Khety also mirrors Joseph and the era of abundance to Famine phases

by Damien F. Mackey Introduction From the historical entities, DEN and KHASEKHEMWY - identifications of the biblical Joseph, as we have found - there may be derived multiple names applicable to Joseph. I already listed these in my article: Joseph as Chancellor of Egypt, Hemaka (7) Joseph as Chancellor of Egypt, Hemaka | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Den, ‘he who brings water’, also has the Manethonic name, Usaphais, which (Usaph-) is straight-out Yosef (Joseph). Khasekhemwy - who is also Khasekhem; Hetepsekhemwy; Hotepsekhemoui; and Sekhemkhet - importantly has the name Imhotep (-ef), presumably the Imhotep of the Famine Stela, who is the favoured person for Joseph. He is also Bebi, a name of Famine significance. And he, as Sekhemkhet, has the names of Djoser (Zoser) and Tyris (the Tyrian), and, as I am shortly to suggest, may be the important Khety (Kheti). More recently, I have connected the Joseph-like Hemaka to the name Khasekhem. Since these multiple names embrace a vast period from the First Dynasty until the Eleventh Dynasty, that is, in unrealistic conventional terms, I have also had to connect them in partnership with a ruler of, now the First Dynasty, now the Third Dynasty, and now the Eleventh Dynasty. This I did in my article: Biblical King of the seven-year Famine (9) Biblical King of the seven-year Famine | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The Famine king, I concluded, was the multiply-identified: Djer (Nynetjer)/Djet (First Dynasty); Horus Netjerikhet (Third Dynasty); Mentuhotep II Netjerihedjet (Eleventh Dynasty) Now, Mentuhotep II had an important treasurer named Khety (Kheti), about whom we do not appear to know anywhere near enough. Khety Silsileh rock relief depicting a giant king Mentuhotep II, on the right Intef III and the treasurer Kheti and, on the left, queen Iah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kheti_(treasurer) heti ẖtj(j) in hieroglyphs Era: Middle Kingdom (2055–1650 BC) Kheti was an ancient Egyptian treasurer of the 11th Dynasty, under king Mentuhotep II. Kheti appears in several sources and was one of the most influential figures at the royal court of the king. He is depicted in two rock reliefs at Shatt er-Rigal where he is standing in front of the king. Once the king wears the Sed festival dress. It can be assumed that Kheti was involved in arranging the festival for the king. …. His name and title appear in the funerary temple of the king in Deir el-Bahari and he had a tomb near the funerary temple of his king. …. The tomb (TT311) was found heavily destroyed but there are still many remains of reliefs showing that it was once decorated. …. [End of quote] Since Mentuhotep II was the Famine king, I would be looking to connect this Kheti with the nomarch of the same name of a Famine era, commonly known as Khety II of Assiut, and linking the name Kheti to one of our Joseph names above, Sekhemkhet -khet, Kheti. In the following account of Kheti by Brian Fagan, “Ancient Egypt’s Great Hunger” (2021), the official grows up in an era of abundance for Egypt, but then, as in the case of the biblical Joseph, there occur sequences of low Niles and a protracted Famine: https://popular-archaeology.com/article/ancient-egypts-great-hunger/ …. By any standards, another nomarch, Khety II of Assiut, was well connected. He grew up at the royal court and boasted in his tomb inscriptions that he learned swimming with the pharaoh’s children. Young Khety grew up during prosperous times, when brimming Nile floods irrigated the fertile lands around Assiut. Profoundly loyal to the pharaohs, he rose to become nomarch of Assiut, a tax collector and powerful administrator who served as the king’s representative in his nome, a province far upstream from the court at Memphis. But the good times were over. Flood after flood peaked quickly, at much lower levels than before. Thousands of hectares of normally fertile soil received no water from the usual inundation. In desperation, villagers planted crops on sand banks exposed by the receding water. Khety soon found himself confronted by famine. Though unlike many Egyptian officials of the day, he was a proactive administrator, who paid careful attention to impending flood levels predicted by his scribes. His sepulcher boasted of the drastic measures he took to feed his people: “I nourished my town, I acted as [my own] accountant in regard to food and as giver of water in the middle of the day.” He dug a canal 10 meters wide to divert precious irrigation water to drought-stricken farmland. Like Ankhtifi, he built dams, drained water from swamps for irrigated lands, and rationed grain, placing guards on grain bins. [End of quote] Kheti referred to himself as a “giver of water”. As Den, he was “he who brings water”. He was “a proactive administrator”, “like Ankhtifi”, who I think he was. Kheti had reason to be more proactive than the rest, presuming that he was Joseph, for it had been Divinely revealed to him what was coming. Like Khasekhemwy-Imhotep, who I think he was, “he built dams, drained water from swamps for irrigated lands, and rationed grain, placing guards on grain bins”.

Temple and Gihon Spring sat in the middle of Jerusalem

“In fact, in Josippon ben Gorion’s version of War, he says that from the top of the temple’s east wall, the water in the Kidron Brook could be seen running at one cubit’s distance from the wall”. Marilyn Sams Taken from: https://www.academia.edu/14532171/The_Temple_Mount_in_the_City_of_David_Ancient_Authenticating_Descriptions with a few comments added: The Temple Mount in the City of David: Ancient Authenticating Descriptions by Marilyn Sams Ancient descriptions of the Jerusalem Temple Mount are incompatible with the current identification and location of it in Jerusalem, which is a long-standing tradition only, entirely dependent on the undocumented proposition that during the time of David or Solomon the northern walls of the City of David/Jerusalem were broken down to append a large northerly extension for the temple and acropolis. Instead, ancient descriptions of the boundaries of the City of David/Jerusalem delimit it to the southeastern hill, with no northerly extension added. …. In 1909-1910, Parker and Vincent discovered archaeological remains dated to 3000 B.C. in the Gihon Spring area, affirming the southeastern hill was the original site of the ancient habitations chronicled in the Bible and history (Reich, 2011). In War VI, 10, 438, Josephus mentions an early king of Jerusalem, a contemporary of Abraham: But he who first built it was a potent man among the Canaanites, and is in our own tongue called [Melchizedek], the Righteous King, for such he really was; on which account he was [there] the first priest of God, and first built a temple [there], and called the city Jerusalem, which was formerly called Salem. Mackey’s comment: I suspect that Melchizedek’s Salem was in the north, near Shechem, a long way from Jerusalem. Another reference in Josephus states the city “was called Solyma, but afterwards they named it Hiersolyma, calling the temple (hieron) Solyma, which, in the Hebrew tongue means “security” (Antiquities VII, 3, 67, Loeb translation). The translation of this passage indicates an amalgamation of the city’s former name (Salem) and the word for “temple” to create the new name “Hierosolyma” or “Jerusalem,” because of the temple there. Mackey’s comment: Melchizedek, like his contemporary, Abram (Abraham), belonged to the Late Chalcolithic, much earlier than Middle Bronze II. These include the Spring Tower surrounding the Gihon Spring, the Pool Wall guarding the Rock-cut Pool adjacent to it, and the Fortified Passage, which consists of two massive walls forming a path from the Spring and Rock-cut Pool and heading toward the ridge at the top of the slope. These fortifications protected citizens while accessing their major water supply. Reich surmised there was an important fortress at the top of the ridge (Reich, 2011). Since this will be shown to be where Solomon’s temple stood, it also qualifies as the likeliest place for Melchizedek’s temple [sic]. The Uru Salem of Abdi-Heba, in the 14th century B.C. and the later city of Jebus also occupied the southeastern hill (Van der Veen, 2013). In the 10th century B.C., after David conquered Jebus, he renamed it the City of David. Mackey’s comment: As Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky had proposed, in Ages in Chaos I (1952), Abdi-Hiba of Urusalim actually belonged to the approximate time of King Ahab of Israel, even later than kings David and Solomon. Abdi-hiba was, in fact, King Jehoram of Judah (Peter James). The northern boundary of the City of David is generally located at Area H of Kathleen Kenyon’s excavations at the bottleneck of the southeastern hill. After Solomon had built the temple and his own house (1 Kings 3:1), “…he made a breach in the wall of the city of David: thus the daughter of Pharoa went up out of the city of David to her house which he built for her” (3 Kings 2:35, Septuagint version). Hence, it is not until after the construction of the temple and Solomon’s palace that an enlargement of the City of David is mentioned, creating what I call the “City of David/Jerusalem.” In Antiquities VII, 3, 66, Josephus states that David made buildings around the “lower city,” which becomes a synonym for the City of David, after the northerly expansion. The northeastern corner of the City of David/Jerusalem (or the Sheep Gate) probably stood where the southeastern corner of the traditional temple mount stands, or possibly 105 feet north, at the “seam” on the east wall. Fig. 2. Boundaries for the City of David/Jerusalem Fig. 2. The City of David is the lower half of the southeastern hill, with its northern boundary at the bottleneck (Area H). The City of David/Jerusalem occupied the whole crescent-shaped southeastern hill. The map outlines the ridge area, but the walls were further down the slopes. A northerly extension of the southeastern hill did not begin, as illustrated here, until about 134 B.C.E. when John Hyrcanus built the Baris, which was expanded to become the 36-acre Haram. To understand there was no northerly appendage added to the southeastern hill, one must start with later descriptions of the City of David/Jerusalem and work back. Although the city had spread to the western hill in Hezekiah’s reign, it shrunk back to the southeastern hill during the Persian era. Even in the Greek era and later, the City of David/Jerusalem is described in the Letter of Aristeas as having its towers arranged “in the manner of a theater;” Tacitus describes its walls as “bending inwards” (Histories 5.11, as cited in Dissertation 3); Josephus said it had “the shape of the moon when she is horned” (War V, 5, 137); and the Venerable Bede compared it to “an arc,” each description of the city referring to the crescent shape of the southeastern hill, without any northerly extension appended. In Antiquities XV, 11, 410, Josephus again uses “in the manner of a theater” to describe the temple lying near to the city, adding that its southern quarter was bounded by a deep valley, both descriptions which refer to the southeastern hill lying against the western hill in the lower Tyropoeon Valley, with the Hinnom and Kidron Valleys on the south and southeast. In addition, Antiquities XV, 11, 397 says: "The hill [of the temple plaza foundations] was a rocky ascent, that declined by degrees towards the east parts of the city, until it came to an elevated level.” This eliminates the traditional site of the temple mount, since there never has been a city built on its east side, as was the case with the temple mount described by Josephus. Several descriptions locating the temple on the southeastern hill derive from its being the lowest mountain in Jerusalem. The Venerable Bede noted the temple [ruins] were located in the “lower part of the city” in the vicinity of the “wall from the east,” Eudocia’s 5th century city wall on the east of the southeastern hill. In Special Laws I.XIII.73, Philo of Alexandria gave a similar topographical description that the temple “…being very large and very lofty, although built in a very low situation…is not inferior to any of the greatest mountains around.” In his letter to Faustus, Eucherius (5th Century C.E.), the Bishop of Lyons, said: “The Temple, which was situated in the lower city near the eastern wall, was once a world wonder, but of its ruins there stands today only the pinnacle of one wall, and the rest are destroyed down to their foundations.” Fig. 4. The Curve of the Southeastern Crescent-Shaped Hill Fig. 4. The photo shows how the southeastern hill is curved or “bending back,” like “a moon when she is horned” or would have had its towers arranged in “the manner of a theater.” The Gihon Spring is where buildings begin south of the very steep slopes. Note that the traditional temple mount’s east wall cannot be considered “within the valley,” as described by Josephus. [Courtesy of Ferrell Jenkins] Further, the Cairo Geniza documents explain that when Omar granted permission to seventy households of Jews to return to Jerusalem, they requested to be near the site of the temple and the water of Shiloah, in the southern section of the city. Mackey’s comment: On (Omar and) the Ummayad caliphate, though, see my article: Dumb and Dumbfounded archaeology (6) Dumb and Dumbfounded archaeology | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The accounts of the temple ruins standing in the lower city or the temple being built in a low situation or in the south are consistent with Josephus’s descriptions of the temple foundations of the east wall being built deep within the Kidron Valley, not upslope as is the case with the traditional temple mount. In fact, in Josippon ben Gorion’s version of War, he says that from the top of the temple’s east wall, the water in the Kidron Brook could be seen running at one cubit’s distance from the wall. The southeastern hill location of the City of David/Jerusalem is also affirmed by descriptions of both the Gihon Spring and the temple being in the middle of the city. In Contra Apion I, 22, 198, Hecateus of Abdera (4th Century B.C.) mentioned the temple measured 150 feet by 500 feet in the middle of the city. This being the case, a location for the temple on a northerly extension is not possible. Coincidentally, the Jerusalem Talmud says Shiloah was also in the middle of the city (Hagigah 76a). In the Letter of Aristeas, from his standpoint on the citadel, looking down into the temple, he describes upper and lower crossroads, implying the city was bifurcated by the temple. This is also implied by the injunction in the Mishnah (Berachot 9:5) that the temple should not be used as a shortcut. Several scriptures refer to the temple in the “midst” of the city, including Psalm 46:4-5: “There is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the most High God is in the midst of her….” (the river being derived from the waters of the Gihon Spring); Psalm 116:18-19: “I will pay my vows unto the Lord now in the presence of all his people, In the courts of the Lord’s house, in the midst of thee, O Jerusalem;” Zechariah 8:3: “Thus saith the Lord; I am returned unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and Jerusalem shall be called a city of truth; and the mountain of the Lord of hosts the holy mountain.” Hence, these ancient descriptions verify the city associated with the temple occupied only the southeastern hill.

Taking a Djet to Djoser’s Famine

by Damien F. Mackey “Manetho states that during the reign of [King Djet], there was a great famine but the Palermo Stone, which reports the flood levels of the Nile … is broken precisely in correspondence with the reign of Djet”. Cairo Top Tours This article has had to be re-written in light of progress made (hopefully) in a sequence of new papers on the subject of the biblical Joseph and his Pharaoh. Suffice it largely to add some clarifying comments to what I had previously written. The original title can be retained, but with the different intention now of meaning, by Djoser (Zoser), not the Pharaoh, Horus Netjerikhet – who is generally considered to have been Djoser – but Joseph (Imhotep) himself. In my article: Enigmatic Imhotep - did he really exist? (3) Enigmatic Imhotep - did he really exist? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu I showed that Imhotep, the favoured candidate for the biblical Joseph, was both Khasekhemwy-Imhotep and Sekhemkhet, who also had the name of Djoser (-ti). Thus Joseph, not Horus Netjerikhet, was Djoser (or Zoser). Thanks to the life-giving River Nile, famines were rare in ancient Egypt. There was a most significant one, though, at the time of Jacob and his son, Joseph, lasting for seven years, according to the Book of Genesis (41:54-57). That one has been identified by revisionist historians as having occurred during the reign of King Horus Netjerikhet, as recorded on the famous Famine Stela located on Sehel Island in the Nile near Aswan. This, a very late document, of Ptolemaïc times, recalls a seven-year famine: https://www.jasoncolavito.com/famine-stela.html In the year 18 of the king, Neterkhet, the divine incarnation, the ‘golden Horus,’ Djoser [sic], when Mesir was prince of the cities of the South land and director of the Nubians in Elephantine, this message of the king was brought to him: ‘I am sorrowing upon my high throne over those who belong to the palace. In sorrow is my heart for the vast misfortune, because the Nile flood in my time has not come for seven years. Light is the grain, there is lack of crops and of all kinds of food. Each man has become a thief to his neighbor. They want to hurry and cannot walk, the child cries, the youth creeps along and the old man, their souls are bowed. Their legs are bent together and drag along the ground and their hands rest in their bosoms. The counsel of the great ones of the coast is but emptiness. Torn open are the chests of provisions, but instead of contents there is air. Everything is exhausted. Then my soul, turning itself to the past, consulted a member of the staff of the Ibis, the chief script-sage, Imhotep, the son of Ptah South-of-His-Wall. Tell me, where is the birthplace of the Nile? Which god or which goddess dwells there as its great protector?’ …. King Djet and Hemaka Disc from the tomb of Hemaka Could this “king, Neterkhet”, or Horus Netjerikhet, be the same as the First Dynasty ruler, Horus Djet, during whose reign there occurred, according to Manetho, a great famine? Since posing this question, I have further identified Horus Netjerikhet, of Egypt’s Third Dynasty, with Mentuhotep II Netjerihedjet, of Egypt’s Eleventh Dynasty: Biblical King of the seven-year Famine (6) Biblical King of the seven-year Famine | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu In the name Netjerihedjet we do have that relevant element, djet. The name Djet could perhaps have been an abbreviated form (or hypocoristicon) of Netjerikhet. According to World History Encyclopedia’s “Djoser” (Joshua J. Mark): https://www.worldhistory.org/Djoser/ “His name Netjerikhet means "divine of body" and 'Djoser' is derived from the Djed symbol of stability”. But I am no longer trying to connect either Netjerikhet, or Djet, to Djoser. If, indeed, Djet were Netjerikhet, then a potential candidate for the biblical Joseph at the time could logically be Djet’s mighty Chancellor, and second self, Hemaka: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemaka “One of Hemaka's titles was that of "seal-bearer of the king of Lower Egypt" … effectively making him chancellor and second in power only to the king. …”. Compare Genesis 41:41-44: So Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘I hereby put you in charge of the whole land of Egypt’. Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph’s finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck. He had him ride in a chariot as his second-in-command, and people shouted before him, “Make way!” Thus he put him in charge of the whole land of Egypt. Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘I am Pharaoh, but without your word no one will lift hand or foot in all Egypt’. Apart from tying Joseph, his Pharaoh, and the Famine, to both the Third Dynasty and the Eleventh Dynasty, I have also connected it to the First Dynasty, primarily through Den (Udimu): Joseph also as Den, ‘he who brings water’ (7) Joseph also as Den, 'he who brings water' | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu King Semerkhet and Henuka Hemaka, in turn, may have been the same as the important 1st dynasty Vizier, Henuka: http://www.mummies2pyramids.info/pharaohs-kings/semerkhet.htm “The king [Semerkhet] appointed Henuka as High Chancellor of Egypt (Vizier) to assist him with running the country”. A very Joseph-like responsibility. The Egyptian names Hemaka and Henuka seem, to me, to be easily interchangeable. The “king” in question here was one Semerkhet, possibly a variation on Neterkhet, especially considering that some claim that Semerkhet’s birth name was Iry-Netjer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semerkhet), quite like Netjerikhet, but also considering that Semerkhet appears to stand greatly in need of an alter ego, because: “Virtually nothing is known about Semerkhet's family. His parents are unknown, but it is thought that one of his predecessors, king Den, might have been his father”. Similarly, Khasekhemwy is thought to have been the father of Horus Netjerikhet. Khasekhemwy, as Joseph-Imhotep, was indeed a “Father to Pharaoh” (Genesis 45:8). Den (Udimu), or Usaphais, in which the Semitic name Yusef/Yosef (Usaph-), Joseph, is apparent, was Joseph, a veritable sub-Pharaoh to the primary ruler of Egypt: Joseph like a sub-Pharaoh to King Horus Netjerikhet (2) Joseph like a sub-Pharaoh to King Horus Netjerikhet | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Manetho, without being helpfully specific, tells - as in the case of Djet (a great famine) – that, according to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semerkhet “[Semerkhet] became known through a tragic legend handed down by the historian Manetho, who reported that a calamity of some sort occurred during Semerkhet's reign. The archaeological records seem to support the view that Semerkhet had a difficult time as king …”. Was this calamity, again, the great famine? King Djer This name may recall Horus Netjerikhet/Mentuhotep II Netjerihedjet. For one who is supposed to have reigned for from 41-57 years: http://www.ancient-egypt.org/history/early-dynastic-period/1st-dynasty/horus-djer/biography-of-horus-djer.html “According to Manetho, Djer ruled for 57 year[s]. The Turin King-List has a lacuna at the spot where Djer would be listed. …. If the reconstruction of the Annals Stone based on its different fragments is correct, the reign of Djer may have lasted up to 41 years” …. we know very little about Djer. An alter ego is much needed for him and I would quickly suggest Horus Netjerikhet. King Den (Udimu) With Den (Udimu), whose proper relationship to his supposed predecessor, Djet, is not satisfactorily known, we encounter a more substantial First Dynasty king (sub-king?). And surely, too, in one of Den’s supposed nicknames, Usaphaïs/Usafaïs (Ousapahidos), we have a reproduction of Joseph’s Hebrew name Yosef, who was so close to the king: “The Ancient Egyptian historian Manetho called [Den/Udimu] “Oúsaphaîdos””: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Den_(pharaoh) Jimmy Dunn writes about: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/den.htm Den, the 4th King of Egypt's 1st Dynasty by Jimmy Dunn …. Though the reigns of Den's processor and successor seemed to have been troubled, the reign of Den was apparently a glorious and prosperous one. Yet beyond this prosperity, like Horus Djer before him, Den left behind an intellectual reputation. We believe that the spells found in the later funerary manual called the Book of the Dead was attributed to his time, as well as medical formulae that were preserved in New Kingdom papyri. …. Den apparently limited the power of high officials which had previously been allowed to grow dangerously strong during the reign of his predecessor. Such centralization always seems to have been key to a successful royal reign. ….

If John used Mark’s Gospel as a template for his, it may be because John was Mark

“John sequenced his own narrative in and around the elements in Mark’s narrative so that the two Gospels fit together like puzzle pieces”. Jimmy Akin My (Damien Mackey’s) line of thought here is that, since John, as John Mark, may have written the Gospel of Mark on behalf of his untutored good friend, Peter: Gospel of Mark a collection of Saint Peter’s discourses (2) Gospel of Mark a collection of Saint Peter's discourses | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu then a fairly recent (2014) suggestion by Jimmy Akin, that John may have used the Marcan Gospel as a template for his Gospel of John, if correct, would be due to the fact that John was now using his original, simplified Gospel written for Peter as the foundation for his own personal, and more sophisticated Gospel. Let us hear Jimmy Akin tell the story (without his attempting to connect Mark and John as the one same Evangelist): https://jimmyakin.com/2014/11/did-john-use-mark-as-a-template.html Did John Use Mark as a Template? …. Isolated Evangelists? In the last several decades, it has become fashionable in biblical scholarship to say that the Evangelists were all writing for individual communities and that their Gospels were not intended to be widely circulated, so they wrote with little awareness of each other’s work. According to a common view: • Mark wrote first and so didn’t know the work of any other Evangelist. • Matthew knew Mark but not Luke or John. • Luke knew Mark but not Matthew or John. • John didn’t know any of the other three Evangelists’ work. Of course, like everything in biblical scholarship, each of these claims is disputed. British scholar Richard Bauckham published a major assault on the idea that the Gospels were written for narrow, isolated communities in a book that he edited and co-authored with several other individuals, entitled The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (New Testament Studies). It’s awesome. Did John Know Mark? One of the essays that Bauckham contributed to the book is entitled “John for Readers of Mark.” In this piece, he argues that John not only knew Mark but that you can show this because John seems to have used Mark as a template or an outline. In other words, John sequenced his own narrative in and around the elements in Mark’s narrative so that the two Gospels fit together like puzzle pieces. If this view is correct, you should be able to make a table using parallel columns to show how the two Gospels fit together. Bauckham did not provide such a table, and though he provided impressive arguments for his proposal, he did not go through the entirety of the two Gospels or test the proposal against the ideas that John might have used Matthew or Luke rather than Mark. I decided to continue Bauckham’s investigation along these lines. How Mark and John Fit Together First, here is the table I came up with of how the two Gospels fit together (italics and parentheses indicate material that is in a different sequence in one Gospel than the other): No. Section Mark John 1. Prologue — 1:1-18 2. John the Baptist, Jesus’ Baptism, & Testing 1:1-13 — 3. Early Ministry I — 1:19-2:12 4. Clearing the Temple (11:11-25) 2:13-22 5. Early Ministry II — 2:23-4:43 6. The Official’s Son — 4:44-54 7 Galilean Ministry I 1:14-6:6 — 8. Sending the Disciples 6:7-13 — 9. Fate of John the Baptist 6:14-29 — 10. Visit to Jerusalem — 5:1-47 11. Disciples Return 6:30 — 12. Feeding the Five Thousand & Walking on the Water 6:31-53 6:1-71 13. Galilean Ministry II 6:54-9:50 7:1-9 14. Judean Ministry I 10:1a 7:10-10:39 15. Transjordan Ministry 10:1b-31 10:40-42 16. Judean Ministry II — 11:1-57 17. Travel to Jerusalem 10:32-52 — 18. Anointing with Oil (14:1-11) 12:1-8 19. Triumphal Entry 11:1-10 12:9-19 20. Clearing the Temple 11:11-25 (2:13-22) 21. Before the Supper 11:27-13:37 12:20-50 22. Anointing with Oil 14:1-11 (12:1-8) 23. The Last Supper 14:12-26 13:1-14:31 24. Extended Discourse — 15:1-17:26 25. After the Supper 14:27-52 18:1-12 26. Before Annas — 18:13-23 27. Before Caiaphas 14:53-65 18:24 28. Peter’s Denial 14:66-72 18:25-26 29. Before Pilate 15:1-15 18:28-19:16 30. Crucifixion & Burial 15:16-47 19:17-42 31. Resurrection Narrative 16:1-8 (or 16:1-20) 20:1-21:25 Did John Use Mark as a Template? I then went through the table, looking for evidence for and against the proposal. Here is a summary of my findings (most of these points I got from Bauckham, but some—especially those regarding the Last Supper—are original to me): • John’s prologue introduces John the Baptist (John 1:6-8, 15) and can be seen as interacting with the beginning of Mark (Mark 1:1-13). • John 1:19-4:43 can be seen as fitting between Mark 1:13 and 1:14. • In John 1:19-34, John the Baptist gives an account of his own ministry and of how he identified Jesus as the coming one that reflects Mark 1:1-13. • The fact that John does not directly record the baptism of Jesus (a major event!) suggests that his audience already had a written account of it. • John 3:24’s reference to an incident that occurred when “John had not yet been put in prison” seems to be intended to clarify when the events of John 1:19-4:43 fit into Mark’s outline. • In Mark 6:7-13, Jesus sends the disciples on a mission from which they will return in Mark 6:30. The material between these verses is thus a time when Jesus does not have the disciples with him. This period seems to be reflected in John 5:1-47, which is a period in which the disciples are not mentioned. Further, in both John and Mark, these sections contain material recording or referring to the death of John the Baptist, with John seeming to presuppose that the audience already knows how the Baptist died (presumably from Mark’s account). • John 7:1a seems to summarize a continuation of the Galilean ministry that is recorded in Mark 6:54-9:50. Further, John 6:4 and 7:2 imply a period of six months spent in Galilee that John does not otherwise record and that seems to correspond to Mark 7-9. This period is the last time that Jesus will be in Galilee until after the Resurrection. • Mark 10:1a and John 7:10-10:39 record a period in which Jesus ministered in Judea. • Mark 10:1b-31 and John 10:40-42 record a period in which Jesus ministered in the Transjordan. • The way that the Last Supper is recorded in Mark 14:12-26 and John 13:1-14:31 suggests supplemental intent on John’s part. John omits virtually everything Mark records happening before and at the supper and provides additional material about it not found in Mark. Even when he records the one event that the two have in common (Jesus’ prediction of Judas’s betrayal) John provides supplementary detail not found in Mark. Also, the events that John narrates seem to interweave easily with the events that Mark records. The fact that John does not record the institution of the Eucharist (another major event!), which he has already foreshadowed in John 6:26-71, is strong evidence that his audience already had a written record of its institution. • John’s supplemental intent may be illustrated by his giving names to figures that are otherwise unnamed in Mark (e.g., Peter and Malchus in the incident where Peter cuts off Malchus’s ear; cf. Mark 14:47, John 18:10). • John 18:13-23 discusses the relationship between Annas and Caiaphas, provides additional detail about how Peter got into the courtyard of the high priest, and preserves an account of Jesus’ appearance before Annas, which is not mentioned in Mark. All of these may be seen as an effort to supplement Mark’s account. • John 18:24 refers, in a single verse, to the appearance of Jesus before Caiaphas, which is described in detail in Mark 14:53-65. This may be evidence of John taking Mark’s account as read. • In John 19:7, the Jewish authorities charge Jesus before Pilate with making himself out to be the Son of God. This charge is not found in John’s account of Jesus’ appearances before the Jewish authorities, but it is found in Mark’s account (Mark 14:61-64). On the other hand: • The clearing of the temple and the anointing with oil are placed differently in Mark and John. • John records Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denial as occurring during the Last Supper, but in Mark it appears just after the supper. These differences could be counted as evidence that John was not using Mark as an outline, but it also can be understood in other ways, such as John providing additional clarity on precisely when these events occurred (or, in the case of the clearing of the temple, that it happened more than once). The dislocation of these events thus does not overcome the positive evidence that John used Mark. …. [Mackey: Jimmy Akin next proceeds to test John in the same fashion against Luke and Matthew, and finds that these do not stack up at all like as was the case with Mark]. Conclusion It thus appears that John more likely used Mark as a template than either Luke or Matthew. I thus think Bauckham is right: John likely meant his Gospel to interweave with Mark’s Gospel. Of course, this doesn’t mean that John didn’t know Matthew’s or Luke’s Gospels. He may have; he just doesn’t seem to have used them as a template the way he did Mark’s. ….

Queen Hamutal has a tale to tell

by Damien F. Mackey “Jehoahaz was twenty-three years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Hamutal the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah”. 2 Kings 23:31 Queen Hamutal (Hammutal) and Jehoahaz In the name (person) Hamutal, or its variant, Hammutal, we have a key to both the history of the Book of Esther and to, perhaps, the succession of the last two kings of Judah. Hamutal is surely the same person as the previously unknown Hammedatha of Esther 3:1: “After these things King Ahasuerus promoted Haman the Agagite, the son of Hammedatha, and advanced him and set his throne above all the officials who were with him”. There is a very good linguistic comparison here: Hammeda- = Hammuta- Unexpectedly, Haman’s ancestor, Hammedatha, turns out to be a female, not a male, she being a Jewish Queen. Presuming that Hammedatha equates here to the mother, then Haman must be either one of Hamutal’s presumed sons, King Jehoahaz or King Zedekiah (cf. 2 Kings 23:31; 24:18; Jeremiah 52:1). Though I will be considering the likelihood further on that Hammedatha was the mother only of King Jehoahaz. Haman cannot be Zedekiah, because the latter went into Babylonian Captivity blinded (2 Kings 25:7). Therefore, Haman must be King Jehoahaz, son of Hamutal. But I have already doubly-identified Haman as King Amon, as King Jehoiachin. King Jehoahaz triplicated I, following a Jewish legend, had firstly identified Haman as a Jew, which had then led me to identify Haman as King Jehoiachin. Indeed, this has resonance. Jehoiachin, or “Jeconiah the Captive” (I Chronicles 3:17), I have shown to equate to “Haman the Captive”, not “Haman the Agagite”, as it is often translated. See my article: Gouging the history out of Esther 3:1 (6) Gouging the history out of Esther 3.1 | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The trouble is that Jehoiachin’s mother was apparently, not Hamutal, but Nehushta (2 Kings 24:8): “Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem”. I solve this seeming discrepancy by identifying Queen Nehushta as young Jehoiachin’s wife, not his mother. This means that, if Jehoiachin is Haman, then Nehushta must be Haman’s Jezebel-like wife, Zeresh (Esther 5:14). The names are not entirely dissimilar: Nehush- = Zer[u]sh- Nehushta’s father, Elnathan, had been he who had led the party that had pursued the fleeing prophet Uriah (Urijah) to Egypt, bringing him back to Jerusalem to be executed (Jeremiah 26:22-23). Now, traditionally, Zeresh’s father was the Tattenai (Tatnai), who had resisted attempts to build the second Temple (Ezra 5:3, 5:6, 6:6, 6:13), and the name Tattenai is apparently compatible with the name of Nehushta’s father, Elnathan: https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Tattenai.html Related names • Via נתן (natan): Elnathan, Jonathan, Mattan, Mattanah, Mattaniah, Mattatha, Mattathias, Mattattah, Mattenai, Matthan, Matthat, Matthew, Matthias, Mattithiah, Nathan, Nathanael, Nathan-melech, Nethanel, Nethaniah, Nethinim Elnathan = Tattenai So I have confidently concluded that Zeresh, the daughter of Tattenai, was the same as Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan. From Egypt to Susa Above I wrote: But I have already doubly-identified Haman as King Amon, as King Jehoiachin. This now generates a patronymical (father) complication for my reconstruction. While Amon is given as the son of Manasseh (2 Kings 21:18), and Jehoiachin is given as the son of Jehoiakim (24:6), and that is no problem for my double identification of: Manasseh = Jehoiakim, and his son Amon = Jehoiachin Jehoahaz is given, instead, as the son of King Josiah (23:30), as is Jehoiakim (v. 34): “And Pharaoh Necho made Eliakim the son of Josiah king in the room of Josiah his father, and turned his name to Jehoiakim, and took Jehoahaz away: and he came to Egypt, and died there”. Moreover, having my Jehoahaz-as-Haman dying in exile in Egypt, instead of dying in exile in Susa (Esther 7:8-10), would appear to ruin my reconstruction completely. However, the parallel account of Jehoahaz’s life in 2 Chronicles (36:1-4) does not mention his dying in Egypt at all, nor his death anywhere for that matter. My tentative reconstruction of events in awkward triplicate now will be this: 1. The wicked King Amon of Judah, after a short reign (2 Kings 21:19): “Amon was twenty and two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned two years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Meshullemeth, the daughter of Haruz of Jotbah”, was taken into Egyptian captivity by Pharaoh Necho, and was replaced by Manasseh. It was there in Egypt that the young King of Judah acquired the Egyptian name of Amon (which becomes Aman or Haman in the Book of Esther). 2. Amon was King Jehoiachin. 2 Kings 24:8: “Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem”. My proposed correction: Nehushta was Jehoiachin’s wife, not his actual mother. His age and reign length discrepancy with Amon can be accounted for, I suggest, by, say, a co-regency, and or, by a brief resumption of rule after returning from Egypt before going into captivity in Babylon. As Haman, his life would be ended violently in Susa. 3. Amon-Jehoiachin was also King Jehoahaz. 2 Kings 23:31: “Jehoahaz was twenty and three years old when he began to reign; and he reigned three months in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah”. In age, Jehoahaz is almost identical to Amon - the name that he must have acquired while exiled in Egypt - and in reign length he is identical to Jehoiachin. Whilst I conclude here triply that Amon-was-Jehoiachin-was-Jehoahaz, three names for just the one king of Judah, an acute problem appears to arise with two seemingly quite different mothers, Meshullemeth and Hamutal – Nehushta, for her part, now considered to have been the king’s wife, not his mother. How to reconcile Amon’s mother, “Meshullemeth, the daughter of Haruz of Jotbah”, with Jehoahaz’s mother, “Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah”? All three name elements here appear to be different, (i) the mother’s; (ii) her father’s; and (iii) their home location. One solution might be to present one woman as mother and the other as grandmother, or mother-in-law, or, say, aunt. But my preference is to identify Meshullemeth and Hamutal as being just the one and same queen, with the name Hamutal being an - admittedly awkward - hypocoristicon of the formidable looking name, Meshullemeth. Say, perhaps: Hamutal = [S]hemeth-ull And, with neither Jotbah nor Libnah having been unequivocally identified: Jotbah is wrestled with at: https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/J/jotbah.html and, as for Libnah: https://bibleatlas.org/libnah.htm “The site of this important stronghold remains unknown”, Jotbah may plausibly turn out to be Libnah, or, at least, of the same region. Finally, can the names Haruz and Jeremiah be squared up together? There does not appear to me to be any possible name connection here. All I need to say, though, is that the famous prophet named “Jeremiah son of Hilkiah” (Jeremiah 1:1), is variously known in the Bible as (according to my reconstructions) “Eliakim the son of Hilkiah” (2 Kings 18:37); “the high priest Jehoiakim son of Hilkiah son of Shallum” (Baruch 1:7); and “The high priest Joakim” (Judith 4:6). Based on this sort of information, our King of Judah’s maternal grandfather could easily have been known as, now Jeremiah, now Haruz. With Amon (Haman), Jehoiachin, Jehoahaz, recognised as being just the one king, I need finally to sort out the father/predecessor? successor/or was it the uncle? The King’s patronymic King Amon’s father is said to have been Manasseh son of Hezekiah (e.g. Matthew 1:10). In my revised scheme, that should equate to King Jehoiachin [Amon] son of Jehoiakim [Manasseh] son of Josiah [Hezekiah]. But there is now a seeming genealogical discrepancy, with Jehoiakim qua Jehoiakim not listed, and with Jehoiachin given as the son of Josiah (Matthew 1:11). This last accords with the biblical account of Jehoahaz, who is the son of Josiah and brother of Jehoiakim, another son of Josiah, who replaces him (2 Chronicles 36:1-4). Factoring all of this into my revision, it now appears that Amon was not the son of Manasseh, but his brother, both being sons of King Hezekiah. And, paralleling this, Jehoiachin was not the son of Jehoiakim, but his brother. Whereas, Amon-Jehoahaz-Jehoiachin’s mother was Hamutal (who may have been Meshullemeth) - the wife being Nehushta-Zeresh - Manasseh-Jehoiakim, we find, has a different mother. 2 Kings 21:1: “[Manasseh’s] mother’s name was Hephzibah”. 2 Kings 23:36: “[Jehoiakim’s] mother’s name was Zebidah …”. These names, Hephzibah and Zebidah, appear to me to be quite compatible. Thus: -Zibah = Zeb[id]ah King Jehoahaz of Judah seems to get left out completely in genealogical discussions. And so does the last king of Judah, Zedekiah. It is now time to identify this last one, Zedekiah, the presumed uncle of Jehoiachin, as the Manasseh-Jehoiakim whom we now have as succeeding his brother. 2 Kings 24:17 “[King Nebuchednezzar] made Mattaniah, Jehoiachin’s uncle [sic], king in his place and changed his name to Zedekiah”. In the name Mattaniah, we have a better likeness (though the names are admittedly different) to the name Manasseh, rather than to his other name of Jehoiakim. 2 Kings 24:18-20 Zedekiah was twenty-one years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem eleven years. His mother’s name was Hamutal [sic] daughter of Jeremiah; she was from Libnah. He did evil in the eyes of the Lord, just as Jehoiakim had done. It was because of the Lord’s anger that all this happened to Jerusalem and Judah, and in the end he thrust them from his presence. Here Zedekiah is rightly likened to Jehoiakim, who he was. But the mother was not Hamutal, as is given here, but Hephzibah-Zebidah. Conclusions Queen Hamutal (Hammutal) is the Hammedatha of the Book of Esther (3:1) and may well be the Meshullemeth who is said to have been the mother of King Amon of Judah. Queen Nehushta is Haman’s conniving wife, Zeresh. Hamutal’s son is Amon (Haman), is Jehoahaz, is Jehoiachin. Amon’s brother, by another mother, Hephzibah-Zebidah, is Manasseh (Mattaniah), is Jehoiakim (Eliakim), is Zedekiah.

Gospel of Mark a collection of Saint Peter’s discourses

“Mark begins with the preaching of John the Baptist and ends with the resurrection and ascension, paralleling the public preaching of Peter as we see it summarized in the Book of Acts”. J. Warner Wallace https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/good-reasons-to-believe-peter-is-the-source-of-marks-gospel/ Good Reasons To Believe Peter Is The Source Of Mark’s Gospel By J. Warner Wallace Published August 24, 2018 The authorship of Mark’s Gospel is of great importance to those of us making a case for the reliability of the New Testament. Mark isn’t mentioned as an eyewitness in any of the Gospel accounts. Mackey’s comment: Or, was Mark actually Peter’s good and loyal friend John, himself, under the composite name of John Mark. ACTS 15:37 Now Barnabas was determined to take with them John called Mark. Warner Wallace continues: How did Mark get his information about Jesus? Why should we consider his information to be reliable? There are several good reasons to believe Peter is the trustworthy source of information for Mark, beginning with the historical attributions of the early Church Fathers who affirm the relationship Mark and Peter had in the 1st Century. Beyond this, however, there are additional evidences within Mark’s text supporting the claim Peter (Mark’s mentor in Rome) is the source for Mark’s information. I’ve described the evidential case in much more detail in Cold-Case Christianity, but this brief summary may be helpful: The Writing Style Is Consistent With Mark’s Background The traditional view recognizes Mark as a Palestinian Jew who wrote his Gospel using Peter as his source. Most scholars believe the Gospel of Mark demonstrates a writing style and literary syntax exposing the author’s first language as something other than Greek. In fact, the writing style seems to indicate the author’s first language was probably a Semitic language such as Aramaic. Mackey’s comment: Why not Galilean Hebrew? Jesus was a Hebrew, not Aramaïc, speaker (2) Jesus was a Hebrew, not Aramaïc, speaker | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Warner Wallace continues: This would be consistent with the idea Mark, a Palestinian Jew (who most likely spoke Aramaic) was the author of the Gospel. In addition to this, the Gospel of Mark includes a number of vivid and tangential details unnecessary to the narrative, but consistent with observations of an eyewitness to the events. This would indicate the author had access to an eyewitness such as Peter. The Outline of the Gospel Is Consistent With Peter’s Outline Papias maintained the Gospel of Mark was simply a collection of Peter’s discourses (or his preaching) as this information was received and recalled by Mark. If we examine the typical preaching style of Peter in the Book of Acts (1:21-22 and Acts 10:37-41 for example) we see Peter always limited his preaching to the public life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. Mark’s Gospel omits the private birth narrative and other details of Jesus’ life described in the opening chapters of Luke and Matthew. Mark begins with the preaching of John the Baptist and ends with the resurrection and ascension, paralleling the public preaching of Peter as we see it summarized in the Book of Acts. The Omissions of the Gospel Are Consistent With Peter’s Influence There are many details in the Gospel of Mark consistent with Peter’s special input and influence, including omissions related to events involving Peter. How can Mark be a memoir of Peter if, in fact, the book contains so many omissions of events involving Peter specifically? It’s important to evaluate the entire catalogue of omissions pertaining to Peter to understand the answer here. The vast majority of these omissions involve incidents in which Peter did or said something rash or embarrassing. It’s not surprising these details were omitted by the author who wanted to protect Peter’s standing in the Christian community. Mark was quite discreet in his retelling of the narrative (other Gospel writers who were present at the time do, however, provide details of Peters [sic] ‘indiscretions’ in their own accounts). Here are some examples of Petrine Omissions grounded in an effort to minimize embarrassment to Peter (see Cold-Case Christianity for a more detailed explanation of the events summarized here): Peter’s shame at the “Miraculous Catch” (Mark 1:16-1:20 compared to Luke 5:1-11) Peter’s foolish statement at the crowded healing (Mark 5:21-34 compared to Luke 8:42-48) Peter’s lack of understanding related to the parable (Mark 7:14-19 compared to Matthew 15:10-18 and Acts 10:9-16) Peter’s lack of faith on the lake (Mark 6:45 compared to Matthew 14:22-33) Peter’s rash statement to Jesus (Mark 8:31-33 compared to Matthew 16:21-23) Peter’s statement related to money (Mark 10:23-31 compared to Matthew 19:23-30) Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denial (Mark 14:27-31 compared to Luke 22:31-34 and John 13:34-38) Peter’s behavior at the foot-washing (Mark 14:22-26 compared to John 13:2-9) Peter’s denial and Jesus’ direct stare (Mark 14:66-72 compared to Luke 22:54-62) There are a number of places in the Gospel of Mark where details related specifically to the words and actions of Peter have been omitted in what appears to be an effort to protect Peter from embarrassment. This doesn’t mean Peter failed to talk about these things. He may very well have included them in his sermons and teachings. But Mark, his scribe and close friend, simply chose to omit these details related to Peter, either at Peter’s request or on his own initiative. The Inclusions of the Gospel Are Consistent With Peter’s Influence In addition to the omissions we have cited, there are a number of details included in Mark’s Gospel demonstrating Peter’s involvement and connection to Mark. As we describe a few of them, notice these inclusions are relatively minor and don’t seem to add much to the narrative. Their incidental nature is an indicator the author lacked a motive other than to simply include Peter’s perspective in the account. Peter’s involvement appears to have been faithfully recorded by his scribe and assistant, Mark: Peter’s search for Jesus (Mark 1:35-37) Peter’s house in Capernaum (Mark 2:1-5 and 1:21, 29-31 compared to Matthew 4:13-16) Peter’s identification of the fig tree (Mark 11:20-21 compared to Matthew 21:18-19) Peter’s identification of the disciples (Mark 13:1-4 and Matthew 24:1-3) Respecting the limits and brief nature of blog posts, I’ve restricted my description of these internal details (compared to how I’ve described them in the book), but the verse locations should help you discover them for yourself. There is a reasonable, cumulative, circumstantial case pointing to Peter as the source of information for Mark’s Gospel. Remember, circumstantial evidence can be every bit as determinative as direct evidence in a court of law. The strength of such a case is based on the depth, quantity and quality of the individual pieces: A. Biblical Passages Confirm a Relationship Between Mark and Peter B. External Sources From History Tell Us Mark Wrote Peter’s Memoir C. Internal Indicators Reveal Peter’s Direct Influence on Mark’s Gospel There is sufficient cumulative, circumstantial evidence to conclude Mark did, in fact, form his Gospel from the teaching and preaching of the Apostle Peter. …. There is sufficient cumulative, circumstantial evidence to conclude Mark did, in fact, form his Gospel from the teaching and preaching of the Apostle Peter. If this is the case, Mark’s Gospel was written within the lifetime of Mark (and likely within the lifetime of Peter). If the Gospel of Mark was written this early, it would have undergone the scrutiny of those who were actually present and could have exposed Mark as a liar : 2 Peter 1:16 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty For more information about the reliability of the New Testament gospels and the case for Christianity, please read Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels. This book teaches readers ten principles of cold-case investigations and applies these strategies to investigate the claims of the gospel authors. The book is accompanied by an eight-session Cold-Case Christianity DVD Set (and Participant’s Guide) to help individuals or small groups examine the evidence and make the case. J. Warner Wallace is a Dateline featured Cold-Case Detective, Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, Adj. Professor of Christian Apologetics at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, author of Cold-Case Christianity, God’s Crime Scene, and Forensic Faith, and creator of the Case Makers Academy for kids. ….

Gouging the history out of Esther 3:1

by Damien F. Mackey "After these events, King Ahasuerus honoured Haman son of Hammedatha, the Agagite, elevating him and giving him a seat of honour higher than that of all the other nobles". Esther 3:1 What to make of all of this? We have an unknown Medo-Persian monarch, in an unknown period of history, raising to the highest honour in his kingdom a presumed Amalekite notable of unknown parentage. No wonder that commentators generally take the Book of Esther to be a non-historical fiction of some kind, whether literary or didactic. Yet this verse, 3:1, is actually the record of a very precise point in ancient Medo-Persian history. And I shall explain it. Here the key elements to be accounted for will be the names, King Ahasuerus, Haman and Hammedatha, and the nationality, Agagite. Important Jewish legends Let me cut to the chase here, basing myself upon a Jewish tradition without which I would never have been able to ascertain who, and what, Haman was. A Jewish legend has it that Haman was - wait for it - a Jew, and one known to Mordecai, Esther's uncle, and - according to a further Jewish legend - Esther's husband. Whilst the news that Esther was actually married to Mordecai might come as a shock, the far greater shock is that Haman, whose conspiracy against the crown would involve killing all of the Jews in the kingdom, was a Jew. If this proves to be correct, then the much favoured comparison between Hitler and Haman, and Hitler's (Nuremberg) henchmen and Haman's ten sons, tends to fall a bit flat. While Hitler and his thugs were bent upon the extermination of the Jewish race, Haman and his sons, of actual Jewish descent, were bent upon - as it will turn out - the annihilation of only the religious (Yahwistic) Jews, like Mordecai. The Hitler-Haman parallel is thus far from being an exact one. Haman the Jewish King (A) We can glean a further clue about Haman in Queen Esther's prayer, referring to him as "a mortal king" (Esther 4:17). Haman was a king, then, a Jewish king. But which one? Well, only one Jewish king lived long enough to have been able to become involved in Medo-Persian affairs, after the fall of the last Chaldean king, Belshazzar. And that was King Jehoiachin (or Coniah), an historically-attested king. Taken into Babylonian captivity as a young man, Jehoiachin was set free in his 37th year of captivity by Nebuchednezzar's son, King Amēl-Marduk (or Evil Merodach) (2 Kings 25:27). A few years later (Amēl-Marduk =) Belshazzar will be slain, and immediately there will be ushered in the Medo-Persian era, commencing with the 62-year old Darius the Mede (Daniel 5:30-31). Esther's King Biological considerations would make it almost certain that Jehoiachin - who would have been very close to the same age as Darius the Mede - was elevated by this same Darius, who must then be the King Ahasuerus (var. "Xerxes") of Esther 3:1. This Jehoiachin-Haman, whom the Persians would come to know as "father", must have been a highly charismatic character, firstly to have been freed and elevated by King Belshazzar, and then, a few years later, to have been further exalted by King Ahasuerus. And now we are in for another surprise. The Hammedatha, whose apparent son Haman was, was not a male but a female. Hammedatha Whilst Jehoiakim, the regal father of Jehoiachin (I Chronicles 3:16), does not appear to have any name to match Hammedatha, there was a Jewish Queen at the time, Hammutal (Hamutal), who did have such a name: "... Hamutal daughter of Jeremiah, she was from Libnah" (2 Kings 23:31). Strip the name Hammedatha of its Persian ending -atha, and we get Hammed[a], which is an almost perfect transliteration of Hammutal (Hammeda = Hammuta). Typically, however, things are not always perfectly straightforward. Queen Hammutal is never referred to as being the mother of Jehoiachin, whose mother is given, instead, as "... Nehushta, daughter of Elnathan from Jerusalem" (2 Kings 24:8). Here, again, we run into the vagaries of biblical genealogies. Nehushta was, I suggest, not the mother of Jehoiachin, but his actual wife, Zeresh, in the Book of Esther. According to Targum Rishon, Zeresh was "the daughter of Tattenai, governor of the Province Beyond the River", during the reign of Darius the Persian (cf. Ezra 5:3-10). Tattenai could thus well be the same man, Elnathan, father of Nehushta, who had brought back the prophet Uriah (Uriah) from Egypt to Jerusalem, there to face execution (Jeremiah 26:22-23). Elnathan/Tattenai, stubbornly resisting the efforts of the Yahwistic Jews, must surely have been one of Haman's most steadfast allies. Queen Hammutal was the mother of King Josiah's 'son', Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:31), who was taken into Egyptian captivity by Pharaoh Necho, and who died there (v. 34). That could not translate to Haman, who was slain in Susa. Or could it? At this stage, things will become more complicated with a need to introduce parallel dynasties and alter egos. But, before we go there, and go there we must to complete the historical picture, let us summarise Esther 3:1 so far. Conclusion One King Ahasuerus is Darius the Mede. Haman is King Jehoiachin (historically attested and as having sons in captivity). Hammedatha is Queen Hammutal. But we have not accounted for the troublesome fourth element, Agagite. That commentators do not really know the nationality of Haman is apparent from the fact that he has been variously referred to as Agagite, Amalekite, Bougean and Macedonian. The problem stems from the fact that they, not realising that Haman was Jehoiachin whose unfortunate epithet was 'the Captive' (or prisoner) (I Chronicles 3:17), have taken the Greek word for Captive (αιχμάλωτος, aichmálotos) and substituted it with the like Greek word for Amalekite(s) (Ἀμᾱληκῑ́της). The word does not refer to nationality at all. Esther 3:1 should read as "Haman the Captive", to parallel "Jehoiachin the Captive". This absolutely nails Haman to Jehoiachin, a Jewish king, making it certain that Hammedatha refers to an ancestral relative, the contemporaneous Queen Hammutal, and makes almost biologically certain that Darius the Mede is Ahasuerus. In light of all this, Esther 3:1 can now read: "After these events, King Ahasuerus [Darius the Mede] honoured Haman [Jehoiachin] son of Hammedatha [Hammutal], the Agagite [Captive], elevating him and giving him a seat of honour higher than that of all the other nobles". Certain characters in the Book of Esther have other alter egos, too, according to what I have written in various articles. Darius the Mede, for instance, is both Cyrus and King Neriglissar, the Nergal-sharezer of Jeremiah 39:3, 13. Mordecai and Esther I have identified with Joakim and Susanna in Daniel 13 (Story of Susanna). Crucial, now, to provide King Jehoiachin with his necessary alter egos. Haman the Jewish King (B) With the era of King Hezekiah of Judah now aligned with - as I think it must be - the era of King Josiah, with Hezekiah being Josiah, then Hezekiah's son, Manasseh, and Josiah's son, Jehoiakim, must also be identified as one. And, affecting this reconstruction, Amon, son of Manasseh, becomes Jehoiachin-Haman. This serves finally to account for the origin of the name, Haman, or Aman. It is an Egyptian name, Amon, borne by a King of Judah. The wicked King Amon was the wicked Haman (Aman). But how did a king of Judah end up with an Egyptian name, Amon? Well, this is where Jehoahaz comes in, as a second alter ego of Jehoiachin. Jehoahaz, who, incidentally was - as was Haman - the son of Hammutal/ Hammedatha (as we read above) - was taken into Egyptian captivity, as we also read above. This must have been how he got his Egyptian name. The text about him dying in Egypt, which does not appear in the parallel Chronicles account, needs to be dropped, I think. And so, with two corrections to the biblical texts, that Nehushta was not the mother of Jehoiachin, but his wife, and with the omitting of the verse that has Jehoahaz dying in Egypt, I think that everything fits nicely.