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.

Some think that Moses had also married a black African woman

by Damien F. Mackey “There was no doubt that the "Cushite woman" who had caused the jealousy of Miriam and Aaron was Zippora herself”. Flavio Barbiero The following is an example of a writer who has no doubt at all that Moses had married a black African woman. John Piper wrote this in 2010: https://www.9marks.org/article/did-moses-marry-black-woman/ Moses, a Jew [sic], apparently married a black African and was approved by God. We learn in Numbers that “Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman” (Num. 12:1). A Cushite is from Cush, a region south of Ethiopia, where the people are known for their black skin. We know this because of Jeremiah 13:23: “Can the Ethiopian [the same Hebrew word translated “Cushite” in Numbers 12:1] change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.” Attention is drawn to the difference of the skin of the Cushite people. In his book From Every People and Nation: A Biblical Theology of Race, Daniel Hays writes that Cush “is used regularly to refer to the area south of Egypt, and above the cataracts on the Nile, where a Black African civilization flourished for over two thousand years. Thus it is quite clear that Moses marries a Black African woman” …. In response to Miriam’s criticism, God does not get angry at Moses; he gets angry at Miriam. The criticism has to do with Moses’ marriage and Moses’ authority. The most explicit statement relates to the marriage: “Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman.” Then God strikes Miriam with leprosy. Why? Consider this possibility. In God’s anger at Miriam, Moses’ sister, God says in effect, “You like being light-skinned Miriam? I’ll make you light-skinned.” So we read, “When the cloud removed from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, like snow” (Num. 12:10) God says not a critical word against Moses for marrying a black Cushite woman. But when Miriam criticizes God’s chosen leader for this marriage God strikes her skin with white leprosy. If you ever thought black was a biblical symbol for uncleanness, be careful; a worse white uncleanness could come upon you. …. [End of quote] My own view of the controversial matter, expressed in my recent article: Moses, his marriage in Midian, and the holy Mountain of God (4) Moses, his marriage in Midian, and the holy Mountain of God is that “the Cushite woman” is a reference to Moses’s Midianite wife, Zipporah. Moses is known (biblically, at least) to have married only once. Now, this conclusion of mine is perfectly in accord with what Flavio Barbiero had written in his ground-breaking article: THE CAVE OF TREASURES ON MOUNT HOREB (4) THE CAVE OF TREASURES ON MOUNT HOREB …. Moses' Cushite wife Often, in the Bible, the key to understanding a certain situation lies in a single word, and apparently, this was the case for this Jeremiah affair. It becomes clear if one understands why the term "cushite" is used for Ebed-Melek. This word caught my attention stimulated by a comment by Anati's wife, Ariela, on a passage from the Bible that was read one evening as usual at the Har Karkom camp. It said: "Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses, because of the Ethiopian wife whom he had married; for he had married an Ethiopian" (Num. 12:1). "Ethiopian? My text says cushite," I interrupted. "Yes, ethiopian; cushite in Hebrew means ethiopian. Moses had also married a black wife. So says the text," confirmed Ariela, a native Hebrew speaker. This seemed unlikely to me. The Bible does not speak much about Moses' family, but what little it says is clear and precise: there is no doubt that he had a family that he cared about immensely. I was unaware that Moses ever had a second wife, much less a black one. When he fled from Egypt, he took refuge in the land of the Midianites and found hospitality with Jethro, "who gave him his daughter Zippora in marriage. She bore him a son, and he named him Ghersom" (Ex. 2:22). Later on Zippora bore him a second son, Eliezer (Ex. 4:24). When Moses returned to Egypt to organize the exodus, his wife and children were sent to his father-in-law Jethro. Chapter 18 of Exodus is entirely dedicated to Jethro's visit to Moses, at Rephidim, near the sacred mountain, on the occasion of which he brought back to him his family: “Then Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, took Zipporah, Moses' wife, after he had sent her back, And her two sons; of which the name of the one was Gershom; for he said, I have been an alien in a strange land: And the name of the other was Eliezer; for the God of my father, said he, was mine help and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh: And Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, came with his sons and his wife unto Moses into the wilderness, where he encamped at the mount of God: And he said unto Moses, I thy father-in-law Jethro am come unto thee, and thy wife, and her two sons with her.” Jethro was very proud of the position his son-in-law had achieved among the Jews. He was generous with advice on how to govern the people and administer justice, after which Moses "dismissed his father-in-law, who went away to his land." This is the last time Zippora and the two sons of Moses are mentioned in the Pentateuch. There is no doubt, however, that they have remained with him ever since. Zippora reappears immediately afterwards, but not with her name. As soon as his father-in-law Jethro was dismissed, Moses, with all the Jewish people, "on the 20th day of the 2nd month of the 2nd year" (Num. 10:11), left the area of the sacred mountain, heading north towards Palestine. The first stop was Kibrot Attaava and after this Azerot. And it was here, in Azerot, that "Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman he had married." It was at this point that Ariela had claimed that she was a "black" second wife. This didn’t make any sense to me because, according to the story, Moses had been reunited only a few days before with his legitimate wife, Zipporah, a Midianite. It was nothing strange that the woman, suddenly plunged into the Jewish community, had aroused the jealousy of other "prima donnas" like Miriam and Aaron, who had, until then, had an exclusive and privileged relationship with Moses. There was no doubt that the "Cushite woman" who had caused the jealousy of Miriam and Aaron was Zippora herself. I soon found confirmation that the term cushite was used to define the Midianites belonging to the tribe of Jethro. In Habakkuk 3:7, Cushan is mentioned as the name of a tribe of Midian. In 2 Chronicles 14,7-13, a war between Judah and the Cushites is described, clearly a population of Sinai and a little further on, in 2 Chronicles 21.16, it speaks of the "Arabs who live alongside the Cushites", from which it is deduced that the latter were neighbouring with the Nabataeans, certainly not Ethiopians. I had definitive confirmation later when I found in an apocryphal text of the Old Testament, dating back to the second century BC, "The Apocalypse of Moses", a passage in which Jethro and Zippora are expressly referred to as Cushites. In chapter 34.6, we read: "Moses fled to Midian, to the cushite Reguel, priest of Midian. He married the priest's daughter, the cushite Zippora; by her two sons were begotten: Ghersom and Eliezer." ….

The Burning Bush theophany directing Moses back to Egypt

by Damien F. Mackey “During that long period, the king of Egypt died. The Israelites groaned in their slavery and cried out, and their cry for help because of their slavery went up to God. God heard their groaning and He remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob. So God looked on the Israelites and was concerned about them”. Exodus 2:23-25 Introduction “During that long period, the king of Egypt died”. The “king of Egypt” here, the legendary “Chenephres” (Eusebius from Artapanus), died late during Moses’s Midian phase, and, with him, the dynasty virtually ended. There would yet be a brief-reigning female Pharaoh. I suited the last male Pharaoh with his historical (dynastic) alter egos in my article: The King of Egypt of Exodus 2:23 https://www.academia.edu/124085893/The_King_of_Egypt_of_Exodus_2_23 wherein I concluded: Conclusion: The vindictive “King of Egypt” of Exodus 2:23 was, all at once, “Chenephres” (tradition) – Chephren (Khafre) of the Fourth Dynasty – Pepi Neferkare of the Sixth Dynasty – Sesostris (Story of Sinuhe) Kheperkare of the Twelfth Dynasty. The female Pharaoh who saw off the dynasty would be, all at once: Khentkaus; Nitocris; Sobekneferure, the latter being her Twelfth Dynasty name. It is unlikely that Exodus 2:23 is referring to her as “king of Egypt”, given 4:16’s apparent reference to the jealous “Chenephres”, ‘… all those who wanted to kill you are dead’. Moses would be alerted to the passing of that mighty dynasty in the most dramatic possible way, by the Lord himself (Exodus 4:16): “Now the Lord had said to Moses in Midian, ‘Go back to Egypt, for all those who wanted to kill you are dead’.” The long-lasting (s0-called) Twelfth Dynasty had finally spluttered to a halt, to be succeeded by the Thirteenth Dynasty about whose fabric there is much debate amongst Egyptologists. We learned previously that some so-called Thirteenth Dynasty persons were actually high officials serving the Twelfth Dynasty rulers, and I also proposed that the succession in the Thirteenth Dynasty lists, Amenemhet (so-called VII) and Sobekhotep, was a repetition of the Twelfth Dynasty’s (duplicated) succession of Amenemhet and Sesostris – Sobekhotep (so-called IV) bearing Sesostris’s name, Neferkare, in reverse, as Khaneferre – again the traditional “Chenephres”. “God heard their groaning …”. Had the Israelites begun to groan in sincere prayerful entreaty to God, or were they just a bunch of whingers, like Dathan and Abiram (= Jannes and Mambres), so typical of most of that ungrateful generation? The Lord apparently “heard” them on behalf of the Covenant that he had sworn to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The Burning Bush Exodus 3:1-10: 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. 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. So Moses thought, ‘I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up’. 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’. ‘Do not come any closer’, God said. ‘Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground’. Then he said, ‘I am the God of your father, 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. 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. 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. And now the cry of the Israelites has reached me, and I have seen the way the Egyptians are oppressing them. So now, go. I am sending you to Pharaoh to bring my people the Israelites out of Egypt’. Elsewhere, we have learned that Moses would influence Greco-Roman, Indian, and other mythologies, especially as a basket baby, and likewise Sargon of Akkad, who - though he preceded Moses in history - would, much later, have attached to him a legend very similar to the famous story of the baby Moses afloat on the river (or lake). Moses was also the basis for the non-historical Buddha, and he was, as a Lawgiver, the model for the revered Spartan, Lycurgus. Now here, where the Lord commands Moses: ‘Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground’, Moses, standing before unquenchable fire, in the vicinity of a holy mountain, becomes the matrix for the Sicilian Greek, Empedocles. Previously I wrote this about him: EMPEDOCLES, though considered to have lived in the C5th BC and to have nonetheless been the first to have named the four elements, was way behind the Book of Genesis in this supposed achievement of his. Thus we read at: http://revelationorbust.com/wordpress/?p=376#more-376 Genesis 1:10 …. וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים׀ לַיַּבָּשָׁה֙ אֶ֔רֶץ וּלְמִקְוֵ֥ה הַמַּ֖יִם קָרָ֣א יַמִּ֑ים וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹהִ֖ים כִּי־טֽוֹב׃ wayiqra – elohim – layyabbashah – erets ulemiqweh – hammayim – qara – yammim – wayyareh – elohim – ki+tov and (he) called – God – to the dry ground – earth and to collection – the waters – (he) called – seas – and (he) saw – God – for+good The construction of this verse is familiar. See in particular this post on Genesis 1:4 regarding “seeing.” Genesis 1:10 marks the last time in the creation narrative that God himself names things. Take a look at what he’s named: day and night (in 1:5), sky (in 1:8), earth and sea (here in 1:10). Are these meant to correspond to the four primal elements fire, air, earth, and water? Fire is perhaps a leap from day and night. But if the correspondence is intentional, God is shown to be the creator and fashioner of what was understood to be the substances from which everything else was formed until relatively recent history. This is a pretty nifty observation, but it presents a small challenge to the historical-grammatical interpretation of Genesis 1. The problem is that the four primal elements idea is normally attributed to a Greek philosopher by the name of Empedocles who lived in the 5th century B.C. – about 1,000 years after Moses and the traditional date for the recording of Genesis. The Wellhausen hypothesis posits later dates for Genesis but is still 400 years before Empedocles. We show our Western bias however when we focus on the Greeks. The Egyptians actually had a similar concept …. The Egyptian idea was embodied in a group of deities called the Ogdoad, and the four primordial substances were darkness, air, the waters, and infinity/eternity. All of this is to say that even from a purely secular standpoint it is not unreasonable to grant that the Greek primal elements concept existed in the Ancient Near East well before the Greeks. …. [End of quote] Sigmund Freud was well on the right track, I would suggest, when he considered the philosopher Empedocles to have been a ‘reincarnation of Moses’. See: http://moseseditor.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/taken-from-httpbooks.html I think Empedocles’ archetypal personage was indeed Moses. For instance: (http://ejmmm2007.blogspot.com.au/2009/01/moses-magician.html): “… there arose in antiquity an interpretation of Moses as a scholar/magician in the classical mould of Pythagoras … and Empedocles”. (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/gill/deu033.htm): Deuteronomy 33:25: “Thy shoes shall be iron and brass”. …. Either they should have such an abundance of these metals, that they could if they would have made their shoes of them; but that is not usual; though it is said of Empedocles … the philosopher, that he wore shoes of brass”. …. Moses had to remove his sandals on the fiery mountain (Exodus 3:5): “Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.” From the following quote we learn about Empedocles’ sandal on the fiery mountain. (http://www.wondersandmarvels.com/2013/06/who-were-the-first-recreational-mountain-climbers.html) Moses climbed Mount Sinai to receive the Ten Commandments and ascended Mount Nebo (Jordan) to gaze on the land he would never reach. …. Empedocles, the ancient Greek philosopher, climbed the active volcano Mount Etna on Sicily and leaped into the flaming crater in 430 BC. According to legend, he intended to become an immortal god; the volcano ejected one of his sandals turned to bronze by the heat. (http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft4m3nb2jk&chunk.id=d0e5110) “The character of Empedocles [Hölderlin’s The Death of Empedocles] is in some ways a synthesis of Moses and Aaron: his wisdom and mystical powers of leadership both separate him from the people and lead them to offer him the title of King. The contradiction in this dilemma, however, leads him to spurn the people for their lack of comprehension and ultimately to his own destruction—the plunge into the volcano rather than life in exile”. …. Spiritual significance On a far higher level, the Burning Bush at Horeb was aglow with the Glory of the Lord, the Chavod (כָּבוֹד), also known by the popular non-biblical term, “Shekinah”. It indicates the presence of the Lord. And it symbolises the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the Divine Mercy, probably intended here by “the angel of the Lord [who] appeared to [Moses] in flames of fire …”. The same divine Person will, centuries later, accompany the three pious young Jews in King Nebuchednezzar’s burning fiery furnace (Daniel ch. 3). As with the Burning Bush of Exodus 3, the fire within the Sacred Heart of Jesus does “not burn up”, and those living within it, or close to it, are not harmed, but are inspired to sing hymns of cosmic praise, ecstatically, to the Almighty God. We live either within this salvific fire, or without (outside) it, which becomes Hell. “Who amongst us can dwell with everlasting burnings?” (Isaiah 33:14) DIVINE JESUS, MAY WE BURN WITHIN THEE, NOT WITHOUT THEE! 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 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 (2) Ezra heroic in the face of death | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu 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) 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 even enhance it. For, according to Abarim, 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) 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, is quite unrealistic in terms of the over-extended conventional chronology. My above-mentioned article on “Ezra”, though, suggests that this is possible, with the holy man living to as late as the wars of Judas Maccabeus. While the Book of Daniel (chapter 3) will recount the story of the three young men in the burning fiery furnace in a somewhat objective and dispassionate fashion, presenting the three young heroes there as respectfully defiant before the Great King, Sirach, on the other hand, reads like a dramatic eye-witness window into the utter fearfulness and terror of the situation – a young man, who had actually experienced it, having been filled with the anxiety of expecting that he was about to lose his life in a most horrifying fashion. Comparisons with Fatima (1917) “Do not forget the works of the Lord!” (Psalm 77:7 Douay; Psalm 78:7) Saint John Paul II ‘the Great’ would liken Fatima (1917) to Sinai. Fatima also has resonances with the burning fiery furnace of Daniel 3 - three pious children once again threatened by a Nebuchednezzar-like tyrant with being burned alive: https://www.thecatholicherald.com/fatima-seers-are-holy-because-of-virtue-not-visions-cardinal-says/ “At the time of the apparitions, the Portuguese government was strongly anti-Catholic. Arturo Santos, mayor of the town where Fatima was located and president of the Masonic lodge of nearby Leiria, sent law enforcement officials to block the entry to the site of the apparitions. He also kidnapped the three children to force them to deny Mary was appearing at Fatima after news of the apparitions spread, Cardinal Saraiva Martins said. Santos separated Jacinta and Francisco from Lucia, telling the two children that their cousin was boiled in hot oil and that they would share the same fate if they didn’t say they didn’t see Our Lady and that “it was all a fantasy,” Cardinal Saraiva Martins said. “What was the response of those two children? ‘You can do what you want but we cannot tell a lie. We have seen her (Our Lady)’,” the cardinal said. “I asked myself, ‘How many adults would have done the same?'” the cardinal said. “Maybe 90 per cent of adults would probably say, ‘Yes, of course, it was a lie, it was all a fairy tale'.”” Like Moses had become, the three Fatima children were shepherds. These three children had been shown an electrifying vision of Hell. At the “Beatification of the Little Shepherds of Fatima, Francisco and Jacinta”, pope John Paul II had drawn a comparison with the Burning Bush that Moses had experienced: https://www.piercedhearts.org/hearts_jesus_mary/apparitions/fatima/jpii_beatification_jacinta_francisco.html "Beatification of the Little Shepherds of Fatima, Francisco and Jacinta" Homily of St. John Paul II at the Shrine of Our Lady of the Rosary of Fatima May 13, 2000 "Ask your parents and teachers to enrol you in the "school" of Our Lady, so that she can teach you to be like the little shepherds, who tried to do whatever she asked them." 1. "Father, ... to you I offer praise; for what you have hidden from the learned and the clever you have revealed to the merest children" (Mt 11: 25). With these words, dear brothers and sisters, Jesus praises the heavenly Father for his designs; he knows that no one can come to him unless he is drawn by the Father (cf. Jn 6: 44); therefore he praises him for his plan and embraces it as a son: "Yes, Father, for such was your gracious will" (Mt 11: 26). You were pleased to reveal the kingdom to the merest children. According to the divine plan, "a woman clothed with the sun" (Rv 12: 1) came down from heaven to this earth to visit the privileged children of the Father. She speaks to them with a mother's voice and heart: she asks them to offer themselves as victims of reparation, saying that she was ready to lead them safely to God. And behold, they see a light shining from her maternal hands which penetrates them inwardly, so that they feel immersed in God just as - they explain - a person sees himself in a mirror. Later Francisco, one of the three privileged children, exclaimed: "We were burning in that light which is God and we were not consumed. What is God like? It is impossible to say. In fact we will never be able to tell people". God: a light that burns without consuming. Moses had the same experience when he saw God in the burning bush; he heard God say that he was concerned about the slavery of his people and had decided to deliver them through him: "I will be with you" (cf. Ex 3: 2-12). Those who welcome this presence become the dwelling-place and, consequently, a "burning bush" of the Most High. 2. What most impressed and entirely absorbed Bl. Francisco was God in that immense light which penetrated the inmost depths of the three children. But God told only Francisco "how sad" he was, as he said. One night his father heard him sobbing and asked him why he was crying; his son answered: "I was thinking of Jesus who is so sad because of the sins that are committed against him". He was motivated by one desire - so expressive of how children think - "to console Jesus and make him happy". A transformation takes place in his life, one we could call radical: a transformation certainly uncommon for children of his age. He devotes himself to an intense spiritual life, expressed in assiduous and fervent prayer, and attains a true form of mystical union with the Lord. This spurs him to a progressive purification of the spirit through the renunciation of his own pleasures and even of innocent childhood games. …. Another Exodus likeness to Fatima occurs when God empowers Moses with miraculous abilities, “that they may believe” (Exodus 4:5). For that was the very purpose of the great Solar miracle at Fatima on October 13, 1917, “so that all may believe”. Sadly, in either case, there have been many who have not believed. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn — “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened”. “Do not forget the works of the Lord!” In 1925, at Pontevedra in Spain, towards the conclusion of the Fatima apparitions, the Chavod Glory cloud (Burning Bush; the Magi Star) will become manifest again, with the Child Jesus elevated upon it: https://fatima.org/news-views/the-apparition-of-our-lady-and-the-child-jesus-at-pontevedra/ “On December 10, 1925, the Most Holy Virgin appeared to [Lucia], and by Her side, elevated on a luminous cloud, was the Child Jesus. The Most Holy Virgin rested Her hand on her shoulder, and as She did so, She showed her a heart encircled by thorns, which She was holding in Her other hand. At the same time, the Child said: “‘Have compassion on the Heart of your Most Holy Mother, covered with thorns, with which ungrateful men pierce It at every moment, and there is no one to make an act of reparation to remove them.’ “Then the Most Holy Virgin said: “‘Look, My daughter, at My Heart, surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce Me at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You at least try to console Me and announce in My name that I promise to assist at the moment of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, shall confess … receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary, and keep Me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary, with the intention of making reparation to Me.’” Moses who, forty years ago back in Egypt, had considered himself to have been the one to liberate his people from harsh slavery, will now (unlike the Fatima children, apparently) resist this new spectacular call to vocation. The prophet Jeremiah would later act similarly, and would likewise receive a Divine rebuke (Jeremiah 1:6, 7) – and so, ostensibly, would the Prophet Mohammed. Had Moses grown content with his simple married life amongst his Midianite family? Now, at age 80, he must have lost his former youthful exuberance. Perhaps someone else could free the Hebrews. “But Moses said, ‘Pardon your servant, Lord. Please send someone else’.” (Exodus 4:13) And so here begins Moses’s series of protestations that will continue on even back in Egypt. Exodus 3:11-13: But Moses said to God, ‘Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt?’ 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 will worship God on this mountain’. 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?” ‘I AM WHO I AM’ Exodus 3:14-22: God said to Moses, I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you’. God also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The Lord, 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. 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. 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.’ 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.’ But I know that the king of Egypt will not let you go unless a mighty hand compels him. 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. And I will make the Egyptians favorably disposed toward this people, so that when you leave you will not go empty-handed. 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.” Need for a Perennial Philosophy A non-historical Thales of Miletus cannot be, as he is called, the Father of Philosophy. God the Father is the true Father of Philosophy and He would reveal the basis of the perennial philosophy of Being at the Burning Bush. God is the pure act of existing Tom Mulcahy has written on this: https://catholicstrength.com/tag/the-existence-of-god-is-an-imperative-of-metaphysical-reasoning/ GOD EXISTS BECAUSE GOD IS LIFE ” I AM THAT I AM” (Exodus 3:14) We are caught up in the simple but precise argument that if there was nothing to begin with how could there be anything at all? And the core of our argument is that the existence of God is “an imperative of metaphysical reasoning,” or even of simple logic. Wilhelmsen states that “the metaphysics of being is simultaneously the Philosophy of God.” Such a statement finds correlation in the Bible, where God is revealed to Moses as I AM (Exodus 3: 14 ). And Jesus says – rather amazingly – that he is “the life” (John 14:6 ). In other words, God is that very beginning, or that very unbeginning, the absence of which there would simply be nothing. The “Supreme mystery,” then, is the mystery of a Being whose very essence is to exist. The philosopher says that God exists simply in virtue of Himself, so that God is the pure act of existing. “God affirms himself as the absolute act of being in its pure actuality” (Etienne Gilson). Father Garrigou-Lagrange, a great scholar of St. Thomas Aquinas, explains that: “God is the eternally subsisting being. God, then, is not only pure spirit, He is being itself subsisting immaterial at the summit of all things and transcending any limits imposed by either space or matter or a finite spiritual essence. Now, because God is the self-subsisting being, the infinite ocean of spiritual being, unlimited, unmaterialized, He is distinguished from every material or spiritual creature. The divine essence is existence itself, it alone of necessity exits. No creature is self-existent; none can say: I am being, truth, life, etc. Jesus alone among men said: “I am the truth and the life,” which was the equivalent to saying, “I am God” (Providence, 70-71). Another scholar, quoting Jacques Maritain, says that “the act of existing is the key to St. Thomas’s philosophy, and it [being] is something super-intelligible which is revealed in the judgment I make that something exists. ‘This is why, at the root of metaphysical knowledge, St. Thomas places the intellectual intuition of that mysterious reality disguised under the most commonplace and commonly used word in the language, the word to be…that victorious thrust by which it [being] triumphs over nothingness.'” Our affirmation or intuition of being, then, leads us to “the affirmation of Being Itself, God” (Wilhelmsen). The Incarnation is the revelation that Jesus is LIFE! One day Jesus revealed his glory to the apostle Thomas, saying, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the father but through me” (John 14:6). As the Pulpit Commentary explains, “I am the Life [means that Jesus is] the life eternal, the Possessor, Author, Captain, Giver, and Prince of life.” On another occasion Jesus encountered a grieving woman, Martha, whose brother Lazarus had died, and Jesus said to her (before raising Lazarus back to life): “I am the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25). This profound pronouncement of Jesus demonstrates that he “possesses the absolute sovereignty over life and death” that is “the sole prerogative” of God (ICSB). CONCLUSION: God is life, or, as the Bible says, God has LIFE in himself (John 5:26). “God is the ultimate Possessor of life per se” (Pulpit Commentary). This is a great mystery, but it is a mystery confirmed by Scripture and human intelligence, and St. Paul warns that our minds are darkened if they don’t rise to a knowledge of God (Romans 1: 19-22; ICSB). So, we return to the ultimate philosophical question, Why is there something rather than nothing?, and we must conclude that nothing can produce nothing! And it is only because God IS (that is, because God is ETERNAL LIFE, the eternally subsisting Being) that we hold on to life day by day, hour by hour, moment by moment. Our present “to-be-ness” is completely dependent on Him who IS I AM. And in this light we can come to see in a more penetrating way that God has the power – as the eternal custodian of life – to raise up our mortal bodies on the last day (John 6:40). Pseudo-scientifically-minded modern men and women are not adequately equipped, rationally speaking, to embrace God’s reality and genuine philosophical reasoning, and so they must deny the need for both. Pseudo-metaphysics arises from intellectual nihilism; it is a fantastic edifice of pretence, impervious to rational discussion since it obliterates all genuinely rational lines; it marks a retreat into egocentricity and a loss of the power of dialogue; ultimately … it is a craven attempt of the mind to … screen itself from the providence of God, and remove him farther off from the affairs of the world …. Gavin Ardley Once upon a time, those who sought wisdom and inspiration regarding man and the universe began by genuflecting to the Almighty God in reverential awe (the meaning of “fear” below). Because, as they saw it: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction”. Proverbs 1:7 “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding”. Proverbs 9:10 “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. A good understanding to all that do it …”. Psalm 110:10 (Douay) “… here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind”. Ecclesiastes 12:13 “The fear of the Lord—that is wisdom, and to shun evil is understanding”. Job 28:28 “If you fear the Lord, you will do this. Master his Law, and you will find Wisdom”. Sirach 15:1 And, now in the New Testament, John the Baptist is found to have been of the very same sapiential mentality. He, using the image of the light of the morning star fading with the sun’s rising (Jesus Christ), will declare (John 3:30): ‘He must become greater; I must become less’. Why? - because: The One who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The One who comes from heaven is above all. He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. Whoever has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. For the One whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit. The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them. Only “the One who comes from heaven [who] is above all” can know the real design and structure of things. And He will only reveal such things to the likes of a Solomon, who prayed for wisdom and knowledge both humbly and submissively. Clearly there is a moral issue involved with attainment of wisdom and knowledge. And no one has explained this better, I believe, than Gavin Ardley, in Berkeley’s Renovation of Philosophy (Martinus Nijhoff, 1968). Having first discussed moral scruples: “The condition of moral scruples is morbid” (pp. 78-79), Ardley then proceeds to write about “intellectual scruples”: …. [George] Berkeley's estimate of the nature of pseudo-metaphysics and of its therapy runs along lines parallel to the moral case. Intellectual scruples are a philosophical disease; they spring from a kind of vanity, a wish to be god-like, to know all; which wish being frustrated leads to the opposite extreme, a loss of confidence, a conviction that we know nothing; which state, in turn, is a condition of receptivity to any irrational doctrine which seeks lodging; which state, in turn, is a condition of receptivity to any irrational doctrine which seeks lodging; which doctrine, in turn, is clung to tenaciously and blindly as a kind of protective cover. Pseudo-metaphysics arises from intellectual nihilism; it is a fantastic edifice of pretence, impervious to rational discussion since it obliterates all genuinely rational lines; it marks a retreat into egocentricity and a loss of the power of dialogue; ultimately, Berkeley suspects, it is a craven attempt of the mind to “screen itself from the providence of God, and remove him farther off from the affairs of the world” (Pr. 75). Ardley’s use of the adjective “craven” here is not an exaggeration in light of St John Paul II’s encyclical, Fides et ratio (1998), in which the indispensability of philosophy is upheld in the face of a modern intellectual cowardice - (recall e.g. Stephen Hawking’s: “Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead”) - which, the pope wrote, “has wilted under the weight of so much knowledge and little by little has lost the capacity to lift its gaze to the heights, not daring to rise to the truth of being”. (Emphasis added) Here is the relevant section # 5 from that encyclical letter: On her part, the Church cannot but set great value upon reason's drive to attain goals which render people's lives ever more worthy. She sees in philosophy the way to come to know fundamental truths about human life. At the same time, the Church considers philosophy an indispensable help for a deeper understanding of faith and for communicating the truth of the Gospel to those who do not yet know it. Therefore, following upon similar initiatives by my Predecessors, I wish to reflect upon this special activity of human reason. I judge it necessary to do so because, at the present time in particular, the search for ultimate truth seems often to be neglected. Modern philosophy clearly has the great merit of focusing attention upon man. From this starting-point, human reason with its many questions has developed further its yearning to know more and to know it ever more deeply. Complex systems of thought have thus been built, yielding results in the different fields of knowledge and fostering the development of culture and history. Anthropology, logic, the natural sciences, history, linguistics and so forth—the whole universe of knowledge has been involved in one way or another. Yet the positive results achieved must not obscure the fact that reason, in its one-sided concern to investigate human subjectivity, seems to have forgotten that men and women are always called to direct their steps towards a truth which transcends them. Sundered from that truth, individuals are at the mercy of caprice, and their state as person ends up being judged by pragmatic criteria based essentially upon experimental data, in the mistaken belief that technology must dominate all. It has happened therefore that reason, rather than voicing the human orientation towards truth, has wilted under the weight of so much knowledge and little by little has lost the capacity to lift its gaze to the heights, not daring to rise to the truth of being. Abandoning the investigation of being, modern philosophical research has concentrated instead upon human knowing. Rather than make use of the human capacity to know the truth, modern philosophy has preferred to accentuate the ways in which this capacity is limited and conditioned. This has given rise to different forms of agnosticism and relativism which have led philosophical research to lose its way in the shifting sands of widespread scepticism. Recent times have seen the rise to prominence of various doctrines which tend to devalue even the truths which had been judged certain. A legitimate plurality of positions has yielded to an undifferentiated pluralism, based upon the assumption that all positions are equally valid, which is one of today's most widespread symptoms of the lack of confidence in truth. Even certain conceptions of life coming from the East betray this lack of confidence, denying truth its exclusive character and assuming that truth reveals itself equally in different doctrines, even if they contradict one another. On this understanding, everything is reduced to opinion; and there is a sense of being adrift. While, on the one hand, philosophical thinking has succeeded in coming closer to the reality of human life and its forms of expression, it has also tended to pursue issues—existential, hermeneutical or linguistic—which ignore the radical question of the truth about personal existence, about being and about God. Hence we see among the men and women of our time, and not just in some philosophers, attitudes of widespread distrust of the human being's great capacity for knowledge. With a false modesty, people rest content with partial and provisional truths, no longer seeking to ask radical questions about the meaning and ultimate foundation of human, personal and social existence. In short, the hope that philosophy might be able to provide definitive answers to these questions has dwindled. …. Richard Weaver's concept of "burning bush" imagery, particularly in his book "Ideas Have Consequences," relates to the idea that truth and meaning are often revealed through symbolic, metaphorical, and evocative language rather than just factual statements. Weaver argued that the most effective way to communicate truth is through vivid imagery and symbolic narratives, rather than a direct, bald approach. This aligns with the biblical story of Moses encountering God at the burning bush, where God revealed Himself in a symbolic, fire-and-flame manifestation rather than in a straightforward way. Elaboration: • Symbolism and Meaning: Weaver believed that language, especially religious and cultural language, carries inherent meaning and can reveal deeper truths through symbolism. He felt that the "quest for immediacy" – the idea that the most direct route to truth is the best – often misses the point. • The Burning Bush as an Example: The biblical story of Moses and the burning bush is a prime example of Weaver's point. Instead of a simple revelation, God appears in a symbolic, fiery manifestation, demonstrating that truth can be communicated through vivid imagery and symbolic narratives. • Ideas Have Consequences: Weaver's book "Ideas Have Consequences" argues that the adoption of certain philosophical ideas, such as nominalism, has had detrimental consequences on Western civilization. He believed that the decline of the West was partly due to the rejection of absolute truth and the rise of a focus on individual interpretations. • The "Burning Bush" as a Metaphor: Weaver likely used the "burning bush" as a metaphor for the way truth and meaning are often revealed through symbolic language and imagery. It suggests that the most impactful messages are not always straightforward but require a deeper understanding and appreciation of their symbolism. Moses invested with miraculous powers Exodus 4:1-9: Moses answered, “What if they do not believe me or listen to me and say, ‘The Lord did not appear to you’?” Then the Lord said to him, ‘What is that in your hand?’ ‘A staff’, he replied. The Lord said, ‘Throw it on the ground’. Moses threw it on the ground and it became a snake, and he ran from it. Then the Lord said to him, ‘Reach out your hand and take it by the tail’. So Moses reached out and took hold of the snake and it turned back into a staff in his hand. ‘This’, said the Lord, ‘is so that they may believe that the Lord, the God of their fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has appeared to you’. Then the Lord said, ‘Put your hand inside your cloak’. So Moses put his hand into his cloak, and when he took it out, the skin was leprous—it had become as white as snow. ‘Now put it back into your cloak’, he said. So Moses put his hand back into his cloak, and when he took it out, it was restored, like the rest of his flesh. Then the Lord said, ‘If they do not believe you or pay attention to the first sign, they may believe the second. But if they do not believe these two signs or listen to you, take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground. The water you take from the river will become blood on the ground’. Moses will now plead his lack of eloquence as a good reason for not confronting Pharaoh. He, the mildest man on the face of the earth, could burn with hot anger, could even kill, when occasion required it. For the mild Moses had a very keen sense of justice. But the supposedly taciturn Moses (his own claim) could also be inspired to great eloquence at times. And what about his reputation, not only for mighty “deeds”, but also for mighty “words” (Acts 7:22)? Well, this could actually refer to his wise writings, Maxims and Instructions, in Egypt, and then, later, the Pentateuch. Exodus 4:10-13: Moses said to the Lord, ‘Pardon your servant, Lord. I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor since you have spoken to your servant. I am slow of speech and tongue’. The Lord said to him, ‘Who gave human beings their mouths? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the Lord? Now go; I will help you speak and will teach you what to say’. [Cf. Mohammed’s call: ‘Recite in the name of thy Lord Who created. He created man from a clot of blood. Recite, for thy Lord is Most Beneficent, Who has taught by the pen, taught man that which he knew not’ (96:2-6)]. But Moses said, ‘Pardon your servant, Lord. Please send someone else’. Saint John of the Cross, the Master of Mystical Theology, takes Moses’s reticence as being an indication that he was now experiencing the ‘dark night of the senses’, during which spiritual phenomenon a person has difficulty with speech. But Moses here claims to have been always like this, slow of speech (cf. Exodus 6:12). By now, the Lord was tiring of Moses’s protestations (vv. 14-17): Then the Lord’s anger burned against Moses and he said, ‘What about your brother, Aaron the Levite? I know he can speak well. He is already on his way to meet you, and he will be glad to see you. You shall speak to him and put words in his mouth; I will help both of you speak and will teach you what to do. He will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God to him. But take this staff in your hand so you can perform the signs with it.” Help is at hand, because older brother (83, Exodus 7:7)) Aaron is on his way (4:27), and he is an eloquent man, “it will be as if he were your mouth”, a very Egyptian sounding expression. And, indeed, scholars have sorely neglected the pervasive Egyptian element in the Pentateuch, except, say, for professor A.S Yahuda (The Language of the Pentateuch in its Relation to Egyptian, Oxford, 1933). Some key Hebrew figures at this time, e.g. Hur, Phinehas, appear to bear Egyptian, rather than Hebrew, names. So Moses and his little party set out for Egypt, to wage war upon Pharaoh and upon the harsh gods of Egypt (Exodus 12:12): ‘I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt’.