest Semitic names are related to the Hebrew names Menahem and Job. Based on the date of the papyrus, Albright comments that “we should expect significant points of contact with Israelite tradition … Virtually all the tribal names of the House of Jacob go back to early times.”2 If anyone sees an angle for an article for BAR in all this, please let me know. 1. William C. Hayes, A Papyrus of the Late Middle Kingdom in the Brooklyn Museum [Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446] (New York- Brooklyn Museum, 1955). 2. William F. Albright, “Northwest Semitic Names in a List of Egyptian Slaves from the Eighteenth Century B.C.,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 74 (1954), pp. 222–233. Brooklyn Papyrus lists Shiphrah, the name of one of the Hebrew midwives prior to Exodus “The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, whose names were Shiphrah and Puah, ‘When you are helping the Hebrew women during childbirth on the delivery stool, if you see that the baby is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live’. The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live”. Exodus 1:15-17 “Titus” has written at: https://apxaioc.com/?p=21#:~:text=Evidence%20from%20Papyrus%20Brooklyn,-%2F%20Uncategorized%20%2F%20By%20Archae27&text=The%20presence%20of%20Hebrews%20in,the%20subsequent%20settlement%20of%20Canaan. Hebrews in Egypt before the Exodus? Evidence from Papyrus Brooklyn / Uncategorized / By Archae27 The presence of Hebrews in Egypt prior to their departure is a key component in the Exodus story, leading to the eventual formation of the Israelite nation and the subsequent settlement of Canaan. However, skepticism about the historical validity of the Exodus story has spread through both academia and the general public over the last century. One of the key problems for asserting the Exodus narrative as historical has to do with the supposed lack of archaeological confirmation for Hebrews living in Egypt. Current academic consensus views the events described in the book of Exodus as myth, without any indication of an historical core, and now a topic which the vast majority of scholars decline to investigate due to their certainty that the story is fictional. Scholars have made claims that according to archaeological investigations, “Israelites were never in Egypt …. The many Egyptian documents that we have make no mention of the Israelites’ presence in Egypt” (Zeev Herzog). Another archaeologist concluded that investigation of the Exodus story is pointless because of the alleged absence of evidence, stating that “not only is there no archaeological evidence for such an exodus, there is no need to posit such an event …. I regard the historicity of the Exodus as a dead issue” (William Dever). Are claims that there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that Hebrew people were in Egypt prior to the time of the Exodus consistent with current archaeological and historical data? Any possible evidence of Hebrews living in Egypt must be prior to the time of the Exodus in order to maintain that the story recorded in the Bible is an accurate historical narrative. Approximately when might have the Exodus occurred? According to a reading of specific chronological information in the books of Kings, Judges, and Numbers, combined with chronological information from Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Hellenistic, and Roman documents, the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt occurred around the 1440s BC (1 Kings 6:1; Judges 11:26; Numbers 32:13; Ptolemy’s Canon; Neo-Assyrian Eponym List; Manetho’s King List; Uruk King List; Roman Consul Lists). This approximate date in the 1440s BC is a crucial chronological marker which restricts investigation of archaeological and historical material to a particular window of time. Prior to this date, one would expect evidence for Hebrews in Egypt and an Egyptian policy of slavery towards Asiatics or Semites, the larger ethnic groups to which the Hebrews belonged, if the Exodus account is historical. According to the narrative in the Bible, near the end of the Patriarchal period calculated at approximately 1680 BC, Jacob and his family had settled into the northeastern Nile Delta region known as Goshen with their livestock and various possessions (Genesis 46:6, 47:1). Earlier, Abraham had resided temporarily in Egypt but he moved back to Canaan for the remainder of his life (Genesis 12:10-13:1). Around the time of these patriarchs, during the periods called the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period in Egypt and the Middle Bronze Age in Canaan, many people from western Asia or Canaan immigrated into Egypt. Damien Mackey’s comment: The early patriarchs pre-existed the Middle Bronze Age. See e.g. my article: Narmer a contemporary of Patriarch Abraham (3) Narmer a contemporary of Patriarch Abraham “Titus” continues: A famous contemporary depiction and description of this immigration was found painted on one of the walls of the tomb of Khnumhotep II in Beni Hasan, Egypt. The scene, paired with a text, depicts a group of 37 Semites from Canaan—men, women, and children, along with their livestock and supplies—immigrating into middle Egypt during the early 19th century BC. …. While this would be slightly earlier than when Joseph and subsequently his father Jacob arrive in Egypt, Damien Mackey’s comment: It’s actually later than the time of the early Patriarchs. … the events occur in the same general historical period. According to archaeological excavations and information derived from various ancient documents and art work, during this time large numbers of people from western Asia immigrated into Egypt and settled primarily in the Nile Delta region, just as Jacob and his family also did. …. …. The making of mudbricks by Hebrew slaves and the difficulties in this task are detailed in the Exodus account (Exodus 5). A remark on the scene in the tomb of Rekmire about an Egyptian master reminding slaves to not be idle lest they receive a beating with the rod brings to mind the episode in which Moses saw an Egyptian taskmaster beating a Hebrew slave (Exodus 2:11). Although many of these connections are circumstantial, the lack of contemporary texts or inscriptions directly attesting to Joseph, Moses, or a large scale enslavement of the Hebrews specifically may be due to the fact that no sites of the period have been excavated in either the central or western Nile Delta region and that few records from the Nile Delta region in this period have survived. Damien Mackey’s comment: For a clearer account of Hebrew involvement in large scale building works, see e.g. my article: Giza Pyramids: The How, When and Why of Them (3) Giza Pyramids: The How, When and Why of Them However, an important Egyptian document from Upper Egypt has survived the millennia. While the current scholarly consensus asserts that there is no definitive evidence for Hebrews living in Egypt prior to the Exodus, an Egyptian list of domestic servants written in the Second Intermediate Period, perhaps in the 17th century BC, contains not only Semitic names, but several specifically Hebrew names. This document was designated Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446. Rediscovered on the antiquities market, this papyrus was examined by William Albright and Kenneth Kitchen, and published in a book by Egyptologist William Hayes of the Brooklyn Museum. Several references to Thebes on the papyrus indicate that it was originally composed in or around that city, the capital of Upper Egypt, although it is not certain exactly where in that region it came from, as information about its original place of discovery was lost. The section of the papyrus dealing with the servants is thought to date from the 13th Dynasty of Egypt, or at least from some time in the era known as the Second Intermediate Period. The end of this period preceded the Exodus by approximately 120 years, while the period began around 300 years prior to the Exodus—encompassing the time that the Hebrews were in Egypt as settlers and perhaps even slaves. The dates for Pharaohs and even the existence of the Pharaohs themselves from this period are often tentative and highly disputed, so it is difficult to date anything with absolute certainty. However, the papyrus does contain the name of a Pharaoh called “Sobekhotep” who may have reigned around either the late 18th or the 17th century BC. Damien Mackey’s comment: For clarification about Sobekhotep, see e.g. my article: Dynastic anomalies surrounding Egyptian Crocodile god, Sobek (5) Dynastic anomalies surrounding Egyptian Crocodile god, Sobek | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu While various publications have suggested rather definite and specific date ranges for the servant list section of the papyrus, it is difficult to establish the precise date due to the fragmentary history of the Second Intermediate Period. Pharaohs Sobekhotep III and VIII, who shared almost identical throne names, could possibly have been the same ruler. All of the monuments of Sobekhotep III are located in the south, and the only monument of Sobekhotep VIII is also located in the south at Karnak, indicating both were Theban kings during the 16th or 17th Theban Dynasties. With the 18th Dynasty beginning ca. 1570 BC according to the latest chronological studies based on high precision radiocarbon samples, this could place the Pharaoh “sekem re sewadjtowy” Sobekhotep (?) in the approximate range of 1700-1620 BC. Further, studies of the phrases and handwriting of the servant list on the papyrus also suggest a date in the Second Intermediate Period. Therefore, the list of servants probably comes from a time during or just after the life of Joseph. A section of Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446 contains a list of 95 servants, many of whom are specified as “Asiatic” or coming from western Asia (i.e. Canaan). The servants with foreign names are given Egyptian names, just as Joseph was when he was a household servant under Potiphar (Genesis 41:45). The majority of the names are feminine because domestic servants were typically female, while the male servants often worked in construction or agricultural tasks. Approximately 30 of the servants have names identified as from the Semitic language family (Hebrew is a Semitic language), but even more relevant to the Exodus story is that several of these servants, up to ten, actually have specifically Hebrew names. The Hebrew names found on the list include: Menahema, a feminine form of Menahem (2 Kings 15:14); Ashera, a feminine form of Asher, the name of one of the sons of Jacob (Genesis 30:13); Shiphrah, the name of one of the Hebrew midwives prior to the Exodus (Exodus 1:15); ‘Aqoba, a name appearing to be a feminine form of Jacob or Yaqob, the name of the patriarch (Genesis 25:26); ‘Ayyabum, the name of the patriarch Job or Ayob (Job 1:1); Sekera, which is a feminine name either similar to Issakar, a name of one of the sons of Jacob, or the feminine form of it (Genesis 30:18); Dawidi-huat a compound name utilizing the name David and meaning “my beloved is he” (1 Samuel 16:13); Esebtw, a name derived from the Hebrew word eseb meaning “herb” (Deuteronomy 32:2); Hayah-wr another compound name composed of Hayah or Eve and meaning “bright life” (Genesis 3:20); and finally the name Hy’b’rw, which appears to be an Egyptian transcription of Hebrew (Genesis 39:14). Thus, this list is a clear attestation of Hebrew people living in Egypt prior to the Exodus, and it is an essential piece of evidence in the argument for an historical Exodus. Although it appears that the Israelites were centered around the northeast Nile Delta area—the regions of Goshen and Rameses and the cities of Rameses, Pithom, and On—this document is from the area of Thebes to the south and includes household servants like Joseph in his early years rather than building and agricultural slaves of the period of Moses. Thus, the list appears to be an attestation of Hebrews in Egypt in their earlier period of residence in the country, prior to their total enslavement, and perhaps shows that a group may have migrated south or was taken south for work. While remains of material culture such as pottery, architecture, or artifacts may be ethnically ambiguous, Hebrew names and possibly even the word or name Hebrew clearly indicates that there were Hebrews living in Egypt. Although rather obscure, the list includes the earliest attestation of Hebrew names that has ever been recovered in Egypt, and it demonstrates that Hebrews were in Egypt prior to the 1440s BC just as the story in the book of Exodus records. ~Titus~

Eleazer (Esdras) of 2 Maccabees enables us to link Ezra (Esdras) to son of Sirach

by Damien F. Mackey If the one whom we call Sirach was actually Eleazar ben Sira, then that would do no harm whatsoever to my identification, and would likely enhance it. For, according to Abarim Publications, the Hebrew name, Eleazer, is related to both Azariah and Ezra. Although Daniel 3 portrays the three Jewish youth as defiant, the underlying reality - if I am correct in identifying Azariah with Ezra son of Seraiah (Sirach), and with the author of Sirach 51 - is quite different. The prospect of being burned alive in fire, or in boiling hot oil, is utterly terrifying. And I think that we get an eye-witness impression of the horror of it from Sirach 51. Previously I wrote on this most dramatic episode: Sirach 51:1, 2, 4: “I will give thanks to you, Lord and King … for you have been protector and support to me, and redeemed my body from destruction … from the stifling heat which hemmed me in, from the heart of a fire which I had not kindled …”. Saved “from the heart of a fire”, “hemmed in” by its “stifling heat”. Could this, the son of Sirach’s account, be a graphic description by one who had actually stood in the heart of the raging fire? - had stood inside “the Burning Fiery Furnace” of the Chaldean king, Nebuchednezzar? (Daniel 3:20). Another translation (GNT) renders the vivid account of the Lord’s saving of the son of Sirach as follows (Sirach 51:3-5): “… from the glaring hatred of my enemies, who wanted to put an end to my life; from suffocation in oppressive smoke rising from fires that I did not light; from death itself; from vicious slander reported to the king”. According to the far more dispassionate account of the same (so I think) incident as narrated in Daniel 3:49-50: … the angel of the Lord came down into the furnace beside Azariah and his companions; he drove the flames of the fire outwards, and fanned into them, in the heart of the furnace, a coolness such as wind and dew will bring, so that the fire did not even touch them or cause them any pain or distress. Note that both texts refer almost identically to “the heart of the fire [the furnace]”. Azariah - {who, unlike “his companions”, Hananiah and Mishael, is named here in Daniel} - I have identified as Ezra the scribe: Ezra heroic in the face of death (5) Ezra heroic in the face of death In this article I had noted that: “Ezra [is] a mostly obscure character throughout the Scriptures, despite his immense reputation and status …”. And also that: “… Azariah is always listed as the last of the trio (Daniel 1:6): “Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah”, variously as “Abednego” (cf. vv. 11, 19; 2:17, 49; 3:12-30), perhaps because he was the youngest …”. To which comment, however, I had added, “… it is apparent that it is he [Azariah] who will take the leading part in the confession of guilt and the prayers”. And that would make sense if Azariah were Ezra, for, as also noted in the article with reference to Ezra 7:1-5, “[Ezra was] … a priest in the line of Aaron, hence, potentially, the High Priest”. So why might it be that the Daniel 3 text above names only “Azariah”, he perhaps being the youngest of the trio? Well, if Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) chapter 51 has any relevance to the Fiery Furnace incident, if the son of Sirach (Seraiah) were Azariah-Ezra, then he himself appears to have been the one who had decided to appeal prayerfully to the Divine Mercy for help and protection (vv. 6-12): I was once brought face-to-face with death; enemies surrounded me everywhere. I looked for someone to help me, but there was no one there. But then, O Lord, I remembered how merciful you are and what you had done in times past. I remembered that you rescue those who rely on you, that you save them from their enemies. Then from here on earth I prayed to you to rescue me from death. I prayed, O Lord, you are my Father; do not abandon me to my troubles when I am helpless against arrogant enemies. I will always praise you and sing hymns of thanksgiving. You answered my prayer, and saved me from the threat of destruction. And so I thank you and praise you. O Lord, I praise you! The three young Jewish men, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, had had no hope whatsoever of obtaining any human deliverance. But once again Azariah alone will be the one to proclaim this (“Then Azariah stood still and there in the fire he prayed aloud”) (Daniel 3:32-33): ‘You have delivered us into the power of our enemies, of a lawless people, the worst of the godless, of an unjust king, the worst in the whole world; today we dare not even open our mouths, shame and dishonour are the lot of those who serve and worship You’. Might Sirach 51 be an echo of this terrifying situation, when the son of Sirach prays to God, “You have redeemed me [v. 3] from the fangs of those who would devour me, from the hands of those seeking my life … [v. 6] From the unclean tongue and the lying word – The perjured tongue slandering me to the king. …. [v. 7] They were surrounding me on every side, there was no one to support me; I looked for someone to help – in vain”. … it was found (in the “Ezra” article above) that the name “Ezra” was related to the name “Azariah”, apparently a shortened version of the latter …. If the one whom we call Sirach was actually Eleazar ben Sira, then that would do no harm whatsoever to my identification, and would likely enhance it. For, according to Abarim Publications, the Hebrew name, Eleazer, is related to both Azariah and Ezra: https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Eleazar.html Moreover, the name of Ezra’s father, Seraiah (Ezra 7:1), “… Ezra son of Seraiah …”, can easily be equated with Sira, which would give us the perfect equation: Ezra (= Eleazer) son of Seraiah; = Eleazer son of Sira(ch) Revised Chronology Of course, any correlation between the young Azariah at the time of Nebuchednezzar, and the son of Sirach, estimated to have lived early in the Maccabean period - a difference, conventionally, of some 400 years - is quite unrealistic in terms of the over-extended standard chronology. But this is where it all gets mighty interesting! My above-mentioned article on “Ezra”, though, suggests that this is possible, with the holy man, Ezra (Greco-Latin Esdras), living to as late as the wars of Judas Maccabeus, as Esdras, or Esdrias (var. Eleazer), who, like Ezra, read aloud the Book of the Law (the Holy Book) (cf. Nehemiah 8:1-3; 2 Maccabees 8:23). Formerly, I had read this character only with the name, “Esdrias”, which is, of course, perfectly compatible with Ezra rendered in Greco-Latin as Esdras. But now I have learned that he is also rendered in 2 Maccabees as “Eleazer”, the name of the son of Sirach (50:27 NRSV): “Instruction in understanding and knowledge I have written in this book, Jesus son of Eleazar son of Sirach of Jerusalem, whose mind poured forth wisdom”. So the Maccabean Eleazer, who read aloud from the Holy Book, can now well be Ezra (var. Eleazer), son of Seraiah, who read aloud from the Book of the Law, tying together, as one, as Eleazer son of Sira(ch) (var. Seraiah), Ezra and Eleazer - thereby necessitating a chronological shrinkage of centuries.

Who, or what, were the ancient gods?

by Damien F. Mackey 1. Antediluvian Origins Worship of famous antediluvian ancestors, both male and female, appears to account for at least some of it. Ancestor worship, or veneration of the dead, is still common today in parts of the world. We Catholics venerate, as saints, holy dead people, though we do not worship them, but only God. Some obvious antediluvians who were apotheosised (i.e., raised to the rank of gods) - {see “deified patriarchs” below} - were: Noah Probably the Egyptian god, Nu, or Nun: https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=d88f2f9151e47029&hl=en&rlz=1C1RXQR_en-gbAU979AU979&q=god+nu+water&source=lnms&fbs=ABzOT_BwhWbvgbq2- “Nu ("Watery One") or Nun ("The Inert One in ancient Egyptian religion, is the personification of the primordial watery abyss …”, whose wife, Nut, would then be Noah’s wife: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wives_aboard_Noah%27s_Ark “The Genesis Rabba midrash lists Naamah, the daughter of Lamech and sister of Tubal-Cain, as the wife of Noah …”. Noah was also represented by the Babylonian hero, Ziusudra (Utnapishtim). https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ziusudra “Ziusudra, in Mesopotamian Religion, rough counterpart to the biblical Noah as survivor of a god-sent flood. When the gods had decided to destroy humanity with a flood, the god Enki (Akkadian Ea), who did not agree with the decree, revealed it to Ziusudra, a man well known for his humility and obedience. Ziusudra did as Enki commanded him and built a huge boat, in which he successfully rode out the flood. Afterward, he prostrated himself before the gods An (Anu) and Enlil (Bel), and, as a reward for living a godly life, Ziusudra was given immortality. See Utnapishtim”. The name, Noah, Nu, is found again in Manu, who is the Hindu version of Noah: https://www.skippingstones.org/wp/ “Manu was a sage who dedicated his life to faithfully serving and worshiping Hindu gods. The Lord Vishnu, the preserver in the Hindu trinity, chose Manu to be the survivor of a flood that would cleanse the world”. There are Noah legends, in fact, from all over the world. AI Overview “In Greek mythology, Deucalion is the figurehead of the great flood myth, comparable to Noah's Ark in the Bible”. Japheth Noah’s son, Japheth, is said to have been the father of the Indo-Europeans peoples. Hindu mythology knows him as Pra Japati (Father Japheth), the Lord of Creation. The Romans knew him as Jupiter (Japheth), who was Zeus to the Greeks, Baal to the Canaanites. Japheth was, like his father, Noah, an antediluvian who continued to live on into the post-diluvial world. He is one of the eight progenitors of the human race (I Peter 3:20), corresponding to Egypt’s Ogdoad, or eight primordial deities associated with the water chaos. Tubal Cain Again a biblical character, a descendant of Cain, and a son of Lamech. Tubal Cain (Tuval Cain) was a smith, and master of metallurgy. He is found in Roman mythology under the like name and attributes of Vulcanus, which name we tend to shorten to Vulcan (= TuVALCAIN). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_(mythology) “Vulcan (Latin: Vulcanus, in archaically retained spelling also Volcanus, both pronounced [wʊɫˈkaːnʊs]) is the god of fire …. including the fire of volcanoes, deserts, metalworking and the forge in ancient Roman religion and myth. He is often depicted with a blacksmith's hammer. …”. We meet Vulcan again in Greek mythology as Hephaestus, whom the Greeks, in turn, identified with the Egyptian god, Ptah. In Norse mythology, this mighty god is known as Thor. AI Overview “In mythology, Thor and Vulcan represent similar roles as powerful gods of war and craftsmanship. Thor is the Norse god of thunder and lightning, known for his strength and skill in wielding his hammer, Mjolnir. In Roman mythology, Vulcan (also known as Hephaestus in Greek mythology) is the god of fire, blacksmiths, and artisans, responsible for creating weapons and armor. Both figures are associated with forging, strength, and combat, although their specific roles and characteristics differ slightly within their respective mythologies”. Adam Perhaps less obvious may be the first man, Adam, as the Egyptian god, Atum. https://www.eoht.info/page/Atum%20and%20Adam “In religio-mythology, Atum and Adam refers to the conjecture that the Biblical man Adam … is a rescript [sic] of the story of the Egyptian god Atum, who, according to Heliopolis creation myth (2500BC) [sic], raised the first earth land mound (benben or pyramid) out of the water or was the first god to come into existence in the Nun, before the land-mound arose. Overview In 1861, Daniel Haigh, in his The Conquest of Britain by the Saxons, via citation to the work of “Mr. Osburn”, was making the Atum and Adam connection as follows: (Ѻ) “The mythology of Egypt supplies most interesting confirmation of this theory that the gods of heathenism were deified patriarchs, and shows the system extended still farther, so as to embrace even their forefathers who lived before the flood. Thus Atum, ‘King of the gods’, ‘Lord of the worlds’, ‘god of the setting sun’, and ‘of the lower world’, the judge of souls departed, whom he calls children, whilst they call him father, is evidently Adam.” In 1907, Gerald Massey, in his Ancient Egypt, makes the Atum to Adam connection as follows: [1] - “The so-called ‘legends of creation’ would be more correctly termed the ‘legend of human evolution’, although in a different sense from that of Darwinian development. As Semite, they came to us in the latest and least genuine form, with no clue to any true interpretation. In a Maori myth, man was created by the god Tiki from red clay. This he kneaded with his own blood, or with red water from the swamps. Man is Atum in Egyptian, Admu in Assyrian, and Adam in Hebrew.” Later, in his decoding of the story of Cain and Abel, Massey connects Atum and Adam more explicitly as follows: [1] Atum (father) Set & Osiris | → Horus (legitimate heir) Adam (father) Cain & Abel | → Seth (legitimate heir) What we are immediately finding is that the primary antediluvian gods were common to the major cultures of the ancient world, though under different names and with their local variations and idiosyncracies. Some names, like Osiris for instance, appear to connect, as a composite, to a series of biblical characters: Legends about the Egyptian god, Osiris, appear to have elements in common with the accounts of various biblical (Genesis) characters, such as Noah and Joseph, but also of the baby Moses as narrated in the Book of Exodus. Osiris is considered to be a most ancient of ancient gods. Can we find even earlier (prior to Noah) biblical reminiscences of him? Osiris has also been likened to Cain, the son of Adam and Eve. Egyptian myth and religion continue to be a complete puzzle even to the Egyptological experts. Thus we find that the likes of Sir Alan Gardiner and John Walton were at something of a loss to account for (J. Walton): “… the chief cultural content of Egyptian civilization, its religion, its mythological features …”, and (A. Gardiner): “The origin of Osiris remains from me an insoluble mystery”. Fr. A. Mallon had tried to simplify things when explaining in “The Religion of Ancient Egypt” (Studs. in Comparative Religion, CTS, 1956, p. 3) that whilst the Egyptians were “admittedly polytheistic, with a marked inclination towards idolatry … this plurality was of titles rather than of gods”: … this multiplic¬ity [of gods] was but superficial it was a multiplicity of titles, not of gods. The supreme Creator god was called Atum at Heliopolis; at Memphis, Ptah; at Hermopolis … Thoth; Amon at Thebes; Horus at Edfu; Khnum at Elephantine; but if we examine them minutely, we recognize at once that these divinities have everywhere a like nature, the same attributes and properties, an identical role. They differ only in external imagery and in a few accidental features. From the point of view of correlating these gods to some extent to the early antediluvian characters of the Book of Genesis, where I think they originated, it does simplify matters whenever there is available an easy phonetic name correlation, such as: Adam = Atum; Nu = Noah; Seth = Seth (Set) Having said that, I, however - despite the name similarity - cannot see, in the case of Set(h), any positive connection between the biblical patriarch and the Egyptian god. An interesting historical situation: Some Egyptologists have suggested that the early dynastic ruler of Egypt, Peribsen, had actually tried (in Akhnaton fashion) to introduce monotheism into Egypt. In the case of Peribsen, it was the desert (Hebrew?) god, Seth. Was the name based upon the biblical Seth of whom we read in Genesis 4:26: “To Seth also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then people began to call upon the name of the Lord”? Neith The goddess Athena, whose antediluvian origins some would trace to Naamah, the sister of Tubalcain, was, as Neith, a most ancient goddess of the Egyptian pantheon. In “A black Athena?”, I further wrote of: … the Greek goddess Athena, whom biblical aficionados would identify in her origins with the biblical Eve, or with Naamah, the wife of Ham. Thus Roy Schulz: http://www.book.dislib.info/b1-history/4036992-14-compiled-roy-schulz-social-studies-department-imperial-schools-pa.php …. Naamah was a famous individual in the pre-Flood world. Her brother was Tubalcain, a great military leader, and she took on some of his war-like characteristics. The ancient Greeks, who applied to her the name Athena, pictured her brandishing a spear and regarded her as a goddess of war. She is said to have make a war on the giants during the lifetime of Tubalcain. She had an interesting variety of characteristics because she was also pictured as being a goddess of wisdom as well as of war, in addition to being especially famous as the goddess of weaving or womanly industry. In no connection is she ever pictured as a harlot of prostitution as was Venus of Aphrodite. This is the woman who Ham married. She is the one who carried the WAY OF CAIN THROUGH THE FLOOD! The line of Cain did not die with the Flood, as might easily be supposed! A descendant of Cain and Lamech lived on into the post-Flood world. It was none other than this Naamah to whom God calls our attention in Genesis 4:22. This is why her name is in the Bible! From Ham and Naamah came the Negroid stock after the Flood -- the line of Cush (Gen. 10:6). …. [End of quote] In Wikipedia, we read of the interesting goddess Neith: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neith Neith (… also spelled Nit, Net, or Neit) was an early goddess in the Egyptian pantheon. She was the patron deity of Sais, where her cult was centered in the Western Nile Delta of Egypt and attested as early as the First Dynasty. …. The Ancient Egyptian name of this city was Zau. …. Symbolism … Neith was a goddess of war and of hunting and had as her symbol, two arrows crossed over a shield. However, she is a far more complex goddess than is generally known, and of whom ancient texts only hint of her true nature. In her usual representations, she is portrayed as a fierce deity, a human female wearing the Red Crown, occasionally holding or using the bow and arrow, in others a harpoon. In fact, the hieroglyphs of her name are usually followed by a determinative containing the archery elements, with the shield symbol of the name being explained as either double bows (facing one another), intersected by two arrows (usually lashed to the bows), or by other imagery associated with her worship. Her symbol also identified the city of Sais. …. This symbol was displayed on top of her head in Egyptian art. In her form as a goddess of war, she was said to make the weapons of warriors and to guard their bodies when they died. Mackey’s comment: Most interesting here is Neith’s connection with “the Great Flood” and “the primeval waters”: As a deity, Neith is normally shown carrying the was scepter (symbol of rule and power) and the ankh (symbol of life). She is also called such cosmic epithets as the "Cow of Heaven", a sky-goddess similar to Nut, and as the Great Flood, Mehet-Weret (MHt wr.t), as a cow who gives birth to the sun daily. In these forms, she is associated with creation of both the primeval time and daily "re-creation". As protectress of the Royal House, she is represented as a uraeus, and functions with the fiery fury of the sun, In time, this led to her being considered as the personification of the primordial waters of creation. She is identified as a great mother goddess in this role as a creator. As a female deity and personification of the primeval waters, Neith encompasses masculine elements, making her able to give birth (create) without the opposite sex. She is a feminine version of Ptah-Nun, with her feminine nature complemented with masculine attributes symbolized with her association with the bow and arrow. In the same manner, her personification as the primeval waters is Mehetweret (MHt wr.t), the Great Flood, conceptualized as streaming water, related to another use of the verb sti, meaning 'to pour'. Neith is one of the most ancient deities associated with ancient Egyptian culture. Flinders Petrie (Diopolis Parva, 1901) noted the earliest depictions of her standards were known in predynastic periods, as can be seen from a representation of a barque bearing her crossed arrow standards in the Predynastic Period, as displayed in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Her first anthropomorphic representations occur in the early dynastic period, on a diorite vase of King Ny-Netjer of the Second Dynasty, found in the Step Pyramid of Djoser (Third Dynasty) as Saqqara. That her worship predominated the early dynastic periods is shown by a preponderance of theophoric names (personal names which incorporate the name of a deity) within which Neith appears as an element. Predominance of Neith's name in nearly forty percent of early dynastic names, and particularly in the names of four royal women of the First Dynasty, only emphasizes the importance of this goddess in relation to the early society of Egypt, with special emphasis upon the Royal House. In the very early periods of Egyptian history, the main iconographic representations of this goddess appear to have been limited to her hunting and war characteristics, although there is no Egyptian mythological reference to support the concept this was her primary function as a deity. …. It appears from textual/iconographic evidence she was something of a national goddess for Old Kingdom Egypt, with her own sanctuary in Memphis indicated the political high regard held for her, where she was known as "North of her Wall," as counterpoise to Ptah’s "South of his Wall" epithet. While Neith is generally regarded as a deity of Lower Egypt, her worship was not consistently located in that region. …. Neith's symbol and part of her hieroglyph also bore a resemblance to a loom, and so in later syncretisation of Egyptian myths by the Greek ruling class, she also became goddess of weaving. At this time her role as a creator conflated with that of Athena, as a deity who wove all of the world and existence into being on her loom. Mackey’s comment: The article proceeds to tell of Neith’s great antiquity: Neith was considered to be eldest of the gods, and was appealed to as an arbiter in the dispute between Horus and Seth. Neith is said to have been "born the first, in the time when as yet there had been no birth." (St. Clair, Creation Records: 176). In the Pyramid Texts, Neith is paired with Selket as braces for the sky, which places these two deities as the two supports for the heavens (see PT 1040a-d, following J. Gwyn Griffths, The Conflict of Horus and Seth, (London, 1961) p. 1). This ties in with the vignette in the Contendings of Seth and Horus when Neith is asked by the gods, as the most ancient of goddesses, to decide who should rule. In her message of reply, Neith selects Horus, and says she will "cause the sky to crash to the earth" if he is not selected. AI Overview “In the ancient world, Wisdom was often seen as a Goddess. Pre-dynastic Egypt called her Neith, for the Libyans and the Greeks she was owl-eyed Athena, the Romans called her Minerva, and throughout the Islamic Middle East she is Al-Hakim”. Although many of these gods had their origins as human beings in the antediluvian world, they did go on to evolve at their respective cult centres, picking up attributes and legends of later historical heroes, most notably biblical ones. We have already pointed out the example of Osiris in this regard. And Gary Greenberg has listed some striking similarities between Neith and the prophetess Deborah: http://ggreenberg.tripod.com/writings/w-neith-deb.htm Compare elements of this hymn with the Song of Deborah. 1. Deborah and Neith both talk about their role as a mother; 2. Deborah and Neith each talk about how their actions led to an increase in population; 3. In both stories we find a rebellion of new gods battling against heaven; 4. In both stories, the mother, in her role as mother, promise to intervene in the fighting; 5. In both stories, the mother fights on the side of the chief deity; 6. In both stories there is talk about the enemy being struck down; and 7. In both stories the side representing the chief deity wins. Additionally, we note that in the prose version, Barak is made effective by Deborah’s participation, and, in the Hymn to Neith, Re was made effective and vigorous by the actions of the goddess. …. Horus, for his part, will absorb elements from the Book of Exodus, from baby Moses: https://www.thetorah.com/article/moses-is-modeled-on-horus-and-sargon-but-his-story-is-about-king-hezekiah “Moses and Horus are hidden in thickets on the Nile by their mothers … Yet each survives to become a ruler of their people”. And Moses was as late as c. 1500 BC. Another point is that the origins of the most ancient gods is primarily biblically-based, in the sense that these were originally biblically attested patriarchs and matriarchs. Therefore they are not essentially western (Greek, Roman), though they were later absorbed into western pantheons. Take the powerful Greek god, Poseidon, for instance. His name appears to have been derived from the Ancient Near East, from Pa-Sidon, “He of Sidon”. In The Odyssey, Poseidon becomes the relentless pursuer of Odysseus (read Tobit); a story that the Greeks (Homer) appropriated from the Book of Tobit, with its demon, Asmodeus. Again, The Odyssey has the goddess Athena disguised as the mentor of Telemachus (read Tobias), Mentes, appropriating the male appearance, and guidance, of the angel Raphael to/for Tobit and his son, Tobias. Likewise, The Iliad and The Aeneid, have some striking Greco-Roman appropriations of the thrilling Judith (biblical) drama. The origins and inspiration are invariably non-western. Also to be considered are the: Titans and Titanesses These appear to overlap, in part, with some of the antediluvian heroes already mentioned (e.g. Japheth/Iapetus): https://www.theoi.com/greek-mythology/titans.html I. MAJOR TITANS : THE URANIDES & IAPETIONIDES The most important of the Titan gods were the twelve Uranides (Cronus, Oceanus, Iapetus, Hyperion, Crius, Coeus, Rhea, Tethys, Theia, Phoebe, Themis and Mnemosyne) and the four Iapetionides (Atlas, Prometheus, Epimetheus and Menoetius). Of these only … eight … appear in ancient art. II. MINOR TITANS : THE HYPERIONIDES, COEIDES & CREIONIDES Many of the children and grandchildren of the Titans also bore the name of Titan. These included the Hyperionides (Helius, Selene and Eos), the Coeides (Leto, Asteria and Hecate) and the Creionides (Pallas, Astraeus and Perses). The last three were obscure and do not appear in ancient art. The inspiration for them may again, at least in part, have come from the Bible, from the Giants and the Nephilim of the Book of Genesis. Prometheus is interesting, he being the father of the Greek Noah, Deucalion (above). 2. Early Post-diluvian Origins The outstanding character here is Nimrod. Not too long after the Flood there arose a mighty hunter-conqueror known as Nimrod. He, too, was divinised. Nimrod might mark the beginning of a series of heroes and notables down through ancient history who were deified after the Flood, such as the Pharaohs of Egypt, sons of Ra, some Greco-Roman emperors and kings of the New Testament, and wondrous thaumaturgists and sages such as Imhotep, Djedefhor and Amenhotep son of Hapu. Again, these were largely biblical characters, as we shall find. Some have made bold to identify Nimrod, a son of Cush, with the god Bacchus, which they render as Bar-Cush, son of Cush. This may, or may not, be true. AI Overview “Bacchus is the Roman name for the Greek god Dionysus, who is associated with wine, fertility, ecstasy, and theatre. He is often depicted with vines and grapes, and his followers, the Maenads and Satyrs, are known for their energetic dances. In Roman mythology, Bacchus is considered a versatile and elusive god, bringing joy and revelry, but also capable of vengeance”. AI Overview “In some ancient traditions, Nimrod, a figure from the Book of Genesis, was later deified, meaning he was worshipped as a god. Nimrod was a mighty hunter and is also described as the first to be a mighty man on earth. He was also the founder of major cities, including Nineveh and Asshur, and is associated with the construction of the Tower of Babel in some non-biblical accounts. Some accounts portray him as a priest-king who established state worship, including human sacrifice. In some Assyrian and Babylonian traditions, Nimrod was even considered the same as the god Merodach/ Marduk”. Joseph of Egypt, Imhotep of the Third Dynasty, a true wonder-worker in his own lifetime, was deified and canonised, as, for instance, Imouthes of the Greeks, who was also their Asklepios, the god of medicine and healing. The Romans knew him as Aesculapius. And Moses the Lawgiver, the wise sage Djedefhor of Egypt’s Fourth Dynasty, was deified after his death. A similar exalted fate met the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt’s Amenhotep son of Hapu. And, from the Book of Tobit to which we have previously referred, Tobit’s nephew, Ahikar - the Achior of the Book of Judith - of highest status in the Assyrian empire, has come down in history, much magnified, as a sage, a polymath and a thaumaturgist. Imhotep and Amenhotep son of Hapu (and perhaps Ahikar) owe much of their later exaltation to the Ptolemaïc period. 3. New Testament notables The notorious Seleucid king, Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ becomes a New Testament character only in my revised history that shunts the Maccabean era into the Nativity period of the life of Jesus Christ. As some Jewish legends have intuited, king Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ was the very same as the emperor Hadrian, supposedly a Roman, but, in actual fact, a complete Grecophile, who has been called “a mirror-image” of ‘Epiphanes’. That Hadrian was indeed! Apparently this brute of a king did not even bother to wait for his death to be deified, for, by taking the epitaph Epiphanes (“God Manifest”), Antiochus actually claimed to be Zeus incarnate. The right-hand man of the emperor Augustus, Marcus Agrippa, was also deified. In my revised history, Marcus Agrippa is the same as king Herod (Agrippa) ‘the Great’ of the Nativity era, and emperor Augustus is, once again, ‘Epiphanes’/Hadrian. A later Herod, wrongly thought to be Agrippa, but actually Antipas (at least in my scheme), will die whilst hopefully embracing apotheosis (Acts 12:21-23): On the appointed day Herod, wearing his royal robes, sat on his throne and delivered a public address to the people. They shouted, ‘This is the voice of a god, not of a man’. Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died. A painful experience this becoming a god! The emperor Vespasian was somewhat more sensible about it when he allegedly quipped, when dying: ‘Vae, puto deus fio’, which translates as: ‘Oh dear, I think I'm becoming a god’. Workers of miracles saw the ancient pagans quick to apotheosise (Acts 14:11-13): The people saw what Paul did. They called with loud voices in the language of the people of Lycaonia, ‘The gods have become like men and have come down to us’. They said that Barnabas was Jupiter. Paul was called Mercury because he spoke more than Barnabas. The god of Jupiter was in a building near the gate leading into the city. The religious leader of that place brought cattle and flowers to the gate. He and many other people wanted to burn these as gifts in an act of worship to Paul and Barnabas. 4. Man-made gods Not all of the gods were based on famous people, however. From the most ancient of times people worshipped, as gods, powerful animals. The Bull was especially popular, at least as early as, say, Çatal Hüyük: https://semiramis-speaks.com/the-origins-and-evolution-of-the-bull-cult-in-the-ancient-mediterranean/ “In the Ancient Near East the earliest evidence of a bull cult was found at Çatal Hüyük in Anatolia around 7000 BCE” [sic]. That cult passed on to Crete, and to Egypt. Remember the Golden Calf? Well, we still have it. The Fertility Goddess was amongst the most common of the idolatrous images to be found throughout the ancient world. The enlightened prophet Isaiah, like other prophets of Israel (such as Jeremiah), scathingly described the witless process of setting up one’s own god – a practice that would no doubt have had its inception in antediluvian times (Isaiah 44:9-20): Idolatry Is Ridiculed All those who make idols are worthless, and the gods they prize so highly are useless. Those who worship these gods are blind and ignorant—and they will be disgraced. It does no good to make a metal image to worship as a god! Everyone who worships it will be humiliated. The people who make idols are human beings and nothing more. Let them come and stand trial—they will be terrified and will suffer disgrace. The metalworker takes a piece of metal and works with it over a fire. His strong arm swings a hammer to pound the metal into shape. As he works, he gets hungry, thirsty, and tired. The carpenter measures the wood. He outlines a figure with chalk, carves it out with his tools, and makes it in the form of a man, a handsome human figure, to be placed in his house. He might cut down cedars to use, or choose oak or cypress wood from the forest. Or he might plant a laurel tree and wait for the rain to make it grow. A person uses part of a tree for fuel and part of it for making an idol. With one part he builds a fire to warm himself and bake bread; with the other part he makes a god and worships it. With some of the wood he makes a fire; he roasts meat, eats it, and is satisfied. He warms himself and says, ‘How nice and warm! What a beautiful fire!’ The rest of the wood he makes into an idol, and then he bows down and worships it. He prays to it and says, ‘You are my god—save me!’ Such people are too stupid to know what they are doing. They close their eyes and their minds to the truth. The maker of idols hasn't the wit or the sense to say, ‘Some of the wood I burned up. I baked some bread on the coals, and I roasted meat and ate it. And the rest of the wood I made into an idol. Here I am bowing down to a block of wood!’ It makes as much sense as eating ashes. His foolish ideas have so misled him that he is beyond help. He won't admit to himself that the idol he holds in his hand is not a god at all. While the ancient idols were neither gods nor demons, evil spirits would hasten to grasp the opportunity to urge on superstitious types to worship them - even with the dazzlement of pseudo-miracles - so as to lure them away from the one true God. We Catholics venerate, as saints, holy dead people, though we do not worship them, but only God. St Pio: The Padre of “Pray, Hope, and Don’t Worry!” The Saint Whose Famous Words Against Worry Encourage Us to Keep Hope at All Times

Cain, Abel, Seth and Enos

by Damien F. Mackey Initially, then, Cain did not wander very far at all. He may have later. Introduction Whilst most would regard the antediluvian period as narrated in the Book of Genesis (1:1-7:5), prior to 7:6: “And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters came on the earth”, as a non-history, ‘Creationists’, who accept all of it as actual fact, would tend to think that, owing to the enormity of a global (as they believe) Flood, any evidence of that old world is now totally unretrievable. What has encouraged me to think otherwise, that the antediluvian landscape was not altogether different from the post-diluvian landscape, is the fact that editor Moses had established a link between the antediluvian riverine system and the post-diluvian one - that, as I wrote: Editor Moses Added Vital Geographical Clues for the Genesis Flood and Sodom (4) Editor Moses Added Vital Geographical Clues for the Genesis Flood and Sodom Paradise (Eden) and the Garden The Edenic Paradise was therefore the very large portion of land irrigated by the four rivers (Genesis 2:11-14): The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. The wondrous Garden of Eden itself, which tradition associates with the site of Jerusalem - as did Jesus Christ (cf. Matthew 23:35) - was apparently situated, by Divine purpose, at the centre of this ancient paradisaïcal land (Ezekiel 5:5): Thus says the Lord GOD, ‘This is Jerusalem; I have set her at the center of the nations ...’. The research of the late Dr. Ernest L. Martin has also proved invaluable with its recognition of: http://askelm.com/temple/t040301.htm The Temple Symbolism in Genesis the parallels between the Garden of Eden and the liturgy associated with it and, later, that of the Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem. Fall and “the Land of Nod” This, in turn, enables one to reconstruct the abode of Adam and Eve immediately after the Fall, and also to come to grips with the very tricky matter, with which many struggle, of the location of “the land of Nod” to where Cain was exiled after he had murdered Abel (Genesis 4:16): “So Cain went out from the LORD’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden”. On this, see my article: Land of Nod and City of “Enoch” https://www.academia.edu/28328715/Land_of_Nod_and_City_of_Enoch_ The “land of Nod”, we find, was immediately adjacent to the Garden, and east of it. By this stage, humankind had not travelled very far at all. So, to seek to identify “the land of Nod”, or Cain’s first city, “Enoch” (4:17): Cain had sexual relations with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Then Cain founded a city, which he named Enoch, after his son [,] in, for instance, faraway southern Mesopotamia, as scholars do - and as I have certainly done in the past - may actually be, geographically, way off beam. No doubt, however, after humankind had made its initial small moves, members of the antediluvian race would now have begun to explore further afield, heading for fertile regions like (what we now call) Syria and Mesopotamia, and northwards to (what we now call) the Black Sea, and, in a different direction again, to (what we now call) Egypt and Ethiopia. The Bible calls Egypt “the land of Ham” (e.g. Psalm 105:22) - whether this name were given to the land before or after the Flood. Ham was, of course, a son of Noah himself (Genesis 6:10). Scholars, relying primarily on the information supplied by Josephus, as a supplement to Genesis - but also using other legends, and by re-interpreting some of the ancient mythology - have made a pretty good fist of re-constructing (but only in barest outline) the antediluvian world. Whilst most, probably, would regard the whole thing as being fanciful and non-historical, some, taking seriously the early chapters of the Book of Genesis as rendering an accurate primeval history of humankind, have endeavoured to bring the whole thing to the fore again. For this the Jewish historian Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews has proved to be essential. Roy Schulz, using sources such as this, has managed to compile what I think is generally a plausible scenario of the antediluvian world (in his article “Exploring Ancient History – The First 2500 Years”): http://www.book.dislib.info/b1-history/4036992-7-compiled-roy-schulz-social-studies-department-imperial-schools-pa.php The following is taken from his Chapter 3 “The Ways of Cain and Seth”. As I do not necessarily agree with everything written here by Roy Schulz, I shall be adding my own critical comments here and there. The first point of interest is that Cain and Abel may have been twins: Cain and Abel The bible continues the account in Genesis 4 with the birth of Cain and Abel. No mention is made of how much time had passed since the expulsion from the garden of Eden but it probably was a period of several decades, possibly as much as half a century. It seems a logical deduction that Adam and Eve, under [God’s] direction, spent considerable time establishing themselves before beginning to raise a family. The indication in verse 2, reports Adam Clarke in his commentary, is that Cain and Abel were twins because it says about Eve, "... she again bare" -- or added in baring -- "his brother Abel." It does not say that she conceived separately again later before Abel was born. So the implication, says Clarke commentary, is they were: born at the same time. Understanding Cain's character is important for the early story of human history. His very name implies what type of person he was -- Cain means "gotten" or "acquired." Cain was selfish; he wanted to get for himself. He was a spoiled child. This becomes very apparent as the story develops. There are definite and startling reasons why Cain turned out as he did. He was, first of all, the product of an unhappy marriage. Adam and Eve did not live in harmony. Eve blamed Adam for the expulsion from Eden and Adam blamed Eve. They probably never really forgave each other for having bungled their golden opportunity. Every argument they had must have ended up focused on this painful memory. However, a savior had been promised (Gen. 3:15). This was something to look forward to. But this promise caused Eve to draw a hasty, false, and extremely harmful assumption. Notice her statement in Gen. 4:1. The King James rendering -- "I have gotten a man from the eternal" -- is not correct. In the original Hebrew, this statement reads, "I have gotten a man -- the eternal." She actually thought that her firstborn son was the promised child, God in the flesh. Under this deception, she treated Cain as if he were a god. And that is why he turned out to be such a monstrous delinquent. The full significance of this will be explained in chapter 6 when the actual meaning of Gen. 6:2 is revealed. Mackey’s comment: The relevant part of Genesis 4:1 reads in Hebrew: קָנִיתִי אִישׁ אֶת-יְהוָה As far as I can tell, Roy Schulz’s interpretation of it, “I have gotten a man -- the eternal”, is reading too much into it - necessary for his explanation of Genesis 6:2 later on. The standard reading: “I have gotten a man from the Lord”, I think still suffices. Roy Schulz continues, now presenting Cain as a disobedient and irresponsible soil damager: Now verse 2 states that Abel was a shepherd but Cain was a farmer. God actually wanted people in this early time to be mainly shepherds instead of farmers so that the soil could slowly be built up from animal waste, leaves from the trees, and so on. He wanted elements to be added to the soil instead of removed from it. But Cain was a farmer, which in itself, was not pleasing to God … he also FORCED the ground, and, by this method, damaged it even more than normal. Cain was selfish and greedy. He wanted what he wanted NOW! …. Thus, when reading of the offering of Cain and Abel in verses 3-5, it is easy to understand why God was displeased with Cain. He not only had a selfish attitude but he used wrong, methods in even growing the fruits he offered. He had not obeyed God at all. …. The First Murder In verses 5-7 God analyzed Cain's attitude for him. He told him he could triumph over sin if he wanted to and that his offerings could be found acceptable if he were genuinely repentant. But Cain never made any attempt to repent. He had an angry look on his face not only because he was disappointed, but because he was premeditating the murder of his brother. He thought this was the quickest way to solve his problem. Verse 8 finds Abel naively out in the field in his wicked brother's company. Little did he realize he would be the victim of the first murder in all human history. How Cain accomplished the deed is not known but, being a farmer and reaper, he might have done it with a cutting instrument such as a scythe. Mackey’s comment: The word for ‘slay’ (σφάζειν) is a link between this Epistle and Revelation (Revelation 6:4 …), occurring nowhere else in N. T. Its original meaning was ‘to cut the throat’ (σφαγή), especially of a victim for sacrifice. Then, after it was over, Cain tried to hide his crime by burying the body. Human society was off to an appropriate start because war and murder have been its prime characteristics through all ages. Mackey’s comment: Roy Schulz now proceeds to discuss the famous Mark of Cain. His explanation of it, as “a WARNING MARKER or BOUNDARY LINE” is at least better than some of the strange attempts that have been made to account for it. But does it accord with the Hebrew? Cain's "Mark" God confronted Cain with his sin. He could have done this in front of the family of Adam. (see Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown commentary.) But Cain was still not repentant. He tried to cover up (verse 9). The eternal did not waste time with Cain. He immediately told him his sentence (verses 10-12). …. After the eternal told Cain that he would be a fugitive and a vagabond as a result of his sin, Cain still did not change his negative attitude. His reply (verses 13-14) shows his consistently self-centered outlook. He blamed God for his problems, not himself. In a sense, he said, "what you're doing to me isn't fair. I don't have a chance. I'm not getting a square deal." God did not execute Cain for his crime. But he separated him -- excommunicated him -- from the rest of the human family. This is the meaning of Cain's "mark" (Gen. 4:15). It was not a brand on his forehead, a long horn growing out of his head, affliction with paralysis, his dog, or any other of the ridiculous guesses that men have put forth. It was a WARNING MARKER or BOUNDARY LINE set up to separate Cain from the rest of Adam's family. A better rendering of the verse would make it more understandable: "and the eternal set up a marker (or, monument) for (or, against) Cain. Lest any finding him should kill him." This was actually a religious segregation because Cain wrong attitude had made it necessary. God was saying, "I won't want Adam's family influenced by your selfish and sinful approach to life." Mackey’s comment: Boundaries were considered highly important in antiquity, as they are now, and they were fought over. We read of a famous Lagash-Umma border conflict, according to which (and compatible with Roy Schulz’s interpretation of the Mark of Cain) the “chief god Enlil” had actually marked out the boundaries of these states, and indeed “in the gu-edena”, in which we can even perceive the biblical word, “Eden” (some biblical overtones here). Moreover, one of the kings involved in the border conflict, Eannatum, even described himself as a “giant”. For my radical biblico-historical reconstruction of Eannatum, though, see e.g. my article: Hezekiah withstands Assyria - Lumma withstands Umma (4) Hezekiah withstands Assyria - Lumma withstands Umma http://studentreader.com/lagash-umma-border-conflict/ According to Inscriptions, the chief god Enlil had demarcated the Lagash-Umma border in the gu'edena (edge of the plain), and the Kish king Mesalim (~2600 BC) [sic] measured it out and set up a boundary marker. Thus, outside arbitration of conflicts had begun early in the Early Dynastic era. Though the boundary had been established, whenever Lagash was powerful enough it would seek to claim the gu'edena. The war was described as a dispute between Ningirsu, god of Lagash, and Shara, god of Umma. Lagashite inscriptions depict their kings as deputies acting on behalf of the gods; the Lagashite king Eannatum even described himself as the giant son of Ningirsu, thus engendering him to fight. Successive Lagashite kings stated in their royal inscriptions that Umma had illegally occupied the gu'edena and that Lagash thus defeated Umma. Since the Lagashite side wrote the inscriptions, they present Umma as the illegal and sacrilegious aggressor in the conflict. However, the continuation of the Lagash-Umma border conflict for centuries shows that battles were in fact inconclusive. The tension persisted so long as more agricultural area was still needed by both states. It is assumed that other states underwent similar interactions, attempting to annex their neighbors' fields, though none are so clear as the issue between Lagash and Umma. [End of quote] Whether the Hebrew word, oth (אוֹת), in Genesis 4:15: “And the LORD set a sign for Cain …”, וַיָּשֶׂם יְהוָה לְקַיִן אוֹת can legitimately be translated as Roy Schulz has proposed, I shall leave it to experts in the language to decide. But certainly in Joshua 4:5-7, oth (אוֹת) is used in connection with some marker or boundary stones. Roy Schulz continues, with reference to Deuteronomy 32:8: “When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel”. He also introduces an old racial theory, which does not appear to me to have any solid biblical endorsement, namely, that Cain’s race was dark skinned, whilst the goodly line of Seth was fair: Yes, Cain was unfit to live in the same land with the rest of the people. God told Adam's children, "you stay here in the area of Palestine. The rest of the world is for Cain to wander in" (see Deut. 32:8). Later, this separation included racial segregation; Cain became the ancestor of all the non-white people. …. Mackey’s comment: Whilst Roy Schulz’s attempt to reconstruct the early geography of Cain (Genesis 4:16) is quite vague, Dr. Ernest L. Martin had explained, in “The Temple Symbolism in Genesis”: https://www.askelm.com/temple/t040301.htm that this verse actually refers to a properly identifiable place: In the Garden our first parents were able to talk face to face with God. But note an important point. They only had conversations with Him at certain times of the day. They did not see Him on all occasions. It was “in the cool of the day” that they came into “the presence of the Lord” (Genesis 3:8). The expressions “cool of the day” and “the presence of the Lord” were a part of temple language. 7 “The cool of the day” was the period when the Sun got lower in the sky and the cool sea breezes normally swept over the Palestinian region. This was the time of the evening sacrifice (1 Kings 18:36; Daniel 9:21) — about three in the afternoon. This was the time when the animals were being regularly sacrificed (and also in the morning about nine o’clock). At these times the people were then reckoned as being “in the presence of God” (2 Chronicles 20:19). …. Cain’s punishment involved him being “driven out” from the land he formerly tilled, and away from the “face” of God. “And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod [Wandering], on the east side of Eden.” • Genesis 4:16 What marvelous teaching is found in this latter scripture once it is understood that temple language was being used by Moses. Note that Cain was sent OUT OF EDEN. He went East of Eden. And by leaving Eden, he “went out from the presence of the Lord.” Now look at the second diagram. It will be similar to the outline of the temple which we gave earlier, but this time we will involve the story of Adam and Eve, the Garden, the Cherubim with the flaming sword, the altar of Cain and Abel, the land of Eden, and the land of Nod [Wandering]. It has excellent teaching. [End of quote] Initially, then, Cain did not wander very far at all. He may have later. Now, here is Roy Schulz’s account of it, in which he attempts an early chronology. The Curse On Cain Cain was now cut off from God. "Cain went out from the presence of the eternal." (Gen. 4:16) he was now on his own; he was forced to wander; he could no longer call on God. He would have to solve his problems on his own. It was not a pleasant fate. This ostracizing of Cain is analogous to putting an individual out of God's church. Such a person is separated from God's people until he repents. But Cain did not repent. He wanted his own way at all costs and started his own society and practices. When did the excommunication of Cain take place? The indication of Gen. 5:3 is that approximately a century and a quarter had elapsed since Adam's creation. A logical deduction based on this verse is that Seth was born soon after Cain's crime because he was to replace the murdered Abel (Gen. 4:25). Since Seth was born when Adam was 130, the death of Abel must have occurred shortly before that birth. By putting the bible together with Josephus' account. It is possible to determine Cain's activities after he was separated from Adam's family and cut off from God. He and his wife who was, of necessity, his sister, (Gen. 5:4) went to live in an area called "the land of wandering". Which was east of Eden (verses 4:16). Then Josephus tells us that Cain and his wife "travelled over many countries." (Antiquities I, II, 2.) Here is an indication that, after the expulsion: Cain actually spent a century or more wandering over the earth. Mackey’s comment: Roy Schulz will now also propose that Cain (who was apparently no Greenie) had to contend with a different topography and climate upon the earth: Why did Cain become a wanderer or nomad? Why did he not settle down permanently in a specific area? Amazingly, the bible and geology provide the answer. As a result of the sin of Cain the entire history of human society and the earth's surface were remarkably changed. Notice what God had told Cain before his expulsion: "and now art thou cursed from the earth... When thou tillest the ground it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive (or wanderer) and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth" (Gen. 4:11-12). Cain, Josephus records, was the first person who "contrived to plough the ground". In addition, he greedily tried to get more crops faster by "forcing the ground." Cain, in other words, sought to gain his livelihood by farming methods which depleted the soil. For example, he probably used the following method. He would burn down a forest or other vegetation on the land. Then he would plant seed in the ashes which served as fertilizer. Such land would produce well for a few years but after that it was ruined through such harsh abuse. Cain destroyed the soil for the purpose of quick crops. He did not care about conserving fertility for future generations. God wanted the earliest humans to be shepherds so that the soil could be built up -- but Cain forced the ground before it was developed. God put a stop to Cain's way -- the way of getting. If Cain and his heirs had been allowed to continue these agricultural methods, soils all over the world would long ago have been rendered unfit for cultivation. The curse on Cain was not some strange poisoning of the soil. Logically, it could mean only one thing -- A CHANGE IN THE EARTH'S CLIMATE! The geological record tells us what God did to save the soil from utter depletion. Mountain chains arose where there were none before. Seas dried up. The balmy semitropical climate of the world rapidly shifted into torrid and frigid zones. Wherever Cain wandered, his agricultural pursuits came to naught. When it should have rained, the weather turned dry. Just as he was about to reap the ripening crop, in came a storm. Nothing turned out right. Cain was forced to turn to food gathering -- to hunting and gleaning the wild fruits and berries. He and the generations who followed him eaked out a wretched living. Both geology and archaeology testify to these conditions. Mackey’s comment: Bravely, now, Roy Schulz will attempt to bring into line with this scenario the Geological Ages – something that I believe desperately needs to be done, whether or not Schulz has got it right (and I don’t think that he has, entirely): The Proof of Geology In the tertiary geological deposits, which follow the upper Cretaceous, many surface changes are recorded. The climate began to turn cooler. Desert regions developed in the wake of mountain building. Pluvial and arid periods fluctuated. The climate in the northern hemisphere became even cooler. Vast snow falls engulfed the regions now labeled Canada and Europe. The arctic zone expanded. Fluctuations in sea level occurred. All along, the continental shore lines the changing beach levels left their mark. Many may still be seen today. Geologists mislabel this pre-flood period "ice ages." Cain's children were forced to adopt his level of existence. Because of his sin, Cain initiated a degenerate way of life. His descendants became fugitives, wanderers, vagabonds. They too were reduced to hunting and gathering because the soil would not yield normal crops. They began living in caves in regions far removed from the main civilizations in the near east and became shockingly depraved. Mackey’s comment: Dr. John Osgood has, in “A Better Model for the Stone Age” (http://creation.com/a-better-model-for-the-stone-age), surveyed the very same Stone Age scenario in which Roy Schulz has set Cain and his fellow nomads, known as the upper Palaeolithic phase, but Dr. Osgood has identified these nomads as post-Flood peoples. I am more inclined to follow Dr. Osgood here. Roy Schulz will now turn his attention to the city, “Enoch”, that Cain built (4:17). However, I am convinced (in the context of Dr. Osgood’s preferable Stone and Archaeological Ages model) that Roy Schulz has identified a city that well post-dated, not only Cain, but also the Flood: Cain's Famous Walled City At this point Josephus' words about Cain need to be emphasized: Cain "built a city, and fortified it with walls..." The bible speaks of this same city: Cain "builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch." (Gen. 4:17) Though in a sense this is getting ahead of the story, it is appropriate at this point to tell of the significance of the famous walled city, Enoch. In recent years, archaeologists made a startling discovery. In their excavations at the site of ancient Jericho (which is adjacent to present day Jericho in Palestine) they were amazed to uncover a big town in an early "pre-pottery Neolithic" state thousands of years -- as they measure time -before any city of this type should have existed. This vast town existed at a time when only villages of tents or huts should have been in use -- but there it was. It was of large proportion, of great duration -- and had a huge wall around it. When the archaeological findings are correctly interpreted (see the chart on page 80 of the "Bible and the Ancient Near East", edited by G. Ernest Wright), it is evident this city must have existed before the flood. Mackey’s comment: Though I had previously entertained Roy Schulz’s view, a closer study of the stratigraphy of Jericho - especially in relation to the Dr. John Osgood’s firm archaeological location of Abram - would suggest that this impressive “pre-pottery Neolithic” (PPNA) city was built approximately within range of Abram. That is a very long distance, chronologically, from Cain. That Cain’s city was built “in ‘Seth's land’ or Palestine”, according to Roy Schulz, might perhaps indicate that it was in the environs of the Garden (later the site of Jerusalem Temple). Schulz continues: That's right -- CAIN HAD DARED TO COME BACK INTO FORBIDDEN TERRITORY. At an earlier time God had said: "this area is for Seth and his family -- the rest of the world [sic] is for Cain and his children to wander on." But, as we well know, Cain was not noted for being willing to obey any of God's orders. …. …. Josephus said -- that Cain was the inventor of weights and measures implying that he was engaged in trading. But also recall that Cain procured "spoils by robbery." In other words, he must have forced surrounding peoples to pay tribute, and he must have engaged in looting and pillage. …. The Way of Cain The important truth we need to learn from all this is that Cain was the originator of civilization as we know it. Our entire society today is patterned after "the way of Cain" (Jude 11). It is a way of competitiveness, selfishness, and greed. Satan used the family of Cain to perpetuate his philosophy. Cain was "spiritually bankrupt." He had no love for his neighbor at all. The code of Cain was, "get the other fellow before he gets you. Do unto others before they do unto you." This is the way our world is today. Cain was cut off from God. He was wandering on his own. And we live in a world cut off from God too -- groping its way to destruction. …. Cain's way led to the Flood -- the complete destruction of humanity except for eight persons! And it will lead to an unbelievable carnage again in the near future! God has decreed that man must learn once and for all -- in complete finality -- that THE WAY OF CAIN SIMPLY WILL NOT WORK!! When man learns this lesson by hard experience, then he will turn to God in real repentance! But he has not reached that point - yet! Mackey’s comment: Humankind will find peace only when it embraces devotion to the Divine Mercy: The following article by Blessed Michael Sopocko - whose feast day we celebrate Feb. 15 - was first published in the Spring 1956 issue of the Marian Helpers Bulletin. Blessed Michael was the confessor and spiritual director of St. Faustina. As a house on a foundation so our faith is based on the truth of the Resurrection. "... and if Christ has not risen, vain then is our preaching, vain too is your faith." (1 Cor 15:14). In order that the faith of the Apostles in this truth might be strengthened, our Savior often showed Himself to them, permitted Thomas to touch His wounds, and greeted the Apostles with the words, "Peace be to you." Why did He not speak to them thus before His Passion? Because then the work of Redemption was not completed. However, after the eternal enemy of mankind was crushed, original sin removed, reconciliation completed between God and man whom He adopted as His children, He permitted Himself to be called Father, and peace, therefore, returned to earth, "Peace be to you." 1. What is peace? Peace is tranquility of order which, according to St. Augustine, depends upon the order with oneself, with our neighbor, and with God. Peace therefore is not the same as concord. Concord may be had even among perverse people who pool their strength together for wrongdoing, but peace is not to be found among them: "There is no peace to the wicked." (Is 48:22). Order with oneself rests upon internal harmony inasmuch as the lower bodily powers are subject to reason and will, which subjection gives us peace of conscience. Order with our neighbor is based on our loving them as ourselves and rendering to each his due. Finally, order with God amounts to our knowing, praising and loving Him as well as fulfilling His will. Sin upset that order. It destroyed internal harmony within us so much so that in our present condition our intellect and will are beclouded and bound and dragged by our passions prompting us to acts contrary to reason, and causing in us qualms of conscience which are the greatest misfortune for man. Sin destroyed order with God because sin is a revolt against His will. It destroyed also the order with our neighbor; instead of mutual love people hate one another, do not render to each his due but rather wrong their fellow men by denying them the right to life and means necessary to keep them alive. It is in that manner that every worldly man seeks peace and happiness without being able to find them. "Where are you hurrying, O man, on the road of life? Why do you strive for the summit so laboriously? Why all this toil, labor and fight?" "I desire peace," answers he, "I desire to reach the goal and rest therein. I seek comfort, delight, happiness because man exists for these." However, instead of peace, they find disputes, family quarrels, competition and war of social classes and states. Why? Because they refuse to acknowledge God as their Father, and, consequently, they cannot see themselves as brothers. They feel internal discord which nothing and no one can remove from their hearts. 2. There are two who want to give mankind peace; the world and Christ. The peace of the world is external; the peace of Christ is internal. The former ends in confusion and collapse; the latter terminates in victory, strength and everlasting peace. Christ brings wonderful peace, true peace, "such as the world cannot give." His peace does not consist in external concord with others, but above all in concord with God, that produces concord within oneself, a peace of conscience. "A new commandment I give you, that you would love each other." This is a necessary condition of peace with our neighbor. "But I say to you, love your enemies." (Mt 5:44). True peace is given by Him alone who removes the cause of unrest which is sin. The Most Merciful Savior by His death on the Cross created an inexhaustible treasury of His merits. After His Resurrection He set up the Sacraments through which the Church applies those merits to individual souls. First of all, by the Sacrament of Baptism original sin is removed, and in the Sacrament of Penance, which was established on Resurrection day, sins committed after Baptism are forgiven. Through these Sacraments the Divine Mercy pours down true peace unceasingly on those who receive them worthily. He who does not avail himself of those Sacraments finds his life a torture. Even though he be surrounded with the riches and splendor, without the Sacrament of Penance he is like one who lies on a soft bed strewn with thorns. On the contrary, he who properly uses those Sacraments of God's Mercy has internal peace and happiness; he is cheerful for he possesses true peace which soothes the sufferings and miseries of his life. He is at peace with his neighbors whom he loves as brothers, whose labors he respects, whose faults he forgives, and whose forgiveness he begs. Above all else he is at peace with God Whose Will he fulfills and to Whose infinite Mercy he is grateful for having forgiven him his sins. True peace, therefore, flows only from God's Mercy in the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance. This is the reason why Christ after His Resurrection greeted the Apostles with the words, "Peace be to you," and repeated His greeting twice while instituting the Sacrament of Penance. This is also the reason why the Church in the Mass of Low Sunday reminds us of God's Mercy in those Sacraments and encourages us to praise His Mercy, "Praise ye the Lord, for He is good, for His Mercy endures forever." (Ps 105:1). …. Roy Schulz continues: We study history to learn the lesson of human experience so we don't make the same mistakes ourselves (I Cor. 10:6, 11; Rom..15:4.) The history of the past will help the citizens of the World Tomorrow see that God's way is the only way. And so the great truth of these early chapters of the Bible is that Cain started an entire pattern in society which is with us to this day, a way of life which must finally be eradicated from the earth! It is a way which, though our human nature prompts us to follow it, we must exterminate from our daily practices and replace it with the way of God -- the way of love, giving, and sharing!" What was the effect of the "way of Cain" on society down to the Flood. And can we know what ultimately became of Cain? Also, what were the major contributions of the line of Cain to society in pre-Flood times? These are the interesting questions yet to be covered. St. Augustine’s City of God “presents human history as a conflict between what Augustine calls the Earthly City (often colloquially referred to as the City of Man) and the City of God, a conflict that is destined to end in victory for the latter. The City of God is marked by people who forgot earthly pleasure to dedicate themselves to the eternal truths of God, now revealed fully in the Christian faith. The Earthly City, on the other hand, consists of people who have immersed themselves in the cares and pleasures of the present, passing world”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_City_of_God Antediluvian Man’s Devolution Saint Augustine of Hippo had very much in mind here the divergent paths chosen, now by Cain, now by Abel. Ultimately, though, it was a warfare of cosmic proportions between God and Satan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_City_of_God Augustine’s thesis depicts the history of the world as universal warfare between God and the Devil. This metaphysical war is not limited by time but only by geography on Earth. In this war, God moves (by divine intervention/ Providence) those governments, political/ideological movements and military forces aligned (or aligned the most) with the Catholic Church (the City of God) in order to oppose by all means—including military—those governments, political/ ideological movements and military forces aligned (or aligned the most) with the Devil (the City of Devil). [End of quote] Augustine himself wrote, in chapter 1: …. I trust we have already done justice to these great and difficult questions regarding the beginning of the world, or of the soul, or of the human race itself. This race we have distributed into two parts, the one consisting of those who live according to man, the other of those who live according to God. And these we also mystically call the two cities, or the two communities of men, of which the one is predestined to reign eternally with God, and the other to suffer eternal punishment with the devil. This, however, is their end, and of it we are to speak afterwards. At present, as we have said enough about their origin, whether among the angels, whose numbers we know not, or in the two first human beings, it seems suitable to attempt an account of their career, from the time when our two first parents began to propagate the race until all human generation shall cease. For this whole time or world-age, in which the dying give place and those who are born succeed, is the career of these two cities concerning which we treat. Of these two first parents of the human race, then, Cain was the first-born, and he belonged to the city of men; after him was born Abel, who belonged to the city of God. For as in the individual the truth of the apostle's statement is discerned, that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterward that which is spiritual, 1 Corinthians 15:46 whence it comes to pass that each man, being derived from a condemned stock, is first of all born of Adam evil and carnal, and becomes good and spiritual only afterwards, when he is grafted into Christ by regeneration: so was it in the human race as a whole. When these two cities began to run their course by a series of deaths and births, the citizen of this world was the first-born, and after him the stranger in this world, the citizen of the city of God, predestinated by grace, elected by grace, by grace a stranger below, and by grace a citizen above. By grace—for so far as regards himself he is sprung from the same mass, all of which is condemned in its origin; but God, like a potter (for this comparison is introduced by the apostle judiciously, and not without thought), of the same lump made one vessel to honor, another to dishonor. Romans 9:21 But first the vessel to dishonor was made, and after it another to honor. For in each individual, as I have already said, there is first of all that which is reprobate, that from which we must begin, but in which we need not necessarily remain; afterwards is that which is well-approved, to which we may by advancing attain, and in which, when we have reached it we may abide. Not, indeed, that every wicked man shall be good, but that no one will be good who was not first of all wicked; but the sooner any one becomes a good man, the more speedily does he receive this title, and abolish the old name in the new. Accordingly, it is recorded of Cain that he built a city, Genesis 4:17 but Abel, being a sojourner, built none. For the city of the saints is above, although here below it begets citizens, in whom it sojourns till the time of its reign arrives, when it shall gather together all in the day of the resurrection; and then shall the promised kingdom be given to them, in which they shall reign with their Prince, the King of the ages, time without end. [End of quote] As we have read - and is well known - Cain, a man of disobedience, committed the first murder. He slew his own (twin?) brother, Abel. The line of the righteous had to start again, through Seth, and Enosh [Enos] (Genesis 4:25-26): “Adam made love to his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, ‘God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him’. Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh”. The line of Cain, on the other hand, seems to have steadily regressed - devilishly devolved - from that fateful moment that Cain had killed his brother, whose effect was still reverberating at the time of Jesus Christ (Matthew 23:29-36): ‘Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started! You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the Temple and the altar. Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation’. King Solomon would reflect way back to this terrible deed by Cain as a “cause” of the great Noachic Flood (Wisdom 10:3-4): But when the unrighteous went away from her in his anger, he perished also in the fury wherewith he murdered his brother. For whose cause the earth being drowned with the flood, wisdom again preserved it, and directed the course of the righteous in a piece of wood of small value. Likewise, the Apostle Jude told about the Enochian judgment in store for any of those who had “taken the way of Cain” (Jude 1:11-16): Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam’s error; they have been destroyed in Korah’s rebellion. These people are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever. Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: ‘See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him’. These people are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage. That is not to say that absolutely every person who would descend from Cain was a reprobate. Nor would each one of those who belonged to the Seth-ite line be a paragon of righteousness. Especially by about the time of Noah, “when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them”, and “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually”, and “the earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence” (Genesis 6:1, 5, 11), did the Seth-ite line apparently begin to follow the way of Cain. Perhaps one of the star attractions for the Seth-ites was the exciting new technology. For it was from the line of Cain, at the time of Lamech and Tubalcain, and their families, that there arose some marvellous technological developments. With the rapid advancement of technology (though it was nothing as compared with our own times), there appears to have been a corresponding decline in wisdom, which betokens Deity - somewhat akin to how, in the modern Age of Enlightenment, the new physics would replace that higher form of human endeavour, metaphysics. But, likely, even those more philosophically-minded amongst the Cain-ites and the Seth-ites had by now yielded to mere intellectual routine. That the frenetic pursuit of technology alone - which characterises our own era - is not actually civilising, is argued in the following section from Berkeley’s Renovation of Philosophy (Martinus Nijhoff, 1968, pp. 136-137), written by Dr. Gavin Ardley (by far my favourite philosopher of the modern sciences): …. (4) Emergence from tribe Readers of Plato's Republic are wont to suppose, complacently, that the men in Plato's Cave are common vulgar men given to sensual enjoyment. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are ourselves. Especially are they ourselves insofar as we compliment ourselves on our intellectual attainments. When we allow techne to develop into tribe … [tribe: empirical routine devoid of insight e.g. Gorgias 463 b]; allow work (of whatever kind) to sink into meaningless routine, an end in itself; when wonder is no longer there to enliven; when humility has departed; and standards have drifted into identification with particulars: Then we are sorry Cave-dwellers. The craftsman who allows his intelligence to atrophy, sinks into a state of contentment with routine, has forsaken techne for tribe. But his case is mild compared with the tribe of men given to intellectual pursuits. The vice is magnified by the exalted level from which such men have fallen. And most grievous of all is the case of the fallen philosopher: he is the guardian, the man who should be keeping wonder alive. When he allows wonder to die within him, he continues to go through the motions of philosophising; to outward appearance he is a wise man; but inwardly he is merely exercising his intellectual dexterity in an endless round of futility. Dialectic for him ossifies into conditioned response, or is transformed into its savage counterpart, eristic. Metaphysics declines into mere system, or revolts into the realms of the absurd. Tribe is the art of the absurd. [End of quote] Dr. Gavin Ardley’s marvellous Plato-based distinctions between these two vastly different states of being complement St. Augustine’s more religiously-based assessment of the two cities. I suggest that these be kept in mind as we consider the two family lines descending from Adam and Eve. I conclude here with Roy Schulz’s discussion (not all of which I would agree with) of the divergent lines, Cain-ite and the Seth-ite (op. cit.): The Line of Cain vs. The Line of Seth and Enos To put the picture in as simple terms as possible. It may be stated that the story of the pre-flood society is the story of the line of Cain as opposed to that of Seth and Enos. What was the interrelationship of these two major groups …? As indicated previously, Cain and Abel may have been twins. But they were un-like twins. Cain was originally separated because of religious reasons, because of his rebellious attitude. But, later, this division also became racial in significance. In other words, Cain was the father of the Non-white race before the flood. [sic] Seth was the ancestor of the contrasting WHITE line. And these two lines were to remain separate. This is what God wanted. And, for a long time, they were -- but this changed in Lamech's day (Gen. 4:19) who lived in the generation that existed just before the flood came upon the earth. The important concept to bear in mind, then, about the situation before the flood is this: biologically (racially), culturally, intellectually, and spiritually there were just two basic ways of life -- the way of God which was preserved in the family of Seth, and the way of Satan which was promoted by the descendants of Cain! …. Seth and Enos What kind of a person was Seth, the son born to Adam and Eve after Abel's murder? (Gen. 4:25) (Josephus Antiquities I, II, 3) provides some interesting information. Seth was a man of character! His children were properly reared and imitated his good character. All of them had good dispositions and lived together in the same country without fighting and warring. This implies that the family of Seth was separate from the family of Cain as God had intended. As shall be noted shortly, the family of Cain carried on fights, feuds, quarrels, and dissensions. It is only natural that the philosophy of Cain should breed such results. But the family of Seth, for centuries, was separate from the sins and mistakes of the line of Cain. God certainly must have protected them and given them blessing and favour. …. Seth was born when Adam was 130 years of age. …. Enos was Seth's first son (Gen. 5:6). Notice, at this point, that Genesis chapters 4 and 5 are not in direct sequence. To find out anything additional about Enos, it is necessary to go back to Gen. 4:26. "... Then began men to call upon the name of the eternal." Now understand this point: the Hebrew here rendered "call upon" can mean, just as correctly, to "preach" or to "publish." (compare, for example, Matt. 24:14 and Mark 13:10 -- in the first the gospel is prophesied to be preached but, in the second instance. It is to be published.) In short, this verse may be properly understood as, "then began men to preach or publish in the name of or by the authority of the eternal." In other words, this Hebrew expression means to communicate in general without distinguishing as to whether it is writing or speaking. And it may include both these methods. A few Jewish commentators have understood this verse to mark the beginning or origins of WRITING! In other words, the first people to use the written language and records (as well as to spread the knowledge of God by preaching) was the family of Seth and Enos. Adam and Eve, back in the garden of Eden, had a spoken language. God put into Adam's mind … the … knowledge necessary to understand and to speak a verbal language in order to communicate with God. But God did not give man a ready-made written system of communication. Something's God leaves to man to develop and perfect. Writing was one of these arts. God wants man to work and build character in acquiring and preserving knowledge. Thus he left the development of this skill to man. The fact that the line of Seth, in the lifetime of Enos, perfected a beginning form of written communication is supported by verse 1 of chapter 5: "this is the book ..." Records were being kept. This chapter 5 is a simple genealogy, an uncomplicated type of writing with no particular style or form, another indication that this was the beginning of written records. Eight Preachers of Righteousness A verse in the new testament, II Peter 2:5, provides a major point about the line of Seth. Notice that the word "person" is in italics. The way the verse stands in the King James version, the impression is given that Noah was the eighth person of the eight that were in the ark, but, in the original Greek, the meaning of the verse is this: "and spared not the old world, but saved Noah, the eighth preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly ..." Noah, then, was the eighth preacher of righteousness in his line, beginning with Seth, Methuselah is not included -- he died the year of the flood. For the other six preachers of righteousness before the flood, see Genesis 5 and the accompanying chart. To repeat: the major cultural and social contribution of the family of Seth, in the society before the flood, was the art and skill of written language. The next question is, "what were the contributions of the family of Cain?" And "what were the results of their contributions?" Immense Length of Life Before the Flood Before answering these questions, it would be helpful in arriving at an understanding of the pre-flood world, to realize the impact of the great length of life these people experienced and what effect they had on the entire society. The oldest human fossil remains prove this. One of the chief characteristics of all these remains is the extreme longevity characteristic of the skeletons. The massive proportions of the body. The great development of the muscular processes, the extreme wearing of the teeth -- without our characteristic amount of decay -- the obliteration of the sutures or seams between the various bones of the skull and the indications of slow ossification of the ends of the long bones, all point to the inevitable conclusion that the earliest man matured slowly and attained great length of life -- just as Genesis declares. Such characteristics of the skeletal frame are completely absent from modern degenerate man. That these ancient men did attain great age is demonstrated by the fact that their remains are usually found with fragmentary skeletons of youths and babies not exhibiting those characteristics. (chapter 5, "The Meeting Place of Geology and History" by Sir J. William Dawson, pp. 62-63.) These genuinely scientific findings do not prove that man has evolved. Rather, they substantiate the truth of the Bible that men in ancient times, unlike today, experienced centuries of physical life. It is also worthwhile to note in regard to this topic that in Antiquities I, III, 9, Josephus lists eleven ancient writers -- Manetho, Berossus, and [Hesiod] among them -- all of whom "relate that the ancients lived (nearly) a thousand year." True science and the records of ancient times again serve to corroborate the Bible. …. … in [the] seventh generation -- starting to count with Seth -- both the population and the sins of man began to multiply tremendously. This is what is recorded in Genesis 6:1: "... when man began to multiply on the face of the earth" -- "explode" -- then sins began to increase to such an extent that God had to exterminate the human race and make a fresh start with the family of Noah. How, in greater detail, this result came about is the story that remains to be told.