Horrible Histories: Calamitous Chaldeans

by Damien F. Mackey The calamity here refers primarily to geography – to what has been the utterly disastrous attempt to locate the ancient land of Chaldea. “… but despite knowing the names of dozens of Chaldaean cities and towns from Assyrian records, none has ever been located, not to mention excavated, despite the fact that many of them are known to have been walled and strongly fortified”. Royce (Richard) Erickson That there is a significant Chaldean (Chaldaean) Problem, to go along with so many others in ancient geographico-history (e.g. the well-known “Sumerian Problem”), is apparent from what the late professor Gunnar Heinsohn wrote about the famed Chaldeans: https://hive.blog/heinsohn/@harlotscurse/sumerians-and-chaldaeans …. Though the ancient Greeks freely admitted that their science teachers were Chaldaeans (from Southern Mesopotamia/Babylonia), they never gave any hint that they trailed their inspirators by one-and-a-half millennia. They rather gave the impression that Chaldaean knowledge was obtainable by traveling Greek students. Today, we are taught that there were no Chaldaean teachers to speak of. This supposedly most learned nation of mankind, did not leave us bricks or potsherds, not to mention written treatises. …. The Cities of the Chaldaeans According to conventional history, the Chaldaeans first migrated into Lower Mesopotamia no earlier than the middle of the 10th century. They are first mentioned in the annals of the Neo-Assyrian Emperor Shalmaneser III, dated to about 850 BCE. They took no part in the glorious flowering of Mesopotamian civilization that is said to have spanned a period of several millennia before their arrival on the scene. But in the annals of Sennacherib, a Neo-Assyrian Emperor who lived around 700 BCE, we learn that the Chaldaeans had seventy-five strong, walled cities: In my first campaign I accomplished the defeat of Merodach-baladan, king of Babylonia, together with the army of Elam, his ally, in the plain of Kish. In the midst of that battle he forsook his camp, and made his escape alone; (so) he saved his life. The chariots, horses, wagons, mules, which he left behind at the onset of battle, my hands seized. Into his palace, which is in Babylon, joyfully I entered. I opened his treasure-house: gold, silver, vessels of gold and silver, precious stones of every kind (name) goods and property without limit (number), heavy tribute, his harem, (his) courtiers and officials, singers, male and female, all of his artisans, as many as there were, the servants of his palace, I brought out, I counted as spoil. In the might of Assur my lord, 75 of his strong walled cities, of Chaldea, and 420 small cities of their environs (within their borders), I surrounded, I conquered, their spoil I carried off. (Luckenbill 116) According to the conventional chronology, then, the Chaldaeans are first heard of in Lower Mesopotamia in 850 BCE, and by 700 BCE they have 75 strong, walled cities and 420 small cities. That is quite a spectacular rise to power. …. [End of quotes] Quite spectacular, indeed! Professor Heinsohn’s ingenious solution to the Chaldean Problem was to point to an alternative people to identify as the Chaldeans: namely, the Sumerians. The article continues: …. Sumerian continued to be used as a sacred, ceremonial, literary and scientific language in Akkadian-speaking Mesopotamian states such as Assyria and Babylonia until the 1st century AD ... The term “Post-Sumerian” is meant to refer to the time when the language was already extinct and preserved by Babylonians and Assyrians only as a liturgical and classical language for religious, artistic and scholarly purposes ... The extinction has traditionally been dated approximately to the end of the Third Dynasty of Ur, the last predominantly Sumerian state in Mesopotamia, about 2000 BC. However, that date is very approximate, as many scholars have contended that Sumerian was already dead or dying as early as around 2100 BC, by the beginning of the Ur III period, and others believe that Sumerian persisted, as a spoken language, in a small part of Southern Mesopotamia (Nippur and its surroundings) until as late as 1700 BC. (Wikipedia) Is this really credible? Would a language that had perhaps become extinct as early as 2100 BCE continue to be used in rituals for a further two thousand years? And if it did survive to the 1st century of the Christian era, why is it that none of the Classical writers mention it? According to Heinsohn’s chronology, however, the so-called Neo-Sumerians, who are conventionally dated to the 22nd and 21st centuries BCE, were actually contemporaries of the Medes in the 7th and 6th centuries: If we leave unscholarly dating systems aside, and resort to comparative stratigraphy, we will immediately recognize the contemporaneity of the early Greek city-states and the so-called Neo-Sumerians, who thereby are outed as the painfully-missing Chaldaeans. “Neo-Sumerian” Chaldaeans and early -6th century poleis alike, are found merely two strata-groups below Hellenism. This still leaves a head start for Chaldean scholarship. Yet, it is not measured by millennia or centuries, but by decades at most. (Heinsohn) [End of quotes] This had initially seemed to me like a very good idea. If something is missing, find a legitimate counterpart for it, as I have done so often. To give just one of many examples of my attaching an alter ego to one known to have been most significant, here the mighty Pharaoh Piankhi (Piye), but puzzlingly lacking in archaeological attestation (monuments, artifacts), see my article: The Disappearing Piankhi (8) The Disappearing Piankhi or, if one prefers it served with sauce: Missing a large slice of Piye, king of Egypt (8) Missing a large slice of Piye, king of Egypt Thus I ran for quite a while with professor Heinsohn’s equation: Chaldaeans = Sumerians which had impressed some of my colleagues as well. As it has turned out, however, this ingenious attempt by professor Heinsohn at a solution to the Chaldean Problem is fatally flawed. Professor Heinsohn had based himself upon the conventional view (that we all have followed) that the Sumerians and the Chaldeans were dwellers in southern Mesopotamia (Iraq). The truth of the matter is, in fact, starkly different. 1. Regarding Sumer Over time I came to realise that some famous Syro-Palestine sites, such as Ugarit, Jerusalem, Lachish, had somehow, mysteriously, found their way on to maps of central and southern Mesopotamia (known as Sumer). Ugarit (Egyptian IKAT) was Akkad; Jerusalem was Girsu; Lachish-Ashdod was Lagash (var. Lakish)-Eshnunna. That some of these names should never have appeared on such a map (SE) in the first place may be suggested by what I wrote in e.g. my article: Goodbye, not hello, to Girsu at Tello (9) Goodbye, not hello, to Girsu at Tello …. The trouble is, Girsu and Lagash (Lagaš) will disappear off the Sumerian map. Seth Richardson refers to them as ‘falling off the political map’. Thus I wrote on this: Amazingly - though not really surprisingly under the circumstances - Lagash and Girsu seem to ‘fall permanently off the political map’, according to Seth Richardson …. : Ningirsu returns to his plow: Lagaš and Girsu take leave of Ur (2008) (5) Ningirsu returns to his plow: Lagaš and Girsu take leave of Ur (2008) | Seth Richardson - Academia.edu The Ur III state came to its end through a series of passive defections of individual provinces over the course of about twenty years, rather than by any single catastrophic event. This pattern of defections is nowhere better reflected than in the gradual progression of provinces abandoning the use of Ibbi-Sîn’s year names over his years 2–8. Among the cities that fell away from the control of Ur in those years were Girsu and Lagaš, where Ur III year names are not attested after Ibbi-Sîn’s sixth year. …. Like Puzriš-Dagān and Umma (but unlike Larsa, Uruk, Isin, and Nippur), these cities seemingly fell permanently off the political map of lower Mesopotamia following their departure from Ur’s control, never again the seat of significant institutional life to judge by the low number of texts and inscriptions coming from the sites. At the same time, it is difficult to assert from evidence that any hardship or conflict either precipitated or resulted from Lagaš-Girsu’s decamping from Ur’s authority; no especial difficulty marks the event. …. The reason for why Girsu and Lagash (and other places) fall of the Mesopotamian map is because they should never have been on that particular map in the first place. Lagash (Lakish) and Eshnunna (Ashnunna) were Lachish in Judah, as I have written, in e.g.: As Ashduddu (Ashdod) is to Lachish, so, likewise, is Eshnunna to Lagash (6) As Ashduddu (Ashdod) is to Lachish, so, likewise, is Eshnunna to Lagash | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu This is a long way from the land of Sumer. But it gets even worse. Having emptied the supposed lands of Sumer and Akkad of some of their most important towns and cities, and with Akkad now shifted to Ugarit in coastal NW Syria: My road to Akkad (9) My road to Akkad I now began to wonder about Sumer itself, about the “Sumerian Problem”, and about whether or not there really was such a place as Sumer. And subsequently, I wrote: “The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia (9) “The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia In that article I tentatively proposed a brand new location for Sumer, the city of Sumur (Sumura), north of coastal Byblos. This Sumur, which figures prominently in the El Amarna letters of Rib-Addi, king of Byblos, was an important trade centre at the time. Now, approximately while I was busy totally dismantling Sumer and Akkad, another historian, unbeknownst to me, was shifting the presumably neighbouring lands of Chaldea and Elam right away from southern Mesopotamia to NW Syria (for Chaldea) and to Anatolia (for Elam). This was Royce (Richard) Erickson, who, in 2020, wrote: A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY (10) A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY 2. Regarding Chaldea Royce Erickson’s article, which shifts the land of Chaldea (also Elam) hundreds of miles NW of its originally placed SE location, has to be, at least in my opinion, one of the greatest ever contributions to ancient geography. His map here (Figure 4) perfectly visualises this major shift: Figure 4 – Comparison of currently accepted location of Chaldaean land and tribes with the proposed alternative: Consensus View – Tagged in yellow; Proposed Alternative – Tagged in White I, later, basing myself on Royce Erickson’s article, and also mindful of comments by Seth Richardson, again, would suggest a similar NW shifting of the Sealand kingdom: Horrible Histories: Kingdom of the Sealand is ‘all at Sea’ (10) Horrible Histories: Kingdom of the Sealand is 'all at Sea' But, getting right back to the far more significant contribution by Royce Erickson, it will be his contribution to the geography of the Chaldeans that I think will turn out to be far more significant than that of any other historian. Let us conclude here by following some his brilliant argument on the subject: …. Scholarly Consensus on the Location of Chaldaea Based on Assyrian and Babylonian annals, the consensus of modern scholarly opinion is that the Chaldaeans were a Semitic people from the south, perhaps Arabia, who emigrated to Mesopotamia around 900 BC. They are first mentioned in Assyrian records by Shalmaneser III around 850 BC. He called them “Kaldu.” The exact location of their settlements in relation to Mesopotamia is not clear from the evidence. Modern scholars believe they settled in southern Babylonia adjacent to the north end of the Persian Gulf, in the large marshy delta area formed by the mouths of the Tigris and Euphrates. We know for certain that whatever area the Chaldaeans operated out of, it was conveniently located for what happened next. They gradually infiltrated Babylonian lands, politics, business, religion and government over a period of decades. They eventually achieved the kingship on several occasions only to be ejected by the Assyrians, who felt they had a proprietary interest in Babylonia, the cultural center of Mesopotamia. The Assyrians deeply resented “foreign” rule in Babylon, preferring to dominate it themselves from a distance. The Biblical figure Merodach Baladan was one of these intermittent Chaldaean kings of Babylon. He confronted the Assyrians politically and militarily on numerous occasions. They removed him from the Babylonian throne twice. Always in a search of allies against Assyria, he tried to recruit the Judaean king Hosea, who wisely declined. He ultimately failed, but other Chaldaean kings and nobles continued the struggle. As the conflicts intensified over time, the Assyrians made increasing efforts with varying success to eradicate the Chaldaeans and their allies in their various homelands. Returning to the question of Chaldaean geography, many factors led historians inexorably to the consensus view: 1. Proximity to Babylon. Chaldaea had to have been near Babylonia, where Chaldaeans were present as outsiders in considerable numbers, and played a significant role in Babylonian culture and politics, to some extent as a dominant caste. 2. Proximity to Elam. If we believe detailed Assyrian records, it is clear Chaldaea was also located directly adjacent to Elam, as shown on the map (Figure 2). Since the large and powerful kingdom of Elam has always been unquestionably been located by historians in southwest Iran and along the Northern Persian Gulf, the only feasible location for Chaldaea seemed to be the area at the northern end of the gulf and the Tigris-Euphrates delta, near ancient Ur. 3. Proximity to a sizeable body of water. From Assyrian narratives we know that in addition to their common land border, Chaldaea and Elam were separated in part by a fairly large navigable body of water which played an important role in the struggles between Assyria and both Chaldaea and Elam. The Assyrians referred to named ports on either side of this body. The northern Persian Gulf seemed to fit this description perfectly. 4. Direction and Endpoint of Chaldaean Migration. The Chaldaeans are assumed to be Semites who migrated to Mesopotamia from the south (Arabia), making settlement in southern Mesopotamia a natural development. 5. Biblical Ur of the Chaldees. Abram’s home city, Ur of the Chaldees, is assumed by scholars to be the same as Sumerian Ur (or Uruk), located and excavated close by to the conventional location of Chaldaea. These are persuasive points, but despite knowing the names of dozens of Chaldaean cities and towns from Assyrian records, none has ever been located, not to mention excavated, despite the fact that many of them are known to have been walled and strongly fortified. Neither have any of the hundreds of Chaldaean villages reported to have surrounded them. No archaeological remains or texts have been uncovered in the area that can be identified with any certainty as “Chaldaean.” Matching the geography of the proposed homeland with references in Assyrian military accounts proved difficult. In the same area where masses of earlier Sumerian and archaeological finds and texts have been recovered, the absence of Chaldaean material evidence is mystifying. Some assume Chaldaean sites were buried under the mud of the growing swamps of the Tigris-Euphrates delta, or swallowed up by the Persian Gulf itself. This lack of evidence has been unresolved for so long than many accept unsupported early assumptions almost without question. Alternate locations for Chaldaea have never really been considered due to the apparent historical necessity demanded by the factors listed above. Proposed Actual Location of Chaldaea …. [Refer back to Figure 4] Not fully convinced of the conventional view due to this lack of material evidence and other factors, I decided to search an area I considered particularly likely, Syria and southern Anatolia, for Chaldaean cities, towns and geographic features referenced in numerous campaign accounts. The rationale was a suspicion that the Chaldaean people and language were not Semitic, but Hurrian [Mackey’s comment: Not sold on “Hurrian” here]. This view is not unprecedented but rare in modern accounts. Therefore I used Google Map and other available historical maps and data to search known modern Turkish and Syrian site names in the area just south of the center of gravity of the ancient Hurrian nations and tribes – the land centered on northwest Syria. The idea was to match modern with ancient sites based on name matching and matching geographic relationships. Other internet resources and books provided databases of later Armenian, Greek, Roman and Byzantine names for the same location that could also be used to match Chaldaean names. From Assyrian campaign narratives I collected a list of Assyrian place names for Chaldaea and allied Aramaean tribes numbering more than seventy sites, some mentioned on several occasions by multiple kings during separate campaigns. I looked at the campaign records of Ashurnasirapal, Shalmaneser III, Tiglath Pileser III, Sargon II, Sennecherib, Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal dating from approximately 850 to as late as 640 BC. A total of 70 Assyrian names of Chaldaean and Aramanean sites were identified from these sources. There are undoubtedly additional site names that were missed. But working with the limited list available, 32 certain or very likely matches based on name correlation and other geographic factors were very rapidly identified. The data collected is laid out in the following table, including original Assyrian versions of Chaldaean site names, variations of those names including later Armenian and Greek variants, modern matched site locations in Turkey or Syria by name, Assyrian kings attesting to the site, and tribal affiliation. …. Chaldaean and associated Aramaean sites in northwest Syria and adjoining Turkish areas that were recorded by the Assyrians during their Chaldaean campaigns. This distribution has interesting features that tend to validate the basic premise of Chaldaean location. It forms a coherent and compact geography that makes sense. The towns of the various tribes are located in specific areas that match Assyrian description, with Bit-Yakin closest to the sea, Bit Amukanni in the obviously geographically correlated modern Amuq Valley, with Bit Sa’alli and Bit-Silani towns just to the north where Tiglath Pileser III described them on his way to attack Dur-Atkharas, capital of Bit-Amukanni. The Amuk Valley has been known by that name from earliest times until the present. Assyrian accounts describe numerous sieges and battles in Bit-Yakin and Bit-Amukanni occuring in an area of extensive marshes. Scholarly opinion has used this information to support its identification of the northern end of the Persian Gulf, which has extensive marshes, as the land of Chaldaea. But the area I have identified as Chaldaea was also famous for its large area of marshes, represented on the map (Figure 5) by the large lake. The lake was drained during the 20th century but remains a waterlogged area to this day. In the bronze and iron ages it was a large marsh/swamp area, formed by the confluence of several rivers into the Orontes River immediately north of Dur-Yakin. An arm of the Mediterranean Sea, the Gulf of Iskenderun, provides the body of water bordering Chaldaea per Assyrian description. Bit-Agusi lands centered around the strong fortress of Arpad, which blocked the westward path of Assyrian armies heading for Bit Yakin and Bit Amukani, the heart of Chaldaean resistance to Assyria. Allied Aramaean tribes, which Assyrians also locate in the path from Assyria to the Chaldaean tribes, show up right where they are expected to be. These include the Puqudu, Yatbur and Khindaru lands just north of Bit-Amukanni. According to the current scholarly consensus all but one or two of the sites listed and displayed should be found in the area centered on the north end of the Persian Gulf in Iraq, but none has ever been located there. Attempts to deduct their locations at the north end of the Persian Gulf has met with no success. Despite the availability of detailed Assyrian military accounts, modern scholars often find it very difficult to reconcile specific campaign accounts with the accepted Chaldaean and Elamite geography. In the case of Sargon IIs lengthy and wide-ranging campaign against Merodach Baladan, the Chaldaean king of Babylon, eminient historians could not make Sargon’s narrative of his maneuvers work without postulating that he or his scribes mistook the Euphrates for the Tigris on two occasions, which seems highly unlikely, and that Sargon had divided his forces in order to conduct two or more independent simultaneous campaigns, when in fact, Sargon himself wrote nothing to justify this assumption. When Sargon’s campaign is viewed in light of the proposed alternate location of Chaldaea in northwest Syria and Elam in Anatolia, confusion between the Tigris and Euphrates goes away, as does the necessity to postulate the division of Sargon’s army and the conduct of two independent campaigns. …. The ramifications of this stellar new geography are absolutely mind-boggling!

Noah and Jonah - not merely didactic fiction

“Despites Jonah’s own views on the subject, it is love that stands at the center of the eponymous Book of Jonah. It explains that God cares about every living being, and doesn’t want another flood. When Jonah continues to protest God’s mercy even after the people of Nineveh repent, God responds by saying: “should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people … and also many animals?” (Jonah 4:11). It is with these words that the book ends”. Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz While one is free to form one’s own opinion about Noah and Jonah, it always strikes me (Damien Mackey) as surpassing strange when a Catholic priest denies their reality. These, as followers of Jesus Christ, in whose divinity they would be expected to believe, are rejecting as real two biblical characters about whose existence Jesus had no doubts whatsoever, he even selecting the Jonah incident as the only sign that he would provide for his own Resurrection from the dead (Matthew 12:39): “He answered, ‘A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah’.” I once criticised a Dominican priest, for instance, who had claimed in a sermon that The Book of Jonah was “didactic fiction”, that is, a fictitious non-history whose intended purpose is to teach a moral or ethical lesson. * * * * * Kitty Foth-Regner here will likewise insist on the historicity of Jonah and Noah (2020): https://www.everlastingplace.com/eternal-eyes-a-blog-about-forever/were-noah-and-jonah-fictitious-what-difference-does-it-make Were Noah and Jonah fictitious? What difference does it make? …. An old friend of mine recently said she’d been taught that the Bible’s accounts of Noah and Jonah are merely parables that never happened. Is that so? And does it really matter? In a nutshell: No, and quite possibly. These are both historical accounts—real history. And yes indeed, our take on these accounts could have implications for where we each will spend eternity. So let’s take a closer look. (For a deep dive, you’ll need to do some research. Here’s a good place to start.) What does the Bible say? First of all, how does the Bible itself treat these accounts? Fact is, both are verified multiple times throughout both Old and New Testaments. For instance, check out Jesus’ confirmation of the historicity of Jonah in Matthew 12, and of Noah in Luke 17. Yes, many of us have been taught since childhood that Noah and Jonah were just stories designed to teach us--well, something or other. But were our teachers eye-witnesses to these events? Were they more reliable truth-tellers than the Bible’s writers? Than Jesus? Second, to quote virtually every unbeliever since Pontius Pilate, what is truth? I know the accounts of Noah and Jonah sound like science fiction to skeptics. But are they? Or are they simply demonstrations of the supernatural power of the God who created the universe and everything in it? Does “goo to the zoo to you” make more sense? Are supernatural explanations more fantastic than the “goo to the zoo to you” stories we’ve been spoon-fed since childhood? Think about it: We’ve been taught ad nauseam that evolution is fact. But dig into the subject even superficially, and we find that the evidence does not support this theory, that it instead points straight to the supernatural. As a starting point, think back to what we've been told about the origins of this universe, when “nothing that was something” allegedly exploded into “everything.” Where did all that “nothing that was something” come from? What caused it to explode? Where did the space it occupied come from? And how about time--where'd that come from? There is in fact no evidence that would support, via natural mechanisms, the sudden appearance of space, matter, energy and time. There are not even any credible theories being bandied about. Instead, evolutionists pull the “ignore the man behind the curtain” bait-and-switch to turn our attention to fossils (which in truth prove precisely nothing, but that's another subject entirely). Are Noah and Jonah really so outlandish? Now let’s apply our critical thinking skills to these supposedly fictitious Old Testament “stories.” Take the Genesis account of Noah and the global flood, for instance: What is so fantastic about that? We see the geological evidence of it everywhere. Look at aerial photos of the Grand Canyon, and consider what makes more sense – that the “mighty” Colorado River carved the whole thing out, or an enormous flood? (Note that the world’s real-life Chicken Littles are warning us of global catastrophe due to gas-ridden cows and plastic straws, and heads of state worldwide somehow find that perfectly reasonable. But not the Genesis flood.) Damien Mackey’s comment: Conservative biblical apologists may not be helping the situation by insisting upon a global Flood, because: Bible may not seem to favour the concept of a global Flood (10) Bible may not seem to favour the concept of a global Flood and Noah preparing an Ark full of, not only every type of animal, but dinosaurs as well! Kitty Foth-Regner continues: Or leap over to the book of Jonah. Is it really impossible for a man to be swallowed by a great fish and survive for three days? Certainly not when the Creator of the universe is in charge; Jesus Himself said, “With God, all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26). To be sure, there are stories out there of modern-day Jonahs being swallowed by whales. I don’t know that any have been confirmed, however. Damien Mackey’s comment: February 2025: https://www.escape.com.au/destinations/south-america/horrifying-video-captures-kayaker-being-swallowed-by-humpback-whale-in-chile/news- Horrifying video captures kayaker being swallowed by humpback whale in Chile A kayaking trip took a shocking turn when a humpback whale swallowed a paddler, with the terrifying moment caught on camera. Watch the video. Adella Beaini A kayaker in Chilean Patagonia had a heart-stopping encounter when a humpback whale briefly swallowed him before swiftly spitting him back out. The incredible moment was captured on camera and has quickly gone viral on social media. Last Saturday, Adrián Simancas was paddling alongside his father, Dell, in Bahía El Águila near the San Isidro Lighthouse in the Strait of Magellan when a massive humpback whale suddenly surfaced. In an instant, the whale engulfed Adrián and his bright yellow kayak, holding him for a few seconds before releasing him unharmed. Kitty Foth-Regner continues: Most likely, Jonah’s experience was a one-time supernatural event. Do one-time events need subsequent repetition to be proven true? If so, then hmmmm, how come all those evolutionary scientists are still trusting in the Big Bang theory? What's the problem? The trouble is that skeptics insist on trying to assign natural causes to supernatural events. That’s simply not necessary when the miraculous is not only possible, but in evidence everywhere we look. For proof, check out your children and grandchildren. How did those eyes evolve, one step at a time? How did their circulatory systems come to be, bit by bit? How about their immune systems? Their ears? GI systems? Brains? Darwin himself said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Poof! …. Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz has written (2022): https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/opinion/352682/noah-jonah-and-life-after-catastrophe/ Noah, Jonah, and Life After Catastrophe The stories of Jonah and Noah are deeply intertwined. The stories of Jonah and Noah are deeply intertwined. The very name “Jonah” itself suggests a link; the Hebrew word for Jonah is “Yonah,” or dove, which is the type of bird that Noah sent out of the ark to see whether the flood was over. Thematically, there are contrasts and parallels. Noah is commanded by God to take refuge in a boat, as protection from God’s wrath; Jonah defies God’s command, by fleeing in a boat from God’s mercy. There are multiple other similarities, including how characters offer sacrifices after being saved, the counting of forty days to destruction, and how gardening takes center stage at the end of the story. It is clear that the Book of Jonah is meant to be read with the story of Noah in mind. What is the meaning of these literary connections? At first glance, Jonah is the anti-Noah. Noah is devout, while Jonah flees God’s calling; Jonah is even willing to sacrifice his life to defy God. Noah saves a remnant of the world from destruction, and although Jonah does save Nineveh in the end, he makes it clear that he would prefer Nineveh to be destroyed. Noah saves a menagerie of living beings by bringing them on his ark, while Jonah endangers an entire boat with his presence; the boat is safe only after Jonah is cast into the sea. Jonah could be dismissed as a rogue prophet who has turned his back on God and man. And the Book of Jonah is merely a repetition of the story of Noah, a reminder that the way of destruction is not the way of God. This interpretation misunderstands Jonah’s motives. Jonah is actually a prophet of justice who finds inspiration in the story of the flood, when a world of wickedness was washed away. Jonah is principled in his desire to punish the evil-doers and segregate the righteous from the unworthy. The flood, he believes, is the best blueprint for a human future. But Jonah is not a reactionary who conveniently forgets the end of the flood story; he knows that after the flood God promises that “never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood,” and designates the rainbow as the symbol that “never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.” However, Jonah understands this divine promise as a concession to reality, a pragmatic necessity, to prevent the world from being destroyed on a regular basis. As Don Isaac Abravanel puts it, without God’s forbearance, “it would be necessary to have a flood every year, even perhaps every month,” due to humanity’s sins. God’s covenant of the rainbow does not undermine the importance of justice. Damien Mackey’s comment: Regarding Abravanel, see my article: Is “Savonarola” worth canonising? (11) Is “Savonarola” worth canonising? Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz continues: Jonah offers a clear answer to one of the most difficult questions in the Noah narrative: what was the purpose of the flood? God sent the flood because “The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time” (Genesis 6:5). Yet, after the flood, the Torah explains that the reason why there will never be another flood is because “every inclination of the human heart is evil” (Genesis 8:24). The identical rationale is given for why God brought the flood, and why He promises never to repeat the flood. If humanity is equally evil both before and after the flood, what exactly did the flood accomplish? Jonah would answer that the flood is a constant reminder to humanity that we are fundamentally unworthy. Even if God can’t destroy the world again, we need to recognize that this is merely a loophole, letting humanity off the hook from a punishment they actually deserve. …. This is why Jonah finds God’s command to save Nineveh both unbelievable and unpalatable. Why save the wicked from destruction? If it weren’t for technical problems, destruction would and should be the norm. It is worth noting that Nineveh is built by Nimrod, the grandson of Ham, who is cursed and rejected by Noah. Jonah may be following in Noah’s footsteps by rejecting the wicked descendants of Ham, while at the same time fleeing to Tarshish, the descendent of Noah’s blessed son Jephet. Jonah can very well claim that he is carrying on Noah’s legacy, cursing the wicked while blessing the good. Despites Jonah’s own views on the subject, it is love that stands at the center of the eponymous Book of Jonah. It explains that God cares about every living being, and doesn’t want another flood. When Jonah continues to protest God’s mercy even after the people of Nineveh repent, God responds by saying: “should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people … and also many animals?” (Jonah 4:11). It is with these words that the book ends. …. The next article was written this year, 2025: https://www.harryfreedmanbooks.com/blog/what-do-jonah-and-noah-have-in-common/ What do Jonah and Noah have in Common? There is a remarkable correspondence between the biblical story of Noah and the Book of Jonah. The clue lies in the name Jonah, meaning dove in Hebrew. The dove, of course, is the bird that Noah sends out of the ark to discover whether the flood waters have dried out. But the connections between the two tales are far greater than just this. Noah is told by God that the world is about to be destroyed in a flood. He is commanded to build an ark to save himself, his family and the animal kingdom. He obeys the command, builds the ark and spends the next year peacefully floating above the flood. He is safe from the stormy waters. Jonah is told by God that Nineveh, the greatest city in the world, is to be destroyed. Even its animals will be wiped out. He is commanded to travel there and urge its inhabitants to repent. Unlike Noah he disobeys the command, runs to Jaffa and boards a boat. Unlike Noah, his time in the boat is not peaceful. The boat is buffeted by a storm, Jonah realises it is his fault and he is ejected into the water. The motifs of destruction, water, storms, boats and God’s command in the Noah story are reversed in the Jonah narrative. Jonah is swallowed by a great fish. A rabbinic midrash (Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer 10) says that a pearl in the fish gives him light. Noah is told to place a tzohar, translated as a light, into his ark. Another midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 31,11) explains it was a light emitting gem. The rabbinic commentaries seem to be drawing a parallel between the inside of the fish and the interior of the ark. According to the Midrash in Pirkei d’ Rabbi Eliezer, this is the third mission Jonah has been sent on (The first is recounted in the Second Book of Kings, 14,23). The dove in the Noah story is also sent out three times. After three days inside the fish, Jonah is spewed out onto dry land. He is about to conclude his third mission. The dove concludes its mission when it finds dry land. When Noah does reach Nineveh and delivers his message the king proclaims a public fast. Even the animals are to fast. They too will be saved, just as they are in Noah’s ark. These are just a few of the parallels and contradictions between the two stories. There are many more. The stories are also linked by common language, using the same Hebrew words in each narrative. In both stories God says that the people’s wickedness has come before me. In both the Noah and Jonah narratives God sends a ruah, a wind, to whip up the water. Noah’s rain falls for forty days. Jonah is told to proclaim to Nineveh that the city will be destroyed in forty days. God regrets making man. After the people of Nineveh repent he regrets his threat to destroy them. The question of course is why these stories seem to be connected. Did the author of Jonah want his readers to be reminded of Noah when they read the book? If so, why? Perhaps the solution lies in the plants. The dove completes its mission positively, showing Noah that the land is dry, by bringing him a leaf from an olive tree. Jonah completes his mission negatively, angry that after all his travails the city was not destroyed. He sits in the baking hot sun, hoping to die. When God makes a vine grow over him, he is glad. When the vine withers he becomes angry. God asks him why he pitied the vine but could not pity the city. The episode with the vine seems to symbolise Jonah’s petulance. Both the Noah and Jonah narratives demonstrate that the wicked will not prosper, that God has mastery over the world. Perhaps the author of the book of Jonah wants to remind his readers that the threatened destruction of Nineveh was not the only time that the wicked faced divine judgement. And uses the parables of the plants to show his readers that the humble obedience of the dove, performing his mission quietly and diligently, is preferable to the petulance of Jonah.

Does Proto-Sinaïtic Inscription mention Moses – around time of Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty?

“A burned Ba'alat temple, built by Amenemhat III, and references to the ‘Gate of the Accursed One’, likely Pharaoh’s gate, hint at resistance against Egyptian authority”. Stacy Liberatore For my (Damien Mackey’s) reconstruction of the life of Moses during ancient Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty, see e.g. my articles: Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty oppressed Israel (2) Egypt's Twelfth Dynasty oppressed Israel and: Moses in Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty (2) Moses in Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty I certainly do not accept the over-inflated BC dates given in the following article: STACY LIBERATORE FOR DAILYMAIL.COM Mysterious message 'from Moses' found in ancient Egyptian mine could prove the Bible true | Daily Mail Online Mysterious message 'from Moses' found in ancient Egyptian mine could prove the Bible true …. Published: 02:13 AEST, 29 July 2025 | Updated: 03:35 AEST, 29 July 2025 A controversial new interpretation of markings etched on the walls of an ancient Egyptian mine could prove the Book of Exodus to be true. Researcher Michael Bar-Ron claimed that a 3,800-year-old Proto-Sinaitic inscription, found at Serabit el-Khadim in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, may read 'zot m'Moshe,' Hebrew for 'This is from Moses.' The inscription, etched into a rock face near the so-called Sinai 357 in Mine L, is part of a collection of over two dozen Proto-Sinaitic texts first discovered in the early 1900s. These writings, among the earliest known alphabetic scripts, were likely created by Semitic-speaking workers in the late 12th Dynasty, around 1800BC. Bar-Ron, who spent eight years analyzing high-resolution images and 3D scans, suggested the phrase could indicate authorship or dedication linked to a figure named Moses. According to the Bible, Moses led the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt, and is famously known for receiving the Ten Commandments from God on Mount Sinai. But no evidence of his existence has ever been found [sic]. Other nearby inscriptions reference 'El,' a deity associated with early Israelite worship, and show signs of the Egyptian goddess Hathor's name being defaced, hinting at cultural and religious tensions. Mainstream experts remain cautious, noting that while Proto-Sinaitic is the earliest known alphabet, its characters are notoriously difficult to decipher. An independent researcher has re-examined ancient markings in Egypt, suggesting a phrase could be the first words of Moses. He said it reads: 'This is from Moses' Dr Thomas Schneider, Egyptologist and professor at the University of British Columbia, said the claims are completely unproven and misleading,' warning that 'arbitrary' identifications of letters can distort ancient history.' However, Bar-Ron's academic advisor, Dr Pieter van der Veen, confirmed the reading, stating, 'You're absolutely correct, I read this as well, it is not imagined!' Bar-Ron's study, which has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, re-examined 22 complex inscriptions from the ancient turquoise mines, dating to the reign of Pharaoh Amenemhat III. Some scholars have proposed that Amenemhat III, known for his extensive building projects, could have been the pharaoh mentioned in the Book of Exodus. Mackey’s comment: Amenemhat (Amenemes) was, in fact, the “new king” of Exodus 1:8. The language used in the carvings appears to be an early form of Northwest Semitic, closely related to biblical Hebrew, with traces of Aramaic. Using high-resolution images and 3D casts studied at Harvard's Semitic Museum, Bar-Ron grouped the inscriptions into five overlapping categories, or 'clades,' including dedications to the goddess Baʿalat, invocations of the Hebrew God El and hybrid inscriptions that show signs of later defacement and modification. Some carvings honoring Baʿalat appeared to have been scratched over by El-worshippers, possibly reflecting a religious power struggle among the Semitic-speaking laborers. Mackey’s comment: The Hebrews, amongst other slaves, built the Pyramids: Giza Pyramids: The How, When and Why of Them (4) Giza Pyramids: The How, When and Why of Them The inscriptions also contained references to slavery, overseers, and a dramatic rejection of the Baʿalat cult, which scholars suggest may have led to a violent purge and the workers' eventual departure from the site. The 3,800-year-old Proto-Sinaitic inscription were found at Serabit el-Khadim in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula. They littered the rock walls of an ancient mine The researchers also identified text dedicated to ancient Egyptian gods that appeared scratched off and replaced with the Hebrew God A burned Ba'alat temple, built by Amenemhat III, and references to the 'Gate of the Accursed One, likely Pharaoh's gate, hint at resistance against Egyptian authority. Nearby, the Stele of Reniseneb and a seal of an Asiatic Egyptian high official indicate a significant Semitic presence, possibly linked to figures like the biblical Joseph, a high-ranking official in Pharaoh's court, as described in the Book of Genesis. Mackey’s comment: Joseph lived during the previous Egyptian Dynasty: Joseph in Egypt’s Eleventh Dynasty, Moses in Egypt's Twelfth Dynasty (4) Joseph in Egypt’s Eleventh Dynasty, Moses in Egypt's Twelfth Dynasty Joseph, sold into slavery and later rising to power through his dream interpretations, facilitated his family's settlement in Egypt. 'We find worshipful inscriptions lauding the idol Ba’alat, with clearly an El or God-serving scribe coming in later and canceling out certain letters, in an effort to turn the message into a God-serving one,' Bar-Ron told Patterns of Evidence. A second reference to Moses was found inside the mine, but the researchers is unclear about the context 'This is ground zero for this conflict. A second possible 'Moshe,' or Moses, reference in nearby carvings adds intrigue, though its exact context remains unclear. 'I took a very critical view towards finding the name 'Moses' or anything that could sound sensationalist,' Bar-Ron told Patterns of Evidence. 'In fact, the only way to do serious work is to try to find elements that seem 'Biblical,' but to struggle to find alternative solutions that are at least as likely.'

Sorting amongst the Old Testament prophets to find Jonah

by Damien F. Mackey “If we add to this list the fact that the phrase in Jonah 1:1 (“now the word of Yahweh came”) also introduces Elijah in 1 Kings 17:2, 8; 21:17, 28 then we are subtly led to this conclusion; one of the goals of the Jonah narrative is to compare the prophet from Gath-hepher with Elijah”. Community ConneXions Church A: Elijah to Amos My search for the prophet Jonah has led me 'all around the mulberry bush'. Or perhaps, to be more contextual, all around the 'kikayon' (קִיקָיוֹן) bush (cf. Jonah 4:6). With 2 Kings 14:25 in mind: “He was the one who restored the boundaries of Israel from Lebo Hamath to the Dead Sea, in accordance with the word of the LORD, the God of Israel, spoken through his servant Jonah son of Amittai, the prophet from Gath Hepher”, I did what other commentators tend to do, and that was to search for the Jonah incident during the time of an Assyrian ruler contemporaneous with king Jeroboam II of Israel, say, an Adad-nirari III, or a Tiglath-pileser III. Elijah But I also went even further back than that, to a possible connection of Jonah with Elijah, based on the following sorts of similarities between this pair of prophets, taken from Community ConneXions Church: http://seminary.csl.edu/facultypubs/TheologyandPractice/tabid/87/ctl/Details/mid/494/ItemID/40 “If we add to this list the fact that the phrase in Jonah 1:1 (“now the word of Yahweh came”) also introduces Elijah in 1 Kings 17:2, 8; 21:17, 28 then we are subtly led to this conclusion; one of the goals of the Jonah narrative is to compare the prophet from Gath-hepher with Elijah. More specific – and indeed more satirical – connections between Jonah and Elijah begin in Jonah 1:2 where Yahweh calls Jonah to, “arise, go” to Nineveh. This call to go to a foreign land is paralleled only in 1 Kings 17:9 where Yahweh commands Elijah also to “arise, go to Zarephath which is in Sidon”. Usually Yahweh’s word is the perfect performative, where to speak is to create. The God who says “Let there be light” and “it was so” (Gen. 1:3), commands Elijah to “Arise go to Zarephath” (1 Kings 17:9) and Elijah “arises and goes,” (1 Kings 17:10). Following this normal biblical pattern we expect the Jonah narrative to continue, “So Jonah got up and went ... to Nineveh.” But, instead, Jonah says nothing to Yahweh and rises to flee. It’s as though outside his door Jonah hangs a large sign with the words, “Do Not Disturb!” Jonah is certainly no Elijah!” [End of quotes] Perhaps I should have taken notice of that last hint: “Jonah is certainly no Elijah!” The prophet Elijah disappears from the scene, at least qua Elijah, during the reign of Jehoram of Judah (2 Chronicles 21:12). That was well before the time of Jeroboam II. But there is always, for me, that possibility of an extension of a biblical floruit through an alter ego. Elisha The extraordinary prophet Elisha, 'miracles on tap', also loomed for me as a possible Jonah. He, like Jonah in the case of Jeroboam II, had advised a king of Israel, Jehoash, about the extent of his military conquests (2 Kings 13:14-19). Even though Elisha died shortly after this (v. 20), I shall be having more to say about the Jehoash-Jeroboam II connection, about a shortening of Israelite history, and about the identification of the "saviour" of 2 Kings 13:5. See, for example, my article: King Jeroboam II a ‘saviour’ of Israel https://www.academia.edu/41064679/King_Jeroboam_II_a_saviour_of_Israel It needs to be said, at this stage, that I eventually came to the conclusion that the repentant “King of Nineveh” of the Book of Jonah: Putting together the pieces for Jonah 3:6’s “King of Nineveh” (8) Putting together the pieces for Jonah 3:6's "King of Nineveh" was - much later than as is generally thought - the powerful ruler, ESARHADDON (including his various guises). This most un-anticipated identification rigorously defines the parameters for this present article. Obviously, now, Elisha could not qualify for my prophet Jonah at the time of Esarhaddon. My termini a quo and ad quem for Jonah had so far been determined as, respectively, Jeroboam II and early Esarhaddon. One would think, however, that there must have been more to the ministering of the prophet Jonah than just these two, chronologically far apart, occasions. Amos A far more promising candidate for Jonah, however, began to loom in the person of Amos, whose prophetic witness commenced "when ... Jeroboam ... was king of Israel" (Amos 1:1). Amos, too, as with Elijah, can be likened to Jonah. Thus I have previously quoted from the book by Hadi Ghantous, Elisha-Hazael Paradigm and the Kingdom of Israel (p. 180): ... Jonah and Amos The connections between Jonah and Amos are not as clear as those with Elijah although it is more clear that the fate of nations surrounding Israel is a major concern in both Amos and Jonah (Andersen and Freedman 1989: 236). The superscription in the book of Amos (Amos 1:1) sets Amos in the days of Jeroboam II and makes Amos a contemporary of Jonah. In 2 Kings 14:23-29, Jeroboam II recovers territories from the Entrance of Hamath to the Sea of the Arabah, and restore [sic] Damascus and Hamath to Judea in Israel. Similarly, Amos 1:3-5 is an oracle against Damascus; Amos 5:27 threatens Israel with an exile beyond Damascus. In Amos 6:2, Zion and Samaria are called to compare themselves with Hamath. Amos 6:14 refers to oppression from the Entrance of Hamath to the Valley of the Arabah (Pyper 2007: 351-3). In other words, both prophets deal with Damascus, Hamath, and the region from the Entrance of Hamath to the Sea/Valley of the Arabah. Amos refutes the prophetic title (Amos 7:14); Jonah is never said to be a prophet in Jonah. Amaziah warns Jonah to flee ... for his life (Amos 7:12), while Jonah almost loses his life while fleeing (Jon, 1). "Other topical similarities can be found; singing (Amos 8:3// Jon. 2), sackcloths (Amos 8:10// Jon 3:6), wandering from sea to sea (Amos 8:12// Jon. 1:3-2:10), thirst (Amos 8:13// Jon. 4:8), and sheol (Amos 9:2// Jon. 2) (Edelman 2009: 162). These similarities pose the question whether they go beyond a mere imitation of details and indicate a fundamental similarity and connection between Amos and Jonah. ...". [End of quote] Jonah is well-known as 'the reluctant prophet', and this, too, may have been a trait of Amos (7:14): 'I was neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet ...'. There is also a very Jonah-like note in Amos 9:3: "Even if they tried to hide from me at the bottom of the sea, from there I would command the Sea Serpent [הַנָּחָשׁ] to bite them". Don E. Jones has made this very same connection: "There is something ominous in Amos's prophecy, the first part of which [9:3] certainly applies to Jonah ...". [I no longer have the precise reference, but presume this quote came from his book, Searching for Jonah: Clues in Hebrew and Assyrian History, 19 September 2018]. While Amos qualifies chronologically as being a contemporary of Jonah's at the time of Jeroboam II, he will fall just short of early Esarhaddon (the ‘moment’ of Jonah's intervention at Nineveh). See next. Micah Amos is, according to my revision of Israel and Judah, the same as the prophet Micah, known as "Amos redivivus": Prophet Micah as Amos (8) Prophet Micah as Amos Micah (Amos) is also the Micaiah who prophesied the death of king Ahab of Israel (I Kings 22:8-28): Micaiah and Micah (2) Micaiah and Micah This highly controversial (chronology-wise) connection (Micaiah = Micah), which has the support of some Jewish tradition (see e.g., Ginzberg, Legends, 6:355, n. 20), pitches Micah back well before king Jeroboam II. Amos is also generally considered to have been the father of Isaiah, "son of Amoz" (Isaiah 1:1). I have also identified Isaiah son of Amos with the "Uzziah son of Micah, of the tribe of Simeon" of Judith 6:15. See e.g. m y article: A Shepherd-prophet of Israel foretells great Shepherd King (2) A Shepherd-prophet of Israel foretells great Shepherd King Uzziah must have followed his father Amos northwards to Bethel (the "Bethulia" of the Book of Judith), which is the strategically vital city of Shechem, where Uzziah later became the chief magistrate. He is also described as “the prince of Juda[h]” and “the prince of the people of Israel” (Judith 8:34; 13:23. Douay version), perhaps due to his father Amos's apparently royal connection with king Amaziah of Judah. "The rabbis of the Talmud declared, based upon a rabbinic tradition, that Amoz was the brother of Amaziah (אמציה), the king of Judah at that time (and, as a result, that Isaiah himself was a member of the royal family)" (article, "Amoz"): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoz The prophet Micah must not have lived to have witnessed the Judith incident. He is not mentioned there (Book of Judith) as still being alive. The Book of Jeremiah tells that Micah was yet prophesying during the reign of king Hezekiah of Judah (26:18): "Micah the Morasthite prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah, and spoke to all the people of Judah, saying, 'Thus said the LORD of hosts; Zion shall be plowed like a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest'." This prediction pertained to Sennacherib king of Assyria's earlier successful invasion of Judah and Jerusalem. Micah apparently was no longer alive, though, when Ashur-nadin-shumi (= "Holofernes"), son of Sennacherib, came to the region of "Bethulia" (Bethel-Shechem) with an army of 185,000 men. Thus, the prophet Micah cannot qualify for my Jonah early in the reign of Esarhaddon, who succeeded Sennacherib. Micah just misses out time wise. He must have been extremely old when he died. B: Hosea, Isaiah The prophet Hosea is, in fact, the only one of the prophets who - at least according to his superscription (Hosea 1:1) - spanned my requisite era from Jeroboam II unto Hezekiah. His prophetic floruit is closely matched by Isaiah's, but without (in the case of Isaiah) the inclusion of Jeroboam II (Isaiah 1:1): "The vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem that Isaiah son of Amoz saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah". The names of Hosea and Isaiah, as well, are very close in meaning, both pertaining to "Salvation". Abarim Publications lists Isaiah as a name "related" to Hosea (article, "Isaiah meaning"): https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Hosea.html#.Xp5Y6u0vPnF Previously I have written regarding the striking similarities between Isaiah and Hosea: "The names Isaiah and Hosea are indeed of very similar meaning, being basically derived from the same Hebrew root for ‘salvation’, יֵ֫שַׁע - “Isaiah” (Hebrew יְשַׁעְיָהוּ , Yeshâ‘yâhû) signifies: “Yahweh (the Lord) is salvation”. - “Hosea” (Hebrew הוֹשֵׁעַ) means practically the same: “Yahweh (the Lord) is saviour”. …. "Hosea’s/Isaiah’s Family Though no doubt young, the prophet was given the strange command by God to marry an ‘unfaithful’ woman: “‘Go, take yourself a wife of harlotry and have children of harlotry, for the land commits great harlotry by forsaking the Lord’. So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim …” (Hosea 1:2-3). Biblical scholars have agonised over the type of woman this Gomer might have been: adulteress? harlot? temple-prostitute? But essentially the clue is to be found in the statement above that she was a citizen of the ‘land of great harlotry’: namely, the northern kingdom of Israel. .... "A further likeness between Isaiah and Hosea was the fact that ‘their names’ and those of ‘their’ children were meant to be, in their meanings, prophetic signs. …. - The prophet Isaiah tells us: “Behold, I and the children whom the Lord has given me are for signs and portents ...” (Isaiah 8:18). - Similarly, the names of the children of the prophet Hosea were meant to be prophetic (Hosea 1:4, 6, 9). "Charles Boutflower (The Book of Isaiah Chapters I-XXXIX, 1930), who has written perceptively on Isaiah’s children, has rightly noted the prophetic significance of their names and those of Hosea’s children, without however connecting Isaiah and Hosea as one: …. “Isaiah like Hosea had three known children, all of whose names were prophetic”. [End of quotes] It is most unlikely, one would have to think, to have two great prophets contemporaneously operating over such a substantial period of time, and each having three children whose names were prophetic. The fact is, I believe, that it was just the one prophet, who may possibly have had six children in all. For these, and for other reasons, I have identified Hosea and Isaiah as "just the one prophet", ministering to both Israel and Judah. That to go with my already mentioned identification of the prophet Isaiah with the princely "Uzziah" of the Book of Judith. Hosea-Isaiah is the only possible prophetic candidate, in my revised context, for Jonah son of Amittai. Jonah's otherwise unknown father, "Amittai", must then be Amaziah, that is, Amos. Jonah's (or probably his father's) home of "Gath-hepher", which cannot possibly have been the place of that name in Galilee - since, as the learned Pharisees well knew (John 7:52): '.... Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee' - must then be the southern Gath of Moresheth, the home of Micah-(Amos) (1:1): "The word of the Lord that came to Micah of Moresheth ...". "Micah is called the Morasthite, probably because he was a native of Moresheth-gath, a small town of Judea, which, according to Eusebius and Jerome, lay in a southwesterly direction from Jerusalem, not far from Eleutheropolis on the plain, near the border of the Philistine territory" ("The Twelve Minor Prophets"): https://biblehub.com/library/barrows/companion_to_the_bible/chapter_xxiii_the_twelve_minor.htm Although "the vision ... concerning Israel" as seen by Amos will occur at "Tekoa" (Amos 1:1), I have previously written on this: "There are reasons, though, why I think that Tekoa would not have been the actual home of the prophet Amos. When confronted by Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, Amos retorted (7:14-15): ‘I was neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but I was a shepherd, and I also took care of sycamore-fig trees. But the Lord took me from following the flock and said to me, ‘Go, prophesy to my people Israel’.’ "Now, commentators such as Eugene Merrill have been quick to point out “that sycamores were abundant in the Shephelah but not around Tekoa” (The World and the Word: An Introduction to the Old Testament, 2011, p. 431, n. 4). "So, my first point would be that Amos’s cultivating of sycamore-fig trees would be most appropriate in Moresheth, but highly unlikely in Tekoa. Moresheth, we read, “is the opposite exposure from the wilderness of Tekoa, some seventeen miles away across the watershed. As the home of Amos is bare and desert, so the home of Micah is fair and fertile” ("Micah 1", Expositor's Bible Commentary). "My second point is that Amos, apparently a herdsman (בַנֹּקְדִים) - some think a wealthy “sheepmaster”, whilst others say that he must have been poor - was, as we read above, “following the flock” מֵאַחֲרֵי הַצֹּאן), meaning that, seasonally, he was a man on the move. Stationed at his home town of Moresheth in the Shephelah, I suggest, where he tended the sycamore trees, the prophet also had to move with the flock from time to time. And this is apparently where Tekoa (about 6 miles SE of Bethlehem) comes into the picture". [End of quotes] The reason why such striking similarities can be found between Amos and Jonah (as we read above in A.) is because this was a father-son prophetic combination ranging from Israel to Judah. It is the very same reason why we find some almost identical statements and actions emanating from Micah (= Amos) and from Isaiah (= Jonah). Read, for example, Micah 4:1-3 and Isaiah 2:2-4. "But who quoted whom?", it is asked: https://abramkj.com/2012/12/11/which-came-first-isaiah-or-micah-comparing-isaiah-22-4-with-micah-41-3/ Well, Micah was the father, and Isaiah was the son. Compare also Micah 1:8: "Because of this I will weep and wail; I will go about barefoot and naked. I will howl like a jackal and moan like an owl", and Isaiah 20:3: "Then the LORD said, 'Just as my servant Isaiah has gone stripped and barefoot for three years, as a sign and portent against Egypt and Cush ...'." No doubt Jonah's prediction regarding Jeroboam II (2 Kings 14:25): "[Jeroboam] was the one who restored the boundaries of Israel from Lebo Hamath to the Dead Sea, in accordance with the word of the Lord, the God of Israel, spoken through his servant Jonah son of Amittai, the prophet from Gath Hepher", was uttered with all due awareness of his father Amos's own considerations (cf. 6:14): "For the Lord God Almighty declares, 'I will stir up a nation against you, Israel, that will oppress you all the way from Lebo Hamath to the valley of the Arabah'.” More tellingly, from my point of view, commentators have suggested that some parts of the Book of Isaiah (my Jonah) may actually have originated with Jonah. Don E. Jones, again, writes of it: "Spurred by the reference in II Kings 14:25, scholars over the years have searched diligently in the Scriptures for the "Lost Book of Jonah". Hitzig and Renan have attributed the prophecies of Isaiah 15-23 to Jonah as being inconsistent with other parts of the book. Allusions to Moab, Egypt and Ethiopia, would certainly give Jonah a wider scope of action. He would know conditions in Tyre, Sidon and Damacus from the Assyrian venture. Sargon's reign in Assyria (Isaiah 20:1) began in 721. It was by no means impossible that Jonah could still have been alive at the time of Isaiah". [End of quote] The view of Hitzig and Renan enables us to fill out the prophet Jonah all the more. His prophetic mission beyond Israel was not just limited to Nineveh. Isaiah, like Jonah (1:3), appears to have been very familiar, too, with the "ships of Tarshish" (e.g., Isaiah 2:16; 23:1; 60:9). As to why the name of Hosea's father would be given as "Beeri", whereas Isaiah's father is given as "Amoz", the Book of Judith may provide something of a clue. Judith was, like Uzziah (my Isaiah-Hosea) of Bethulia, a Simeonite (cf. Judith 8:1; 9:2). The Bethulians were a closely knit bunch, with Judith's husband, Manasseh, belonging "to the same tribe and clan" as she (8:2). Uzziah, also a Simeonite, may well have been a relative of both Judith and her husband. Judith seems to have been immensely proud of her 'father', Merari, she singing, after her great victory over "Holofernes": 'For their mighty one did not fall by the hands of the young men, nor did the sons of the Titans strike him down, nor did tall giants set upon him; but Judith daughter of Merari with the beauty of her countenance undid him'. Hosea's father, "Beeri", could possibly be that Merari, given what C. R. Conder will refer to (I noted this in my postgraduate university thesis, A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background: https://www.academia.edu/3822220/Thesis_2_A_Revised_History_of_the_Era_of_King_Hezekiah_of_Judah_and_its_Background) as the "occasional instances in Syrian nomenclature" of the substitution of M for B. Conder was hoping by this means to establish the fairly unimportant site of "Mithilia" (or Mesilieh) as Judith's "Bethulia". Somewhat coincidentally, we read in Genesis (26:34): "When Esau was forty years old, he married Judith daughter of Beeri the Hittite ...". Obviously no relation, though. Consulting Abarim Publications, I find that the name "Merari" does not have Amoz (Amos) listed as a "related" name: https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Merari.html#.XqER-O0vPnE Perhaps Merari could have been an ancestor, rather than a direct father, of both Hosea and Judith. A special mention is made in I Chronicles 4:33 to the Simeonites keeping "a genealogical record".

Prophet Job a flesh and blood reality

by Damien F. Mackey Introduction There is no doubt that the person of the prophet Job, as well as the Book of Job itself, its language, and its authorship, present huge challenges for the biblical commentator. Whilst there are available many useful commentaries to expound for us various of the intricacies of the Book of Job, sadly their usefulness does not carry over, I have found, to any satisfactory elucidation of the book’s historical locus – presuming that it is, indeed, of an historical nature. That this important aspect of the Book of Job still remains rather poorly understood can be gauged from the following statement about the book’s authorship, by F. Knight (Nile and Jordan, James Clarke and Co., Ltd., London, 1921, p. 379): The authorship, date, and place of composition of the Book of Job constitute some of the most keenly contested and most uncertain problems in Biblical Criticism. There is perhaps no book in the Canon of Scripture to which more diverse dates have been assigned. Every period of Jewish history, from BC 1400 to BC 150, has had its advocates as that to which this mysterious and magnificent poem must be relegated, and this criticism ranges over 1200 years of uncertainty. The problem of the historicity of the life of Job appears to be an age-old consideration; for we find that at least as far back as the C13th AD (by conventional reckoning) the question was being hotly debated in the Schools. St. Thomas Aquinas (In “Expositio super Job ad litteram”) was one who had insisted that Job, and those who engaged in debate with him, were genuine historical persons. In this he was opposing himself to the likes of Moses Maimonides (In “Guide of the Perplexed”, III. 22), who had expressed a contrary view. Aquinas had written in the Prologue to his “Expositio”: “Now there have been some men to whom it seemed that the Job in question was not something in the nature of things but that he was a kind of parable made up to serve as a theme for a debate over providence, the way men often invent hypothetical cases to debate over them”. Against such a view Aquinas, however, opposed the clear references to Job in the Old and New testaments, namely: Ezekiel 14:14, 20, in which God states that Jerusalem had at that time (just prior to the Babylonian Captivity) become so corrupt that even if such holy men as Noah, Daniel and Job had been living in it - though these three would have escaped with their lives - they would not have been able to have saved any others in the city from imminent destruction. James 5:11, in which the Apostle praises Job’s steadfastness. Thomas Aquinas had, in the course of his commentary, pointed to certain details of an historical nature in the text of Job itself that he believed to confirm this view; for example that very first verse of the Book of Job: “There was a man in the land of Uz by the name of Job ...” (1:1), in which Job is described with respect to his native land, and with respect to his name. These two items of information, he believed, had been provided to show that this story is not a parable but a real occurrence. (“Expositio”, Ch. 1). We encounter the same situation again later on in the Book of Job, where the young Elihu is introduced into the story as “Elihu, the son of Barachiel the Buzite, of the line of Ram” (Job 32:2). From this information we learn about the young man’s name, his origin, his native land, and his race. Elihu is in fact the only character in the Book of Job who is accorded a patronymic; for nowhere in this book are we supplied with the name of Job’s father, nor of the father(s) of his three friends. Thomas Aquinas, though his purposes were purely interpretative, had nevertheless listed the historical problems of the book as: “The time Job lived”, “his parentage” and “the authorship” of the book. As it happens, these are the very kinds of problems that concern us here. Language of the Book of Job With regard to the authorship of the Book of Job, one would need to include an explanation for what the following piece by Edward L. Greenstein has entitled: The Strange Language of the Book of Job https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-strange-language-of-the-book-of-job/ The ideas of the Book of Job have always been challenging. How can a just God not only permit but orchestrate the terrible suffering of a truly righteous person? It is hard to get one’s head around that question. But no less challenging is the language of the book. The grammar and vocabulary go far beyond what might be excused as poetic license. The language is strange — so strange that the earliest translators, into Aramaic and Greek, frequently stumbled over it, and the great medieval Bible commentator, Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra, suggested that the book, which is basically Hebrew, must have been translated from another language. Some scholars in modern times too have proposed that the book’s difficulties must result from having been translated from another language, such as Edomite — a barely known Canaanite language akin to Hebrew — or an early dialect of Arabic. In fact, however, in spite of its occasional foreign elements, the Book of Job is essentially a Hebrew composition. The narrative in prose that frames the book is good biblical Hebrew, albeit of the later (post-Babylonian exile) variety; and the large majority of verses in the poetic core of the book, the dialogues, are entirely Hebrew. Its language is so difficult because the author of Job was a skilled poet who knew how to employ dialect, allusion, wordplay and more to lend sophistication and flavor to his work. …. A recent denial of the historicity of Job A friend of mine, who well knows of my interest in the historicity of the Scriptures, complained to me last year (7th October, 2024) that his parish priest had denied that Job was a real person, the priest claiming that his view on this would generally be supported by Jewish scholars. I took up the matter on my friend’s behalf even though I did not know this particular priest, not had I personally heard what he had said. Here is a modified version of what I wrote about this in a newsletter: “My friend came to me with sadness in his eyes. Told me that he wanted help before his [faith expires]”. (Bangladesh, George Harrison, modified) Dear Father, You don’t know me and I don’t know you. I am writing this on behalf of a distressed person, a believer that the Scriptures are the inspired Word of God, who had the misfortune to hear two homilies from you in which you allegedly (I was not there) stated that the prophet Job did not exist as an historical entity, and that the multiplication of the loaves was likely symbolic. Apparently you claim to have been educated by Jesuits. …. Apparently you claimed to be right in step with the majority of Rabbis in your view that Job was not historical. The Jewish Encyclopedia tells me otherwise: https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8692-job “Apart from these utterances all of the rabbis took it for granted that Job existed …”. Wise men have noted that the fact that young Elihu in the Book of Job has been provided with biographical details, patronymic, geography and race (Job 32:2): “… Elihu son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram …”, is an indication that he was a real person. …. The Book of Job clearly sets the narrative in the Chaldean era, which followed the neo- Assyrian era. The marauders were militarily organised. ‘The Chaldeans formed three raiding parties and swept down on your camels and made off with them’ (Job 1:17). …. I think that those Jesuits educators may have left you up the creek without a paddle. You not only have to cast doubt on the Old Testament by denying Job, but you must also contend with the New Testament, with Jesus’s loyal servant the Apostle James (5:11): “As you know, we count as blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job’s perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy”. According to your minimalising view there can be no “what the Lord finally brought about” resolution for the long-suffering prophet Job, because Job did not exist. Everything that Jesus Christ said and did had great meaning, often lost upon we Western schooled thinkers. With the loaves, I do not want to go into the details of how the 12 basketsful correspond to the 12 baskets of loaves that the Pharisees traditionally brought to an ordination ceremony, nor the 7 baskets of loaves that the even more strict Scribes (= Essenes) brought. It suffices to say that, even apart from the miraculous element - which you appear to question - something quite out of the ordinary was involved here. Where, Father, will your diminishing of the Scriptures end? It is a very slippery slope. Will it turn out to be like the US Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, re-writing the Bible by erasing supernatural or miraculous bits in the hope of making Jesus Christ more reasonable, but, thereby, completely losing the power of His story? …. Even after having scrutinised the Book of Job, one will end up with virtually nothing by way of biographical details for the holy man. Chaldean Era One possible clue may come early, in Job 1:17, where the Chaldeans are mentioned: “While this one was still speaking, another also came and said, ‘The Chaldeans set up three companies and made a raid on the camels and took them and struck down the young men with the edge of the sword, and I alone have escaped to tell you’.” Although the Chaldeans were an ancient people, this incident, “three companies”, sheloshah rashim (שְׁלֹשָׁה רָאשִׁים). may perhaps bespeak of a time when the Chaldeans were militarily organised. While that is admittedly very thin evidence, (i) it, coupled with (ii) the fact that the Book of Job probably most of all resembles the Book of Jeremiah, of the Chaldean era, and also, as some have suggested (iii) young Elihu’s likenesses to the prophet Ezekiel, also of the Chaldean era, may point us to - for the later phase of Job’s life - the Chaldean kingdom following that of the neo-Assyrians. Fortunately for us the prophet Job appears in the Bible under four different names (guises), the first of which will – as we are now going to find – greatly enrich our understanding about who Job was; who were his parents and ancestors; when did he live; and where did he live? Here follows the full story of the prophet Job Outline history of Job (i) As Tobias, son of Tobit Forget about Job’s being some Arabian sheikh, or Edomite king – e.g., the Jobab of Genesis 36:13. No, Job was not a Gentile, but was an Israelite of the tribe of Naphtali. He was Tobias, the son of Tobit and Anna (Tobit 1:1-9). Apparently born in Naphtali, the young Tobias was taken into captivity with his parents, to Nineveh in Assyria (cf. v. 10) – taken captive there by Shalmaneser (v. 2). A note: Here, biographically, we have the very origins of the fictitious composite Mohammed, supposedly of the C7th AD, whose various associations with the city of Nineveh, which disappeared in c. 612 BC (conventional dating), are horribly anachronistic. Mohammed is clearly based upon the holy Tobias inasmuch as the names of his parents closely equate to the names of the parents of Tobias, TOBIT and ANNA. Tobit and Tobias are actually the same Hebrew name (variously spelled to avoid confusion), Obadiah (עֹבַדְיָה), with the Hebrew ayin (ע) rendered in the Greek with a Tau (𝜏). This common Hebrew name means “Servant of the Lord”. Now, Mohammed’s parents are said to have been ABDULLAH and AMNA, the former being basically the Arabic equivalent of Obadiah, with the latter, Amna, being almost identical to Anna. The long life of Tobias, 99 years according to one version (Douay-Rheims), 117 years according to another (NRSV), would have spanned the latter part of the reign of Shalmaneser; the full reign of Sennacherib; the reign of Esarhaddon; and right down until the Medo-Persian era, because, as the Book of Tobit concludes (14:15): Before [Tobias] died he saw and heard of the destruction of Nineveh, and he saw its prisoners being led into Media, those whom King Cyaxares of Media had taken captive. Tobias blessed God for all he had done to the people of Nineveh and Assyria; before he died he rejoiced over Nineveh, and he blessed the Lord God forever and ever. Amen. This takes us right past the Chaldean era, for which we suspect we might have found some hints in the Book of Job. In conventional historical terms, the life of Tobias, long as it might have been, would impossibly have had to have spanned about two centuries. But my revised chronology greatly shortens this historical period, getting rid of duplicates of kings, thereby enabling for Tobias to have lived during the latter neo-Assyrian period; the entire Chaldean period; and on into the Medo-Persian period. (ii) As Job If Tobias grew from childhood to marriage from the reign of Shalmaneser (who is also Tiglath-pileser) to the reign of Sennacherib (who is also Sargon II), both Assyrian kings, then his later life (his worst trials, at least) could indeed have coincided with the long reign of the Chaldean king, Esarhaddon (who is also my Nebuchednezzar, amongst others). It is not impossible, then, that Elihu the Buzite who counselled Job was none other than the prophet Ezekiel son of Buzi (the Buzite?) (Ezekiel 1:3) of the Chaldean era. That would explain why the young Elihu was so far wiser than Job’s three friends. It would also make sense for Ezekiel twice to refer to Job (Ezekiel 14:14, 20), as already noted. He well knew Job. Hence, I think, the prophet Ezekiel may be a potential author of the Book of Job. Their Transjordanian location might also explain why the language of the Book of Job, while being Hebrew, is somewhat challenging (recall the “Shibboleth” factor: Judges 12:6). There are many parallels between Job and Tobias, not least the commonality of having seven sons, rare in the Bible. I have discussed these fascinating parallels in my article: Job’s Life and Times https://www.academia.edu/123131569/Job_s_Life_and_Times If Job was Tobias, son of Tobit, as I firmly believe him to have been, then we are now faced with three different ages for him at death: 99 and 117 from two versions of Tobit, and 140 from the Book of Job (42:18). Without wanting to be definitive here, I would simply estimate the historical span covered for him in the Book of Tobit, from birth to death, to be about 80 years. (iii) As Habakkuk Apart from Jeremiah, Job is often likened to the prophet Habakkuk. To give just one excellent example of this: https://www.amazon.com.au/Prophet-Sage-Intertextual-Connections-Habakkuk/dp/1666765813 The Prophet and the Sage: Intertextual Connections between Habakkuk and Job Paperback – 29 March 2023 by Brian M. Koning (Author) ________________________________________ …. Job and Habakkuk represent the Bible’s most focused interlocutors on the concepts of justice and theodicy. Both works center upon men chosen by God who see and suffer evil (Job 1:8, cf. Hab 1:1). Both books record the cries of these men as they wrestled to make sense of the world in which they lived (Job 3, cf. Hab 1:2–4). While they have a passing similarity, what if there is something more fundamental to their connection? What if these books are not merely two unconnected discourses on suffering, but linked in a significant way? By examining the texts themselves, this study explores the possibility that a textual relationship exists between portions of Habakkuk and Job and how the underlying transformation of Job’s theodicy shapes Habakkuk’s dialogue with God. [End of quote] Habakkuk is, I believe, simply another version of Job. The peculiar name, “Habakkuk”, is likely not Hebrew, but Akkadian: https://jbqnew.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/391/Habakkuk.pdf “The name may be rooted in the Akkadian hambakuku (a type of plant) …”. Now, where would Job have picked up an Akkadian name? In Assyrian Nineveh, of course, where he had lived the major part of his life. Just as Daniel and his three young friends had been given foreign names, so, presumably, would Tobias-Job have been in Nineveh. In the Book of Daniel (14:33-36), Habakkuk is miraculously transported by an angel to Babylon to feed Daniel in the den of lions. Was it the same angel, Raphael, who had once guided young Tobias to Ecbatana (Bashan), a place he did not know, who now carried him by the hair to Babylon, a place he did not know? And, to complete the trifecta, was the angel Raphael who accompanied Tobias, who air-lifted Habakkuk (?), the same being as Job’s ‘advocate’ in heaven (Job 16:19)?: ‘Even now my witness is in heaven; my advocate is on high’. The angel Raphael may be as a golden thread linking the three manifestations of Job. (iv) As Haggai Our prophet, who, we found, lived to see the dawn of the Medo-Persian era, would also live to see the building of the second Temple, about which his father Tobit had testified (Tobit ch. 13). As the prophet Haggai, he would, in the 2nd year of Darius the Persian, urge on the Jews to complete the work (Haggai 1:1). No doubt the Jews, who loved to use (hypocoristicon) nick-names, would have sought to shorten the awkward foreign name of Habakkuk to, just, Ha..kku (Haggai).

Qadesh doubly problematical for Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky

Part One: Qadesh of the Annals of Thutmose III by Damien F. Mackey “The north side of my town faced east / And the east was facing south”. The Who In somewhat similar fashion, with geography all askew, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky once had Qadesh (Kadesh) facing southwards, when it should have been facing northwards, and once had Qadesh facing northwards, when it should have been facing southwards. The first instance concerned Kadesh in the records of Thutmose III, the warrior-pharaoh whom Dr. Velikovsky would re-locate from his conventional placement in the mid-C15th BC to the C10th BC era of King Solomon and his son, Rehoboam. (Ages in Chaos, I, 1952). Despite this radical downwards time-shift, I fully accept the correctness of it, as well as accepting Dr. Velikovsky’s identification of Thutmose III, ‘the Napoleon of Egypt’ (professor Henry Breasted), as the biblical “Shishak king of Egypt” (I Kings 14:25-26): “In the fifth year of King Rehoboam, Shishak king of Egypt attacked Jerusalem. He carried off the treasures of the Temple of the Lord and the treasures of the royal palace. He took everything, including all the gold shields Solomon had made”. Thirdly, I am likewise convinced with Dr. Velikovsky (though by no means in harmony with his details) that this, the First Campaign of Thutmose III, his Year 22-23 (c. 1460 BC, conventional dating; c. 922 BC, revised), was the same as the biblical episode as narrated above in the First Book of Kings. It is commonly agreed that Kd-šw/Qd-šw in the Egyptian Annals refers to Kadesh/ Qadesh, though not all agree as to which geographical location was intended. Ironically, in this singular instance, Dr. Velikovsky’s reconstruction would rigidly follow the conventional path, northwards from Gaza (Egyptian G3-d3-tw], to Yemma? (Egyptian Y-hm), via a narrow defile, Aruna (Egyptian '3-rw-n3), to Megiddo (Egyptian My-k-ty). Megiddo’s close association with Taanach (Egyptian T3-'3-n3-k3) in the Egyptian Annals, appears positively to secure the identification of My-k-ty with Megiddo - as both professor James Henry Breasted and Dr. Velikovsky had accepted. Whilst I, also, shall be embracing their identifications of Gaza, Megiddo and Taanach, I shall be vehemently rejecting those of the in-between locations of Yehem (Y-hm) and Aruna. A conventional path was never going to hold Dr. Velikovsky too long in its embrace. For, while the conventionalists had the Egyptian army continuing its push northwards, to Syrian Qadesh - which progression I think is correct - Dr. Velikovsky, in order to make this campaign fit his brilliant “Shishak” identification, will have the Egyptian army suddenly lurch back southwards from Megiddo, to attack Jerusalem, the “Holy” - Dr. Velikovsky here attempting to draw a connection between the Kd-šw/Qd-šw of the Egyptian Annals and the Hebrew word for “Holy”, qodesh (קֹ֔דֶשׁ). Consequently, Egypt’s “wretched foe”, the king of Qadesh, Dr. Velikovsky will now identify as King Rehoboam of Jerusalem, in full southward flight from the Egyptians, only managing to have himself hauled into Jerusalem before the Egyptians can seize him. A similar narrow type of escape is narrated in the Egyptian Annals in the case of the real King of Kd-šw. Those ever hoping to find evidence for the Bible in historical records can be thrilled by such excitingly reconstructed scenarios as this. Now, though Dr. Velikovsky’s reconstruction (and also its conventional counterpart) of the right biblical campaign, is wrong, those thrilled by the prospect of having a biblical event confirmed in the historical records need not cease being thrilled. The First Campaign of Thutmose III, in his Year 22-23 (c. 922 BC, revised), was, indeed the same as the biblical episode as narrated above in I Kings 14:25-26. But it needs to be properly re-presented. This was typical Dr. Velikovsky, intuiting the correct conclusion - namely, here, that Thutmose III was the biblical “Shishak”, whose assault on Jerusalem occurred during the pharaoh’s First Campaign - but erecting his thesis in a most unconvincing fashion. Glaringly wrong is the conventional identification (accepted by Dr. Velikovsky) of the Aruna ('3-rw-n3) road with some obscure Wadi 'Ara near Megiddo. Thankfully, Dr. Eva Danelius came to the rescue here with her most important article, “Did Thutmose III Despoil the Temple in Jerusalem?” (1977/78): https://saturniancosmology.org/files/egypt/thutmos.htm Breasted identified this defile, the road called "Aruna" in Egyptian records, with the Wadi 'Ara which connects the Palestine maritime plain with the Valley of Esdraelon (4). It was this identification which aroused my curiosity, and my doubt. …. As an afterthought, Nelson warns not to be deceived by the Arabic name (wadi) 'Ara: "Etymologically, it seems hardly possible to equate (Egyptian) 'Aruna with (Arab) 'Ar'arah." (51). …. Not only etymologically, but, far more importantly, topographically - the major contribution made by Dr. Danelius - does the Wadi 'Ara not at all fit the Egyptian description of the dread Aruna road, whose Egyptian rendering, '3-rw-n3, however, transliterates perfectly into the Hebrew Araunah. This road was connected, via the name of Araunah the Jebusite (2 Samuel 24:15-16), directly to Jerusalem and its Temple. To conclude, without repeating all the details of what I have already written by way of correction of Dr. Velikovsky, and modification of Dr. Danelius, in: The Shishak Redemption (1) The Shishak Redemption and: Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III’s march on Jerusalem (2) Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III's march on Jerusalem - with Yehem (Y-hm) newly identified as Jerusalem itself - here is the brief summing up of my “Yehem near Aruna …” article: The Aruna road, the most difficult, but most direct, was the one that the brilliant pharaoh chose, for a surprise assault upon Megiddo. Jimmy Dunn writes regarding pharaoh’s tactic …: … the Aruna road was through a narrow and difficult pass over a ridge that was presumed (particularly for the enemy coalition) to be too difficult for any army to use. Taking that route meant that ‘horse must follow horse, and man after man’…. Also, many modern commentators, and perhaps the Canaanite coalition as well, seem to forget the major virtues of the Egyptian Chariots. They were light vehicles, and it was certainly conceivable that many could be carried through the pass, while the horses were led separately …. The pass was named from its beginning at Araunah, near king Rehoboam’s capital, Jerusalem, “Yehem near Aruna”. Dr. Danelius had got the name right, but she had the Egyptian military negotiating it the wrong way around, with Araunah as its destination point, rather than its being … [the] starting point. This road is variously known to us today as the Way of the Patriarchs, the Hill Road, or the Ridge Route, since it included, as we read, “a narrow and difficult pass over a ridge”. It was not a proper road, even as late as the time of Jesus, not one of the international highways then to be found in Palestine. This would have been a most tricky road, indeed, to negotiate, especially for an army that greatly relied upon its chariots. From Gaza (as all agree), pharaoh marched to Jerusalem (Dr. Danelius got the sequence right, but mis-identified Jerusalem), and then by the narrow Aruna road (Dr. Danelius got the name right only, not the direction) on to Megiddo (as per the conventional view and Velikovsky), and then on to Syrian Kadesh (as per the conventional view ….). For Dr. Velikovsky, this one was a case of: Qadesh facing southwards, when it should have been facing northwards. Part Two: Battle of Pharaoh Ramses II near Qadesh “The north side of my town faced east / And the east was facing south”. The Who In somewhat similar fashion, with geography all askew, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky once had Qadesh (Kadesh) facing southwards, when it should have been facing northwards, and once had Qadesh facing northwards, when it should have been facing southwards. The second instance concerned Kadesh in the inscriptions of Ramses II ‘the Great’ and in those of his mighty foe, the Hittites. Dr. Velikovsky would re-locate Ramses II from his conventional placement in c. 1300 BC to c. 600 BC, identifying him as pharaoh Necho II of Egypt’s Twenty-Sixth Dynasty. And the Hittite king, Hattusilis, known to have made a treaty with Ramses II, Dr. Velikovsky would shockingly (by conventional estimates) identify with the Chaldean king, Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’. (Ramses II and His Time, 1978). Despite this radical downwards time-shift, I believe that Dr. Velikovsky was very much on the right track here. However, rather than Ramses II being Necho II, and Egypt’s Nineteenth Dynasty being the same as the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty, my preference would be for Ramses II being, instead, Tirhakah (Taharqa) of the (Ethiopian) Twenty-Fifth Dynasty. For my comprehensive treatment of this subject, see my article: The Complete Ramses II (3) The Complete Ramses II which is no less shocking than Dr. Velikovsky’s thesis. In fact, it is more so, considering that I claim here that textbook ancient history has scattered the bits and pieces of Ramses II ‘the Great’ over almost a whole millennium, from c. 1300 BC to c. 350 BC (Tachos = Taharqa). Importantly, Ramses II was the same as Ramses Psibkhanno (Twenty-First Dynasty), leading me to conclude that: Sargon II’s Šilkanni of Egypt was Psibkhenno, not Osorkon (3) Sargon II’s Šilkanni of Egypt was Psibkhenno, not Osorkon This conclusion of mine, that Ramses II was a contemporary of Sargon II, would probably strain (even with my radically truncated chronology) Dr. Velikovsky’s identification of Nebuchednezzar with Hattusilis. It was considered in Part One that Dr. Velikovsky had been compelled - to keep alive his “Shishak” thesis - to re-identify Thutmose III’s Qadesh as Jerusalem. Now, similarly, to keep alive his thesis that Ramses II was the same as Necho II, who is known to have marched towards Carchemish (Jeremiah 46:2; 2 Chronicles 35:20), Dr. Velikovsky will geographically force Qadesh in this case - no longer as the “Holy” city of Jerusalem - into becoming what he called “the Sacred City” of Carchemish. (Ramses II and His Time, Chapter. 1: THE BATTLE OF KADESH-CARCHEMISH …. Carchemish, the Sacred City). Given that Necho II had fought “on the plain of Megiddo”, where King Josiah of Judah was slain (2 Chronicles 35:22-24), and given that pharaoh Shoshenq so-called I campaigned against Megiddo, I would rather suggest that (along with Ramses II as Tirhakah) Necho II was the same pharaoh as Shoshenq. https://cojs.org/shoshenq_megiddo_fragment/ A fragment of Pharaoh Shoshenq’s commemorative stele found at Megiddo. The fragment is not well-preserved and only the name of the king and some phrases glorifying him can be read. Although the fragment does not prove that Shoshenq conquered Megiddo, it does imply that he had some control over the city. Taking an Occam’s Razor approach, the whole thing can be simplified by identifying Qadesh (Kadesh) in the records both of Thutmose III and of Ramses II as Syrian Qadesh on the Orontes. This is the usual interpretation in each case. AI Overview The ancient city of Kadesh is believed to have been located near the Orontes River in modern-day Syria, while Carchemish was situated on the west bank of the Euphrates River, also in modern-day Syria. The distance between the two locations is approximately 150-200 kilometers (93-124 miles). For Dr. Velikovsky, this one was a case of: Qadesh facing northwards, when it should have been facing southwards.

Peoples with no viable emergence in the Bible

by Damien F. Mackey “The Bible does not directly mention the Kassites. They were an ancient Near Eastern people who conquered and ruled Babylonia from the 16th to 12th centuries BC. While the Kassites are not found in biblical texts, the term "Chaldeans" (Kashdim in Hebrew) is sometimes associated with them, particularly in relation to the city of Ur. However, scholarly interpretations differ on whether this connection is accurate”. AI Overview Introduction One will have to search very hard throughout the Bible to find any mention of the Minoans and the Phoenicians, for instance – under those precise names, at least. The complete lack of mention of the “Minoans” gets ‘explained’ something like this: https://greekreporter.com/2025/03/18/what-was-the-origin-of-the-minoans-according-to-the-bible/ “Firstly, we need to establish how the Bible refers to the Minoans, as a different name is actually used for them. The name “Minoans” is a modern term invented by modern scholars, derived from the legend of King Minos, and no ancient source actually refers to them as such. The Bible actually calls the Minoans the “Caphtorim.” How do we know? For one thing, “Caphtor” was the Hebrew word for Crete”. That spells out one possible solution to the problem of missing nations. A nation may appear in the Bible under some other, different name. The Phoenicians, for their part (presuming that they have a part), pose such a problem that historian, Josephine Quinn, has claimed that there was, in fact, no such people. On this (and the Minoans), see my article: Of Cretans and Phoenicians (6) Of Cretans and Phoenicians Phoenicia was a later appellative for the Mediterranean coastal peoples, and hence the lonely mention of the Syro-Phoenician woman in the New Testament is geographical, rather than ethnic. Mark the Evangelist tells, in fact, that she was Greek (Mark 7:26): “The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia”. The situation of the Romans and Rome came as a big shock to me. I, having made a careful search, was unable to find throughout the Old Testament a single mention of this celebrated people, or, of their capital city. See e.g. my article: Rome surprisingly minimal in [the] Bible https://www.academia.edu/55241975/Rome_surprisingly_minimal_in_Bible I began this article as follows: Checking through my well-worn Cruden’s Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments (1969 reprint) - which, whilst it is a handy tool of reference, is far from being comprehensive - I cannot find one, single OT entry for either Roman, Romans, or Rome. All references to these names are found in the New Testament: Acts; John; Romans; 2 Timothy. Some commentators think that Balaam’s assertion that ‘ships will come from Chittim [Kittim]’ (Numbers 24:24) may be a long-range reference to the Romans. That is to draw a very long bow, indeed! And it is almost certainly wrong. In Daniel 11:29, “ships of Kittim” could, perhaps, be taken as a reference to the Romans inimical to the Greek Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’. However, according to the Jewish praises of “the Romans” at the time of Judas Maccabeus, “Kittim” was opposed to Rome (I Maccabees 8:5): “Philip, Perseus king of the Kittim, and others who had dared to make war on [the Romans], had been defeated and reduced to subjection …”. The Romans do figure quite prominently in I and II Maccabees, in the Catholic Bible, which books would traditionally be considered as belonging to the Old Testament era. However, I, in my Appendix to this article, and also in other articles, have advanced reasons why I consider the Maccabean wars to have occurred during the approximate time of - and beyond - the Nativity of Jesus Christ. The Romans (Rome) is, as it seems to me, a subject in need of major clarification – perhaps requiring a huge overhaul of what we have traditionally been told. But even certain famous people are missing their full persona, or lacking an appropriate archaeological representation. Just to give one incredible example, to whet the reader’s appetite, regarding my revised King Herod, and who he was, and his relationship to Caesar, and who he was, read: Herod, the emperor’s signet right-hand man (6) Herod, the emperor's signet right-hand man Neither King Herod, nor Augustus Caesar, was quite who we think he was. Further regarding King Herod, I was stunned to find: What, no statuary of Herod ‘the Great’? (6) What, no statuary of Herod ‘the Great’? This fact has led me to the conclusion that this King Herod, an attested biblical figure (e.g. Matthew 2:1), must also be someone (or some others) else. This surprise situation (if I am correct) serves as a parallel with the lack of (or non-) mention of peoples (nations), and the almost total lack of evidence, in some cases, for certain great potentates, suggesting the need, in both instances, for alter ego/populi. In some cases (e.g. the Phoenicians), it might indicate outright non-existence. Now, leaving what we might call the Western world, let us turn our attention to the Ancient Near East, its peoples being the primary subject of interest for this article. Kassites and Hittites Just a quick note here firstly on Egypt. One of its truly great pharaohs (amongst various others of these, I might add) has also managed to perform a magician’s vanishing act. See my article on this: The Disappearing Piankhi https://www.academia.edu/108993830/The_Disappearing_Piankhi And, regarding the Medo-Persians, we find, sadly, that: Medo-Persian history has no adequate archaeology (3) Medo-Persian history has no adequate archaeology As we are going to learn in the next section, though, the underlying problem may be geographical. If this be the case, then, hopefully, an adequate archaeology will come to the surface once one has begun to excavate for it in the right place. Kassites As we have read, there is no mention of this people at all, under this particular name, throughout the entire Bible. But, even apart from the Bible, the poorly attested Kassites constitute a formidable problem for ancient historians. This I observed starkly in my article: Horrible Histories: Casualty Kassites (2) Horrible Histories: Casualty Kassites …. The Kassites are generally considered to have been an Indo-European people. Thus Georges Roux wrote (in Ancient Iraq): Hittites, Mitannians and the ruling class of the Kassites belonged to a very large ethno-linguistic group called ‘Indo-European’, and their migrations were but part of wider ethnic movements which affected Europe and India as well as Western Asia. But is this, the standard view of the Kassites, really accurate? It is not, I think, too much to say that the Kassites are an enigma for the over-extended conventional scheme. But, nor do I think that revisionist scholars so far have properly accounted for them. Georges Roux gave the standard estimate for the duration of Kassite rule of Babylonia: … “… a long line of Kassite monarchs was to govern Mesopotamia or, as they called it, Kar-Duniash for no less than four hundred and thirty-eight years (1595-1157 B.C.)”. This is a substantial period of time; yet archaeology has surprisingly little to show for it. Roux again: …. Unfortunately, we are not much better off as regards the period of Kassite domination in Iraq … all we have at present is about two hundred royal inscriptions – most of them short and of little historical value – sixty kudurru … and approximately 12,000 tablets (letters and economic texts), less than 10 per cent of which has been published. This is very little indeed for four hundred years – the length of time separating us from Elizabeth 1. [Seton] Lloyd, in his book dedicated to the study of Mesopotamian archaeology, can offer only a mere 4 pages (including pictures) to the Kassites, without even bothering to list them in the book’s Index at the back. …. Incredibly, though the names of the Kassites “reveal a clearly distinct language from the other inhabitants in the region”, as van de Mieroop writes, “and Babylonian texts indicate the existence of a Kassite vocabulary, no single text or sentence is known in the Kassite language”. …. Obviously, new interpretations are required. …. Indeed, they are. One of the major obstacles militating against the proper identification, or situating, of peoples such as the Kassites, Hittites, Chaldeans and Elamites – and related peoples such as the Mitannians, Subarians, Urartians, Lullubi, Guti – is the shambles of a geography that has been presented to us by historians and geographers alike. I had concluded the above article on this very note: Obviously, new interpretations are required. …. Perhaps a different and more appropriate geography is required for the Kassites along the lines of what Royce (Richard) Erickson has proposed for the Chaldeans and the Elamites: A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY (5) A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY | Royce Erickson - Academia.edu Royce Erickson has shifted the Chaldeans and the Elamites right out of the regions of southern Mesopotamian Iraq and Iran, and has transported them, holus bolus, to, respectively, NW Syria and Cilicia (Asia Minor). And I fully support his revolutionary ‘tectonic’ shift. He has correspondingly shunted the Medes and the Persians to Anatolia. Obviously, if Royce Erickson is correct, then the historical interpretation of these nations, and of any others closely associated with them, will need to be vastly re-cast. I am rather drawn to the suggestion above that the Kassites may be Chaldeans - but not the accompanying close association of them with the southern Mesopotamian Ur: While the Kassites are not found in biblical texts, the term "Chaldeans" (Kashdim in Hebrew) is sometimes associated with them, particularly in relation to the city of Ur. Indeed, I had hinted at such a connection in my postgraduate thesis (2007, Volume One, p. 178): …. Though it is thought to have been the Greeks who had put the letter lambda  (= l) in the name Chaldeans (χαλδαιοι), whom the Hebrews knew as Kasdim (כַּשְׂדִּים), I would favour this suggestion by Boutflower that the letter change was instead one quite natural to the Assyrian language: The Chaldeans or Kasdim of the Hebrew Old Testament appear in the Assyrian cuneiform as the Kaldi. The original form of Kaldi was probably Kasdi, since according to a rule very common in the Assyrian language a sibilant before a dental is frequently changed into l. Note that the Semitic root Kas- (Kash-) is common to both the name Kassites (known in Akkadian as kashshû) and the Kasdim (Chaldeans). The form Kaldu for the land of the Chaldeans is thought to have been first used by Ashurnasirpal II himself: “The fear of my sovereignty”, he boasted, “prevailed as far as the country of Karduniash; the might of my weapons overwhelmed the country of Kaldu”. This linguistic alteration, from kas- to kal-, has made it even less easy for historians to connect the Chaldeans with the Kassites, who, in Akkadian were known as kashshû. The Kassites were not actually native Chaldeans, though, but were ‘Indo-European’ rulers of the land known as Kasse (Babylonia), which they called Kar-Duniash. We recall Rib-Addi’s reference to “Kasse” in EA letter 76. …. Kar-Duniash is, I believe, just a variant of Kar-kemish (Carchemish), which is my revised Babylon: Correction for Babylon (Babel). Carchemish preferable to Byblos (3) Correction for Babylon (Babel). Carchemish preferable to Byblos An ‘Indo-European’ aspect is commonly associated with the likes of the Kassites, the Hittites and the Mitannians. But we find that, even the King of Urusalim (Jerusalem) at the time of the El Amarna (EA) letters, Jehoram of Judah, had, apparently, a Hurrian goddess (Hiba) element in his EA name, Abdi-Hiba. Yet he certainly was not Indo-European, but Jewish. Hittites While the Hittites are mentioned multiple times in the Old Testament, one needs carefully to distinguish between the biblical Hittites, descendants of Canaan (Genesis 10:15), who dwelt in the Promised Land, and the so-called ‘Indo-European’ imperial Hittites of the text books. Regarding the latter, Johannes Lehmann tells (in The Hittites: people of a thousand gods, 1977) that: “Meyers Neues Konversationslexikon (1871) summarized all that was known about the Hittites in a scant seven lines”. Abraham bought the Cave of Machpelah from the Hittites (Genesis 23). And Esau married two Hittite women (Genesis 26:34-35). There is an isolated mention of “the Hittites” (הַחִתִּ֛ים) ha-ḥit-tîm as, seemingly, a military power in 2 Kings 7:6: “Look, the king of Israel has hired the Hittite and Egyptian kings to attack us!” So, the matter is a complicated one. A ray of light may have shone through, however, in my revised context, owing to the apparent identification, in the Assyrian records, of a Kassite king as a Hittite. On this, see my recent article: Merging a Kassite and a Hittite King (3) Merging a Kassite and a Hittite king Who Tukuti-Ninurta, so-called I, called a Kassite, ruling in Babylon, the Assyrian king’s alter ego, Sargon II (Sennacherib) called that same king a Hittite, ruling in Carchemish. My conclusion would be, therefore, that the Kassites and the Hittites were interchangeable. And, if the Kassites were likewise the Chaldeans, as proposed above, then that would tie up all together: KASSITES = CHALDEANS = HITTITES Complicating matters, Brock Heathcotte has argued most convincingly for the Hittite king, Mursilis, to have been the same as the Cimmerian king, Tugdamme: A supposed ‘Hittite’ ruler newly identified (3) A supposed 'Hittite' ruler newly identified Running with our new-found ‘revelations’ (a) that the Hittites were the Kassites/ Chaldeans, now re-located by Royce Erickson to NW Syria (where we do find the Hittites), and (b) that, with the Elamites now re-located by Erickson to Cilicia where lay the hub of the Hittite empire, Hattusa (Boğazköy), then the Hittites need also to undergo a geographical overhaul. Boğazköy would now be, instead, the Elamite capital of Susa - the Hittites requiring to be lifted right out of Cilicia. An attractive candidate for the Hittite capital, Hattusa, would be Kadesh (Hattush?) on the Orontes, over which the Hittites and Egyptians fought fierce battles. Note that this Kadesh is very close, indeed, to where Richard (Royce) Erickson has re-located the Chaldean capital city of Dur Yakin (his Figure 5).