Thursday, November 20, 2025

An Astronomy that has meaning!

by Damien F. Mackey G. Mackinlay, following through Isaac Newton’s principle that the Jewish teachers frequently made figurative allusions to things that were actually present, suggested that “other allusions” unspecified by Newton, “such, for instance, as the comparison of the Baptist to the shining of the Morning Star”, must also indicate that the object of reference was present. Introduction As discussed previously, some laudable attempts have been made by scholars to identify the Nativity Star of the Magi. The complexity of such an enterprise is apparent from Frederick (“Rick”) A. Larson’s question: Could the star have been a meteorite; a comet; a supernova; a planet; or a new star? Whilst lawyer, Larson, will favour, for the Magi Star, the planet Jupiter, the two other scholars considered in my article: Solid attempts to interpret the biblical sky (3) Solid attempts to interpret the biblical sky | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Bruce Killian and G. Mackinlay, have opted for the planet Venus. Though Venus, again, will even play a rôle in Larson’s view of a bright conjunction with Jupiter. Frederick Larson is nothing if not thorough. He has picked up what he has called “The Nine Points of Christ’s Star” that he believes to be the key pieces in the puzzle of the sacred text, and he says he will not be satisfied with a final scenario that does not accommodate all nine of these. https://youtu.be/HIrwQJpD_OA Such is Larson’s thoroughness that even eight points for him will not suffice. His major difficulty will be with the fact that the Magi Star had stopped. But then it occurred to him that the planets, due to the optical phenomenon known as “retrograde motion”, actually appear to stop. Mars does a loop; Venus does a backflip; Jupiter inscribes a shallow circle. Important Chronological Notes While Larson has his Nine Points, I have interlaced previous articles on this subject with four Chronological Notes, the most relevant one here being this first one, on retrocalculation: * A very important comment on chronology (D. Mackey): Studies on the Star of the Magi and on other archaeoastronomical issues, with their retrocalculations of the night skies back into BC time, assume that our AD time is fixed, and that we actually live, today, a little over 2000 years after the Nativity of Jesus Christ. Not until revisionists like Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky came along were the standard BC calculations and ‘Dark Ages’ seriously questioned, and that has led to scholars today also rigorously testing AD time and its ‘Dark Ages’. See, e.g., Dr. Hans-Ulrich Niemitz: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/volatile/Niemitz-1997.pdf and Jan Beaufort’s summary: http://www.cybis.se/forfun/dendro/hollstein/hollstein0/beaufort/index.htm I, whilst not necessarily agreeing with all of what these writers have to say, think that there is enough in their theses, however, and that of those to whom they refer, to prompt one seriously to question the accuracy of the received AD dates. (I have since done this in various articles). Applying this note to Larson’s thesis, for instance, I have written: One of Larson’s nine points, his first in fact, has to do with this tricky subject of chronology. And this area of research may be his weak link, and may actually vitiate his whole argument. Larson has determined, based on an ancient version of the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, that the Birth of the Messiah had occurred in relation to the reign of Herod in 3-2 BC (***). *** A third chronological note This all becomes quite irrelevant, however, if I am correct in my view of Judas Maccabeus belonging to the approximate time of the Nativity of Jesus Christ …. Next I introduced: Bruce Killian, Venus The Star Of Bethlehem, whilst warmly praising Larson’s effort, has offered his own criticisms of Larson’s “The Star of Bethlehem” (2021): http://www.scripturescholar.com/VenusStarofBethlehem.pdf …. Fredrick Larson is a lawyer and does an excellent job of selling the wrong identification of the Star of Bethlehem. He identifies the Star of Bethlehem as Jupiter. He also notes that Jupiter is the largest of the planets, but that was unknown to the ancients who would see Venus as the most important because it was the brightest. He sees the king of the Jews identified in a month long shallow loop of Jupiter near Regulus the king star in the constellation of Leo. It does not “crown” this star but loops near it as it appears to loop like a Spiro graph drawing continuously in the sky. He then observed a close conjunction of Venus and Jupiter to indicate the conception of Jesus and he claims these two stars coming together was the brightest star anyone had ever seen. The problem is that Venus at its inferior conjunction is brighter than these two stars together. Finally he saw a link between the woman in Revelation 12 giving birth, but he fails to mention this happens each year and that it was not visible because it was during the day. He further presents the star guiding the magi to Bethlehem when they already knew that was where they were to go, but not identifying which of the many boys in Bethlehem was the newborn king. The stopping of Jupiter is when it reverses and goes into retrograde motion, but this point really does not even point to Bethlehem because when do you determine that this has occurred, visually you can’t, and when during the night? A miracle—many believe the star that guided the magi was simply a miracle. A light clearly called a star. Today we live at a time that planes fly over head all the time, God could have done this but why say a star guided them rather than an angel. It is clear from the information presented in this article that God was able from the foundation of the world to use the lights He set in the sky to guide the magi. I believe that most who hold this view do not recognize the special attributes of the planet Venus. These stars could be seen by all, but were faint, one would only see them if they were paying close attention. .... [End of quote] Bruce Killian would agree with Frederick Larson, though, about the Divine use of easy-to-read star tableaux. Regarding Killian’s hard BC dates (days and months), I added, recall my earlier warning about retrocalculations. George Mackinlay’s major contribution By far the most important contribution of the three, though, so I believe, is that of Lieutenant-Colonel G. Mackinlay, The Magi: How they recognized Christ's star (Hodder and Stoughton, 1907). He, too, had determined that the Star of Bethlehem was a planet, namely Venus in his case. He did not, back in his day, have the advantage of modern computer software, as has Larson, but was reliant on astronomical charts to put a date to the circumstances of Venus that he had determined had pertained to the chronology of Jesus Christ. Mackinlay - like Larson and others, relying heavily on the Scriptures - showed just how significant Venus was as “the morning star” and “the evening star”, and he quoted texts from the prophet Micah; including that fateful text without which King Herod (the Godfather of today’s abortionists) would never have condemned to death the children of Bethlehem. George Mackinlay also showed through Micah that the Baptist was symbolised as the morning star, heralding as it does the dawn (Christ). He was able to determine an internal chronology of Jesus Christ, and the Baptist, based on the periods of shining of the morning star, all this in connection with historical data, seasons and Jewish feasts. As said, the inherent weakness in such reconstructions as Larson’s, and even Mackinlay’s, is their presuming that the conventional dates for Herod and Jesus Christ are basically accurate - just as 539 BC is now wrongly presumed to be a certain date for King Cyrus of Persia - and that it is, therefore, simply a matter of finding an astronomical scenario within that conventional period and then being able to refine the dates using sophisticated modern scientific data. Happily, though, neither Larson’s nor Mackinlay’s scenario has that odd situation of the shepherds watching their sheep out in the open, in winter, that critics seem to latch on to every Christmas in order to ridicule St. Matthew’s account. Whilst I do not accept that Larson, Killian, or Mackinlay have managed, despite their valiant attempts, to identify the Magi Star, the contribution of Mackinlay on the chronological importance of the planet Venus I consider to be ground-breaking. Neither Killian’s nor Larson’s efforts - worthwhile though they assuredly are - can, I believe, match the coherent consistency of Lieutenant-Colonel G. Mackinlay’s model, that shows a Divine plan at work in every major phase of the life of Jesus Christ. Mackinlay was able to demonstrate how perfectly the eight year cycles of Venus wrap around the events of the life of Christ (who is also the “Sun of righteousness”), shining throughout the joyful occasions, but hidden during episodes of sadness and darkness. But not only does the Divine artist make use of the planet Venus in this regard. The Moon, too, in its various phases, and also the seasons (reflecting now abundance, now paucity), as Mackinlay has shown, also serve as chronological markers. Mackinlay’s harmonious theory has, to my way of thinking, the same sort of inherent consistency as has Florence and Kenneth Wood’s explanation, in Homer’s Secret ‘Iliad’ (http://www.amazon.com/Homers-Secret-Iliad-Night-Decoded/dp/0719557801), that the battles between the Greeks and Trojans as described in The Iliad mirror the movements of stars and constellations as they appear to fight for ascendancy in the sky. Since George Mackinlay’s thesis is far too detailed to do justice to it here, with all of its diagrams and detailed astronomical explanations always interwoven with the Scriptures, the interested reader is strongly advised to read the entire book. Mackinlay commences with the example of Saint John the Baptist and his association also with the morning star. (This symbolism has an Old Testament precedent, too, in Joseph’s astronomical dream, Genesis 37:9-10, according to which people are represented by heavenly bodies). Let us begin. Simile of St. John the Baptist to the Morning Star The figurative use of the morning star in reference to the Baptist is evident from the prophet Malachi’s description of the Christ’s forerunner: “My messenger, and he shall prepare the way before Me” (Malachi 3:1); because, as noted by Mackinlay (p. 39), “the same figure of speech is supported by Malachi 4:2, where the Christ is spoken of as the Sun of righteousness, who shall arise with healing in His wings”. That this definitely is the right association of scriptural ideas is shown by the reference made by Zechariah, the father of St. John the Baptist (Luke 1:76), to these two passages in the Old Testament. Thus, on the occasion of St. John’s circumcision, Zechariah prophesied of him: “You shall go before the face of the lord”, and, two verses later, he likens the coming of the Christ to “the Dayspring [or Sunrising] from on high”, which shall visit us. We note further that this same passage from Malachi, with reference to the Baptist, was quoted also by Mark the Evangelist (1:2); by the angel of the Lord who had appeared to Zechariah before his son’s birth (Luke 1:17); by the Baptist himself (John 3:28); by Jesus during his ministry (Matthew 11:10; Luke 7:27); and by the Apostle Paul at Antioch (Acts 13:24-25). These quotations are all the more remarkable because they were made at considerable intervals of time the one from the other. Jesus used the words more than three decades after they had been spoken to Zechariah by the angel, announcing that Christ’s forerunner would be born. And St. Paul referred to the very same passage in the Book of Malachi some fourteen years after Jesus had spoken them. St. John the Evangelist wrote of the Baptist: “The same came for a witness, that he might bear witness to the Light, that all might believe through him. He was not the Light, but came that he might bear witness to the Light” (John 1:7, 8). George Mackinlay, commenting on this passage (p. 41), says that “The Light par excellence is the Sun, and the Morning Star, which reflects its light, is not the light itself, but is a witness of the coming great luminary”. All four Evangelists record the Baptist as stating that the Christ would come after him: a statement in perfect harmony with the comparison of himself to the morning star (see e.g. Matthew 3:2; Mark 1:7; Luke 3:16 and John 1:15). On three memorable occasions St. John the Baptist preceded and also testified to Jesus: viz. some months before Jesus’s birth (Luke 1:41, 44); shortly before Jesus’s public ministry (Matthew 3:11); and by his violent death at the hands of Herod, about a year before the Crucifixion (Matthew 14:10). Alluding to the Baptist’s martyrdom, Jesus said: “Even so shall the Son of Man also suffer” (Matthew 17:12, 13). The figure of St. John the Baptist as the morning star is therefore a most appropriate one. Object of Reference Always Present George Mackinlay, following through Isaac Newton’s principle that the Jewish teachers frequently made figurative allusions to things that were actually present, suggested (p. 56) that “other allusions” unspecified by Newton, “such, for instance, as the comparison of the Baptist to the shining of the Morning Star”, must also indicate that the object of reference was present. “We may reasonably conclude”, he added, “that the planet was then to be seen in the early morning before sunrise”. Mackinlay realised that if Newton’s principle really worked in this instance, it would enable him to “find an indication of the dates of the ministries of Christ and of John, and consequently of the crucifixion”. Making use of calculations made by expert astronomers at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, Mackinlay, himself a professional observer, drew up a chart recording the periods when Venus appeared as the morning star for the period AD 23-36 – “a period which covers all possible limits for the beginning and ending of Christ’s ministry”. {One will need to refer to Mackinlay’s own chart reproducing the astronomical data that he had received. I have already listed various chronological precautions that I believe must seriously affect dating methods, including Mackinlay’s}. From Mackinlay’s diagram we learn that the morning star shines continuously on the average for about seven and a half lunar months at the end of each night, giving at least an hour’s notice of sunrise; but if we include the period when it is still visible, but gives shorter notice, the time of shining may be lengthened to about nine lunar months. An eight years’ cycle containing five periods of the shining of the morning star - useful for practical purposes - exists between the apparent movements of the sun and Venus, correct to within a little over two days. The morning star is conventionally estimated (see previous comment on chronology) to have begun to shine at the vernal equinox, AD 25, and eight years afterwards, viz. in AD 33, it began again its period of shining at the same season of the year; and so, generally, at all years separated from each other by eight years, the shinings of the morning star were during the same months. From the historical data available, it is conventionally agreed that the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ occurred between the years AD 28 – 33. Of necessity, then, the three and a half years’ ministry (Mackinlay is of the view that Christ’s public ministry lasted “the longer period” of between three and four years, whilst he also discusses “the shorter period” of less than three years) would have begun in one of the years AD 24-29 (conventional dating). We shall proceed now to examine in more detail those passages in the Gospels that refer to St. John the Baptist as the morning star. (a) Beginning of the Baptist’s Ministry At the very beginning of his ministry, the Baptist referred to the prophecy in Malachi 3:1, in which he himself is likened to the morning star, when he said: “He who comes after me is mightier than I” (Matthew 3:2, etc.). Now, according to Isaac Newton’s principle of scriptural interpretation, that figures are taken from things actually present, the morning star would have been shining when the Baptist began his ministry; thus the witness in the sky, and the human messenger, each gave a prolonged heralding of the One who was to come. If we refer to the Gospel of Matthew (3:8, 10 and 12), we find St. John the Baptist using three figures of speech at the beginning of his ministry: 1. “Now is the axe laid to the root of the trees” – presumably to mark the unfruitful trees to be cut down (see also Matthew 7:19). 2. “Every tree that does not bring forth good fruit is cut down …”. 3. “His winnowing fork is in his hand, and He will clear his threshing floor, and gather his wheat into the granary, but the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire”. As Mackinlay has noted (p. 60), these three figures used by St. John all refer to the time of harvest, which would have taken place within the month of the Passover, “as the place where John began his ministry was the deep depression ‘round about Jordan’ (Luke 3:3), where the harvest is far earlier than on the Judaean hills”. Now, according to Mackinlay’s chart, the morning star was shining during the month after the Passover (April or May) only in the years AD 24, 25 and 27, in the period AD 24-29. Hence we conclude that St. John the Baptist began his ministry in one of these three years. (b) Beginning of Jesus’s Ministry The Baptist again bore witness just before the beginning of Jesus Christ’s public ministry, when he proclaimed to the people: “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, for He was before me’” (John 1:15); and he repeated that statement the next day (John 1:30) – again bearing out the simile of the morning star and the rising sun. George Mackinlay, analysing what time of year this was, is certain that it must have been a good deal later than the beginning of St. John’s own ministry; “probably at least four or five months, to allow time for the Baptist to be known and to attract public attention”, he says (p. 61). It could not have been earlier than the latter part of August, he goes on; and “it must also have been long before the following Passover”, for several events in Jesus’s ministry “occurred before that date”. Mackinlay suggests that Jesus Christ most likely began his public ministry, “which we must date from the marriage in Cana of Galilee”, before November, “because there would have been leaves on the fig tree” when Nathanael came from under it (John 1:47, 48) (pp. 61-62). Jesus approvingly called Nathanael “an Israelite indeed” (John 1:47). Unlike the hypocrites who loved to pray so as to be seen by men (Matthew 6:5), Nathanael had carefully hidden himself for quiet prayer under cover of his fig tree, and so he was greatly surprised that Jesus had seen him there. In Scripture, the state of the vegetation of the fig tree is used to indicate the seasons of the year (see Matthew 24:32). We are informed that when the branch of the fig tree “becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near”. From the Song of Songs (2:13), we read of the season when “the fig tree puts forth her green figs”; and the fading of the leaf of the fig tree is mentioned in Isaiah 34:4. From this scriptural detail, relating to seasons, Mackinlay is able to narrow even further the choice of years (from AD 24-29) for the beginning of the two ministries. “We must reject AD 24, for the morning star definitely was not shining between the months August to November of that year”, he writes (p. 63). This leaves us with only two options, viz. AD 25 and 27. At this stage Mackinlay makes a further assumption – previously he had asked the reader to assume for the time being that “the shorter period’ choice for the length of Jesus’s ministry be put aside – in relation to the date AD 27. Whilst admitting that AD 27 would fulfil the necessary conditions given above “if we suppose that Christ began His ministry within a month or six weeks from the time of John’s first appearance”, Mackinlay elected to put aside this date for reasons that would become apparent later on. “He must increase, but I must decrease”. The next reference to St. John the Baptist under the figure that we are considering is: “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30). According to F. Meyer, the Baptist “knew that he was not the Light, but sent to bear witness of it, not the Sun, but the Star that announces the dawn …” (Life and Light of Men, p. 42). St. John’s words may have foreshadowed his imprisonment as well, as Mackinlay thinks, for “they were uttered after the first Passover, which took place, according to the assumption which we have just made, in AD 26, but before the Baptist was cast into prison” (pp. 63-64). Consequently, he adds, we may assume that St. John the Baptist spoke these words about the beginning or the middle of April. Meyer may not have been correct, however, in concluding his otherwise beautiful metaphor above by saying that “the Star”, which represents the Baptist, and which “announces the dawn”, also “wanes in the growing light” of the Sun. The waning of a celestial body appears to be the scriptural symbolism for the destruction of wickedness. The seeming annihilation of the stars caused by the rising of the sun, was an ancient figure of speech used to typify the triumph of good over the powers of darkness and evil. George Mackinlay suggests that this may be the image intended by St. Paul when he spoke of “The lawless one, whom the Lord shall bring to nought by the manifestation (in Greek, “shining forth”) of His coming” (II Thessalonians 2:8); and he adds that the figure of the rising sun extinguishing the light of the stars “is associated with conflict, punishment and judgment, which certainly did not represent the relationship between Christ and His forerunner John” (p. 65). Undoubtedly, rather, the impression that the Evangelist was intending to convey in this instance was one of the morning star decreasing in the sense of its non-appearance in the sky at the end of each night, as the increasing power of the sun’s heat and light became manifest. The planet Venus moves further and further away from its position as morning star, and increases its angular distance on the other side of the sun as the evening star. According to Mackinlay, in the year 26 AD Venus began to appear as the evening star “shortly before midsummer” (p. 64). Interestingly, George Mackinlay’s chart indicates that it is the more probable explanation of the non-appearance of Venus in the sky at the end of the night as being the more appropriate figure to depict the decreasing of St. John the Baptist, which is fulfilled in the circumstance under consideration. Imprisonment of St. John the Baptist It is likely, as W. Sanday has noted (Outlines from the Life of Christ, p. 49), that the imprisonment of the Baptist took place after the Passover, and before the harvest of AD 26 (John 4:35); and soon after St. John had stated that “He must increase, but I must decrease”. Sanday considered that the events surrounding the Passover (of John 2:13-4:45) did not occupy more than three or four weeks, and when Jesus arrived in Galilee (see Matthew 4:12) the impression of his public acts at Jerusalem was still fresh. Sanday thought that his estimation of the date of the Baptist’s imprisonment was “somewhat strengthened by the fact that the Synoptic Gospels record no events after Christ’s Baptism and before John was delivered up, except the Temptation (Matthew 4:12; Mark 1:14 see also Luke 4:14); and because the Apostle Paul said that “as John was fulfilling his course, he said, ‘What do you suppose that I am? I am not He. No, but after me One is coming, the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to untie’.” (Acts 13:25)”. These words tend to place the end of the Baptist’s career rather early, because the message here referred to was proclaimed by him when he announced the Messiah, in autumn of AD 25 (John 1:26, 27). Following George Mackinlay (p. 64), we therefore estimate that St. John the Baptist was imprisoned about the middle or end of April, AD 26, when, as is apparent from Mackinlay’s chart, the morning star, appropriately, was not shining. “He was a burning and shining lamp” The next reference to St. John the Baptist under this simile is a very striking one. Jesus speaks of him as “a burning and shining lamp; and you were willing to rejoice for a season in his light”. (John 5:35). Mackinlay has suggested that, because the definite article is used twice in the Greek version of this passage, “it therefore seems to indicate some particular light” (p. 67). Though St. John was in prison, Jesus said of him at this time: “You sent to John, and both was and still is a witness to the truth” (John 5:33). Regarding the phrase “to rejoice for a season in his light”, Dr. Harpur tells of a custom in the East for travellers by night to sing songs at the rising of the morning star because it announces that the darkness and dangers of the night are coming to an end (as referred to by Mackinlay, p. 68). In effect, then, Jesus was saying that the disciples of the Baptist were willing to rejoice in the light of the herald of day, which shines only by reflecting the light of the coming sun; but should rejoice now ever more since the sun itself had arisen – since “the Light of the World” had actually come. This interpretation harmonises with Jesus’s statement recorded a few verses on (John 5:39) that “you search the Scriptures … which bear witness of Me”; the inference again being – now that I have come, you ought to receive Me. All through this conversation, Mackinlay notes, “the subject is that of bearing witness” – by his own works; by the Father; by the Baptist; by the Scriptures and by Moses – “the whole pointing to the necessity of receiving the One to whom such abundant witness had been borne”. The time when Jesus made this particular statement about the Scriptures bearing witness to Him was just after the un-named feast of John 5:1, and before the Passover of John 6:4. It is often assumed, George Mackinlay informs us, that this un-named feast was Passover – but some have opted for naming it the feast of Purim, fixed several centuries earlier by the command of Queen Esther (Esther 9:32); or even the feast of Weeks at the beginning of June (p. 69). This does not affect our chronological scheme, however, for we learn from Mackinlay’s chart that the morning star was appropriately shining on each one of these feasts in AD 27. The Crucifixion But when we come to the last Passover, in the year AD 29, the herald of the dawn had just disappeared. George Mackinlay shows (p. 81) that the disappearance of the planet Venus harmonises perfectly with the record of the complete isolation of Jesus Christ at his Crucifixion, given as follows: (1) The disappearance of the witness John by death (Matthew 14:10). The forsaking of Our Lord by all his disciples (Matthew 26:56; Psalm 38:11; 49:20). (3The absence of any record of a ministry of angels, as after the Temptation (Matthew 4:11). The hiding of God’s face, when Christ uttered the cry: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46; Psalm 22:1). (5) In nature, the Sun’ light failed (Luke 23:45). (6) Being daytime, the Paschal Full Moon was, of course, below the horizon. Most relevant to our subject also is the following chapter from George Mackinlay’s book: Chapter Three: “A Star … out of Jacob” Mackinlay commences by establishing “the greater probability” of the following two facts: (a) That the Nativity of Jesus Christ was at least five months after the beginning of a period of shining of the morning star, and (b) That the Nativity was at a Feast of Tabernacles (p. 140). Firstly, we consider Mackinlay’s reason for believing that the Lord’s Nativity was: (a) Five months after a period of shining. To begin with, we must consider what reason there is for supposing that the morning star was shining at all when Jesus Christ was born. In Malachi 3:1, as we have seen already, St. John the Baptist is referred to under the figure of the morning star, as the forerunner of the Christ. But the morning star itself may be called “My messenger who shall prepare the way before Me”. It is not unusual for inanimate objects thus to be spoken of in Scripture, for instance in Psalm 88:38 we have “the faithful witness in the sky”, and in Psalm 148:3 the sun, moon and stars of light are exhorted to praise God. Consequently, as George Mackinlay has explained it (p. 141), “we can reasonably suppose that the Morning Star was shining at the Nativity”. Furthermore, he adds, if the morning star were the herald of the coming One, it is fitting to imagine that a somewhat prolonged notice should be given; for “it would be more dignified and stately for the one to precede the other by a considerable interval, than that both should come almost together”. We shall find Mackinlay’s supposition of a prolonged heralding by the morning star borne out by the following inference. According to the principle of metaphors being taken from things present, we could infer that the morning star was actually shining when Jesus Christ (in Matthew 11:10), quoting Malachi 3:1, spoke of the Baptist as “My messenger … before My face”. Consistently following the same line of thought, we may reasonably infer that the morning star was also shining more than thirty years earlier when Zechariah quoted the same scriptural verse– i.e. Malachi 3:1 – at the circumcision of his son, John (Luke 1:76). Even had this appropriate passage not been quoted at the time, Mackinlay suggests (p. 142), “we might have inferred that the herald in the sky would harmoniously have been shining at the birth of the human herald”. George Mackinlay further suggests from his inference that both Jesus and John were born when the morning star was shining, that “both must have been born during the same period of its shining”. [He shows this in his charts]. The Annunciation to Mary was made by the angel Gabriel in the sixth month after the announcement to Zechariah (Luke 1:13, 24, 26); and so it follows that the Baptist was born five to six months before Jesus. Since Mackinlay’s charts indicate that the periods of shining are separated from each other by intervals of time greater than six months, then both Jesus and his herald must have been born during the same period of shining. Consequently Jesus Christ was born at least five months after the beginning of a period of shining of the morning star. It will be noticed that some years in Mackinlay’s charts are omitted – this is due simply to lack of space – but no events recorded in the Gospels took place in these omitted years, nor were any of them enrolment (see below) or Sabbath years. (b) At a Feast of Tabernacles The Law, we are told by St. Paul, has “a shadow of the good things to come” (Hebrews 10:1). The various ordinances and feasts of the Old Testament, if properly understood, are found, according to George Mackinlay, “to refer to and foreshadow many events and doctrines of the New Testament” (p. 143). Again, A. Gordon had remarked that: “Many speak slightingly of the types, but they are as accurate as mathematics; they fix the sequence of events in redemption as rigidly as the order of sunrise and noontide is fixed in the heavens” (The Ministry of the Spirit, p. 28). The deductions drawn from Gospel harmonies attest the truth of his statement. We have already observed that the Sabbath Year began at the Feast of Tabernacles; the great feasts of Passover and Weeks following in due course. Jesus’s death took place at the Passover (Matthew 27:50), probably, George Mackinlay believes, “at the very hour when the paschal lambs were killed”. “Our Passover … has been sacrificed, even Christ” (1 Corinthians 5:7); the great Victim foretold during so many ages by the yearly shedding of blood at that feast. The first Passover at the Exodus was held on the anniversary of the day when the promise –accompanied by sacrifice – was given to Abraham, that his seed would inherit the land of Canaan (Exodus 12:41; Genesis 15:8-18). Jesus Christ rose from the dead on the day after the Sabbath after the Passover (John 20:1); the day on which the sheaf of first fruits, promise of the future harvest, was waved before God (Leviticus 23:10, 11). Hence we are told by Saint Paul that as “Christ the first-fruits” (1 Corinthians 15:20. 23) rose, so those who believe in him will also rise afterwards. This day was the anniversary of Israel’s crossing through the “Sea of Reeds” (Exodus 12-14), and, as in the case of the Passover, it was also a date memorable in early history, being the day when the Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (Genesis 8:4). The month Nisan, which had been the seventh month, became the first at the Exodus (Exodus 12:2). Thus Christ’s Resurrection was heralded by two most beautiful and fitting types, occurring almost – possibly exactly – on the same day of the year; by the renewed earth emerging from the waters of the Flood, and by the redeemed people emerging from the waters of the “Sea of Reeds”. Mackinlay proceeded to search for any harmonies that there may be between the characteristics of this Feast of Tabernacles and the events recorded in connection with the Nativity. As we have noticed previously, he says (p. 146), there were two great characteristics of the Feast of Tabernacles: 1. Great joy and 2. Living in booths (tents). 1. Great joy. The Israelites were told at this feast, “You shall rejoice before the Lord your God” (Leviticus 23:40), and “You shall rejoice in your feast … you shall be altogether joyful” (Deuteronomy 16:14, 15). King Solomon dedicated his Temple on a Feast of Tabernacles, and the people afterwards were sent away “joyful and glad of heart” (1 Kings 8:2, 66; 2 Chronicles 7:10). There was no public rejoicing at the Nativity of Jesus Christ, however; on the contrary, as George Mackinlay notes, “shortly afterwards Herod was troubled and all Jerusalem with him” (Matthew 2:3). But though He was rejected by the majority, we find the characteristic joy of Tabernacles reflected in the expectant and spiritually-minded souls. Before the Nativity both the Virgin Mary and Elizabeth rejoiced in anticipation of it (Luke 1:38, 42, 44, 46, 47). At the Nativity an angel appeared to the shepherds and brought them good tidings of great joy; and then “suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, ‘Glory to God in the highest’.” The shepherds then came to the infant Saviour and returned “glorifying and praising God” (Luke 2:9-20). Forty days after the Nativity, at the Purification, Simeon, who had been waiting a long time for the consolation of Israel, and the venerable Anna who was a constant worshipper, joined in with their notes of praise and gladness (Luke 2:22-38). And lastly the wise men from the East “rejoiced with exceeding great joy” when they saw the star indicating where the Saviour was, and they came into the house, saw the young Child with his Mother, and presented the gifts that they had brought (Matthew 2:9-11). This “Mother”, the Virgin Mary, is the ultimate “Star” pointing to Jesus Christ, her Son. John Paul II’s encyclical, Redemptoris Mater (1987), is full of allusions to the Blessed Virgin Mary as ‘our fixed point’, or star ‘of reference’. To quote just this one example (# 3): …. The fact that she “preceded” the coming of Christ is reflected every year in the liturgy of Advent. Therefore, if to that ancient historical expectation of the Saviour we compare these years which are bringing us closer to the end of the second Millennium after Christ and to the beginning of the third, it becomes fully comprehensible that in this present period we wish to turn in a special way to her, the one who in the “night” of the Advent expectation began to shine like a true “Morning Star” (Stella Matutina). For just as this star, together with the “dawn,” precedes the rising of the sun, so Mary from the time of her Immaculate Conception preceded the coming of the Saviour, the rising of the “Sun of Justice” in the history of the human race. 2. Living in booths. According to George Mackinlay (pp. 147-148), the living in booths finds a parallel in the language of the Apostle John, when he wrote concerning the Birth of Jesus, “The Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us” (John 1:14); and Our Lord himself used a somewhat similar figure when he spoke of his body thus “Destroy this Temple, and in three days I shall raise it up” (John 2:19) – words misunderstood by his enemies and afterwards quoted against him (Matthew 26:61; 27:40). It was at the Feast of Tabernacles that the glory of God filled the Temple that King Solomon had prepared for Him (2 Chronicles 5:3, 13, 14), and it would seem to have been at the beginning or first day of the feast, the fifteenth day of the month. Consequently, in Mackinlay’s opinion (p. 148) “it would appear to be harmonious that the Advent of the Lord Jesus in the body divinely prepared for him (Hebrews 10:5) should also take place at the same feast and most suitably on the first day of its celebration”. It will be noticed that the glory of God did not cover the tent of meeting when the Israelites were in the wilderness, and did not fill the tabernacle, at the Feast of Tabernacles. But it did so on the first day of the first month of the second year after the departure from Egypt (Exodus 40:17, 34, 35). We must remember that there was no Feast of Tabernacles in the wilderness, nor was the Sabbath Year kept at this stage; but both of these ordinances were to be observed when the Israelites entered into the Promised Land (Exodus 34:22). No agricultural operations were carried out during the forty years of wandering in the wilderness. As the Feast of Tabernacles inaugurated the Sabbath Year, Mackinlay judged (p. 149) that the glory of God filled the temple on the first day of the feast, “as that would be in harmony with what happened in the tabernacle in the wilderness when the glory of the Lord filled it on the first day of the only style of year then observed”. A. Edersheim, writing about the Feast of Tabernacles, says (The Temple, note on p. 272): “It is remarkable how many allusions to this feast occur in the writings of the prophets, as if its types were the goal of all their desires”. For further reading, see my articles: The Magi and the Star that Stopped (3) The Magi and the Star that Stopped and: Magi were not necessarily astronomers or astrologers (3) Magi were not necessarily astronomers or astrologers

Sunday, November 16, 2025

More Kings of Israel missing from Chronicles

by Damien F. Mackey “During the reign of Asa of Judah (c. 911-870 B.C.E.), Israel runs through seven kings: Nadab, Baasha, Elah, Zimri, Tibni, Omri, and Ahab (ca. 910-853 B.C.E.)”. Robin Gallaher Branch In previous articles, we learned that two truly great kings of Israel were missing entirely from the Books of Chronicles. One was Omri, a king whose House is attested later, even by the Assyrians (Akkadian:𒂍𒄷𒌝𒊑𒄿 … bīt-Ḫûmrî): Great King Omri missing from Chronicles (2) Great King Omri missing from Chronicles The other was Jeroboam II: Great King Jeroboam II missing from Chronicles (2) Great King Jeroboam II missing from Chronicles He, in fact, appears to have left far less traces (biblical or historical) than has Omri. For, as we read in this last article: …. Without the brief record in the Book of Kings and cursory mentions in two prophetic works, the name of this man would not be preserved (2 Kgs 14:23-15:8; Amos 1:1; 7:9-11; Hos 1:1). Even the parallel account of the history of the Divided Monarchy neglects to mention Jeroboam, even in passing. Chronicles does not so much as hint of his existence, even in regnal synchronisms. This king of unusually long reign and reported strong position is not attested to in Assyrian, Aramean, Hamathite, Babylonian, or Egyptian annals or inscriptions. Furthermore, the known history of the ancient Near East for his period is surprisingly sparse; very little has been preserved. The extent of the historical record is related in the Book of Kings: In the fifteenth year of Amaziah son of Joash king of Judah, Jeroboam son of Jehoash king of Israel became king in Samaria, and he reigned forty-one years. He did evil in the eyes of the LORD and did not turn away from any of the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, which he had caused Israel to commit. He was the one who restored the boundaries of Israel from Lebo Hamath to the Sea of the Arabah, in accordance with the word of the LORD, the God of Israel, spoken through his servant Jonah son of Amittai, the prophet from Gath Hepher. The LORD had seen how bitterly everyone in Israel, whether slave or free, was suffering; there was no one to help them. And since the LORD had not said he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven, he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam son of Jehoash. As for the other events of Jeroboam’s reign, all he did, and his military achievements, including how he recovered for Israel both Damascus and Hamath, which had belonged to Judah, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel? Jeroboam rested with his fathers, the kings of Israel. And Zechariah his son succeeded him as king. (2 Kgs 14:23-29 NIV4) The sources for Jeroboam’s forty-year reign are, unfortunately, not only brief but sketchy as well. Very few details about his military accomplishments, economic prosperity, or administrative ability are known. The extrabiblical sources for this period of time are also very limited. Jeroboam’s father is recorded as having paid tribute to the Assyrians a few years prior to Jeroboam’s accession. The usurper of the throne of Jeroboam’s son also received mention for a similar action some ten years after Jeroboam’s death. The Samaria Ostraca likely date to the time of Jeroboam, but their interpretation and implications are somewhat unclear. The Zakkur and Pazarcik stelae both record contemporaneous events, but far to the north of Israelite territory. Assyrian annals concentrate on the troublesome events of home, and any western excursions receive very little detail. No inscriptions have been found from the smaller nations neighboring Israel. [End of quotes] My now standard solution to problems such as these is to look to find an alter ego for one who, while known to have been famous, is yet poorly attested. See e.g. my article on this phenomenon: More ‘camera-shy’ ancient potentates (2) More 'camera-shy' ancient potentates As far as the quote goes from Robin Gallaher Branch: “During the reign of Asa of Judah (c. 911-870 B.C.E.), Israel runs through seven kings: Nadab, Baasha, Elah, Zimri, Tibni, Omri, and Ahab (ca. 910-853 B.C.E.)” this would not be the ultimate conclusion that I have reached in my articles, however, according to which, for example, Baasha/Ahab was just the one king of Israel: Baasha as Ahab (2) Baasha as Ahab And, again, Zimri was Jehu, at a time later than King Asa of Judah: Following a biblical trail to Zimri, King of Israel (2) Following a biblical trail to Zimri, King of Israel And there may be other duplicates as well. This immediately takes pressure off King Asa’s reign having to have co-existed with “seven kings” of Israel (Robin Gallaher Branch). Moreover, it needs to be pointed out that, of the supposed “seven kings” of Israel listed above by Robin Gallaher Branch, five of these (as I count it) are not even mentioned (at least by those names) in Chronicles, these five being: NADAB; ELAH; ZIMRI; TIBNI; OMRI. Even the highly significant king, Baasha, is mentioned only briefly there (2 Chronicles 16:1-6), two chapters after which (18:1) Ahab (who I believe to have been this very Baasha) emerges. None of the supposed four kings between Baasha and Ahab (namely, Elah, Zimri, Tibni, Omri) receives even the least mention in Chronicles. And about Baasha’s predecessor, Nadab, we read: https://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1249 “... Kings appeals to “the book of the chronicles of the kings” for further details about various matters that are not recorded in 1 & 2 Chronicles. For example, regarding Nadab, the second king of Israel, 1 Kings 15:31 states: “Now the rest of the acts of Nadab, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?” However, none of Nadab’s acts are recorded in 1 & 2 Chronicles. (In fact, the inspired chronicler records very little activity of the kings of the northern kingdom.) ...”.

Saturday, November 15, 2025

Aram and Edom are often confused

by Damien F. Mackey “… Cushan is an Edomite king who subjugated the tribe of Judah whose territory was adjacent to Edom …”. jewishvirtuallibrary In the first two of three cases given here, (i) Balaam and (ii) Cushan-rishathaim, so-called, Aram occurs where I think the correct geography would be Edom. Whereas, in the third case, conversely, (iii) Hadad, the foe of King Solomon, the story is situated in Edom, when I think it should be Aram. (i) Case of Balaam Following a clue from W. F. Albright, I wrote an article: Baleful Balaam son of Beor (1) Baleful Balaam son of Beor according to which Balaam was an Edomite: “Balaam was an ancient Edomite sage”, wrote W.F. Albright (“The Home of Balaam”, Jstor, 1915), whilst himself failing to connect “Balaam son of Beor” (Numbers 22:5) - as do some commentators - with “Bela son of Beor”, who “became king of Edom” (Genesis 36:31). James B. Jordan is one who has proposed such a connection, whilst in the same article including the prophet Job amongst the list of Edomite kings (“Was Job an Edomite King? (Part 2)”, 2000). Job, though, was not Edomite king, but a Naphtalian Israelite: Job’s Life and Times (2) Job’s Life and Times Job would have lived almost a millennium after Balaam and the Edomite king, Jobab, with whom Jordan (as do others) had hoped to identify Job. Jordan has written as follows on this Genesis 36 list of Edomite kings: http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-131-was-job-an-edomite-king-part-2/ … Genesis 36:31-39 provides us a list of seven kings over Edom, followed by an eighth. 1. Bela ben Beor from Dinhabah 2. Jobab ben Zerah from Bozrah 3. Husham from Teman 4. Hadad ben Bedad from Avith 5. Samlah from Masrekah 6. Saul from Rehoboth 7. Baal-Hanan ben Achbor 8. Hadar/d from Pau …. The third Edomite king was Husham, the second was Jobab, and the first was Bela son of Beor. I suggest that this Bela is to be linked with Balaam son of Beor (Numbers 22:5). We know that there were already kings in Edom at this time, because one such king denied Moses passage through his territory (Numbers 20:14-21). If this king was Bela son of Beor, Balaam would possibly be his brother. The name Bela is written bela` while the name Balaam is written bil`am. The E in Bela is short, and could easily shorten further to an I if the name is extended, as it is in the name Bilam: Bela is accented on the first syllable, while Bil`am is accented on the second, after a break in sound. Thus, it is entirely possible that Bela and Balaam are the same person. The name seems to be a shortened form of Baal, which means "lord, husband, eater." Bela, as first king of Edom, would be "Lord/Husband/Eater," while Balaam means "Lord/Husband/Eater of a People." (Compare the Babylonian god Bel with the Canaanite god Baal for a similar association.) The lord of a people is their husband, and "eats" them into himself as a body politic, as part of his body. …. Whether Bela and Balaam were the same person or not, the fact that they are both sons of Beor, the only mention of any "Beor" in the Bible, indicates the strong possibility that they were at least brothers, and thus contemporaries. …. Now, assume that Bela and Balaam are the same person. Moses put this man to death right at the end of the wilderness wanderings (Numbers 31:8 — and the mention of Balaam the son of Beor alongside five kings of Midian heightens the possibility that Balaam was Bela, king of Edom). …. [End of quote] (ii) Case of Cushan-rishathaim I explained the geographical situation for this oppressor of Israel in my article: Cushan rishathaim was king of Edom (1) Cushan rishathaim was king of Edom “Therefore the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and he sold them into the hand of Chushan rishathaim ... and the children of Israel served Chushan rishathaim eight years”. Judges 3:8 The version of the Bible from which I recently read this verse, Judges 3:8, had Cushan rishathaim as “king of Edom”; whereas I had usually read him as being a “king of Aram Naharaim”. There is, of course, a fair bit of distance between Edom, to the south of Israel, and Aram Naharaim, in Upper Mesopotamia. Armed with this new piece of information, I decided to re-visit the list of Edomite kings to be found in Genesis 36, in anticipation of perhaps finding there a name like Cushan (כּוּשַׁן). Having previously thought to have identified Balaam in that Edomite list (following Albright): William Foxwell Albright a conventional fox with insight ‘outside the box'’ (1) William Foxwell Albright a conventional fox with insight 'outside the box' and knowing that Balaam (at the time of Joshua) to have pre-existed Cushan (the time of Othniel), I checked for an appropriate name not far below King No. 1 in the list, Bela ben Beor (or Balaam son of Beor): 1. Bela ben Beor from Dinhabah 2. Jobab ben Zerah from Bozrah 3. Husham from Teman 4. Hadad ben Bedad from Avith 5. Samlah from Masrekah 6. Saul from Rehoboth 7. Baal-Hanan ben Achbor 8. Hadar/d from Pau King No. 3 looked perfect for Cushan, or Chushan: namely, Husham (or Chusham, חֻשָׁם). Later I would learn that other scholars (see below) had already come to this same conclusion (i.e., Husham = Cushan). In the following brief article, the jewishvirtuallibrary will query both long names associated with this enemy of Israel, the “Rishathaim” element and the “Naharaim” element. “The second element, Rishathaim ("double wickedness"), is presumably not the original name”, and: “The combination Aram-Naharaim is not a genuine one for the period of the Judges”: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/cushan-rishathaim CUSHAN-RISHATHAIM (Heb. כּוּשַׁן רִשְׁעָתַיִם), the first oppressor of Israel in the period of the Judges (Judg. 3:8–10). Israel was subject to Cushan-Rishathaim, the king of Aram-Naharaim, for eight years, before being rescued by the first "judge," *Othniel son of Kenaz. The second element, Rishathaim ("double wickedness"), is presumably not the original name, but serves as a pejorative which rhymes with Naharaim. The combination Aram-Naharaim is not a genuine one for the period of the Judges, since at that time the Arameans were not yet an important ethnic element in Mesopotamia. In the view of some scholars, the story lacks historical basis and is the invention of an author who wished to produce a judge from Judah, and raise the total number of judges to twelve. Those who see a historical basis to the story have proposed various identifications for Cushan-Rishathaim: (1) Cushan is to be sought among one of the Kassite rulers in Babylonia (17th–12th centuries; cf. Gen. 10:8). Josephus identifies Cushan with an Assyrian king. Others identify him with one of the Mitannian or Hittite kings. (2) Cushan is an Egyptian ruler from *Cush in Africa (Nubia; cf. Gen. 10:6; Isa. 11:11, et al.). (3) The head of the tribe of Cush, which led a nomadic existence along the southern border of Palestine. Such Cushite nomads are mentioned in the Egyptian Execration Texts of the first quarter of the second millennium B.C.E. and in the Bible (Num. 12:1; Hab. 3:7; II Chron. 14:8; 21:16). (4) Aram (Heb. ארם) is a corruption of Edom (Heb. אדום) and Naharaim is a later addition. Thus, Cushan is an Edomite king who subjugated the tribe of Judah whose territory was adjacent to Edom. (5) Cushan is from central or northern Syria, and is to be identified with a North Syrian ruler or with irsw, a Hurrian (from the area of Syria-Palestine) who seized power in Egypt during the anarchic period at the end of the 19th dynasty (c. 1200 B.C.E.). In his campaign from the north to Egypt, he also subjugated the Israelites. Othniel's rescue of the Israelites is to be understood against the background of the expulsion of the foreign invaders from Egypt by the pharaoh Sethnakhte [sic], the founder of the 20th dynasty. BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. Taeubler, in: HUCA, 20 (1947), 137–42; A. Malamat, in: JNES, 13 (1954), 231–42; S. Yeivin, in: Atiqot, 3 (1961), 176–80. Point 4 above: “... (4) Aram (Heb. ארם) is a corruption of Edom (Heb. אדום) and Naharaim is a later addition. Thus, Cushan is an Edomite king who subjugated the tribe of Judah whose territory was adjacent to Edom”, will now be viewed as the relevant one, with the addition of Husham the Temanite as the actual identification of this “Edomite king”. Avrāhām Malāmāṭ has, I think, managed to sew it all up, following Klostermann. In “Cushan Rishathaim and the Decline of the Near East around 1200 BC” (Jstor 13, no. 4, 1954), Malāmāṭ wrote (p. 232): The second component of the name Cushan Rishathaim is even more obscure and is undoubtedly a folkloristic distortion of the original form. ... Among the various efforts to ascertain the original name, those of Klostermann and Marquart have found the widest acceptance. Klostermann's proposal was that רִשְׁעָתַיִם originally represented [` נ] תימ ה ש[א]רֵ, “chieftain of the Temanites”, and identified כּוּשַׁן with חֻשָׁם, “(Husham) of the land of the Temanites”, who is third in the list of the kings of Edom (Gen. 36:34). .... Understandably, those who proposed that Cushan Rishathaim reigned in the south of Palestine could not believe the name Aram-Naharaim or Aram (Judg 3:10) to be the genuine form. They accepted the emendation of Aram to Edom, a proposal made as far back as Graetz. Naharaim was considered as a later gloss inserted for the sake of rhyming with Rishathaim. .... Consequently, our passage was viewed as the echo of a local struggle between the Edomites (or Midianites) and Othniel the Kenizzite, the leader of a southern clan related to the tribe of Judah. .... Given the lack of detail associated with the oppression of Israel by Cushan, this scenario appears to make more sense than my previous notion that Cushan was a significant Mesopotamian (perhaps Assyrian) king controlling Palestine. It was more of “a local struggle”. This now means that I must also re-consider Dr. John Osgood’s view (as previously discussed) that the Khabur culture in the north was archaeologically reflective of the period of domination by Cushan. We would need to look instead for a localised cultural dominance. (iii) Case of Hadad Solomon’s Adversaries I Kings 11:14-22: Then the Lord raised up against Solomon an adversary, Hadad the Edomite, from the royal line of Edom. Earlier when David was fighting with Edom, Joab the commander of the army, who had gone up to bury the dead, had struck down all the men in Edom. Joab and all the Israelites stayed there for six months, until they had destroyed all the men in Edom. But Hadad, still only a boy, fled to Egypt with some Edomite officials who had served his father. They set out from Midian and went to Paran. Then taking people from Paran with them, they went to Egypt, to Pharaoh king of Egypt, who gave Hadad a house and land and provided him with food. Pharaoh was so pleased with Hadad that he gave him a sister of his own wife, Queen Tahpenes, in marriage. The sister of Tahpenes bore him a son named Genubath, whom Tahpenes brought up in the royal palace. There Genubath lived with Pharaoh’s own children. While he was in Egypt, Hadad heard that David rested with his ancestors and that Joab the commander of the army was also dead. Then Hadad said to Pharaoh, ‘Let me go, that I may return to my own country’. ‘What have you lacked here that you want to go back to your own country?’ Pharaoh asked. ‘Nothing’, Hadad replied, ‘but do let me go!’ But was this Hadad really a Syrian (Aramite), rather than an Edomite? 2 Samuel 10:13 Commentaries: So Joab and the people who were with him drew near to the battle against the Arameans, and they fled before him. Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible And Joab drew nigh, and the people that were with him, unto the battle against the Syrians,.... Fell upon them; attacked them first, began the battle with them; rightly judging, that if they, being hired soldiers, were closely pressed, they would give way, which would discourage the Ammonites, who depended much upon them; and the fight, according to Josephus (x), lasted some little time, who says, that Joab killed many of them, and obliged the rest to turn their backs and flee, as follows: and they fled before him: the Syriac and Arabic versions in this verse, and in all others in this chapter where the word "Syrians" is used, have "Edomites", reading "Edom" instead of "Aram", the letters "R" and "D" in the Hebrew tongue being very similar. (x) Ut supra. (Antiqu. l. 7. c. 6. sect. 2.) ….

Thursday, November 13, 2025

Bloody Ugaritic cycle of Baal-Anat draws upon famed biblical warriors

by Damien F. Mackey “Just as Anat purges both "field" and "house," so Jehu purges both "field" and "house." Just as Anat adorns herself and puts on paint, so Jezebel adorns her self and puts on paint”. Michael S. Moore As Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky was able to demonstrate, the spectacular corpus of Ugarit (modern Ras Shamra) has been dated far too early by the historians of antiquity. On this, see my article: Ugarit (Ras Shamra), Hebrew, the Greeks (3) Ugarit (Ras Shamra), Hebrew, the Greeks The typical view dates them early. Thus: Ugaritic texts - Wikipedia The Ugaritic texts are a corpus of ancient cuneiform texts discovered in 1928 in Ugarit (Ras Shamra) and Ras Ibn Hani in Syria, and written in Ugaritic, an otherwise unknown Northwest Semitic language. Approximately 1,500 texts and fragments have been found to date. The texts were written in the 13th and 12th centuries BCE. The most famous of the Ugarit texts are the approximately fifty epic poems; the three major literary texts are the Baal Cycle, the Legend of Keret, and the Tale of Aqhat. The other texts include 150 tablets describing the Ugaritic cult and rituals, 100 letters of correspondence, a very small number of legal texts (Akkadian is considered to have been the contemporary language of law), and hundreds of administrative or economic texts. …. Naturally, the commentaries on these texts tend to follow the conventional dating. Thus Michael S. Moore, taking the textbook view, will have the Ugaritic mythology influencing the supposedly later biblical texts. While this is the usual knee-jerk default, the reality is the other way around. JEHU'S CORONATION AND PURGE OF ISRAEL by MICHAEL S. MOORE Fuller Theological Seminary, U.S.A. Michael S. Moore commences: Article-Jehus-Purge.pdf …. This paper will attempt a new reading of the Jehu tradition by reading it alongside the Baal-Anat cycle from Ugarit (KTU 1.3 i-iii). To anticipate my conclusions, I will argue that Jehu's coronation and purge is most likely a multi-leveled parody of a well-known religious tradition, and further, that its primary goal is to narrate an important episode in Israel's history in a way that appropriately ridicules the religious traditions of Israel's enemies. …. Parodying the "purge" What follows next is literarily fascinating. As is well-known, ever since KTU 1.3 came to light in 1930,43 scholars have puzzled over Anat's behavior.44 To explain it, some have tried to tie her myth to a seasonal calendar, supposing Anat's "bloodbath" to be a primitive attempt to revive the land's "vegetative spirit."45 Some have hypothesized that Anat's devotees may have engaged in some sort of homeopathic ritual for which the myth is a blueprint—perhaps a "ritual combat" designed to provoke Baal into ending the sterility of summer and sending down the autumn rains.46 Whatever the anthropological possibilities, others have noticed a number of intertextual parallels between this myth and various sections of the Hebrew Bible.47 Ph. Stern, for example, takes M. Smith's48 suggestions about Anat generally and applies them to Psa. xxiii, pointing out a number of common references to "tables among enemies," the destruction of both "house and valley," and the "house of the deity."49 Before his death, P. Craigie proposed that the Song of Deborah parallels the Anat myth in at least five ways: (1) Deborah, like Anat, has a male warrior assistant; (2) Deborah, like Anat, is a leader of warriors; (3) Deborah "dominates" (tdrkp) on the battlefield, just as Anat is a mistress of "dominion" (drkt); (4) Anat is a "maiden" (rhm), so too Deborah is a "maiden" (rhm); and (5) Deborah, like Anat, commands a military host of stars.50 Craigie believed that Dtr was quite aware of this tradition, whether or not it ever found a home in a specific cult dedicated solely to Anat.51 With regard to the myth's structure, however, J. Lloyd has helpfully suggested that Anat engages in two separate battles because at the root of this myth lies the primordial desire of conquerors to perfect their military conquests with corresponding religious sacrifices. Citing epi graphic and iconographie evidence from Moab, Egypt, and Ugarit, Lloyd suggestively proposes that conquerors cannot declare total vic tory until prisoners-of-war are brought before the (statue of the) appropriate deity, and put to death. "It is only once the actions of war are carried out within the microcosm of the temple itself that perfection is achieved."52 Assuming Lloyd is correct, I am inclined to think that the narrator of II Kings ix-x might be deliberately parodying the Anat tradition in order to propel his anti-Baalist program to a higher intensity-level. Just as Anat purges the earth, so Jehu purges Israel. Just as Anat purges both "field" and "house," so Jehu purges both "field" and "house." Just as Anat adorns herself and puts on paint, so Jezebel adorns her self and puts on paint. The following chart breaks down all the parallels I can find into subcategories of characterization, plot, and theme.53 Jehu's purge (II Kings ix 14-x 36) Anat's purge (KTU 1.3 i-iii) Characterization • One purging tool: Jehu One purging tool: Anat • Two enemies (Joram & Ahaziah) Two "enemies" (Gapnu & Ugar) • Jehu stacks 70 "heads" (rō'šîm) Anat kicks "heads" (riš) around like "balls" • Jehu "fills his hand" with the Anat's signature weapon is her "bow" bow (qešet) (qšt) 54 • Jezebel adorns herself Anat adorns herself • Jezebel uses pûk on her eyes Anat uses ánhb on her eyes ("snail ("antinomy") dye") • Jezebel looks out a window Anat closes "the gates" • Jezebel's "palms" (kap) Anat proudly wears the "palms" (kp) are barely visible of warriors on her belt • Jezebel's "skull," "feet" and "hands" Anat's "liver," "heart," "knees" and are her only remains "fingers" participate in her victory Plot • Two battles: one in the field, Two battles: one in the field, one in the one in Baal's "house" (bêt) "palace" (bht) of Anat • Jehu "meets" (qārâ) several Anat "meets" (qry) "pages" (ģlm) officials before final battle before final battle • Jehu meets Joram at Naboth's Anat meets enemies at the "foot "field" of the rock" (bšt ģr) • Jehu shoots an arrow (hēsî) Anat shoots "old men" (šbm) through sickly Joram's heart with her "shafts" (mt) • House of Baal has a "city" Anat fights "between two cities" in it (îr) (bn qrytm) • Jezebel mocks her enemies Anat mocks her enemies • Jezebel's "blood" (dâm) spatters Anat plunges her knees into "blood" (dm) Theme • Justice Purgation • Prophetic covenant Priestly power • "House" "House" • Reward for obedience Celebration of enemies' defeat Characterization Keeping in mind Jemielity's cautions about satire's "generic instability" and "controlled chaos",56 I want to emphasize at the outset of these comparisons that no literary comparison can ever be "certain,"57 especially when informed scholars cannot agree on matters as basic as tablet placement and/or narrative sequence. Some of these parallels will seem more convincing than others. Still, the main characters in these two traditions enact "flat" roles as purifying agents.™ Anat purges both valley and town on behalf of Baal, her master and lord. Jehu likewise purges Israel on behalf of Yahweh, his master and lord. In the Canaanite myth, Anat "raises her voice" against two low-level deities, Gapnu and Ugar, and vigorously defends her brother Baal from further divine attack.59 In the Hebrew story, Jehu does not even bother to converse with, he simply exterminates the kings of Israel and Judah (Joram and Ahaziah), and by so doing the narrator immediately deflates these kings' exaggerated self-image, paralleling them, how ever subtly, with Canaanite demi-gods at "the lowest level of the divine assembly."60 Moreover, each agent focuses on the "perfection" (Lloyd's term) of their respective purges; i.e., each purges something "outside" (field/wilder ness) as well as something "inside" (city/temple). In the Canaanite text, Anat does this by kicking her enemies' heads around like soccer balls and wearing their palms into battle like war-trophies.61 In the Hebrew text, Jehu stacks up his enemies' heads before Samaria's gate, then forces his foes to look at them while he makes a speech.62 Further, since myths are intentionally designed to be fluid and repetitious, several of these parallels easily shift back and forth between similarly "flat" characters, whether the parallel is between Anat-Jehu or Anat-Jezebel.63 Just as Anat mocks her enemies, so Jezebel mocks hers, calling Jehu "Zimri" (the infamous assassin-king who precedes the Omrides).64 And while we might speculate why Anat adorns herself,65 Jezebel's motives seem a bit more obvious. Jezebel paints her eyes because Anat paints her eyes. Jezebel puts on antimony (pûk) because Anat puts on murex (ánhb). Whether this is warpaint or mascara is never stated in either text, but Dtr seizes on it to heighten his satire and intensify his parody. Apparently he wants to satirize this Phoenician queen on several levels, even down to the details of her personal toilette.66 This parody continues on into the narrative about her death. In the myth, Anat's liver "swells with laughter" as she "washes her hands in the blood of the guards, her fingers in the gore of the warriors."67 In Dtr, however, Jezebel's "skull" no longer laughs, nor do her "hands" write false letters, nor do her "feet" any longer walk on family land stolen away from murdered Israelites. Just as Anat sheds her enemies' blood, so Jehu sheds his enemies' blood. Readers even nominally familiar with the Baal-Anat cycle would have no problem grasping these parallels. ….

Sunday, November 9, 2025

What brought low the Assyrians – an angel, plague of mice, distemper, a rogue comet, electromagnetics?

by Damien F. Mackey Sennacherib took 46 fortified cities, notably Lachish, laid siege to the capital City, had the Temple stripped of its gold and silver, and took tens of thousands of Jews into captivity. His 3rd Campaign was virtually a total success. Let the Great King of Assyria tell it to us personally: As for Hezekiah, the Judaean, who had not submitted to my yoke, I besieged forty-six of his fortified walled cities and surrounding small towns, which were without number. Using packed-down ramps and by applying battering rams, infantry attacks by mines, breeches and siege machines, I conquered (them). I took out 200,150 people, young and old, male and female, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, cattle and sheep, without number, and counted them as spoil. Himself [Hezekiah], I locked him up within Jerusalem, his royal city, like a bird in a cage. I surrounded him with earthworks, and made it unthinkable for him to exit by the city gate. His cities which I had despoiled, I cut off from his land and gave them to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, Padi, king of Ekron and Silli-bel, king of Gaza, and thus diminished his land. I imposed upon him in addition to the former tribute, yearly payment of dues and gifts for my lordship. He, Hezekiah, was overwhelmed by the awesome splendor of my lordship, and he sent me after my departure to Nineveh, my royal city, his elite troops and his best soldiers, which he had brought into Jerusalem as reinforcements, with 30 talents of gold, 800 talents of silver, choice antimony … countless trappings and implements of war, together with his daughters, his palace women, his male and female singers. He (also) dispatched his personal messenger to deliver the tribute and to do obeisance. —From the annals of Sennacherib, king of Assyria (705–681 B.C.E.), translated from the Rassam Prism, in Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings, Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1988), pp. 337–339. That doesn’t read like any sort of miraculous deliverance of Jerusalem from its enemy – nor was it. Today I received, and answered, this Message in relation to my latest article: Ignis de Caelo, Velikovsky, and Sennacherib's 185,000 (5) Ignis de Caelo, Velikovsky, and Sennacherib's 185,000 in which Message a U.S. reader argues for “… Jerusalem being [Assyria’s] only demonstrative failure …”. …. If you read Scripture thoroughly, you will find that in addition to Hezekiah's tunnel, he also ordered all of the wells around Judea stopped up, or diverted by another spring channel under Jerusalem. It is not improbable then, that the troops, searching for water, fell victim to typhoid, or a similar dysentary which epidemic kills quickly. There were great preparations before the siege. A scorched earth type preparation. Also, as some have postulated, … the word "thousands" was mistranslated by original scribes, originally meaning "captains" or "chiefs". So 185 captains of 50s would make it 9,000 or so died. This is more likely, if true, since hundreds of thousands of army are really overkill for any battle of the time— near impossible for logistics to handle. Also, since the Assyrians, using what is called hoplite tradition, used mercenaries from their conquered nations as fodder for their forces ("meat assaults"), of which they had an endless supply; 40-something nations, we read, were overcome, with Jerusalem being their only demonstrative failure, according to the Bible and other sources. …. Damien Mackey’s response: But the Assyrians did not fail at Jerusalem. This is a mistake that many make. Sennacherib took 46 fortified cities, notably Lachish, laid siege to the capital City, had the Temple stripped of its gold and silver, and took tens of thousands of Jews into captivity. His 3rd Campaign was virtually a total success. The Rabshakeh had sarcastically offered to give the beleaguered Jews horses to ride, knowing that they could not even man them (2 Kings 18:23). Then the Assyrian betrayed the agreement and came back to take the City entirely. But he heard that Tirhakah was on his way and lifted the siege, just as Nebuchednezzar would do in the face of Necho's advance, only to return later and finish the job. About a decade later, Sennacherib sent his eldest son with the biggest army of all time, to conquer Jerusalem on the way to Egypt, the main prize. The all-conquering army devastated the north, but did not get any further south than Shechem (“Bethulia” in the Book of Judith). Judith killed the Commander-in-Chief, and the army fled with terrible losses and captives taken. Jerusalem was not affected. …. Barry Setterfield (2024) will make the same mistake about Jerusalem, adding his idiosyncratic ‘scientific’ reason for the presumed annihilation of the Assyrian army. Barry is a Creationist, though a most original one. Creationists do tend to impose modern scientific views on these ancient Semitic texts: Barry’s Beacon - Shining Biblical Light on Current Events Part 2 Written By Barry Setterfield Hezekiah, Assyria, Archaeology and Science Brief Overview: Archaeological research this month supports the Biblical narrative historically from the time of Hezekiah, king of Judah. The accounts of the Assyrian invasion and siege of Jerusalem and associated events in 2 Kings 18:13 to 2 Kings 19:37 are proving accurate. Additional detail can be found in 2 Chronicles 32:1-22 and Isaiah 36 and 37. Background: In June, 2024, the Journal of Near Eastern Archaeology, Volume 87 (2), pages 110-120, published a research article by an independent archaeologist, Stephen Compton, whose expertise included the Neo-Assyrian Empire. That empire was a major civilization whose dominion included the lands that today are in Iran, Turkey, Syria and Kuwait. The Neo-Assyrian Empire existed from 911 BC to 609 BC and had perfected iron technology. This contrasted with many surrounding states which made their weapons and implements of the softer metal, bronze. This gave Assyria an advantage in many military campaigns. Their strategy was to dominate the trade routes across the Syrian Desert to the Mediterranean Sea, and control politically and economically the countries these routes passed through. These countries included the kingdom of Judah with its capital, Jerusalem. Hezekiah, was the king of Judah at the time of this Assyrian campaign. Outline of Assyria’s Campaign: In 705 BC, the Assyrian king, Sargon II, was killed in battle, and his son, Sennacherib, ascended the throne, making Nineveh his capital. My comment: This, I believe, is quite incorrect and will only serve to throw right out of kilter neo-Assyrian and biblical history. Sargon II was Sennacherib. Sargon’s attack on “Ashdod” (Lachish) (Isaiah 20:1) was the beginning of what will become Sennacherib’s devastating 3rd Campaign, greatly affecting Judah and Jerusalem (as we have read above). Barry Setterfield continues: Sennacherib first overcame rebellions in Asia Minor, then, in 701 BC, he turned his attention to the Levant where Hezekiah of Judah, Lule king of Sidon, Sidka, king of Ascalon and the king of Ekron had formed an alliance with Egypt against Assyria. Sennacherib attacked the rebels, conquering Ascalon, Sidon and Ekron. After going down to Egypt [My comment: He didn’t], he came back and destroyed Libna and Lachish. Records in the Assyrian palace at Nineveh state that 46 cities were destroyed in this military campaign. That included the well-fortified frontier city of Lachish, one of the best equipped cities in Judah, which was some 40 miles south-west of Jerusalem. Finally, the Assyrian expedition ended with the siege of Jerusalem itself. This feat of overcoming so much resistance was considered to be Sennacherib’s greatest victory. This particular campaign was of interest to Compton because of the detailed records available. These records are in the form of carvings in Sennacherib’s palace in Nineveh (present day Mosul) in northern Iraq. In addition, a six-sided prism was found associated with the remains of the palace that turned out to be Sennacherib’s annals or dairy of the events (see images below). Finally, there are extensive details from Hezekiah’s point of view in the Bible in 2 Kings 18:13 to 2 Kings 19:37; and then 2 Chronicles 32:1-22 coupled with the prophet Isaiah, chapters 36 and 37, as Isaiah the prophet also had a hand in the outcome. The Clue From Military Camps: Because these accounts are in the Bible, many skeptical archaeologists insist on historical material entirely separate from any Biblical source before they will even begin to consider its validity. The question was whether or not Sennacherib even came down as far as Judah, let alone destroying Lachish and placing Jerusalem under siege. One scientist commented: “There has not been any archaeological evidence that the battle actually happened.” It was at this point that Stephen Compton’s research became important. He examined the details in the palace carvings. From those records, it became apparent that the Assyrian armies had an unusual style of structure for their military encampments (something that had first been queried only in January 2004, and studies are still continuing). These Assyrian camps were all of an oval shape. The Romans also had military camps throughout the Levant, but these Roman camps were always of a square or rectangular design. This contrasted with the Assyrian oval pattern recorded on the palace walls. The Clues From Old Aerial Photos: For many archaeologists, the most important discovery of them all would be to find an oval structure at Lachish and/or Jerusalem. Compton was aided in this by a 19th century archaeologist, Sir Henry Lanyard. In 1849, Sir Henry sketched the massive reliefs detailing the battle of Lachish from the palace walls in Nineveh, and placed the sketches in the British Museum. The palace record also detailed the landforms the Assyrian army was operating on, as well as the placement of the oval campsite. Compton then searched for early aerial images taken before the end of World War 2, and thus before subsequent alteration of the land. He found an aerial image taken in 1945 of the entire region around Lachish as shown on the palace record in the British Museum. He was able to match the landforms and determine the location of the oval military camp of the Assyrians. When checking on the ground in that location, he found the feature was already known as ‘Khirbet al Mudawwara,’ meaning “Ruins of the Camp of the Invading King.” Archaeological investigation at the site confirmed its identity. In a similar way, aided by the earliest aerial photograph of Jerusalem, taken in the 1930’s (held in the Library of Congress), the oval military camp of the Assyrians was located just north of Jerusalem at a place called “Ammunition Hill.” Initially it had been thought to be a Roman camp. However, examination then revealed it to be consistent with the Assyrians as, among other things, its form was oval, not rectangular. Because of its good location, the British also used it and gave it the name Ammunition Hill. Compton’s continued his research and, “In some cases, it has also been possible to use the newly discovered camps to locate the sites of ancient cities that were known to have been besieged by the Assyrians but whose locations were unknown or uncertain,” Compton wrote. Archaeological Proof – But was there a Miracle? The initial conclusion from Compton’s research is that the evidence is certainly strong that Sennacherib did invade the land of Judah, with a special emphasis on Lachish and Jerusalem. One assessment expressed it this way: “While the archaeological evidence discovered by Compton does not confirm the supernatural aspects of the Biblical narrative, it does provide compelling support for the historical presence of Assyrian military forces near Jerusalem during Sennacherib’s reign.” My comment: Yes, this is evidence for the well-chronicled – and highly successful, for Assyria – 3rd campaign. The extraordinary deliverance of Israel would not occur in the environs of Jerusalem, but well north, at Shechem. Barry Setterfield continues: Additional evidence is available from the palace walls in Nineveh. The record from those walls includes a complex scene of the Assyrians storming Lachish. There is a vivid written description of what was being depicted by German archaeologist Werner Keller. After this description, Professor Keller continues: “Amid the confusion of the battle and the din around this frontier fortress of Judah, an order went out from Sennacherib: ‘And the king of Assyria sent Tartan, and Rabsaris and Rabshakeh from Lachish to king Hezekiah, along with a great host against Jerusalem (2 Kings 18:17).’ That meant an attack on Jerusalem. The historians of the Assyrian king have preserved a record of what happened next. The hexagonal prism that was Sennacherib’s diary says: “And Hezekiah of Judah, who had not submitted to my yoke … him I shut up in Jerusalem his royal city like a caged bird. Earthworks I threw up against him, and anyone coming out of his city gate I made to pay for his crime. His cities which I had plundered I cut off from his hand…’. ” Professor Keller then writes: “Surely now must come the announcement of the fall of Jerusalem and the seizing of the capital. But the [palace] text continues: ‘As for Hezekiah, the splendor of my majesty overwhelmed him .. 30 gold talents … valuable treasures …. He caused to be brought after me to Nineveh. To pay his tribute and to do me homage he sent his envoys.’ Keller then comments: “This is simply a bragging account of the payment of tribute – nothing more. – just as in 2 Kings 18:14. The Assyrian texts pass on immediately from the description of the battle of Jerusalem to the payment of Hezekiah’s tribute. Just at the moment when the whole country had been subjugated and the siege of Jerusalem, the last point of resistance, was in full swing, the unexpected happened: Sennacherib broke off the attack at the very last minute. Only something quite extraordinary could have induced him to stop the fighting. What might it have been? While the Assyrian records are enveloped in a veil of silence the Bible says: “And it came to pass that night, that the Angel of the LORD went out and smote the camp of the Assyrians, one hundred and eighty-five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses. So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed and went and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh.” (2 Kings 19:35, 36). My comment: Werner Keller wrote a disastrous book, The Bible as History (1955), tethering the Bible to an uneven conventional historical yoke. Here, he has merged into one two separate Assyrian campaigns, Sennacherib’s successful 3rd campaign, and a later disastrous one, led by his eldest son. Barry Setterfield continues: So What Actually Happened? My comment: One now suspects that Barry will not be able satisfactorily to answer his question. He turns for assistance to that most unreliable of ancient historians, Herodotus, who has Sennacherib’s army falling at, not Jerusalem, but at the near rhyming Pelusium, in northern Egypt. A combination of Herodotus and Werner Keller, as given next, is not to be desired. We learn a little more from another historical link to these events which Professor Keller brought to light. He points out that the famous traveler, historian and author of the ancient world, Herodotus of Halicarnassus, has given us some interesting clues not found in other records. In Egypt, Herodotus held conversations with the temple priests. They mentioned that Sennacherib marched against Egypt with a large armed force. They told Herodotus that “at the narrow entrances to the country, an army of field-mice swarmed over their opponents in the night … gnawed through their quivers and their bows, and the handles of their shields, so that on the following day they fled minus their arms and a great number of them fell [by the resulting plague].” For peoples of the ancient world, the mouse was the equivalent of the rat in the Middle Ages and was a symbol of plague. Archaeological Conclusion: Werner Keller concludes his assessment with the following information; “On the edge of the city of Lachish, the British archaeologist, James Lesley Starkey found shocking proof of this story in 1938: A mass grave in the rock with 2000 human skeletons, unmistakably thrown in with the utmost haste. The epidemic must have raged with frightful destruction among the Assyrian warriors. The drama of the campaign had been unfolded, and once more, Jerusalem had escaped…” My comment: But surely these were casualties of the mass devastations caused by the invading Assyrian army! But Behind the Scenes….. Our conclusion here is that, as far as it is possible for modern science to do so, it supports the Scriptural account of the Assyrian invasion of the land of Judah. Yet even this is not the end of the story scripturally. There is another whole dimension to the drama of the situation that the Bible leaves until the very end. In 2 Kings 19 we have the record of the wipe-out of the Assyrian host. However, as we go on to read 2 Kings 20:1-11 we are amazed to find that just in the middle of this crucial time, the king of Judah, Hezekiah himself, was on his bed in the palace in Jerusalem, very sick and near death. My comment: King Hezekiah was ill at some point in time near to Sennacherib’s successful campaign, as the following makes clear. Barry Setterfield continues: Indeed, we are told in 2 Kings 20:1 that the prophet Isaiah went to Hezekiah and told him to put his house in order because he was not going to live. This, just at the time when the Assyrians had Jerusalem under siege and the people needed to be encouraged by their king to stand steadfast in the face of this opposition. At that point, Hezekiah turned his face to the wall, wept, and prayed fervently. Before Isaiah had even gone as far as the middle court in the palace, God gave him a message: “Return and tell Hezekiah the leader of My people, ‘Thus says the LORD, the God of David your father: I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely, I will heal you. On the third day you will go up to the house of the Lord. And I will add to your days fifteen years. And I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the King of Assyria, and I will defend this city for My own sake and the sake of my servant David”. When the prophet had delivered this message, king Hezekiah said to Isaiah, “What is the sign that the Lord will heal me, and that I shall go up to the house of the Lord on the third day?” Then Isaiah said “This is the sign to you from the Lord, that the Lord will do the thing which He has spoken: “Shall the shadow [on the sundial] go forward ten degrees, or go backwards ten degrees?” And Hezekiah answered, “It is an easy thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees; no, but let the shadow come back ten degrees.” So Isaiah the prophet cried out to the Lord, and He brought the shadow backwards ten degrees by which it had gone down on the sundial of Ahaz.” The incident is told in detail again in Isaiah 38. My comment: Get ready for some Creationist ‘science’. Are there Scriptural songs from these events? This miracle in itself needs an explanation, but we put that aside for the moment to concentrate on something else that is Biblically relevant. Several words in the above account give us the context with certainty; they are the word “degrees,” “sun,” “sundial” and “shadow.” Plainly what is being referred to here is the shadow cast by the sun on the sundial of Ahaz. This shadow from the sun is usually marked off in “degrees” around a circle or half-circle. There are thus 15 degrees per hour which means that 24 hours would make up a full circle of 360 degrees. In this case, 10 degrees would correspond to 40 minutes of actual time. The word translated as “degrees” is the same as the word “dial” used in the biblical accounts as “sun-dial”. It can be translated as “steps” or “stairs,” but astronomically the word “degrees” is better. Interestingly, this same word “degrees” is found as the heading for 15 Psalms. There has been a wide discussion as to what was meant in the case of these Psalms. Some have suggested they were part of a pilgrimage going up to Jerusalem for one of the three annual Feasts. However, there is nothing in any of these Psalms to indicate either a pilgrimage or a feast. Despite this, many Bible versions label these Psalms as “Songs of Ascents” on the basis of the pilgrims ascending to Jerusalem. A number of other popular explanations also fall short. However, the headings for each of those Psalms give their own clue. In each case there is the definite article before the word “degrees” (or ascents or steps). So literally each heading reads “A Song of THE Degrees.” There is only one incident in the whole Bible where the attention is specifically drawn to “the degrees” and that is on the sundial of Ahaz at the healing of Hezekiah, where the shadow went backwards 10 degrees and Hezekiah’s life was extended by 15 years. The fact is that there are precisely 15 Songs of the Degrees, and 10 of them have no named author. The other five are by David or Solomon. We also know that Hezekiah was a Psalm-writer as one of his Psalms appears in Isaiah 38 starting at verse 9 which specifically mentions his recovery from this sickness. It is thus possible that Hezekiah wrote those other 10 Psalms himself and left them unattributed. Bible scholars also suggest that he had a large part in shaping the book of Psalms into its present form just as he did for the book of Proverbs (see Proverbs 25:1). A new appreciation for some songs? If this background for the ‘Songs of the Degrees’ is accepted, some of those 10 unattributed Psalms open up in a new way. For example, imagine how the people of Jerusalem felt that early morning when they looked out over the walls of Jerusalem and saw that, incredibly, the siege was over and their enemy destroyed. I believe we may have a record of just this moment. Psalm 126, which is one that Hezekiah may have written, we read, in the literal Hebrew, verses 1 to 3, as follows: “When the Lord restored Zion (the city of Jerusalem) from being a prisoner, we were like those who dream, and our mouth was filled with laughter and our tongue with singing. They said among the nations, The Lord has done great things for them…whereof we are glad.” Connecting the dots… The final aspect of this amazing series of events is the cause of the shadow going back 10 degrees on the sundial of Ahaz. Many view this as an isolated event and so miss something important. If we connect the dots by looking at the unusual behavior of the sun in the Bible, something important emerges. There is the time when Joshua commanded the sun to stand still along with the moon, with the whole story in Joshua 10:6-15. Then there was Hezekiah as we have seen above. If we move forward to the time of the Crucifixion, we read that the world turned dark around noon. However, the prophet Amos had already told us what was going to happen in Amos 8:9-10. It reads: “And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord God, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth on a clear day: And I will turn your feast (Passover) into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation; and I will bring up sackcloth upon all loins, and baldness upon every head; and I will make it as the mourning of an only son, and the end thereof as a bitter day.” So we have three occasions in the Bible when this occurs. If we look at the times when these events occurred, something becomes apparent. Using the dating from the most ancient text of the Bible available, the Alexandrian Septuagint (LXX), which is backed up by the chronologies of the Apostolic fathers, the approximate dates for these events are as follows: Joshua – 1450 BC +/- 100 years. Hezekiah -710 BC +/- 50 years. The Crucifixion 33 AD +/- 3 years. There seems to be a systematic progression in these dates with about 745 years between each event. If we come closer to the present by 745 years from the time of the Crucifixion, we come to about 778 AD. In August 15th that year, Emperor Charlemagne was poised to attack the forces that treacherously destroyed his closest associate, Roland, and his forces in Spain. Charlemagne asked the Lord for a sign of assurance before the battle that he had Divine approval. He recorded in his diary and in his “Song of Roland” that the Sun stood still in the heavens that day. Have you ever played with a gyroscope? If the gyroscope is mounted so it can move freely in any direction, and it is then given a push, it will swing back and forth systematically for a time - then, suddenly, it will do a figure 8 roll and then go back to its swinging back and forth. After this the process repeats with the figure of 8 roll. We know the earth behaves like a gyroscope, so that figure of 8 movement every 745 years may be explained. It would cause a ‘long day’ on one side of the earth and a ‘long night’ on the other. This is exactly what is recorded in various ancient cultures at different places around the world. One other important point is that, if the earth’s movement changed like that, there should be relevant records in the magnetic fields of the earth associated with those times. If we come another 745 years closer to the present after Charlemagne, we arrive at about 1520 AD. My comment: For my entirely different view of Charlemagne, see e.g. my article: Solomon and Charlemagne (5) Solomon and Charlemagne About that time, Thai pottery shows that there were some unusual, but temporary, changes in the earth’s magnetic field. This was reported in the University of Sydney News, vol. 16. no.4, for 6th March, 1984. The team was headed by Dr. Mike Barbetti, whose speciality was paleo-magnetism. He found that there was a change in the strength and direction of the earth’s magnetic field around that time. This implicates the earth’s core as being involved in what was going on. This was also true for the Hezekiah incident as there was a dramatic change in the earth’s magnetic field intensity recorded in Judean pottery with Hezekiah’s seal on them on that occasion. That leads to another data point. In 1972 an article in the journal Nature entitled “Archaeomagnetism in Iran” pointed out that there was a major change in the direction of movement of the geomagnetic pole. Again, this implies that the earth’s core was involved. The date of that change was about 2200 to 2300 BC and corresponds with the wipe-out of civilizations around the world as a result of meteorite impact. Such impacts definitely affect the earth’s core. Our analysis and the astronomical data supporting the impact in 2300 BC with an error of about 150 years is here: https://www.barrysetterfield.org/Worldwide_Event.html Further discoveries about the earth’s core in 2013 and 2015 have confirmed the period of 720 to 750 years and indicates that the asteroid impact about 2300 to 2200 BC may indeed be the basic cause of the effect seen by Hezekiah that has been a puzzle for so many. My comment: Not entirely sure how c. 2000 BC vitally affects what was going on in King Hezekiah’s kingdom of the late C8th BC.

Tuesday, November 4, 2025

Short Commentary on the Book of Job

“Job belongs to the corpus of wisdom literature, yet it stands apart for its global, rather than national, scope. Its universal themes—suffering, justice, mortality, and faith—speak across cultures and ages”. The Way of Truth ________________________________________ The Way of Truth article (with Damien Mackey’s comments added) can be found at: Understanding the Book of Job: Suffering and Divine Wisdom …. The book of Job stands as one of the most profound and challenging works in all of Scripture. It grapples unflinchingly with the problem of suffering—the question that has haunted humanity since the dawn of time: Why do the righteous suffer? Written in majestic poetry and framed by a prose narrative, Job confronts this question not through philosophical speculation but through divine revelation. It shows that while God’s purposes often lie beyond human understanding, His wisdom and justice remain perfect, and His grace is sufficient even in the darkest affliction. Damien Mackey’s comment: The Book of Job is actually a highly philosophical work: Why Job Had to Suffer (A Philosophical Answer to the Problem of Pain) — The Think Institute The Deeper, Philosophical Meaning of the Book of Job | Owen Anderson (ThinkPod) Worldview Legacy | The Think InstituteBy The Think InstituteJun 23, 2021 The problem of suffering has been with humanity since the very beginning. And no book of the Bible addresses this problem more directly than the book of Job. But what is the meaning of the book? How should we really understand Job's story? And is it possible that the majority of commentators are missing something important here? In this episode, Dr. Owen Anderson helps us get to the true, deeper, philosophical meaning of Job. Owen has been teaching philosophy and religious studies for more than two decades and is a professor of philosophy and religious studies at Arizona State University. His research focuses on general revelation and related questions about reality, value, and knowledge. He has been a fellow at Princeton University, a visiting scholar at Princeton Seminary, and a fellow at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He has published several books including "Job: A Philosophical Commentary" (2021), in which he argues that it is Job, not the Greeks, who was the earliest philosopher. Specifically, you will learn: • Why Owen Anderson believes Job is the earliest work of true philosophy. • Why we should view Job as a philosophical conversation. • What is the deepest problem being addressed in the book of Job? • Whether Job had been sinning, and why he was still called "blameless." • What's up with Job's 10 kids. • How Job's interpreters have gotten him wrong over the years. • The deep, philosophical meaning of Job. And much, much more. …. I. Historical Setting and Authorship The exact time of Job’s life is uncertain, but internal clues suggest an early patriarchal setting, perhaps contemporaneous with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Damien Mackey’s comment: I believe, on the contrary, that the prophet Job clearly belonged to the time of the Chaldean empire (Job 1:17): ‘The Chaldeans formed three raiding parties and swept down on your camels and made off with them’. This era was a good millennium and more after “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”. For, Job was none other than Tobias, the son of Tobit, whose life began in Assyrian captivity in Nineveh. On this, see e.g. my article: Job’s Life and Times (5) Job’s Life and Times There are many parallels between Job and Tobias, not least of which is having seven sons (cf., Job 1:2; 42:13; Tobit 14:3) – which is, surprisingly, quite rare in the Bible. The article continues: Job’s wealth is measured in livestock, his lifespan exceeds 140 years, and there is no mention of the Mosaic Law or Israelite institutions. The author is likewise unknown. Some traditions attribute the book to Moses, while others suggest an ancient sage inspired by God to record Job’s story as both history and divine drama. Regardless of authorship, the book’s literary excellence and theological depth mark it as one of the earliest and greatest masterpieces of biblical revelation. Damien Mackey’s comment: The Book of Job is, in fact, considered to be closest in style to the Book of Jeremiah, which, again, is much later than the era as suggested in The Way of Truth article: “Some traditions attribute the book to Moses …”. intertextual.bible | Biblical Intertextuality | Comparing Job and Jeremiah Job and Jeremiah: A Comparison The Book of Job and the Book of Jeremiah share several parallels, particularly in their treatment of suffering and the relationship between the individual and God. Both texts address the question of why the righteous suffer, with Job's narrative providing a way to relate to the Jewish exile and the themes of divine justice and human suffering. The cursing of the day of their birth is a strikingly similar moment in both texts, highlighting the shared human experience of despair and the search for meaning. The comparison between Job and Jeremiah also touches on the idea of knowing God's will in advance, a theme that resonates in both texts as they explore the complexities of suffering and the human condition. That may make the prophet Jeremiah, who was the High Priest, Eliakim (Joakim), of the Book of Judith: Jeremiah was both prophet and high priest (2) Jeremiah was both prophet and high priest and who is a favoured candidate for the authorship of that book: Author of the Book of Judith (2) Author of the Book of Judith a potential candidate also for the authorship of the Book of Job. Another, perhaps likelier, candidate for the authorship of Job would be the inspired “Elihu … the Buzite” (Job 32:2), who may well be the same as the great prophet “Ezekiel son of Buzi” (Ezekiel 1:3): Elihu a contemporary of the prophet Ezekiel (3) Elihu a contemporary of the prophet Ezekiel Elihu and Ezekiel were contemporaries, both of whom referred to Job (Elihu addressed Job), Buzites, they experienced similar awesome theophanies, and were filled with God’s spirit. There are three other points raised in The Way of Truth article upon which I would like to comment. Firstly: “Job’s wealth is measured in livestock…”. In “Job’s Life and Times”, I compared Job and Tobias in this regard: …. The fortunes of the once-impoverished Tobias had taken a quantum leap upwards by the conclusion of his successful visit to Ecbatana. We read: “... Raguel ... gave Tobias half his wealth, menservants and maid-servants, oxen and sheep, donkeys and camels, clothes, and money and household things” (10:10. Jerusalem Bible version). Moreover, the angel Raphael had retrieved for Tobias, from nearby “Rages”, the ten talents of silver that his father had “left there in trust with Gabael”, one of his kinsmen (v.14), some 20 years before (cf. 4:20 and 9:5). Interest on this sum (equivalent to many thousands of dollars) must have greatly accumulated during that period of time. Materially speaking, Tobias would eventually benefit further from family inheritances; from his father’s estate in Nineveh, and afterwards, from that of his parents-in-law, in Ecbatana: “[Tobias] inherited their property and that of his father Tobit” (14:13). Thus the wealth that Tobias had accumulated by the time that he had settled down away from Assyria would compare most favourably with the following description that we encounter in the opening verses of the Book of Job: “There was a man ... whose name was Job .... He had seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she-asses, and very many servants ...” (1:1, 3). Note that the very same types of livestock are listed in both accounts: “oxen”, “sheep”, “donkeys” (she-asses) and “camels”, plus the abundance of human “servants”. We might add another domestic animal here as well: the sheepdog. The dog in the Book of Tobit is sometimes singled out by commentators as being an irrelevancy. What is the point, they exclaim, of even mentioning it! I personally am glad for the dog’s inclusion. Apart from it adding a realistic, eyewitness flavour to a story that is already saturated with such detail (as is often noted by biblical commentators), it provides a further possible link with Job. For, whereas virtually every reference in the Old Testament to a “dog” or “dogs” is derogatory or unflattering - and never homely - it seems that the rare exceptions are to be found in the books of Tobit and Job. Thus: Tobit: “And Tobias went forward; and the dog followed him ...” (cf. 6:1 and 11:4). …. “Then the dog, which had been with [Tobias and the angel] along the way, ran ahead of them; and coming as if he had brought the news showed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail” (Tobit 11:9). Job: “But now they make sport of me, men who are younger than I, whose fathers I would have distained to set with the dogs of my flock” (30:1). (RSV version). Another version has: “... no sheep-dog of mine ever tended”. …. According to the Heb. Londinii (or HL) version of Tobit, a large party went with the bridal pair (Tobias and Sarah) a day’s journey homewards; and “... everyone gave a ring of gold … and a piece of silver” (11:1). The only other place in Scripture of which I am aware, where the same thing happened, is in the Book of Job; and it is virtually word for word with Tobit: “... each of them gave [Job] a piece of money and a ring of gold” (42:11). Secondly, “Job’s … lifespan exceeds 140 years …”. While Tobias, likewise, surpassed 1oo, the numbers vary in the different versions of the Book of Tobit, e.g. “a hundred and twenty-seven years” (RSV); “117 years” (GNT); but only “ninety-nine years” in the Douay version. Thirdly, “… and there is no mention of the Mosaic Law or Israelite institutions”. The supplementary Book of Tobit, however, is replete with such: e.g., Tobit 1:3-8; 2:1-9; 3:1-6, 11-15; 4:3-19; 6:11-15; 8:5-7; 12:6-10; 13:1-18; 14:4-6, 9. II. Structure and Literary Form Job is composed of a prologue and epilogue in prose (chapters 1–2 and 42:7–17) framing an extensive poetic dialogue (chapters 3–42:6). 1. Prologue (Chapters 1–2): Job is introduced as “perfect and upright,” yet Satan challenges his integrity, asserting that his faith depends on prosperity. God permits Job to be tested, first by the loss of his possessions and children, then by personal affliction. Yet Job refuses to curse God. 2. Dialogues and Discourses (Chapters 3–37): In poetry of unparalleled intensity, Job and his friends—Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar—debate the cause of his suffering. They assume that suffering is always the consequence of sin, while Job maintains his innocence and wrestles with God’s silence. Later, a younger man, Elihu, adds his own perspective, emphasizing God’s justice and pedagogical use of suffering. 3. The Divine Encounter (Chapters 38–41): Out of the whirlwind, God speaks, not to explain why Job suffers, but to reveal who He is. Through a series of awe-inspiring questions about creation, providence, and power, God humbles Job’s limited understanding and restores his trust. 4. Epilogue (Chapter 42): Job repents in dust and ashes, not for hidden sin but for presuming to judge God’s ways. His fortunes are restored twofold, and his relationship with God is deepened through the experience of divine grace. III. Purpose and Message The central purpose of Job is not to solve the mystery of suffering, but to deepen our understanding of God’s wisdom, sovereignty, and justice. The book teaches that: • The righteous may suffer not as punishment, but as part of God’s hidden purposes. • True faith clings to God even when His ways are inscrutable. • Human wisdom cannot fully grasp divine providence; “the fear of the LORD, that is wisdom” (Job 28:28). • God is sovereign over both prosperity and pain, and His plans ultimately display His glory and goodness. In essence, Job challenges the shallow theology of retribution, the belief that good things always happen to good people and bad things to the wicked. It replaces this moral simplism with a theology of reverence: God is not obligated to justify Himself to man, and yet He is always righteous in all His dealings. Damien Mackey’s comment: This profound message from the ancient Book of Job appears to have been completely lost on the Apostles (John 9:2-5): His disciples asked him, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’ ‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned’” said Jesus, ‘but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him. As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world’. IV. Theological Themes 1. The Sovereignty of God: God reigns supreme over creation and over Satan. Even the Adversary’s attacks are bounded by divine permission. 2. The Reality of Satan and Spiritual Conflict: The opening scenes remind us that earthly suffering often has unseen spiritual dimensions. 3. The Mystery of Providence: God’s purposes transcend human understanding, yet they are never arbitrary or unjust. 4. Faith under Trial: Job’s perseverance under unimaginable loss exemplifies the triumph of faith refined by fire. 5. The Quest for a Mediator: Job’s yearning for an advocate between himself and God (9:33; 16:19) anticipates Christ, the ultimate Mediator who reconciles man to God. 6. The Grace of Restoration: Job’s story ends not in despair but in renewal, prefiguring the resurrection hope that emerges from the ashes of affliction. V. Historical and Apologetic Considerations Job belongs to the corpus of wisdom literature, yet it stands apart for its global, rather than national, scope. Its universal themes—suffering, justice, mortality, and faith—speak across cultures and ages. The book’s ancient setting and poetic style affirm its authenticity as an early and inspired work, while its insights into divine providence and moral order testify to its revelation from God rather than mere human speculation. VI. Christological Significance Throughout Job, faint rays of messianic hope pierce the darkness of suffering. Job’s cry—“I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth” (19:25)—is one of the clearest anticipations of the resurrection in the Old Testament. Christ is the answer to Job’s longing: the sinless sufferer who bore undeserved pain, the mediator who pleads for His people, and the risen Lord who guarantees final vindication. In Jesus, the riddle of innocent suffering finds its ultimate resolution, not in explanation, but in redemption. VII. Practical and Devotional Application For believers, Job is not merely a philosophical treatise but a pastoral companion in seasons of pain. It teaches that worship is possible even when explanations are withheld, that faith may question without forsaking, and that God’s silence is not His absence. It calls us to trust the God we cannot always trace and to rest in His character when we cannot understand His plan. VIII. Conclusion The book of Job stands as a monument of divine wisdom and human faith. It does not promise easy answers but invites us into a deeper trust in the God who “doeth great things past finding out” (Job 9:10). Through suffering, Job’s knowledge of God moves from hearsay to encounter: “I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now mine eye seeth thee” (42:5). That is the goal of every believer’s trial: that through pain, perplexity, and perseverance, we might see God more clearly and worship Him more truly. Job thus teaches the greatest lesson of all: though the righteous suffer, God remains righteous. And in the end, His purposes will shine brighter than the storm.