Sunday, May 4, 2025

Hebrew influences permeated the lore of the ancient pagans

by Damien F. Mackey “The name of Aqht, the son of Danel, returns as Qehat, the grandfather of Moses. The name of the locality Mrrt, where Aqht was killed, figures in the gentilic form Merarî as the brother of Qehat in the Levite genealogy. The name of P?t, the daughter of Danel and the devoted sister of Aqht, is met in the Moses story as Pû'ã, a midwife who saved the life of the new-born Moses”. Michael Astour Law and Government Moses The great Lawgiver in the Bible, and hence in Hebrew history, was Moses, substantially the author of the Torah (Law). But the history books tell us that the Torah was probably dependent upon the law code issued by the Babylonian king, Hammurabi (dated to the first half of the 18th BC). I shall discuss this further on. Also, the famous Spartan lawgiver, Lycurgus, seems to have been based upon Moses: Moses and Lycurgus (4) Moses and Lycurgus For Egyptian identifications of Moses, see e. g. my article: Realisation of who was the Egyptianised Moses (4) Realisation of who was the Egyptianised Moses The Egyptians may have corrupted the legend of the baby Moses in the bulrushes so that now it became the goddess Isis who drew the baby Horus from the Nile and had him suckled by Hathor (the goddess in the form of a cow – the Egyptian personification of wisdom). In the original story, of course, baby Moses was drawn from the water by an Egyptian princess, not a goddess, and was weaned by Moses’ own mother (Exodus 2:5-9). But could both the account of the rescue of the baby Moses in the Book of Exodus, and the Egyptian version of it, be actually based upon a Mesopotamian original, as the textbooks say; based upon the story of king Sargon of Akkad in Mesopotamia? Sargon tells, “in terms reminiscent of Moses, Krishna and other great men”, that [as quoted by G. Roux, Ancient Iraq, Penguin Books, 1964, p. 152]: .… My changeling mother conceived me, in secret she bore me. She set me in a basket of rushes, with bitumen she sealed my lid. She cast me into the river which rose not over me. The river bore me up and carried me to Akki, the drawer of water. Akki, the drawer of water, took me as his son and reared me …. Given that Sargon is conventionally dated to the C24th BC, and Moses about a millennium later, it would seem inevitable that the Hebrew version, and the Egyptian one, must be imitations of the Mesopotamian one. Such is what the ‘history’ books say, at least. The fact is, however, that the extant Sargon legend is very late (C7th BC); though thought to have been based upon an earlier Mesopotamian original. Dean Hickman has re-dated king Hammurabi of Babylon to the time of kings Solomon and David (mid-C10th BC), re-identifying Hammurabi’s older contemporary, Shamsi-Adad I, as king David’s Syrian foe, Hadadazer (2 Samuel 10:16) (“The Dating of Hammurabi”, Proceedings of the Third Seminar of Catastrophism and Ancient History, Uni. Of Toronto, 1985, ed. M. Luckerman, pp. 13-28). For more on this, see e. g. my articles: Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as Contemporaries of Solomon (4) Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as Contemporaries of Solomon and: (4) Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as contemporaries of Solomon. Part Two (b): Zimri-Lim's Palace and the four rivers? According to this new scenario, Hammurabi could not possibly have influenced Moses. Greek and Levant 'Moses-like Myths' Michael Astour believes that Moses, a hero of the Hebrew scriptures, shares "some cognate features" with Danaos (or Danaus), hero of Greek legend. He gives his parallels as follows (Hellenosemitica, p. 99): Moses grows up at the court of the Egyptian king as a member of the royal family, and subsequently flees from Egypt after having slain an Egyptian - as Danaos, a member of the Egyptian ruling house, flees from the same country after the slaying of the Aigyptiads which he had arranged. The same number of generations separates Moses from Leah the "wild cow" and Danaos from the cow Io. Mackey’s Comment: The above parallel might even account for how the Greeks managed to confuse the land of Ionia (Io) with the land of Israel in the case of the earliest philosophers. Astour continues (pp. 99-100): Still more characteristic is that both Moses and Danaos find and create springs in a waterless region; the story of how Poseidon, on the request of the Danaide Amymona, struck out with his trident springs from the Lerna rock, particularly resembles Moses producing a spring from the rock by the stroke of his staff. A ‘cow’ features also in the legend of Cadmus, son of Agenor, king of Tyre upon the disappearance of his sister Europa, who was sent by his father together with his brothers Cilix and Phoenix to seek her with instructions not to return without her. Seeking the advice of the oracle at Delphi, Cadmus was told to settle at the point where a cow, which he would meet leaving the temple, would lie down. The cow led him to the site of Thebes (remember the two cities by that name). There he built the citadel of Cadmeia. Cadmus married Harmonia, the daughter of Ares, god of war, and Aphrodite and, according to the legend, was the founder of the House of Oedipus. Astour believes that "even more similar features" may be discovered if one links these accounts to the Ugaritic (Levantine-Canaanite) poem of Danel, which he had previously identified as "the prototype of the Danaos myth" (p. 100): The name of Aqht, the son of Danel, returns as Qehat, the grandfather of Moses. The name of the locality Mrrt, where Aqht was killed, figures in the gentilic form Merarî as the brother of Qehat in the Levite genealogy. The name of P?t, the daughter of Danel and the devoted sister of Aqht, is met in the Moses story as Pû'ã, a midwife who saved the life of the new-born Moses. The very name of Moses, in the feminine form Mšt, is, in the Ugaritic poem, the first half of Danel's wife's name, while the second half of her name, Dnty, corresponds to the name of Levi's sister Dinah. Michael Astour had already explained how the biblical story of the Rape of Dinah (Genesis 34) was "analogous to the myth of the bloody wedding of her namesakes, the Danaides". He continues on here with his fascinating Greco-Israelite parallels: Dân, the root of the names Dnel, Dnty (and also Dinah and Danaos), was the name of a tribe whose priests claimed to descend directly from Moses (Jud. 18:30); and compare the serpent emblem of the tribe of Dan with the serpent staff of Moses and the bronze serpent he erected. …Under the same name - Danaë - another Argive heroine of the Danaid stock is thrown into the sea in a chest with her new-born son - as Moses in his ark (tébã) - and lands on the serpent-island of Seriphos (Heb. šãrâph, applied i.a. to the bronze serpent made by Moses). Moses, like Danel, is a healer, a prophet, a miracle-worker - cf. Danel's staff (mt) which he extends while pronouncing curses against towns and localities, quite like Moses in Egypt; and especially, like Danel, he is a judge…. Roman 'Moses-like Myth' The Romans further corrupted the story of the infant Moses, following on probably from the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Levantines and Greeks. I refer to the account of Romulus (originally Rhomus) and Remus, thought to have founded the city of Rome in 753 BC. Both the founders and the date are quite mythical. Did the Romans take an Egyptian name for Moses, such as Musare, and turn it into Rhomus and Remus (MUSA-RE = RE-MUS), with the formerly one child (Moses) now being doubled into two babies (twins)? According to this legend, the twins were put into a basket by some kind servants and floated in the Tiber River, from which they were eventually rescued by a she-wolf. Thus the Romans more pragmatically opted for a she-wolf as the suckler instead of a cow goddess, or a lion goddess, Sekhmet (the fierce alter ego of Hathor). The Romans may have taken yet another slice from the Pentateuch when they had the founder of the city of Rome, Romulus, involved in a fratricide (killing Remus); just as Cain, the founder of the world's first city, had killed his own brother, Abel (cf. Genesis 4:8 and 4:17). Mohammed: Arabian `Moses-like Myths' ... An Islamic lecturer, Ahmed Deedat ["What the Bible Says About Mohammed (Peace Be Upon Him) the Prophet of Islam" (www.islamworld.net/Muhammad.in.Bible.html)], told of an interview he once had with a dominee of the Dutch Reformed Church in Transvaal, van Heerden, on the question: "What does the Bible say about Muhummed?" Deedat had in mind the Holy Qur'an verse 46:10, according to which "a witness among the children of Israel bore witness of one like him…". This was, in turn, a reference to Deuteronomy 18:18's "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." The Moslems, of course, interpret the "one like him [i.e. Moses]" as being Mohammed himself. Faced with the dominee's emphatic response that the Bible has "nothing" to say about Mohammed - and that the Deuteronomic prophecy ultimately pertained to Jesus Christ, as did "thousands" of other prophecies - Deedat set out to prove him wrong. On the deft apologetical ploy used here, see my article: Zakir Naik’s apologetical tactic meant to embarrass Christians (4) Zakir Naik's apologetical tactic meant to embarrass Christians For some of my own views on the Prophet Mohammed, see my article: Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History (4) Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History Some Conclusions regarding Mohammed (c. 570-632 AD, conventional dating) Whilst Mohammed supposedly lived much later than Moses, there nevertheless do seem to be Arabic borrowings of the Moses story itself (and even appropriations of certain very specific aspects of the life of Jesus, as we shall read later) in the legends about Mohammed, who especially resembles Moses in: (i) the latter's visit to Mount Horeb with its cave atop, its Burning Bush, and angel (Exodus 3:1-2), possibly equating to Mohammed's "Mountain of Light" (Jabal-an-Nur), and 'cave of research' (`Ghar-i-Hira'), and angel Gabriel; (ii) at the very same age of forty (Acts 7:23-29), and (iii) there receiving a divine revelation, leading to his (iv) becoming a prophet of God and a Lawgiver. Mohammed as a Lawgiver is (like the Spartan Lycurgus) a direct pinch, I believe, from the Hebrew Pentateuch, and also from the era of Jeremiah. Consider the following by M. O'Hair ("Mohammed", A text of American Atheist Radio Series program No. 65, first broadcast on August 25, 1969: www.atheists.org/Islam.Mohammed.html "Now the Kaaba or Holy Stone at Mecca was the scene of an annual pilgrimage, and during this pilgrimage in 621 Mohammed was able to get six persons from Medina to bind themselves to him. They did so by taking the following oath. Not consider anyone equal to Allah; Not to steal; Not to be unchaste; Not to kill their children; Not willfully to calumniate". This is simply the Mosaïc Decalogue, with the following Islamic addition: "To obey the prophet's orders in equitable matters. In return Mohammed assured these six novitiates of paradise. The place where these first vows were taken is now called the first Akaba". "The mission of Mohammed", perfectly reminiscent of that of Moses, and later of Nehemiah, was "to restore the worship of the One True God, the creator and sustainer of the universe, as taught by Prophet Ibrahim [Abraham] and all Prophets of God, and complete the laws of moral, ethical, legal, and social conduct and all other matters of significance for the humanity at large." The above-mentioned Burning Bush incident occurred whilst Moses (a) was living in exile (Exodus 2:15) (b) amongst the Midianite tribe of Jethro, near the Paran desert. (c) Moses had married Jethro's daughter, Zipporah (v. 21). Likewise Mohammed: (a) experienced exile; (b) to Medina, a name which may easily have become confused with the similar sounding, Midian, and (c) he had only the one wife at the time, Khadija. Also (d) Moses, like Mohammed, was terrified by what God had commanded of him, protesting that he was "slow of speech and slow of tongue" (Exodus 4:10). To which God replied: "Who gives speech to mortals? Who makes them mute or deaf, seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord? Now go, and I will be your mouth and teach you what you are to speak' (vv. 11-12). Now this episode, seemingly coupled with Moses’s call, has come distorted into the Koran as Mohammed's being terrified by what God was asking of him, protesting that he was not learned. To which God supposedly replied that he had 'created man from a clot of congealed blood, and had taught man the use of the pen, and that which he knew not, and that man does not speak ought of his own desire but by inspiration sent down to him'. Ironically, whilst Moses the writer complained about his lack of verbal eloquence, Mohammed, 'unlettered and unlearned', who therefore could not write, is supposed to have been told that God taught man to use the pen (?). But Mohammed apparently never learned to write, because he is considered only to have spoken God's utterances. Though his words, like those of Moses (who, however, did write, e.g. Exodus 34:27), were written down in various formats by his secretary, Zaid (roughly equating to the biblical Joshua, a writer, Joshua 8:32, or to Jeremiah’s scribe, Baruch). This is generally how the Koran is said to have arisen. But Mohammed also resembles Moses in his childhood (and Tobit also) in the fact that, after his infancy, he was raised by a foster-parent (Exodus 2:10). And there is the inevitable weaning legend (Zahoor, A. and Haq, Z., "Biography of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)", http://cyberistan.org/islamic/muhammad.html 1998.): "All biographers state that the infant prophet sucked only one breast of his foster-mother, leaving the other for the sustenance of his foster-brother". There is even a kind of Islamic version of the Exodus. Compare the following account of the Qoreish persecution and subsequent pursuit of the fleeing Moslems with the persecution and later pursuit of the fleeing Israelites by Pharaoh (Exodus 1 and 4:5-7) [O’Hair, op. cit., ibid.]: When the persecution became unbearable for most Muslims, the Prophet advised them in the fifth year of his mission (615 CE) to emigrate to Abyssinia (modern Ethiopia) where Ashabah (Negus, a Christian) was the ruler. Eighty people, not counting the small children, emigrated in small groups to avoid detection. No sooner had they left the Arabian coastline [substitute Egyptian borders], the leaders of Quraish discovered their flight. They decided to not leave these Muslims in peace, and immediately sent two of their envoys to Negus to bring all of them back. The Koran of Islam is basically just the Arabic version of the Hebrew Bible with all of its same famous patriarchs and leading characters. That is apparent from what the Moslems themselves admit. For example [ibid.]: The Qur'an also mentions four previously revealed Scriptures: Suhoof (Pages) of Ibrahim (Abraham), Taurat ('Torah') as revealed to Prophet Moses, Zuboor ('Psalms') as revealed to Prophet David, and Injeel ('Evangel') as revealed to Prophet Jesus (pbuh). Islam requires belief in all prophets and revealed scriptures (original, non-corrupted) as part of the Articles of Faith. On this, see e.g. my article: Durie’s verdict on Prophet Mohammed (4) Durie's verdict on Prophet Mohammed Mohammed is now for Islam the last and greatest of the prophets. Thus, "in the Al-Israa, Gabriel (as) took the Prophet from the sacred Mosque near Ka'bah to the furthest (al-Aqsa) mosque in Jerusalem in a very short time in the latter part of a night. Here, Prophet Muhammad met with previous Prophets (Abraham, Moses, Jesus and others) and he led them in prayer" [ibid.]. Thus Mohammed supposedly led Jesus in prayer. The reputation of Ibn Ishaq (ca 704-767), a main authority on the life and times of the Prophet varied considerably among the early Moslem critics: some found him very sound, while others regarded him as a liar in relation to Hadith (Mohammed's sayings and deeds). His Sira is not extant in its original form, but is present in two recensions done in 833 and 814-15, and these texts vary from one another. Fourteen others have recorded his lectures, but their versions differ [ibid.]: It was the storytellers who created the tradition: the sound historical traditions to which they are supposed to have added their fables simply did not exist. . . . Nobody remembered anything to the contrary either. . . . There was no continuous transmission. Ibn Ishaq, al-Waqidi, and others were cut off from the past: like the modern scholar, they could not get behind their sources.... Finally, it has to be realized that the tradition as a whole, not just parts of it as some have thought, is tendentious, and that that tendentiousness arises from allegiance to Islam itself. Mohammed, a composite figure, seems to have likenesses even to pre-Mosaïc patriarchs, and to Jesus in the New Testament. Thus Mohammed, at Badr, successfully led a force of 300+ men (the number varies from 300-318) against an enemy far superior in number, as did Abraham (Genesis 14:14); and, like Jacob (Genesis 30, 31), he used a ruse to get a wife (in Jacob's case, wives). And like Jesus, the greatest of all God's prophets, Mohammed is said to have ascended into heaven from Jerusalem. Modern Myths about Moses From the above it can now be seen that it was not only the Greeks and Romans who have been guilty of appropriation into their own folklore of famous figures of Israel. Even the Moslems have done it and are still doing it. A modern-day Islamic author from Cairo, Ahmed Osman, has - in line with psychiatrist Sigmund Freud's view that Moses was actually an Egyptian, whose Yahwism was derived from pharaoh Akhnaton's supposed monotheism [Out of Egypt. The Roots of Christianity Revealed (Century, 1998)] - identified all the major biblical Israelites, from the patriarch Joseph to the Holy Family of Nazareth, as Eighteenth Dynasty Egyptian characters. Thus Joseph = Yuya; Moses = Akhnaton; David = Thutmose III; Solomon = Amenhotep III; Jesus = Tutankhamun; St. Joseph = Ay; Mary = Nefertiti. This is mass appropriation! Not to mention chronological madness! I was asked by Dr. Norman Simms of the University of Waikato (N.Z.) to write a critique of Osman's book, a copy of which he had posted to me. This was a rather easy task as the book leaves itself wide open to criticism. Anyway, the result of Dr. Simms' request was my article, "Osman's 'Osmosis' of Moses" article [The Glozel Newsletter, 5:1 (ns) 1999 (Hamilton, N.Z), pp. 1-17], in which I argued that, because Osman is using the faulty textbook history of Egypt, he is always obliged to give the chronological precedence to Egypt, when the influence has actually come from Israel over to Egypt. [This article, modified, can now be read at: Osman’s ‘Osmosis’ of Moses. Part One: The Chosen People (4) Osman's 'Osmosis' of Moses. Part One: The Chosen People and: Osman’s ‘Osmosis’ of Moses. Part II: Christ the King (4) Osman's 'Osmosis' of Moses. Part Two: Christ The King The way that Egyptian chronology is structured at present - thanks largely to Dr. Eduard Meyer's now approximately one century-old Ägyptische Chronologie (Philosophische und historische Abhandlungen der Königlich preussischen Akad. der Wissenschaften, Berlin, Akad. der Wiss., 1904).) could easily give rise to Osman's precedence in favour of Egypt view (though this is no excuse for Osman's own chronological mish-mash). One finds, for example, in pharaoh Hatshepsut's inscriptions such similarities to king David's Psalms that it is only natural to think that she, the woman-pharaoh - dated to the C15th BC, 500 years earlier than David - must have influenced the great king of Israel. Or that pharaoh Akhnaton's Hymn to the Sun, so like David's Psalm 104, had inspired David many centuries later. Only a proper revision of ancient Egyptian history brings forth the right perspective, and shows that the Israelites actually had the chronological precedence in these as in many other cases. It gets worse from a conventional point of view. The 'doyen of Israeli archaeologists', Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University, frequently interviewed by Beirut hostage victim John McCarthy on the provocative TV program “It Ain't Necessarily So”, has, together with his colleagues, virtually written ancient Israel right off the historical map, along with all of its major biblical characters. This horrible mess is an inevitable consequence of the faulty Sothic chronology with which these archaeologists seem to be mesmerized. With friends like Finkelstein and co., why would Israel need any enemies! The Lawgiver Solon Whilst the great Lawgiver for the Hebrews was Moses, and for the Babylonians, Hammurabi, and for the Moslems, supposedly, Mohammed, the Lawgiver in Greek folklore was Solon of Athens, the wisest of the wise, greatest of the Seven Sages. Though Solon is estimated to have lived in the C6th BC, his name and many of his activities are so close to king Solomon's (supposedly 4 centuries earlier) that we need once again to question whether the Greeks may have been involved in appropriation. And, if so, how did this come about? It may in some cases simply be a memory thing, just as according to Plato's Timaeus one of the very aged Egyptian priests supposedly told Solon (Plato's Timaeus, trans. B. Jowett, The Liberal Arts Press, NY, 1949), 6 (22)) and /or Desmond Lee's translation, Penguin Classics, p. 34]: "O Solon, Solon, you Hellenes [Greeks] are never anything but children, and there is not an old man among you. Solon in return asked him what he meant. I mean to say, he replied, that in mind you are all young; there is no old opinion handed down among you by ancient tradition, nor any science which is hoary with age. …" Perhaps what the author of the Timaeus really needed to have put into the mouth of the aged Egyptian priest was that the Greeks had largely forgotten who Solomon was, and had created their own fictional character, "Solon", from their vague recall of the great king Solomon who "excelled all the kings of the earth in riches and in wisdom" (1 Kings 10:23). Solon resembles Solomon especially in roughly the last decade of the latter's reign, when Solomon, turning away from Yahwism, became fully involved with his mercantile ventures, his fleet, travel, and building temples for his foreign wives, especially in Egypt (10:26-29; 11:1-8). Now, it is to be expected that the pagan Greeks would remember this more 'rationalist' aspect of Solomon (as Solon) rather than his wisdom-infused, philosophical, earlier years when he was a devout Jew and servant of Yahweh (4:29-34). And, Jewish, Solon apparently was! Edwin Yamauchi has studied the laws of Solon in depth and found them to be quite Jewish in nature, most reminiscent of the laws of Nehemiah (c. 450 BC) ("Two reformers compared: Solon of Athens and Nehemiah of Jerusalem," Bible world. New York: KTAV, 1980. pp. 269-292). That date of 450 BC may perhaps be some sort of clue as to approximately when the Greeks first began to create their fictional Solon. Solomon was, as I have argued in my "Solomon and Sheba" article ("Solomon and Sheba", SIS C and C Review, 1997:1, pp. 4-15), the most influential Senenmut of Egyptian history, Hatshepsut's mentor; whilst Hatshepsut herself was the biblical Queen [of] Sheba. This article can now be read at: Solomon and Sheba http://www.academia.edu/3660164/Solomon_and_Sheba I have also identified Hatshepsut/Sheba as the biblical Abishag, who comforted the aged David (I Kings 1-4), and the beautiful virgin daughter of David, Tamar. See e.g. my article: The vicissitudinous life of Solomon's pulchritudinous wife (4) The vicissitudinous life of Solomon's pulchritudinous wife Professor Henry Breasted had made a point relevant to my theme of Greek appropriation - and in connection too with the Solomonic era (revised). Hatshepsut's marvellous temple structure at Deir el-Bahri, he said, was "a sure witness to the fact that the Egyptians had developed architectural styles for which the Greeks later would be credited as the originators" (A History of Egypt, 2nd ed., NY (Scribner, 1924), p. 274). One need not necessarily perhaps always accuse the Greeks of a malicious corruption of earlier traditions, but perhaps rather of a 'collective amnaesia', to use a Velikovskian term; the sort of forgetfulness by the Greek nation as alluded to in Plato's Timaeus. There is also to be considered that the Levantines and/or Jews had migrated to Greece. In 1 Maccabees 12:21 [Areios king of the Spartans, to Onias the high priest, greetings: "A document has been found stating that the Spartans and the Jews are brothers; both nations descended from Abraham." By this late stage the earlier histories would already have been well and truly corrupted. The Abrahamic emigrants would naturally have carried their folklore - not to mention their architectural expertise - to the Greek archipelago where it would inevitably have undergone local adaptation. The Jewish philosopher, Aristobulus, was one who claimed that the Greeks had borrowed heavily from the Hebrew Torah. Thus we read an article by E. S. Gruen (2016), “Jewish Perspectives on Greek Culture and Ethnicity: file:///C:/Users/Damien%20Mackey/Downloads/10.1515_9783110375558-011.pdf [Pp. 181-185. Note: Whereas the author himself, E. S. Gruen, believes that the Jews greatly manipulated the Greek texts to make these conform to their own point of view – I believe, on the other hand, that the Greeks appropriated, but distorted, the original Hebrew writings]: Aristobulus, a man of wide philosophical and literary interests … wrote an extensive work, evidently a form of commentary on the Torah, at an uncertain date in the Hellenistic period. …. Only a meager portion of that work now survives, but enough to indicate a direction and objective: Aristobulus, among other things, sought to establish the Bible as foundation for much of the Greek intellectual and artistic achievement. Moses, for Aristobulus as for Eupolemus and Artapanus, emerges as a culture hero, precursor and inspiration for Hellenic philosophical and poetic traditions. But Aristobulus’ Moses, unlike the figure concocted by Eupolemus and Artapanus, does not transmit the alphabet, interpret hieroglyphics, or invent technology. His accomplishment is the Torah, the Israelite law code. And from that creation, so Aristobulus imagines, a host of Hellenic attainments drew their impetus. Foremost among Greek philosophers, Plato was a devoted reader of the Scriptures, poring over every detail, and faithfully followed its precepts. …. And not only he. A century and a half earlier, Pythagoras borrowed much from the books of Moses and inserted it into his own teachings. …. …. Other philosophers, too, came under the sway of the Torah. So at least Aristobulus surmised. The “divine voice” to which Socrates paid homage owed its origin to the words of Moses. …. And Aristobulus made a still broader generalization. He found concurrence among all philosophers in the need to maintain reverent attitudes toward God, a doctrine best expressed, of course, in the Hebrew Scriptures which preceded (and presumably determined) the Greek precepts. Indeed, all of Jewish law was constructed so as to underscore piety, justice, selfcontrol and the other qualities that represent true virtues—i.e., the very qualities subsequently embraced and propagated by the Greeks. …. Aristobulus thereby brought the whole tradition of Greek philosophizing under the Jewish umbrella. That was just a part of the project. Aristobulus not only traced philosophic precepts to the Torah. He found its echoes in Greek poetry from earliest times to his own day. The Sabbath, for instance, a vital part of Jewish tradition stemming from Genesis, was reckoned by Aristobulus as a preeminent principle widely adopted and signaled by the mystical quality ascribed to the number seven. …. And he discovered proof in the verses of Homer and Hesiod. …. Aristobulus … interpreted a Hesiodic reference to the seventh day of the month as the seventh day of the week. And he (or his source) emended a line of Homer from the “fourth day” to the “seventh day.” …. The creative Aristobulus also enlisted in his cause poets who worked in the distant mists of antiquity, namely the mythical singers Linus and Orpheus. Linus, an elusive figure variously identified as the son of Apollo or the music master of Heracles, conveniently left verses that celebrated the number seven as representing perfection itself, associating it with the heavenly bodies, with an auspicious day of birth, and as the day when all is made complete. …. The connection with the biblical origin of the Sabbath is strikingly close …. Aristobulus summoned up still greater inventiveness in adapting or improvising a wholesale monotheistic poem assigned to Orpheus himself. The composition delivers sage advice from the mythical singer to his son or pupil Musaeus (here in proper sequence of generations), counseling him to adhere to the divine word and describing God as complete in himself while completing all things, the sole divinity with no rivals, hidden to the human eye but accessible to the mind, a source of good and not evil, seated on a golden throne in heaven, commanding the earth, its oceans and mountains, and in control of all. …. The poem, whether or not it derives from Aristobulus’ pen, belongs to the realm of Hellenistic Judaism. It represents a Jewish commandeering of Orpheus, emblematic of Greek poetic art, into the ranks of those proclaiming the message of biblical monotheism. Aristobulus did not confine himself to legendary or distant poets. He made bold to interpret contemporary verses in ways suitable to his ends. One sample survives. Aristobulus quoted from the astronomical poem, the Phaenomena, of the Hellenistic writer Aratus of Soli. Its opening lines proved serviceable. By substituting “God” for “Zeus,” Aristobulus turned Aratus’ invocation into a hymn for the Jewish deity. …. The campaign to convert Hellenic writings into footnotes on the Torah was in full swing. In that endeavor Aristobulus had much company. Resourceful Jewish writers searched through the scripts of Attic dramatists, both tragic and comic, for passages whose content suggested acquaintance with Hebrew texts or ideas. …. Verses with a strikingly Jewish flavor were ascribed to Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, and others to the comic playwrights Menander, Diphilus, and Philemon, again a combination of classical and Hellenistic authors. On Aeschylus, see my series: Ezekiel and Aeschylus. Part One: Aeschylus a Greek appropriation of Ezekiel? beginning with: (4) Ezekiel and Aeschylus. Part One: Aeschylus a Greek appropriation of Ezekiel? The fragments are preserved only in Church Fathers and the names of transmitters are lost to us. But the milieu of Jewish-Hellenistic intellectuals is unmistakable. …. Verses from Aeschylus emphasized the majesty of God, his omnipotence and omnipresence, the terror he can wreak, and his resistance to representation or understanding in human terms. …. Sophocles insisted upon the oneness of the Lord who fashioned heaven and earth, the waters and the winds; he railed against idolatry; he supplied an eschatological vision to encourage the just and frighten the wicked; and he spoke of Zeus’ disguises and philandering—doubtless to contrast delusive myths with authentic divinity. …. Euripides, too, could serve the purpose. Researchers found lines affirming that God’s presence cannot be contained within structures created by mortals and that he sees all, but is himself invisible. …. Attribution of comparable verses to comic poets is more confused in the tradition, as Christian sources provide conflicting notices on which dramatist said what. But the recorded writers, Menander, Philemon, and Diphilus, supplied usefully manipulable material. One or another spoke of an all-seeing divinity who will deliver vengeance upon the unjust and wicked, who lives forever as Lord of all, who apportions justice according to deserts, who scorns offerings and votives but exalts the righteous at heart. ….

Thursday, May 1, 2025

Sinai and Horeb may be separate holy mountains

Flavio Barbiero tells on pp. 64 ff. of his thrilling article: THE CAVE OF TREASURES ON MOUNT HOREB (3) THE CAVE OF TREASURES ON MOUNT HOREB …. The mountain without a name Since our first arrival at Har Karkom, we have been struck by a small mountain that stands isolated in the middle of the valley. Arriving from the Egyptian border, it impressively resembles an Egyptian pyramid, with the horizontal stratifications of the rocks giving a realistic idea of the various orders of stones. …. Figure 27 – Seen from the south the mount appears like an Egyptian pyramid …. Seen from the north, the mountain had a particular shape, like a large crouching dragon, with a large stone slab at the top of its back, which resembled an enormous lectern. That little mountain was the most notable point in the whole valley and could be seen from any direction. It was the constant reference for knowing where one was. With its unmistakable silhouette constantly under the eyes, it was impossible to get lost or go wrong. We were especially attracted by that large flat rock on the top which from below almost looked like a ramp launched towards the sky. One evening, at the usual assembly after dinner, we asked Anati what that mountain was called and what was on the top. "It's a mountain without a name," was the reply. 'Only the quota is shown on the maps: 788 metres. The Israeli cartographers considered it part of the Karkom complex and did not consider giving it a specific name. …. At the plain's beginning, a large triangular stone was stuck in the ground; it showed clear signs of workmanship to give it a cuspidal shape. On its side, there was a flint "eye" set in the rock and underneath some engravings with a mysterious meaning. It was oriented north-south but pointed towards a small escarpment, a few tens of meters ahead, from which a path began that climbed towards the top of the mountain. On the left was the huge boulder … surrounded by stones, most of which were flat and stuck in the ground. It looked like a large altar surrounded by steles, at the foot of the mountain. A stone vaguely shaped like an animal's head, placed on the rock who knows when and by whom, recalled the image of a calf. We called that boulder "the altar of the golden calf ", jokingly at first, but then with more and more conviction. …. While we were in front of the altar, imagining the scene of dancers around it with a golden calf on top, we looked up towards the mountain and gasped: of the large rock that was on top, we could only see the north side, framed by a saddle formed by the gully along which the wadi descended. The front of the rock (Fig. 40 and 41) was surmounted for its entire width by a drywall built with large stone blocks; it looked like the front of a fortress and was visible from across the plain. …. We decided to go up, heading towards the path indicated by the cusp stone. After a few meters of steep climb, we arrived at a false plain sloping gently down from the mountain. At this point the path passed through a gap created in a row of stones lined up along the edge of the escarpment, clearly a boundary line. On the sides of the gap were two steles, about sixty centimetres each, knocked down to the ground and, in the centre of the path, a serpent's head made of flint … facing those who climbed up. We couldn't help but think of the words of the Bible: “And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death." (Ex.19,12; 19,20; 24,1). … Figure 33 - Snake’s head made from a block of flint placed at the beginning of the path that climbs Mount 788 That gap seemed to be the only access to Mount 788 on that side … and that row of stones on the edge, with the two steles on either side, clearly constituted "limits". The serpent's head placed between the steles, in the centre of the path, was an all too evident threat of death addressed to those who climbed it. This is an undeniable indication that this was precisely the mountain to which the words of Exodus referred. …. Heedless of that threat, we followed the path along the slope initially quite gentle. Then the climb became harder, along the wadi, and a last steep climb took us to the top. The Acropolis in the desert This is how Valerio Manfredi describes it in his report later published by the Centro Camuno: "It is an imposing natural acropolis, rising from a mountain located exactly in the centre of the valley and arranged in its longitudinal axis in a north-south direction, surrounded both to the east and to the west by two large wadis. The current access is from the north ... This side is delimited by a drywall of large limestone blocks, superimposed with great skill and interspersed with smaller stones carefully fitted. The height of the wall is overall preserved, and it can be assumed that the original height was 2 meters max. The current maximum height is 1.54 m. The view that is disclosed to those who cross the entrance open into the wall is of extraordinary impact. The platform looks like a natural ramp to the sky, and it is paved by a sort of cyclopean natural tiles. About 14 meters from the entrance there is a small "sacred" complex consisting of four orthostats stuck in the ground, whose largest, in a central position, is 94 cm high and 54 cm wide ... To the north, at a distance of 1 meter from the main orthostat, is placed a stone 70 cm long, 42 cm wide and 37 cm high. An altar? At the top of the platform, 14 meters from the southern end, there is a rectangular construction, 6.24 meters long (E-W side) and 3.24 m wide (east side) and 3.40 m (west side). At the centre of the north side opens the door, the width of cm. 84, limited by a threshold consisting of three boulders next to each other. The southern long wall collapsed inside the structure and the northern long wall outside. The causes of the collapse are not known; recent causes cannot be excluded. The number of blocks that make up the collapse suggests that the original high could reach at least m. 1.50. The roof of the building, if it existed, could probably be made of organic materials such as wood or leather". …. We were fascinated by the sight of the "basolato", a sort of paved floor of large stones encrusted with green-blue lichens. One day, we had the chance to see the Acropolis after a short downpour. The wet lichens that covered the stones had become phosphorescent of an intense blue and offered an incredible, breathtaking spectacle, the same described in Ex 24,9: “Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.” We had never seen anything like it. It instinctively came to us to follow the command of Ex. 3:5: "put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.." It was pleasant to walk barefoot on the smooth stones. It was the only point in that area where it was possible to do so because everywhere else, the ground was covered with sharp stones and thorny shrubs, which made it impossible to walk barefoot. The construction on top of the platform was the temple of the acropolis (so we called it from then on, because it is a natural acropolis in the desert). The collapse of the temple’s walls was not due to natural causes, but to man's work, which was very recent. …. From the top of the acropolis, you can dominate the entire surrounding valley and the desert, in the direction of Egypt, up to the distant horizon; to the north, you can see the edge of Maktesh Ramon and the dome of the Mizpé Ramon Natural History Museum, on the edge of the crater, more than twenty kilometres as the crow flies. From there you can control every corner of the Karkom valley and the entire plateau. No one could approach that mountain without being seen. Isolated as it is in the centre of the valley, with its unmistakable silhouette, it constitutes a unique natural landmark …. … The perfect setting of the events narrated by Exodus As far as we could see at that moment, Mount 788 fully corresponded to the biblical account’s description of Mount Horeb. The limits, the snake head on the access paths, and the impressiveness of the acropolis were important clues, but another thing also proved it. Throughout the valley, you could meet rock engravings everywhere. All the hills around the valley and the valley itself were strewn with rock engravings and on the plateau of Har Karkom there was the largest concentration of the whole Sinai. We expected we would also find many on the 788 because of its central location in the valley. In the following years, my brother and I inspected the mountain from top to bottom, stone by stone, but found no engravings, not even a scratch. That absolute absence was in sheer contrast with the incredible wealth of rock engravings of all kinds and ages, especially BAC, that were all around. "Nobody was interested in that mound", was the joking conclusion of Federico Mailland during one of the usual evening conversations at the camp. For us, however, it was the most … evident proof that that mountain was forbidden and in particular there was a prohibition on representing any living being, as the Bible highlights. In addition to all these indications, the fact remained that the biblical events could be set perfectly there. From the wall of the Acropolis, you could see the plain at the mouth of the wadi, with the great altar of the golden calf. Between the wall and the beginning of the paving, there is a trench, more than one meter deep and about three meters wide, for the entire width of the platform. Here you could hide and store materials without being seen from below. If a series of fires were lit along the wall, the top of the mountain would appear covered in smoke from the plain below. Furthermore, the gorge carved by the wadi that flowed next to the great altar had particular acoustic properties: sounds and noises produced in the gorge were greatly amplified for the benefit of those in the plain in front of the altar. ….

Wednesday, April 30, 2025

Moses had neglected to circumcise his son

Paul Carter wrote astutely in 2020 of: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/moses-zipporah-strangest-circumcision-story-exodus/ The Strangest Circumcision Story Ever If you were to make a short list of the strangest paragraphs in the Bible, Exodus 4:24–26 would almost certainly be on it. Moses has just met God at the burning bush and been given an exalted commission: go and speak to Pharaoh, and serve as God’s agent for the redemption of his people. He’s been called and equipped with miraculous powers, and now he begins to move out in fulfillment of his mission. We’re not prepared for what comes next: At a lodging place on the way the LORD met him and sought to put him to death. Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it and said, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!” So he let him alone. It was then that she said, “A bridegroom of blood,” because of the circumcision (Ex. 4:24–26). What in the world is that all about? Besides being unexpected, the text is difficult to make sense of because of the obscurity of the language. For example, it isn’t clear who “him” is in verse 24. Is it Moses or his son Gershom? We’re also not entirely sure who or what Zipporah touched with the foreskin of Gershom in verse 25; the ESV adds the word “Moses,” but that word is not in the Hebrew text. And there are cultural obscurities equally hard to penetrate. The drama of the text seems to be driven by the disparity between the Midianite traditions surrounding circumcision and the Hebrew traditions as dictated to Abraham in Genesis 17. Given that we don’t have access to the Midianite traditions, reading Exodus 4:24–26 is a bit like listening to one half of a phone conversation. Our best reconstruction is as follows. Understanding What Happened As Moses and his family were traveling from Midian to Egypt, God somehow arrested them and assaulted Moses (Moses is probably the “him” in verse 24). Perhaps Moses had a seizure or became suddenly ill; we aren’t sure precisely how this attack was carried out. We know his wife Zipporah understood immediately what was going on, and we can also infer that the attack was slow-acting enough for her to respond in some sort of atoning way. This suggests that the attack was never intended to be fatal. It was a warning, and it produced the intended result. The main human actor in the story is Zipporah. Moses was incapacitated by the divine attack and Gershom was a child. That Zipporah knew precisely what to do in order to appease the Lord’s anger suggests that this wasn’t the first time she and Moses had discussed the issue of Gershom’s circumcision. Here our reconstruction is complicated by limited understanding of the Midianite ritual. Many historians suggest that the Midianites conducted the ritual just prior to the ceremony of marriage. Once a young man was betrothed, he’d undergo circumcision, followed by a time of recuperation, after which he’d marry his wife and consummate the marital union. If that understanding is correct, then it would seem that Moses had effectively raised his son as a Midianite. He hadn’t circumcised him on the eighth day as God had commanded Abraham and all his descendants to do (Gen. 21:4). Perhaps Moses had deferred to Midianite customs out of respect for his father-in-law Jethro. The fact that God deals directly with Zipporah, however, suggests that she had been part of the reason for this inappropriate delay. Perhaps realizing this, Zipporah immediately takes the flint knife and circumcises Gershom, thus breaking with Midianite custom. With Moses incapacitated, however, she has no option but to perform the ritual the way she was familiar with. She takes the bloody foreskin and marks the child with it. Again, the word “Moses” isn’t in the Hebrew text of verse 25. Translators and commentators must therefore decide whether she is touching Moses or Gershom with the foreskin. It seems better to assume that touching the child was part of the Midianite ritual. As Douglas Stuart notes: Zipporah touched the foreskin of Gershom to Gershom’s genitals from which it had been removed. “Feet” is one of the Hebrew euphemisms for genitals. She thus had physically circumcised Gershom, then immediately she symbolically used the removed foreskin to touch Gershom’s genitals and said the “right words.” The ESV then has Zipporah saying, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!” (Ex. 4:25). However, the word translated as “bridegroom” equally means “kinsman.” Whether you translate it as “bridegroom” or “kinsman” is determined entirely by whether you believe she’s touching the foreskin to Moses or Gershom. It seems more likely that touching the young male with the foreskin made sense in the Midianite ritual. It was a way of saying: “By this blood and through this ritual you join and extend the family.” God accepts the use of these words as an indication that the act was done in faith and obedience—and the story proceeds on from there. Two Practical Takeaways If our reconstruction is correct, then two lessons are suggested by the narrative. 1. Leadership Begins at Home Moses, God’s chosen leader, had thus far declined to follow God’s instructions regarding circumcision. Keil and Delitzsche remark, “But if Moses was to carry out the divine commission with success, he must first of all prove himself to be a faithful servant of Jehovah in his own house.” If you’re going to step out as a leader of God’s people then you’d better be leading your own family. Get yourself sorted out, and get your wife and yourself on the same page, before you attempt to function as any kind of leader or officer in the Lord’s house. We see the same thing in the New Testament. Regarding the qualifications for a church elder, the apostle Paul says, “He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?” (1 Tim. 3:4–5). If a man isn’t leading his own house in the Lord’s ways, then he isn’t qualified to lead the congregation. This doesn’t mean perfection, but it does mean effort, courage, and attention to basics within the home. 2. Faith Makes an Ordinance Effectual Zipporah used words and actions more associated with Midianite practices than with Hebrew when it came to the circumcision of her son. She had limited options given the urgency of the situation and the incapacitation of her husband. Nevertheless, God accepted her version of the ritual because it was done in humility and faith. The same sentiment appears in the New Testament with respect to the sacrament of baptism. Commenting on the analogous relationship between our salvation and the salvation affected for and through Noah, Peter states that it’s not the mere ritual of baptism that saves us, but rather “an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21). If the act of baptism represents our appeal in faith to God for justification and absolution through the work of Jesus Christ, then it is effective. Not because we say magic words, and not because we use magic water, but because the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is itself powerful and effectual unto salvation. Of course that doesn’t mean we should be sloppy in our practice of the ordinances. Zipporah wasn’t sloppy; she was ignorant. And ignorance, if it be paired with faith, is typically met with mercy. Thanks be to God!

Tuesday, April 29, 2025

Brilliant reconstruction of the Tabernacle in the wilderness

Stephanie Solberg has written beautifully on the tabernacle as a type of Jesus Christ: https://makinghimknown.tv/the-tabernacle-as-a-type-of-christ-part-1/ “I am a truth seeker by nature. My passion is studying God's Word and sharing His Truth with others”. The Tabernacle as a Picture of Christ: Part 1 – The Outer Court Introduction – The Tabernacle as a Foreshadowing of Christ What if I told you that the Tabernacle was more than an ancient place of worship but that its very design and function were meant to point us to Christ? In this two-part series, we will examine the Tabernacle closely and how every detail foreshadows Jesus. In Part 1, we will explore the outer court—from the gate to the brazen laver. Next, in Part 2, we will step into the inner court and uncover even more meaningful connections to Christ. God instructed Moses precisely on how to design the Tabernacle because because it was both a copy and shadow of God’s sanctuary in Heaven (Hebrews 8:5). But He also intended everything in the Tabernacle to foreshadow Christ. God has always desired a relationship with us. The Tabernacle was part of His plan to be with us. After the fall of man but before Jesus, God dwelt in the Tabernacle, then the Temple. After Jesus’ death, we became God’s ” tabernacle.” Later, when we are in heaven, God will dwell with us face to face, as in the Garden of Eden (Revelation 21:3). Jesus fulfilled God’s purpose for the Tabernacle – He is God with us (Matthew 1:23). The Tabernacle and all that was in it is a beautiful picture of Christ. Each piece of the Tabernacle represents a truth about our Messiah that will draw us closer to Him. The Tabernacle’s Structure – The Outer Court and the Inner Court (Exodus 26:33-34) God designed the Tabernacle as two parts: the outer court and the inner court. The outer court was open to all Israelites. It had one gate, an altar, and a laver. The inner court had two sections, divided by a veil: the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies. Only priests could enter the Holy Place, and only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies. The Outer Court – A Place of Preparation In Part 1, we focus on the outer court, where people prepare to meet with God. The Gate – The Only Way In (Exodus 27:16-19, John 10:9, John 14:6) The Gate of The Tabernacle There was only one entrance into the Tabernacle, a gate (Exodus 27:9-19) which faced East, the same direction as the entrance into the Garden of Eden, God’s first dwelling place with man. Anyone seeking God’s presence could enter the gate into the courtyard. Jesus, the Only Way As there was only one way into the Tabernacle, there is only one way to God: through Jesus (John 14:6). He is the gate. Jesus tells us: “I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved” (John 10:9). “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6) All are welcome through the Son! The Brazen Altar – A Symbol of Sacrifice (Exodus 27:1-8, Romans 12:1) The Altar and the Burnt Offering After entering the Tabernacle gate with their sacrifice, a person would first encounter the altar (Exodus 27:1-8). The fire on the altar never went out; it was continually burning. At the altar, the priests offered the sacrifice as a burnt offering, which would be entirely consumed by fire. There, the blood of the sacrifice was shed to forgive sins. Jesus, the Perfect Sacrifice The altar foreshadows the Cross and the once and for all sacrifice that Christ would make on the altar of the Cross for the forgiveness of our sins. At the altar of the Cross, we also lay down our old life and our disobedient will. Just like the fire consumed the sacrifice, we must let God consume us. “Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship” (Romans 12:1). The Brazen Laver – Cleansing Through the Word (Exodus 30:17-21, Ephesians 5:26, Hebrews 10:22) The Priests and the Laver The next thing a person would encounter after the brazen altar was the brazen laver, a sizeable water-filled basin crafted from the women’s bronze mirrors. The priests washed their hands and feet at the laver before entering the Holy Place (Exodus 30:17-21) The Word of God and Spiritual Cleansing The laver is more than just a basin; it represents the Word of God. It is like a mirror showing us our true selves. “For the word of God is living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, even penetrating as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12). The Word is also like water that washes and cleanses us (John 15:3). Jesus is the Word of God made flesh (John 1:1, John 1:14). He died to make us clean and lives to sanctify us. “to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word” (Ephesians 5:26). “Draw near [to God] with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water” (Hebrews 10:22). Conclusion – Jesus, Our Tabernacle Jesus is the gate to the Father’s house. All are welcome at the altar of the cross. He is our perfect sacrifice, the only one we will ever need. When we come to Jesus, we are washed by the Word of God. We are made clean. But what lies beyond the outer court? In Part 2, we will step into the inner court, where only priests could enter. We’ll explore the Holy Place, the veil, and the Holy of Holies – each revealing even more about Christ’s role as our High Priest. Flavio Barbiero and his brother Claudio, who worked with professor Emmanuel Anati in the Negev, around (Mount) Har Karkom, have brilliantly reconstructed the ancient Hebrew Tabernacle from the very ground upon which it stood. This verifies the veracity of the biblical account about the Tabernacle, and it also assures that the region of Har Karkom is where the Exodus Israelites had dwelt. Flavio Barbiero writes (pp. 55-63): THE CAVE OF TREASURES ON MOUNT HOREB (1) THE CAVE OF TREASURES ON MOUNT HOREB [I, Damien Mackey, cannot reproduce some of Flavio Barbiero’s illustrations] …. The Tabernacle …. One day, Moses came down from the sacred mountain with good news: the Lord had asked that a sanctuary be built for him, a mobile tent in which he could reside and follow his favourite people in all their movements: "This is the thing which the Lord commanded: take ye from among you an offering unto the Lor: whoever is of a willing heart, let him bring it, an offering on the Lord; gold, and silver, and brass, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats’ hair, and rams’ skins died red, and badgers’ skins, and shittim wood, and oil for the light, and spices for anointing oil, and for the sweet incense, and onix stones to be set for the ephod and the breastplate. And every wise hearted Among you shall come, and make all that the Lord hath commanded; the tabernacle, his tent, and his covering, his taches and his boards, his bars, his pillars, and his sockets, the ark and the staves thereof, with mercy seat and the veil of the covering, the table and the staves, and all his vessels, and the shewbread, the candlestick also for the light, and the incense altar, and his staves, and the anointing oil, and the sweet incense, and the hanging for the door at the entering in of the tabernacle, the altar of 55 the burnt offering, with his brasen grate, his staves and all his vessels, the laver and his foot, the hangings of the court, his pilar, and their sockets, and the hanging for the door of the court, the ins of the tabernacle, and pins of the court, and their cords, the clothes of service, to do service in the holy place, the holy garments for Aaron the priest, and the garments of his sons, to minister the priest’s office." (Exodus 35,4 - 35) Thus begins one of the most detailed and elaborate accounts of the entire book of Exodus: the construction of what the Hebrew text calls "miqdas", i.e. holy or sanctuary, and "Mishkan", dwelling. These terms are variously translated as Tabernacle, Tent of Meeting, Tent of Assembly, Sanctuary, and Dwelling in the desert. Many terms to indicate what was a real mobile temple. The temple-tent had exceptional importance in the history of Israel. The entire people worked for eight months on the realisation of the project and used all their technical resources and all the materials brought from Egypt for this purpose to do something truly grandiose, worthy of a people who aspired to conquer their territorial state. It was a great effort, but around that temple, the tribes of Israel acquired awareness of their identity and strength and found the determination and energy to conquer Palestine. In short, it was thanks to the tent temple that the tribes of Israel became a nation, and the Mosaic law became a religion. I was impressed by the importance given by the biblical text to this extraordinary artefact, but I was above all struck by the accuracy with which all its components are described, reporting their dimensions and function with precision, to the point of making it irresistible for me, an engineer, the temptation of making a model of it. …. I made each single piece on a scale of 1 cubit = 1 cm and then assembled everything, following the instructions provided by the text. The result was the model shown in the following figure: …. 56 Figure 21 - Original reconstruction of the tent temple made based on data provided by Exodus. (Plan published in the author's book "The Bible without Secrets", Rusconi 1988) A large tent of 50 x 100 cubits, sustained by 48 supports, with a courtyard in front of equal size, divided into two parts; the first of 50 x 15 cubits, where the altar of the burning offerings and the basin for sacred ablutions were positioned, the second, of 50 x 85 cubits, where the people could attend the sacrifices. Everything fitted perfectly with the description, was technically flawless, and correctly accounted for every single piece described. In short, I did not doubt that this reconstruction was correct, except for a few details that do not appear in the text, like the exact arrangement of the supports, the precise positioning of the objects inside, and so on.26 … Figure 22 – The model in scale 1 cubit = 1 cm of the temple-tent of Moses, built by the author by assembling the individual components described in Exodus. The model gave the idea of a temple worthy of a great God, as was precisely Moses' intention. It was very different from the models proposed by classical exegesis, of which countless examples can be found online and in literature, representing it as a strange construction of 10 x 30 cubits inside an enclosure of 50 x 100 cubits. I was sure that my reconstruction was correct, also because I had discovered that the models proposed by traditional exegesis all originate from an inaccurate reconstruction by Flavius Josephus 27, who heavily forces the biblical text to obtain a 1 to 2 scale model of Solomon's temple. The gold, silver and textiles procured in Egypt were used to build and embellish the temple-tent. The 48 supports were covered with gold, as well as the four columns that supported the "veil" and the five columns at the entrance, and all of them were placed on silver bases. The bases of the 60 columns delimiting the courtyard, instead, were made of copper. The altar of sacrifices was also covered with copper, as well as the basin for ablutions. The Ark of the Covenant was covered in gold, as well as the table of the loaves and the altar of incense, while the seven branched candlestick was made of solid gold. In short, a real treasure, even if the total weight was ten times less than what a certain tradition would like to credit.28 When the Jews left the mountain, they took the temple with them to Palestine. But such an artefact, erected on a terrain like that of Har Karkom, must necessarily have left a clear imprint. I had to look for the imprint of the Tabernacle rather than the treasure of the Jews to be sure that this was the right place for our search. The imprint of the tabernacle29 The hammada30 preserves unchanged the imprint of every tent that has been erected there in the last tens of thousands of years. If Har Karkom is really the place where Moses led the Jews and if the biblical account really has historical content, then necessarily the imprint of the Tabernacle as described by Exodus had to be found there. This assumption has guided my brother Claudio and my research since our first arrival in the valley. According to Ex. 33, 7, the Tabernacle had been erected "out of the camp, away from it." In addition, it had to be close to the water, not far from the only well in the valley, Beer Karkom. Figure 23 - The print of the Tabernacle at Beer Karkom The area in which to concentrate the research, therefore, was rather narrow, and the results were immediate. It was enough to climb a hill near the well to identify, on the edge of the wadi, the imprint of the tabernacle, clear and unmistakable. My brother and I outlined the print with a plastic ribbon, following the plan of construction of the temple-tent obtained from Exodus. The match turned out to be perfect. The centre of the tabernacle, on the back, was marked by a small pile of stones. The alignments of the supporting stanchions show up clearly; the Holy and the Holy of Holiest were perfectly squared and cleaned of stones, as well as the courtyard in front, in the centre of which there was a stone about twenty centimetres high, that was put next to the altar of sacrifices to allow priests to easily access the grill. Even the passages most frequented by the priests were evident because they had been cleaned of the stones that had been moved to the sides and at the back of the Holy of Holies. The position and the size of each object, from the brazier to the basin of ablutions, the table of the loaves and the altar of incense, was marked by pebbles that had been placed around them. The menorah, instead, was placed on a large boulder in the centre of the left nave (shoulders to the entrance), in front of a gap in the row of supporting stanchions. At the same height, there was also a gap in the opposite row of stanchions that delimited the right nave, with the table of loaves positioned in its centre. At dawn and dusk, the plastic ribbon shone, tracing the plan of the Tabernacle on the ground with light. It was a fantastic, almost magical vision: an artifact erected in that same place more than 3,000 years ago was resurrected before our eyes. It was an indescribable emotion. Those lines had been traced on the ground by Moses himself, and in that rectangle of light, the destiny of all mankind had been changed. Figure 244 - Reconstruction of the Tabernacle on the original imprint …. Figure 255 - A ribbon stretched along the alignments of the imprint outlines the exact plan of the tabernacle Thanks to the imprint on the ground we were able to reconstruct the Tabernacle in its true dimensions and shape, exactly as and where it was erected by Moses for the first time. Therefore, I could correct the minor errors inevitably committed during my first reconstruction (Fig. 21). …. Figure 26 - Exact plan of the temple-tent of Moses obtained from the imprint left in the place where it was first erected, near Beer Karkom From the imprint, the measurements of the tabernacle could be established with an error of a few centimetres, which allowed us to determine the value of Moses' cubit precisely". The imprint gave the following measurements for the tabernacle: a width of 14.6 metres and a length of about 29 meters. The inner courtyard was about 4.5 meters long and 14.5 meters wide. According to the account of Exodus, the Tabernacle was 50 cubits wide and 100 long, so Moses used a cubit of about 29.2 cm in size. The length of the supporting stanchions, and consequently the height of the tabernacle, was thus about 2.9 meters. The size of all objects in the temple, from the Ark to the altar of sacrifices, is also scaled down accordingly. The following day we took Prof Anati to the hill from which the plan traced by the light of the rising sun could be seen, explaining to him what it was. He took some photographs, and then he made a single comment: "It looks like a UFO." Anati obviously knew those imprints well but, due to their square shape, he had classified them as "prints of Roman military tents." We never knew what he meant, but we felt we had achieved a significant result for our research. The print's position, shape and other characteristics were such that there could be no doubt that it had been left precisely by the tent described with such detail and accuracy in Exodus, that is, by the Tabernacle of Moses. The probability of a casual coincidence was practically nil. It finally gave us certainty on two fundamental points: 1.- that the Exodus account is based on actual facts and is reliable 2.- that the Karkom valley is precisely where the events narrated by Exodus took place, and therefore, the sacred mountain of Moses had to be located in the valley itself.

Thursday, April 17, 2025

Kenneth L. Gentry’s new book on the Apocalypse

“A number of people have asked for my assessment of Dr. Ken Gentry's long-awaited, almost-2000-page commentary on the book of Revelation. I consider Dr. Gentry an ally, and enjoyed reading this commentary (yes, all almost-2000 pages). My overall assessment is that Gentry makes some major advancements to Revelation studies in his research on the book, and that this is the best commentary on Revelation written so far. But I also believe it misses the mark in several critical areas …”. Phillip G. Kayser Divorce of Israel, The The Divorce of Israel presents a “redemptive-historical” approach to Revelation. In it John presents a forensic drama wherein God is divorcing his old covenant wife Israel so that he can take a new wife, the new covenant “Israel of God” composed of Jew and Gentile alike. Thus, Revelation presents the vitally important redemptive-historical transition from the land-based, ethnically focused, temple-dominated old covenant economy to its worldwide, pan-ethnic, spiritual new covenant fulfillment. And it does so by highlighting God’s judgment upon first-century geo-political Israel. Hardcover Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D. April 23, 2024 A Review of Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry ' s New Commentary, The Divorce of Israel: A Redemptive-Historical Interpretation of Revelation Phillip G. Kayser, PhD - August 15, 2024 info@biblicalblueprints.com Biblicalblueprints.com A number of people have asked for my assessment of Dr. Ken Gentry's long-awaited, almost-2000-page commentary on the book of Revelation. I consider Dr. Gentry an ally, and enjoyed reading this commentary (yes, all almost-2000 pages). My overall assessment is that Gentry makes some major advancements to Revelation studies in his research on the book, and that this is the best commentary on Revelation written so far. But I also believe it misses the mark in several critical areas, including: • The main message of the book • The structure of the book • The practical value and application of the book A lot is at stake when it comes to understanding Revelation rightly or wrongly — our doctrine of Scripture and prophecy; whether we walk in fear or confidence about the future; whether we make use of Revelation's amazing amount of practical guidance on civics, economics, personal holiness, spiritual warfare, and a host of other issues. I believe the right understanding of this book unlocks incredible hope, missionality, and confidence in responding to persecution and tyranny. Revelation, understood rightly, is a practical manual on occupying and overcoming in crazy times; truly a book for our times. I have been studying Revelation for most of my adult life; Dr. Gentry's commentary is the 114th full-length commentary I have studied. I have also read several hundred studies that bring light to the interpretation of Revelation, including extensive exegetical studies and very recent discoveries in archaeology, seismology, meteorology, meteoritics, ancient astrology, Jewish idolatry, ancient iconography and other studies that open up the book in a whole new way (many of which studies were apparently not available when Dr. Gentry wrote his commentary). The main message of the book The structure of the book The practical value and application of the book (For those of you wondering about my general theological training, I have an M.Div from Westminster Seminary California, and a PhD from Whitefield Theological Seminary, and am a mentor for Masters level and Doctoral level dissertations in theology.) …. Dr. Gentry and I have similar approaches to the book of Revelation, so I was reading Gentry with friendly eyes and with a receptive spirit to be corrected in my thinking at every point. Indeed, I was hoping that Dr. Gentry's commentary would be the last one needed and that I would not need to finish my layman's commentary and academic commentary on the book. We are still in the infancy of Revelation studies, and the more we can challenge each other as "iron sharpening iron" (Prov. 27:17), the more advancements we will see in our understanding of this book. I am writing this review in that spirit of wanting to keep advancing such studies. I always welcome exegetical challenges to my own conclusions. The text should always dictate the system, not vice versa. Dr. Gentry has promised to follow this commentary up with a layman's edition, and I am hoping he will benefit from the critique below and strengthen his conclusions in his next work. First, the strong points. What I Really Like About This Commentary It's extremely well researched and interacts extensively and fairly with other views Though even more could be said for the contributions and strengths of some eschatological positions than Gentry says, [1] I appreciate that he presents the strengths and weaknesses of all of the other eschatological approaches to Revelation very fairly. Gentry graciously interacts with many eschatological viewpoints (even very obscure ones) and does a good job of dealing with most of their credible arguments. He outlines the options, systematically eliminates the options he disagrees with by presenting detailed exegetical reasons why (in his opinion) they will not work, and then presents his own opinion with strong exegetical proofs. It is a solid enough commentary that academics of all eschatological persuasions will likely need to interact with Gentry's arguments, if for no other reason than to answer his critiques of their positions. It's based on a solid hermeneutical approach • Gentry does a masterful job of showing the Redemptive-historical nature of this book, the Hebraic nature of the book, and Revelation's extensive use of the Old Testament. With regard to John's use of the Old Testament, Gentry approvingly quotes McKelvey saying, "when reading the book of Revelation, one is plunged fully into the atmosphere of the Old Testament. No book of the New Testament is as saturated with the Old as in the Apocalypse" (p. 120). The extensive way that Gentry demonstrates John's uses of earlier books of the Bible makes this commentary well worth owning. Even those who strongly disagree with Gentry's particular brand of partial preterism[2] will benefit from those discussions. • I was pleased to see that Dr. Gentry avoided the interpretive maximalism that marred David Chilton's approach to Revelation. • I was also very pleased that (for the most part) Gentry avoids the kind of dependence on Jewish non-canonical apocalyptic literature that so many commentators have. For the most part, he simply interprets Scripture with Scripture. For example, he denies that Revelation is "steeped in Jewish apocalyptic literature" (p. 119) and correctly states that "When we detect apparent parallels between Revelation and apocalyptic literature, the parallel is due to the common ideological ancestor, the Old Testament" (p. 125). He later states that "the source of Revelation's bold imagery is not first-century Jewish apocalyptic, but Old Testament era canonical apocalyptic prophecy" (p. 184). Though Gentry for the most part stays consistent with this solid hermeneutical approach, I found him to occasionally deviate from this stance. [3] It is my contention that Revelation is not apocalyptic literature at all, but prophetic literature in the genre of Old Testament prophecies. When closely examined, the two genres are quite different. Because of the confusion that can result from the different definitions of "apocalyptic literature," I prefer to avoid the term "apocalyptic" altogether. But Gentry is certainly within mainstream thought when he uses the term. In contrast to Gnostic apocalyptic literature, the images found in Biblical prophecies are grounded in actual, literal, historically verifiable events — a fact that Gentry from time to time notes. It's solid on authorship His arguments for the Apostle John being the author are spot-on, and he deals well with all the objections. I highly recommend his argumentation on this subject. It's solid on dating and immanence clues Another strength of the book is that it insists that there must be an imminent fulfillment (or at least a partial fulfillment) of all the major sections of Revelation [4] since John insists that these speak about events that are "soon," "near," or "about to happen" (v. 1i; cf. 1:3,7,19; 2:5,10,16; 3:10,11; 6:11; 11:14; 22:6,7,10,12,20). …. Gentry dates the composition of the book of Revelation to somewhere between AD 65 and 66, a position that I also hold. This makes his constant refrain of "imminent fulfillment" much more credible than the distant historical "fulfillments" proposed by the bulk of historicist and futurist commentaries. While I believe he pushes the imminence of fulfillment way too far by overapplying almost the entire book to AD 66-70 (see my critique below), any other approach will have to deal with his numerous arguments that the repeated phrases, "soon" and "the time is at hand," are literally true. It's open to the symbols being literal historical events I appreciate the fact that Gentry repeatedly insists most of the symbols [5] in the book also likely took place in a literal way in history. On page 874 he rightly notes: Nevertheless, Barr (1998: 199) is surely wrong to assert that 'everything in this story is symbolic.' Not everything in it is symbolic, for if it were we would not be able to understand it at all. Symbolic images require a point of contact with literal realities for them to convey meaning, and John certainly intends to convey meaning to his audience (1:3). (p. 874) On page 708 he says, "A symbolic sum does not demand a symbolic people, whereas a symbolic sum can apply to a literal people." With regard to a prophesied famine, he says, "the symbolic nature of Revelation does not prohibit all literalism" (p. 756). Gentry sadly misses the documentation for many of the literal fulfillments because his chronology is messed up (by over-applying virtually everything to AD 66-70. More on this later.). In those situations he has to go to great lengths to explain why a literal fulfillment is unnecessary and impossible, even though there are many historical, seismological, meteoritic, and other proofs that the "impossible" actually did happen in history. In Gentry's defense, much of this evidence has been rediscovered in the years since he finished his commentary. (As I understand it, most of his writing was finished in September 2005, and about six years ago Dr. Gentry handed his work to Jay Culotta, to do final editing and layout. Sadly, Jay died with the password to his computer unknown to anyone else. This meant that everything Jay had done needed to be redone.) But even though he misses the literal fulfillment of numerous prophecies, he is at least usually correct on the symbolic import of the prophecies. Overall, I appreciate his openness to a literal fulfillment of many prophecies that might appear to be hyperbolic. And his exegetical uncovering of what was symbolized is usually correct and helpful. It's strong on the meaning of γῆς To understand where the action happens in the book of Revelation, you have to interpret γῆς well. γῆς is usually translated as "earth" in most translations, but Gentry recognizes that in Revelation it's usually better translated as "land," and refers specifically to Israel. He rightly sees "all tribes of the land" as being a reference to the tribes of Israel (in light of the quote from Zech. 12:10-14). The whole book makes more sense when you read the word γῆς/γῆ this way. However, as will be seen below, Gentry fails to see that many of Revelation's prophecies are spoken against Gentile nations (including Rome). [6] As a result, his interpretation does not adequately show how Revelation's judgments establish a pattern for Christ's redemptive judgments against Gentile nations throughout New Covenant history. It's beautifully laid out and printed and a pleasure to read This two volume set (consisting of 1764 pages of commentary, 98 pages of bibliography — one of the best bibliographies out there — and 106 pages of index: a total of 1968 pages!) is beautifully laid out. The two volumes have a Smyth Sewn binding, which will not only make the book last a lifetime, but will also make it a pleasure to read. Moreover, despite its length (and the depth of the academic research), this is a very readable commentary. Dr. Gentry writes in accessible language even when dealing with difficult concepts. He even occasionally throws in a bit of dry humor. I found it a pleasure to read. The Weak Points of this Commentary I will not take the time to list all of the areas of disagreement that I have with Dr. Gentry, but the following will show why I consider the commentary to be majorly marred. Complete fail on the structure of the book First, Gentry admits that he doesn't know the exact structure of the book. Of course, he insists that no one else has managed to come up with an adequate structure either (pp. 170-173). So he chose to avoid structural controversies altogether. He says: In light of all the apparently insoluble difficulties in discerning Revelation's structure, I will not attempt a formal, detailed outline. Basically, I will proceed through Revelation verse-byverse, noting significant structural questions as they arise. Thus, as I follow the order of Revelation's text, I will employ only the most basic framework structured around John's four "in Spirit" (en pneumati) experiences (1:10; 4:2; 17:3; 21:10), three of which are closely aligned with the visionary "come and see" commands (4:1; 17:1; 21:9). (pp. 173-174) Why does this matter? I believe the structure is critical to understanding Revelation since the structure of a Biblical book always influences the interpretation of that book, and Revelation's structure in particular provides interpretive clues to many of the trickiest parts of the book, and reveals the main message of the book. …. [Etc.]

Friday, April 11, 2025

Hebrews envious of Moses may have turned him in to Pharaoh

by Damien F. Mackey “Moses thought that his own people would realize that God was using him to rescue them, but they did not” (Acts 7:25). Moses, like the patriarch Joseph, was a man of destiny. He had been specially selected by the Lord to lead his people, the Hebrews, out of the “iron furnace” that was Egypt, away from a cruel slavery enforced by hard-hearted Pharaohs, into the Promised Land of freedom and abundance. In this Moses resembles Jesus Christ, who was sent by Almighty God, his Father, to save souls from the fiery iron furnace of Hell, from a cruel slavery driven by demons, to open the gates of Heaven for perfect, everlasting freedom. Like with Egypt, ‘Heaven had been shut, with no one to open it, Hell had been opened, with no one to close it’. Moses would be the agent for freedom from slavery in Egypt. Jesus Christ would be the Key to unlocking the Gates of Heaven. But, just as Jesus ‘came to his own people and his people received him not’ (John 1:11), so would Moses immediately encounter obstacles from his fellow Hebrews. And this would persist for the remainder of his life, for, as Moses would harshly learn, ‘it may be possible to take the Israelites out of the heart of Egypt, but it was well-nigh impossible to take Egypt out of the hearts of the Israelites’. Moses, who edited (not wrote) the Book of Genesis, must have realised that the time told to Abram (Abraham) about the length of sojourn in Egypt was coming to an end (Genesis 15:13): “And [God] said unto Abram, ‘Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years’.” While some take this as meaning a 400-year servitude in Egypt, the most astute (my estimation) biblical chronologists would split this figure between (the Patriarchs in) Canaan and only 215 years in Egypt. And Moses must have realised, too, that he was the one best fitted to deliver this - himself a Hebrew, of the priestly Israelite family of Levi, who had even served for a time as pharaoh (as Djedefre-hor-ptah/Userkare) before abdicating in disgust of the royal crown (cf. Esther 4:17), had successfully led Egypt’s armies, and was proficient in all Egyptian learning and protocol. Moses knew how to converse with Pharaohs. Moses must have thought that the time had now come when he had courageously intervened to protect a fellow-Hebrew who was being beaten by an Egyptian overseer, and he killed the Egyptian (Exodus 2:11-12). The trouble was, the Hebrews were at war amongst themselves (v. 13): “The next day he went out and saw two Hebrews fighting. He asked the one in the wrong, ‘Why are you hitting your fellow Hebrew?’” “Moses thought that his own people would realize that God was using him to rescue them, but they did not” (Acts 7:25). The fact was that the 40-year old Moses himself was not yet ready for this onerous task. He would need yet another 40 years for a spiritual detoxification, to become de-Egyptianised. Jannes and Mambres/ Dathan and Abiram Some Jewish legends can be mighty helpful, such as the one providing the information that the two squabbling Hebrews, un-named in Exodus 2:13, were the contentious Reubenite brothers, Dathan and Abiram. Their ancestor Reuben, the oldest of Jacob’s many sons, had been the only one who had not wished for Joseph to be killed (Genesis 37:21-22, 29-30). His descendants, Dathan and Abiram, though, were, like certain others, extremely envious of Moses. Instead of showing any sort of gratitude to this “… very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth” (Numbers 12:3), the Reubenite pair steadfastly resisted Moses. Even after the Exodus. Perhaps they, too, like Moses, had been officials of some repute in Egypt. Dathan and Abiram, as Reubenites, offspring of Jacob’s oldest son, may perhaps have aspired to leadership - according to what I read recently - rather than this Levite priest, Moses. Whatever the cause of their underlying resentment, one of them barked back at Moses (Exodus 2:14): “‘Who made you ruler and judge over us? Are you thinking of killing me as you killed the Egyptian?’ Then Moses was afraid and thought, ‘What I did must have become known’.” Exodus 2:15: “When Pharaoh heard of this, he tried to kill Moses, but Moses fled from Pharaoh and went to live in Midian, where he sat down by a well”. We are going to read that Dathan and Abiram themselves had notified Pharaoh. Surely, the troublesome pair, Dathan and Abiram, must be the two to whom Saint Paul will refer, poorly transliterated, as “Jannes and Jambres [Mambres]” (2 Timothy 3:8): “Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith”. They will become a complete thorn in Moses’s side right until their terrible demise. While these two pairs of names, Dathan-Abiram/Jannes Jambres, do not square up very well, some names in the Bible can be slaughtered when transliterated. To give another instance, the Assyrian king, Sennacherib, was slain by two of his sons while he was worshiping the god Nisroch (2 Kings 19:37) (some hopefully think that this was a piece of Noah’s Ark). The actual god that Sennacherib was worshipping, the god of light and fire, was Nusku (Mercury as the evening star?), badly transliterated in 2 Kings as “Nisroch”. The tendency, a natural one, is to suspect that the two characters to whom St. Paul referred were Egyptians (e.g., magicians) who had ‘resisted Moses to his face’ when Moses was back in the land of Egypt. I, in the course of my attempts over the years to set Moses in an historical Egyptian dynastic setting, have generally tried to take into account “Jannes and Jambres” as Moses’s contemporaries. But to identify them had turned out to be far from an easy task. Were Jannes and Jambres, as according to long-standing tradition, Egyptian magicians, a pair of brothers? Or were they themselves actual rulers of Egypt? The latter was the conclusion to which I had initially come, that Jannes and Jambres must have been separate Egyptian kings, both of whom had been inimical to Moses. Jannes In my revised context, Unas (Manetho’s Onnus, Jaumos, Onos), who fitted into my scheme as an alter ego of Moses’ foster/father-in-law, Chenephres (= Chephren, Neferkare/Pepi, Sesostris), and who appropriately was a magician king: “It was Unas who created the practice of listing some magic spells on the walls of the tomb” (https://www.ask-aladdin.com/egypt-pharaohs/unas/), had a name that accorded very well linguistically with Jannes. This has often been pointed out. Jambres (Mambres) This name it seemed to me, as Mambres, had something more of an Egyptian ring to it, say e.g., Ma-ib-re. By now I was locked in to thinking that Mambres, too, must have been a ruler of Egypt, and the most likely candidate for him - a standout, I thought - was the “stiff-necked” king who had refused to let the people of Israel go away from Egypt. He “opposed” (Gk. antestēsan) Moses and Aaron even in the face of the Ten Plagues. That scenario meant that I now must identify an Egyptian ruler of the Plagues and Exodus who had one of his names resembling Mambres (or Jambres). That, I then thought, had to be Maibre Sheshi of the Fourteenth Dynasty. Jannes and Jambres identified This pair I now consider, however, to have been actual Israelite (Hebrew) personages, who had opposed Moses even in Egypt, and who would continue to oppose him most bitterly during the Exodus. “Then Moses summoned Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab. But they said, ‘We will not come! Isn’t it enough that you have brought us up out of a land flowing with milk and honey to kill us in the wilderness? And now you also want to lord it over us! Moreover, you haven’t brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey or given us an inheritance of fields and vineyards. Do you want to treat these men like slaves No, we will not come!’” Numbers 16:12-14 Dathan and Abiram, two Reubenite brothers, were the pair, “Jannes and Jambres” of whom Paul wrote so disparagingly in 2 Timothy 3:8. Nahum Sarna well describes the troublesome pair in his article, “Dathan and Abiram”, for: https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/dathan-and-abiram DATHAN AND ABIRAM (Heb. דָּתָן, cf. Akk. datnu, "strong"; and Heb. אֲבִירָם, "my [or 'the'] father is exalted"), sons of Eliab of the tribe of Reuben, leaders of a revolt against the leadership of Moses (Num. 16; 26:9–11). According to these sources, they joined the rebellion of *Korah during the desert wanderings. Defying Moses' summons, they accused him of having brought the Israelites out of the fertile land of Egypt in order to let them die in the wilderness (16:12–14). Moses then went to the tents of Dathan and Abiram and persuaded the rest of the community to dissociate themselves from them. Thereafter, the earth opened and swallowed the rebels, their families, and property (16:25–33). Apparently Dathan and Abiram had ‘form’, going back to their days in Egypt, they being traditionally “… identified with the two quarreling Israelites (Ex. R. 1:30) …”: In the Aggadah Dathan and Abiram are regarded as the prototype of inveterate fomenters of trouble. Their names are interpreted allegorically, Dathan denoting his violation of God's law, and Abiram his refusal to repent (Sanh. 109b). They were wholly wicked "from beginning to end" (Meg. 11a). They are identified with the two quarreling Israelites (Ex. R. 1:30) and it was they who caused Moses' flight from Egypt by denouncing him to Pharaoh for killing the Egyptian taskmaster, and revealing that he was not the son of Pharaoh's daughter (Yal., Ex. 167). They incited the people to return to Egypt (Ex. R. 1:29) both at the Red Sea and when the spies returned from Canaan (Mid. Ps. 106:5). They transgressed the commandment concerning the manna by keeping it overnight (Ex. R. 1:30). Dathan and Abiram became ringleaders of the rebellion under the influence of Korah, as a result of the camp of their tribe being next to that of Korah, and on this the rabbis base the statement "Woe to the wicked, woe to his neighbor" (Num. R. 18:5). When Moses humbly went to them in person in order to dissuade them from their evil designs, they were impertinent and insulting to him (mk 16a). In their statement to Moses, "we will not come up," they unconsciously prophesied their end, as they did not go up, but down to hell (Num. R. 18:10). …. Clearly, Dathan and Abiram had an inflated sense of their own self-importance. But, can these names, Dathan and Abiram, be merged with Jannes and Jambres? I think that perhaps they can – though not without difficulty. We read above that, in the Aggadah, the names Dathan and Abiram are interpreted allegorically. The other pair of names, Jannes and Jambres, can be rendered as “John and Ambrose”, according to R. Gedaliah (Shalsheleth Hakabala, fol. 7. 1): https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/2-timothy-3-8.html “It is commonly said by the Jews … that these were the two sons of Balaam, and they are said to be the chief of the magicians of Egypt … the latter of these is called in the Vulgate Latin version Mambres; and in some Jewish writers his name is Mamre … by whom also the former is called Jochane or John; and indeed Joannes, Jannes, and John, are the same name; and R. Gedaliah … says, that their names in other languages are John and Ambrose, which is not unlikely”. In this case, Dathan would better be rendered as Jathan, a contraction of Jonathan, hence Ἰωάννης (Iōannēs) in Greek. We can easily see the connection here with Jannes (Iōannēs). Ambrose, obviously not a Hebrew name: “The later Jews distorted the names into John and Ambrose” (https://biblehub.com/commentaries/2_timothy/3-8.htm), is a very good fit for Jambres. But less so a fit for Abiram. It first occurred to me on 18th December, 2019 that Jannes and Jambres may be identifiable with Dathan and Abiram. I had not, then, had time to read if, and where, others may have expressed this same idea. From the following, which rejects any such connection, it would appear that some have proposed that the two pairs might equate (“as some have thought”): https://biblehub.com/commentaries/2_timothy/3-8.htm …. These were not Jews, who rose up and opposed Moses, as Dathan and Abiram did, as some have thought; but Egyptian magicians, the chief of those that Pharaoh sent for, when Moses and Aaron came before him, and wrought miracles; and who did in like manner by their enchantments, Exodus 7:11 upon which place the Targum of Jonathan has these words: "… and Pharaoh called the wise men and the magicians; and Janis and Jambres, the magicians of the Egyptians, did so by the enchantments of their divinations.'' Moses forced to flee from Pharaoh Owing to his action of killing the Egyptian, Moses had had to flee Egypt from Pharaoh. It would not be the last time that he would have to do so (in the Exodus). But different Pharaohs were involved in each case. The Story of Sinuhe, which shares “a common matrix” with the Exodus account (professor Emmanuel Anati), rightly tells that the ruler from whom the hero fled was Sesostris. This Sesostris I have identified with “Chenephres”, the traditional husband of Moses’s Egyptian foster-mother, “Merris” (Meresankh). The coronation name that Sesostris took was, according to Nicolas Grimal (A History of Ancient Egypt, p. 164) Neferkare (“Beautiful is the Soul of Re”), which can be inverted as Kanefer[r]e (of the same meaning). From Egyptian Kanefer[r]e is derived the Greek “Chenephres”. By now our “Chenephres” is a golden thread linking Egyptian dynasties and kingdoms. Thus we have for this second Oppressor Pharaoh, after the “new king” in Exodus 1:8: Old Kingdom Fourth Dynasty: Khafre (Kanefer[r]e), Greek “Chephren”; Fifth Dynasty: (Unas), Neferirkare (Neferikare)”; Sixth Dynasty: Pepi (Neferkare)”; ‘Middle’ Kingdom Twelfth Dynasty: Sesostris (Neferkare)”; Thirteenth Dynasty: Sobekhotep so-called IV (Khanefer[r]e)”; According to the textbooks, from Chephren (c. 2500 BC) to Sobekhotep IV (c. 1800 BC), constituted a massive 700 years of ancient Egyptian history. But the life of Moses, radically re-defining Egyptian dynasties and kingdoms, has Chephren (Khafre) “Chenephres” and Sobekhotep (Khanefer[r]e) “Chenephres” as being just the one, same Pharaoh, at just the one point in history.