Sunday, February 5, 2012

The Tomb of David and Psalm 30



Taken from: http://askelm.com/temple/t080201.htm




By David Sielaff, February 2008



....


As I wrote previously, Psalm 30 has a direct relation to the Tomb of King David of Israel. 1 This article will show that relationship in light of 2 Samuel 7:18–29. Then I shall analyze Psalm 30 which is David’s answer to God’s sentence of death upon David, God’s beloved, by God making “the house of David” which is the Tomb of David. Soon after David made the request to God to build a Temple (2 Samuel 7:1–3), and after God’s rejection of that request (2 Samuel 7:4–17), “Then went king David in, and sat before YHWH” (2 Samuel 7:18). David’s sitting “before YHWH” meant that he went to the tabernacle he had erected for the Ark of the Covenant that was placed in Zion, the City of David (2 Samuel 6:17, 7:2; and 2 Chronicles 5:2). Although God refused permission for David to build the Temple, God gave him promises that were more glorious than David could imagine at the time. Much to his surprise God pronounced David’s death, but then God immediately made promises about David’s seed and David’s kingdom proceeding from that seed. But first God promised that He would “make” David a “house” 2: “Also YHWH tells you that he [YHWH] will make you an house. And when your days be fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers [after your death; then], I will set up your seed after you, which shall proceed out of your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.” 3 2 Samuel 7:11–12 The word “made” is the same very common Hebrew verb Moses used to describe that God “made” the firmament in Genesis 1:7, “made” the two great lights (sun and moon) in Genesis 1:16, “made” the animals in Genesis 1:25, and “made” man in Genesis 1:26. Therefore when YHWH says to David that “He will make you an house” this means that it was a creation specifically for David by YHWH Himself, similar to the way that God made portions of the physical creation. This bit of information also tells us that David’s “house” was a physical creation that likely did not exist until after God spoke those words to David through Nathan the prophet. God in 2 Samuel 7:12–17 tells how one of David’s descendants will construct the Temple that David so greatly desired to build for God’s glory. At the time God spoke to David that descendant had not yet been born. David did not realize that fact when his death sentence was declared by God. David thought he was going to die soon after the pronouncement. David responded to God in 2 Samuel 7:18–29. The entire incident of 2 Samuel chapter 7 took place at least three years before David committed adultery with Bathsheba. It was at least that long because David’s armies fought three wars and battles. Two of the wars were in northern Syria (at the Euphrates River near Iraq today), probably one war each year or longer. All this took place before David ever saw Bathsheba. These three wars took place after God’s announcement of death to David. The accounts of these wars are in 2 Samuel 8:1–18 (with a parallel account in 1 Chronicles 18:1–17). Then came the siege and capture of the city of Rabbah (2 Samuel 11:1, 12:26–31; 1 Chronicles 20:1–3). It was during that siege that David’s adultery with Bathsheba took place. Then came the subsequent murder of Bathsheba’s husband, the birth of David and Bathsheba’s first child (after 9 months), and the death of their firstborn child: “But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” 2 Samuel 12:23 Solomon’s conception and gestation took another 9 months. 4 All of these events took place before Solomon, the promised seed of David, was born (1 Chronicles 28:5–6). This encompasses a time period at least 3 years and more likely 5 years, from the time of God’s rejection of David’s request to build the Temple (and pronouncement of David’s death) to the birth of Solomon. Solomon became king at an unknown age, but apparently he was anywhere between 16 to 20 years old when David died and Solomon succeeded to the throne. 5 David reigned 7½ years in Hebron, 33 years in Jerusalem (2 Samuel 5:5, 2 Kings 2:10–11; 1 Chronicles 3:4, 29:27). David died some 20 to 25 years later at age 70 (2 Samuel 5:4–5) after the sentence of death was given in 2 Samuel 7:11. This means that, of course, God knew David would not die until decades after David was given a death sentence in 2 Samuel 7:11, but David did not know that fact. He had been given a death sentence from God Himself without a timetable for when that would occur. However, David probably realized that the only other person to have their death pronounced by God, Moses, died soon afterwards (Deuteronomy 31:14–16, 34: 5–7). Now look at another portion of 2 Samuel chapter 7 that I have not dealt with before. After God’s shocking pronouncement of death, God tells David about the future after his death. One of David’s descendants will be chosen by God to build the Temple. His seed and David’s kingdom will continue. 2 Samuel 7:18–29 The only subject of 2 Samuel 7:18–29 is “the house of David” and what it means to David. Everything else in that passage revolves around the central focus of the house of David. The death pronouncement by God upon David (from 2 Samuel 7:11–12) is stated back to God by David in 2 Samuel 7:11–12. 6 Notice how David goes and boldly confronts YHWH who has just pronounced a death sentence upon him: 18 “Then went king David in, and sat before YHWH, and he said, ‘Who am I, O Lord YHWH? and what is my house [the house of David, David’s tomb], that you have brought me hitherto [so far]? 19 And this was yet a small thing in your sight, O Lord YHWH; but you have spoken also of your servant's house [the house of David] for a great while to come. 7 And is this the manner [torah, law] of man, O Lord YHWH? 20 And what can David say more unto you? for you, Lord YHWH, know your servant. 21 For your word's sake, and according to your own heart, have you done all these great things, to make your servant know them. 22 Wherefore you are great, O YHWH Elohim: for there is none like you, neither is there any Elohim beside you, according to all that we have heard with our ears. 23 And what one nation in the earth is like your people, even like Israel, whom Elohim went to redeem for a people to himself, and to make him a name, and to do for you great things and terrible, for your land, before your people, which you redeemed to yourself from Egypt, from the nations and their elohim? 24 For you have confirmed to yourself your people Israel to be a people unto you for ever [for the eon]: and you, YHWH, are become their Elohim. 25 And now, O YHWH Elohim, the word that you have spoken concerning your servant, and concerning his house [the house of David], establish it for ever [olam, for the eon], and do as you have said. 26 And let your name be magnified for ever [for the eon], saying, The YHWH of hosts is the Elohim over Israel: and let the house of your servant David be established before you. 27 For you, O YHWH of hosts, Elohim of Israel, have revealed [lit. “opened the ear”] to your servant, saying, I will build you an house [the house of David]: therefore has your servant found in his heart to pray this prayer unto you: 28 And now, O Lord YHWH, you are that Elohim, and your words be true, and you have promised this goodness unto your servant: 29 Therefore now let it please you to bless the house of your servant [the house of David], that it may continue for ever [for the eon] before you: for you, O Lord YHWH, have spoken it: and with your blessing let the house of your servant [i.e., the house of David] be blessed for ever [olam, for the eon].’” 2 Samuel 7:18–29 The Hebrew term “house” occurs 7 times in this passage, each time referring to “the house of David.” And this is considering that David spends most of this passage rehearsing what God has done in the past for Israel, and for himself up to and including his kingship. David speaks to YHWH regarding his own actions: ● David asks YHWH several rhetorical questions that David answers for himself later: (1) “Who am I, O Lord YHWH? and what is my house, that you have brought me hitherto? David is wondering if God brought him to the height of power over Israel just to kill him, and place him in the “house” or tomb. (2) “is this the manner [torah, law] of man, O Lord YHWH?” David is wondering, is this how things work? You raise me up and then kill me? Yet, David submits to what God has in store for him. (3) “what can David say more unto you?” David is unable to understand or question more. God knows him well, and David acknowledges this fact. ● In verses 25–27 David declares five things for God to do: (1) “the word that you have spoken concerning your servant, and concerning his house [the house of David], establish it for ever [olam, for the eon], …” (2) “do as you have said” (3) “let your name be magnified for ever [for the eon]” (4) “let the house of your servant David be established before you.” (5) “therefore has your servant found in his heart to pray this prayer unto you.” ● In verse 29 David asks two things of God, after noting that God “promised this goodness unto your servant”: (1) “let it please you to bless the house of your servant [the house of David]” (2) “with your blessing let the house of your servant be blessed for ever [for the eon].” This submission of David to God’s should be an example to us all. David has very little information available to him other than God’s pronouncement. He resolves not to question God any longer. We should all take notice of what David has said and done. He is not pleased with what God has told him, he is confused, but David will submit to whatever God wants of him. David’s resolve is shown in the five actions he takes. He submits to God’s word and desires God’s word to be established even though it appears to mean his own death. He wants God do as His word has said. David desires God to be magnified and glorified by what He will do by accomplishing His words. He acknowledges that David’s “house” or tomb will be “established” before God, which we have noted elsewhere means it will be near to God. David implies he sees all this as good. Finally, David says that his prayer is from his heart. He asks God’s blessing on the “house” and that the blessing be for the eon. Why? Because God has said it to be so, and if God says it, it shall be so for the entire time God says it shall be for. As a subordinate ruler (for David is after all a king appointed and anointed by God), David speaks to his superior with proper respect. That being said, David is saying, God, you have made a promise, now make it so, make it happen. This is exactly how someone used to command would speak to a superior. Second Samuel 7:18–29 shows that David came to accept that “the house of David” was made by God to be his tomb, located in the city of David (1 Kings 2:10). After God “made” (2 Samuel 7:11) and “built” (2 Samuel 7:27, 1 Chronicles 17:10, 25) the house, David finished the inside of the house/tomb with furniture and other items. Josephus tells us that such items were in the tomb, and some of them were removed by King Herod: “As for any money, he found none, as Hyrcanus had done, but that furniture of gold, and those precious goods that were laid up there; all which he took away. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 16:181 This is typical in ancient times for tombs of major kings, and David was one of ancient history’s greatest kings, both in deeds as well as wealth (2 Samuel 7:9). Just one example suffices to show the “finishing” of an ancient king’s tomb. That would be King Tut’s tomb, which was richly adorned with art on every wall and ceiling, with implements, including furniture filling the several rooms. Every great king of ancient times decorated their tomb, and similar things are likely inside King David’s tomb, the house of David. Remember that David was not allowed to build a Temple to God. But he was allowed to gather every–thing necessary for the future construction by David’s successor (2 Chronicles 22:2–4). David also spent considerable time and effort finishing out his tomb, and by accounts in Josephus, storing gold and silver in his tomb (see note 1 above). Psalm 30 Psalm 30 is a short psalm that has a most interesting title attached to it. The title specifically mentions the “house of David.” The theme throughout the twelve verses of Psalm 30 is death. The psalm tells of David’s rescue from God’s anger and an unknown illness that would have led directly to David’s death. God’s reprieve from death gave David an extension of life, just as King Hezekiah was given 15 years extra life during the time of Isaiah the prophet (2 Kings 20:6 and Isaiah 38:5). David eventually died, of course, 8 but David’s extension of life did occur, and it too was to God’s glory. The house of David, the tomb of David is also specified to be to God’s glory. Below I quote Psalm 30 in full from the King James Version. When using the KJV (which I use most often) I insert YHWH and Elohim where the Hebrew has them. I do this for clarity and to reduce ambiguity. It is always important to know and understand when YHWH or Elohim are used. They do not mean the same thing. YHWH is God the Father’s personal name. Elohim is the generic title for God. Unfortunately the KJV usage diminishes that understanding as do most all translations. Also, I change “thee-s,” “thou-s,” and “shalt-s” to you, you, and shall, etc. In Psalm 30 the name of God, YHWH, is used 10 times while Elohim is used twice. This means that David is directly addressing YHWH by name in song. I have set out the Psalm into a poetic structure. No one really knows what the true structure might be, so there is no right or wrong to doing this. Create your own structure if it helps your understanding. The first line of the title sets the stage for understanding the entire psalm: 1 “A Psalm and Song at the dedication of the house of David.   I will extol you, O YHWH; for you have lifted me up, and have not made [let] my foes to rejoice over me. 2  O YHWH my Elohim, I cried unto you, and you have healed me. 3  O YHWH, you have brought up my soul from the grave [sheol]: you have kept me alive, that I should not go down [descend] to the pit [crypt]. 4  Sing unto YHWH, O you saints of his, and give thanks at the remembrance of his holiness. 5  For his anger endures but a moment; in his favor is life: weeping may endure for a night, but joy comes in the morning. 6  And in my prosperity I said, I shall never [not olam, not for the eon] be moved. 7  YHWH, by your favor you have made my mountain to stand strong: you did hide your face, and I was troubled. 8  I cried to you, O YHWH; and unto YHWH 9 I made supplication. 9  What profit is there in my blood, when I go down to the pit [grave]? Shall the dust praise you? shall it declare your truth? 10 Hear, O YHWH, and have mercy upon me: YHWH, be you my helper. 11 You have turned for me my mourning into dancing: you have put off my sackcloth, and [you have] girded me with gladness [joy]; 12 To the end that my glory may sing praise to you, and not be silent. O YHWH my Elohim, I will give thanks unto you for ever [olam, for the eon].” To the chief Musician 10 • Psalm 30:1–12 & 31:1 The first thing I want to point out is that there are no direct quotations of Psalm 30 anywhere else in the Bible. There are allusions, however, and we shall look at several of them as we analyze this short psalm. Psalm 30 is attributed to have been authored by King David himself as it says in the title of verse 1, and it is included with the Psalms from 1–72 inclusive. Psalm 72:20 makes David’s authorship explicit: “The prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended” meaning that all those psalms are from David. More importantly it has an intriguing title phrase, “at the dedication of the house of David,” about which scholars show confusion. Their confusion exists because that title topic does not seem to relate to the subject of the psalm itself. Analyses of Psalm 30 Psalm 30 relates King David’s thoughts commemorating an event, a ceremony. That event was the dedication of the house of David. That house was the tomb that God had made for David, which David had properly finished and prepared for the body of God’s anointed King of Israel. In the psalm David looks back to his past. Psalm 30 describes his thoughts when God announced his death, his thoughts of his subsequent healing, his relief when he realized he was not going to soon die, and his joy that God was delaying his death sentence. Here is one commentator’s brief analysis of Psalm 30: “Psalm 30 Overconfident … overwhelmed … overjoyed. In a time of prosperity, David had become overconfident (30:6). When illness came, he was overwhelmed (30:1–5, 7–10). Then came the healing, and his mourning turned to joy.” Wilmington’s Bible Handbook 11 All the emotions of Psalm 30 take place within the context of God’s revelation about the house of David which was to be his sepulcher. Note again the alliteration in another analysis of Psalm 30 by the same author, H.L. Willmington 12: I. David’s Triumphs (30:1–3): David praises God for victory over three things: A. Danger (30:1): David’s enemies did not triumph over him. B. Disease (30:2): God restored David’s health. C. Death (30:3): The Lord kept David from being killed. II. David’s Troubles (30:6–10): David recounts when he was overwhelmed and cried out to God. III. David’s Testimony (30:4–5, 11–12): David praises God for rescuing him once again, turning his mourning into joy. These two analyses are typical of the content of Psalm 30, but neither they, nor do any other scholars connect the title with the content of Psalm 30. It is a total mystery to them. The Placement of Psalm 30 Most all psalms in the Bible are contained within the Book of Psalms. The psalms in the Book of Psalms are organized into a five-fold structure. This structure corresponds to the 1st five books of the Old Testament, the Torah, and to the structure of the 5 books of the Megilloth, the wisdom books of the Bible. Book 1 is made up of Psalms 1 through 41. Psalm 30 is within this “Book 1” of the Psalms which relates to Genesis. [ To refresh your memory regarding the placement of the entire Book of Psalms within the Old Testament and within the entire Bible, see Dr. Martin’s article “Appendix One: Preliminary Suggestions for the Structure of Psalms” at http://askelm.com/restoring/res040.htm. Dr. Martin notes: “Book 1 of the Psalms corresponds to the Song of Songs which was sung at the Passover season. The whole of the 41 psalms (1 plus 40) relate to this theme.” This is indeed true for Psalm 30. To see visually how the Book of Psalms fits within the structure of the Bible, look at the schematic at http://www.askelm.com/restoring/res000a.gif, from Dr. Martin’s book Restoring the Original Bible. ] According to Dr. Bullinger, Book 1 of Psalms concerned man: man’s blessings, man’s rebellion, man’s prayer, the man of the earth, the anointed man (Jesus Christ), and the life of man. He groups Psalms 30, 31, 32, and 33 together as a series of psalms of praise. 13 This appears to be the case. The Occasion of Psalm 30 Most commentators agree with Matthew Henry’s Commentary regarding a label for Psalm 30. It is considered a psalm of thanksgiving. However, there are varying ideas regarding the occasion being celebrated. One thought is that the Psalm celebrated the dedication of King David’s house of cedar, his palace, built with the help of David’s friend Hiram King of Tyre (2 Samuel 5:11, 7:2; 1 Chronicles 14:1, 17:1; and 2 Chronicles 2:3). Matthew Henry’s Commentary notes the problem as it tries to describe the purpose of the psalm: “This is a psalm of thanksgiving for the great deliverances which God had wrought for David, penned upon occasion of the dedicating of his house of cedar, and sung in that pious solemnity, though there is not any thing in it that has particular reference to that occasion.” “Psalm 30,” Commentary on the Bible 14 It was Israelite tradition to dedicate a house to YHWH although there is no command from God to do so. This tradition is first mentioned in Deuteronomy. When military commanders were required to muster men into the army to fight against Israel’s enemies, there were also provisions to exclude men from military service because of certain unique circumstances. 15 One circumstance for a temporary exemption from military service was that of a man who recently built and dedicated a house: “And the officers shall speak unto the people, saying, ‘What man is there that has built a new house, and has not dedicated it? let him go and return.’” Deuteronomy 20:5 Other scholars are unclear as to what was the occasion that prompted David to write Psalm 30, even though that occasion is clearly stated in the title. This is for two reasons. First, the title seems to have little relationship to the rest of the psalm. Second, no one seems to know what the title itself refers to: “The superscription [meaning the title in verse 1] indicates that the psalm was composed for [a] the ‘dedication of the temple,’ [b] a reference to either David’s palace (2 Samuel 5:11) or perhaps [c] the house of Obed-Edom, where the ark of the covenant remained for three months before being brought up to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6:10–11). Some scholars suggest that [d] this refers to the dedication of the temple site after the outbreak of pestilence (2 Samuel 24:15–25). God delivered David from near death, for the pit was the grave, the place of the dead (Psalm 30:31). Some scholars hold that 30:6–7 refers to David’s pride, which led him to number the people (2 Samuel 24:1–14).” Tyndale Concise Bible Commentary 16 What confusion. Scholars have no idea what Psalm 30 is all about. Yet the meaning is plain. This Psalm was written for the dedication of the house of David, the tomb of David, and not for a dedication of the Temple, David’s palace, the tent for the Ark of the Covenant, or for the future site of the temple (which was the house of God, not the house of David). In fact, the title exactly describes the subject matter of Psalm 30 if we correctly understand the meaning of the phrase “house of David.” Was the occasion of Psalm 30 to celebrate the Ark of the Covenant being placed within the tabernacle David had made for it? This cannot be the case. That structure was not a house, but a tabernacle, a tent. The distinction between a house and a tent is emphasized by God Himself in 2 Samuel 7:2–7. 17 Furthermore, the event of the placement of the Tabernacle has its own celebration, the thanksgiving psalm in 1 Chronicles 16:4–37. 18 Was David’s palace the subject of Psalm 30’s title? Even though the palace was indeed a “house,” and David’s house to be sure (and houses were traditionally dedicated according to Deuteronomy 20:5), the entire subject matter of Psalm 30 itself is not about happiness, rejoicing, and celebration. It is about David being given a postponement of a death sentence and why death at that time would have reduced God’s glory. It is indeed a thanksgiving psalm, but escape from death is what David is giving thanks about. In other words the psalm is not an expression of celebration, but an expression of relief. Professor Franz Delitzsch even wondered: “There is nothing in the Psalm to point to the consecration of any holy place, whether the mount of Moriah or the tent-temple (2 Samuel 6:17). We might rather refer it to the re-consecration of the palace on David’s return after it had been polluted by Absalom; but the Psalm speaks of an imminent peril from which he had been graciously delivered, not by the removal of bloodthirsty enemies, but by recovery from a deadly sickness.” Delitzsch, Commentary on Psalms 19 Was the subject of Psalm 30 the re-dedication of David’s house, his palace, after the rebellion of Absalom? Matthew Henry’s Commentary remarks: “Some conjecture that this psalm was sung at the re-dedication of David's house, after he had been driven out of it by Absalom, who had defiled it with his incest, and that it is a thanksgiving for the crushing of that dangerous rebellion.” “Psalm 30,” Commentary on the Bible This idea also has problems. First, nothing in the psalm links Absalom’s incest with David’s concubines (2 Samuel 15:16, 16:20–22). Second, there is no reference in the psalm to Absalom’s rebellion, or any other rebellion. Finally, this act by Absalom did not defile the house, but it defiled David’s concubines who were put away from him (2 Samuel 20:3) to the day he died. Scholars refute (with strength) each others’ arguments about subject of Psalm 30: “… that the Psalm was originally composed by David either (1) at the dedication, not of the Temple, but at the site of the Temple at the threshing-floor of Ornan, after the pestilence described in 1 Chronicles 21:28, or (2) at the dedication of his own palace in Zion, see 2 Samuel 5:11. There is serious objection to both these explanations. The first was not properly speaking, the dedication of a house, though in 1 Chronicles 11:1, David is reported to have said, ‘This is the house and the altar’; and in the second case, David’s palace was not properly speaking ‘dedicated,’ a word being employed which is not suitable either for a private house or a royal palace. … What ‘house,’ then, is intended?” Davison, The Psalms, p. 151 20 What house indeed? The Temple, the house of God, the house of the name, 21 was built by David’s son, Solomon. David was not allowed to construct it although he made all possible preparations (1 Chronicles 22:1–5). Some think that the illness of King David (“you have healed me,” Psalm 30:2) related to God’s judgment over David’s census of Israel. But Delitzsch notes that David did not suffer from the pestilence which was a punishment against the nation for David’s numbering of the people (2 Samuel 24:17). 22 The Structure of Psalm 30 There are interesting repetitions of words in this psalm which reveal its parallel internal structure. One such outline structure is as follows. Refer to Psalm 30 above as you look at this structure proposed by David Dorsey 23: a promise to praise: because you “have not let my foes to rejoice [samach] over me” (30:1) b report of appeal to God and rescue from the pit (30:2–3) • “I cried to you … you brought up my soul from Sheol … from among those gone down [yarad] to the pit” c statement of YHWH’s favor [b-ratson]; “Sing unto YHWH” (30:4–5) d CENTER: expression of confidence (30:6) c′ statement of YHWH’s favor [b-ratson] (30:7) b′ report of appeal to God and plea to rescue from the pit (30:8–10) • “I cried to you … ‘what profit is there … if I go down [yarad] to the pit?’” a′ promise to praise: because YHWH has “clothed me with joy [samach]”; “sing praise to [YHWH]” (30:11–12). Verse 1: The Title of Psalm 30 Not all psalms have titles, Psalm 30 has one, and as we noted, it is most significant: “A Psalm and Song at the dedication of the house of David.” In Hebrew the title of Psalm 30 is (along with Psalms 65, 67, 68, 75, 76, 87, and 92) “a psalm, a song,” mizmor shir, which indicates a class of psalm according to the Hebrew system. Mismor means a meditation and it is the ordinary word for psalm. Mizmor shir means that this psalm was designed to be sung by an individual or a chorus. It was composed as a musical composition with a beginning, middle, and an end. Most psalms are categorized into different classes by scholars. The title of Psalm 30 is one of 13 Psalms that have an historical heading giving a time and place setting. All the historical psalms are by David. These are not biblical classifications, but they are often useful. As mentioned earlier, Psalm 30 is also considered a thanksgiving psalm, and on that all scholars agree. Psalm 30 celebrates God’s deliverance of David from an illness and approaching death. Other thanksgiving psalms are Psalms 21, 32, 34, 40, and 66. The one understanding not thought of by commentaries and scholars is that Psalm 30 is a psalm and song of thanksgiving celebrating the very occasion its title states: “the dedication of the house of David.” The importance of the title in Psalm 30 is that the body of the psalm relates directly to the title. In other words, the title identifies what the psalm is about. Scholars are unwilling to accept the Psalm 30 title as it stands because they see no connection between the title and the text. This is because they do not understand the meaning of the phrase “the house of David.” The Word “Dedication” The word “dedication” in the title of verse 1 is the singular construct of the Hebrew noun “chanukkah.” This is the same word for the non-biblical but honored Jewish holiday called today Hanukkah. This Jewish holiday was called the Feast of Dedication (or the “feast of chanukkah”) in John 10:22. 24 The primary English definition of “dedicate” and “dedication” is, according to my handy American Heritage computer dictionary: “To set apart for a deity or for religious purposes; consecrate.” This is the meaning in Hebrew also, so the King James translation is quite correct. King David is setting apart and consecrating “the house of David” in Psalm 30 so that God’s name can be magnified in the world, just as it says in 2 Samuel 7:26 for “the house of your servant David.” He is consecrating it in Psalm 30 to please and magnify God. “The house of David” in Psalm 30:1 is that same house that God built for David: “Also YHWH tells you that he [YHWH] will make you an house. And when your days be fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers [after your death], I will set up your seed after you, which shall proceed out of your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom [the kingdom of David’s seed].” 2 Samuel 7:11–12 The word “dedicate” or “dedication” occurs in the Hebrew in several instances besides Psalm 30:1. The Aramaic form of the same noun occurs two times in Ezra 6:16–17 and two times in Daniel 3:2–3. In each case it refers to a physical thing dedicated to God. In the Bible dedications were usually of a physical place or structure: a house (as mentioned above, Deuteronomy 20:5), the sanctuary (Numbers 7:9–10), the Temple (1 Kings 8:63; 2 Chronicles 7:5; Ezra 6:16–17), an altar (Numbers 7:84, 88; 2 Chronicles 7:9), a wall (Nehemiah 12:27). The exceptions are Genesis 14:14 when the people in Abraham’s household were dedicated to God and in Daniel 3:2–3 when a pagan idolatrous image of King Nebuchadnezzar was dedicated. The place of the image does not seem to be important to the dedication. The title of Psalm 30:1 tells about the dedication of a physical place, a house, just as in Deuteronomy 20:5. The common Hebrew term for house, beyt, is used: “A Psalm and Song at the dedication of the house of David.” All the terms in the title are clear, unambiguous, and not disputed. Yet the title remains a problem for scholars. That problem will remain until the tomb of David is discovered or revealed. Let us examine Psalm 30 in greater detail. Verse 1: Exalting God David often exalted and praised God as we see throughout 2 Samuel chapter 7 and 1 Chronicles chapter 17, acknowledging God’s protection throughout his life: “I will extol you, O YHWH; for you have lifted me up, and have not made [let] my foes to rejoice over me.” Psalm 30:1 David’s foes were prepared to rejoice over him if he failed and died from a deadly disease. David often praised God for protecting him. “Be you exalted, YHWH, in your own strength: so will we sing and praise your power.” Psalm 21:13 “O magnify YHWH with me, and let us exalt his name together. I sought YHWH, and he heard me, and delivered me from all my fears.” Psalm 34:3–4 “David's Psalm of praise. I will extol [exalt] you, my Elohim, O king; and I will bless your name for ever and ever [olam va ad, for the eon and beyond]. Psalm 145:1 King Nebuchednezzar of Babylon exalted and honored God as the king of heaven with phrasing similar to that of David. This occurred when God brought Nebuchednezzar, king of Babylon, the head of gold (Daniel 2:38), and ruler of the world system at that time, back to sanity (Daniel 4:34–37). Nebuchednezzar publicly acknowledged his subjection, his subservience to God, and announced to the world God’s sovereignty over his person. King David’s exalting God in verse 1 corresponds with and parallels David’s later praise of God in verse 12. Verses 2–3: Cry and Healing David cried out to God. He was near death, so close to death that David felt that his soul was at the edge of the grave, close to going down into the pit of dead bodies. God kept David alive, rescued, and healed him: “O YHWH my Elohim, I cried unto you, and you have healed me. O YHWH, you have brought up my soul from the grave [sheol]: you have kept me alive, that I should not go down [descend] to the pit [bowr, crypt].” Psalm 30:2–3 The Hebrew word “healed” means from a illness, not from some malady of the soul or a lapse of morals, but healed from a physical problem or illness that threatened death. While David suffered many afflictions in his lifetime (Psalm 132:1), these were not illnesses but rather they were humiliations and physical dangers such as combat or “close calls” that threatened David’s life. In Psalm 30:1, however, the word “healed” does mean healing from an illness that brought David close to death. There are other instances where David had close calls and been rescued by God: “A Psalm of David. I waited patiently for YHWH; and he inclined unto me, and heard my cry. He brought me up also out of an horrible pit [bowr, crypt], out of the miry clay, and set my feet upon a rock, and established my goings.” Psalm 40:1 Psalm 41 is also a Davidic psalm, without an historical title. This psalm seems to deal with similar circumstances reminiscent of Psalm 30:1–2 both, with foes that want David’s illness to lead to death: “YHWH will protect him and keep him alive, And he shall be called blessed upon the earth; And do not give him over to the desire of his enemies. YHWH will sustain him upon his sickbed; In his illness, You restore him to health. As for me, I said, ‘O YHWH, be gracious to me; Heal my soul, for I have sinned against You.’ My enemies speak evil against me, "When will he die, and his name perish?’” Psalm 41:2–5, New American Standard Some have thought that David’s illness and healing were related to the episode of David’s numbering of Israel (2 Samuel 24:1–17; 1 Chronicles 21:24–22:1). However, there is no record of David ever being sick or near death because of that situation, only the people of David’s kingdom suffered and died. Therefore there is no reason to believe that Psalm 30 has reference to the numbering of Israel incident. Furthermore, David’s numbering of Israel occurred very late in David’s reign, shortly before his death. King David accepted life as it came from God, good and bad. He lived what Job talks about, just as David describes in Psalm 30:3: “Behold, happy is the man whom God corrects: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he makes sore, and binds up: he wounds, and his hands make whole [he heals].” Job 5:17–18 Verses 4–5: God’s Anger, God’s Favor “Sing unto YHWH, O you saints of his, and give thanks at the remembrance of his holiness. For his anger endures but a moment; in his favor is life: weeping may endure for a night, but joy comes in the morning.” Psalm 30:4–5 Anger and weeping are contrasted with life and joy by David. At present many of us endure silent weeping because of our physical, everyday life, but it will be, comparatively, “for a night, but joy comes in the morning.” Joy in the morning is frequently referred to in the Psalms, particularly in Psalm 90:14 and 143:8. 25 That morning for us will be our resurrection from the dead. It will come for King David also, who is presently in his tomb. In the meantime we should recognize that in God’s favor is life (verse 5) when He so chooses, and we must accept His decision is when He chooses otherwise. When it is given, God’s favor is like a shield covering us (Psalm 5:12). God’s favor provides mercy (Isaiah 60:10), preservation (Psalm 86:2, Hebrew), and security (Psalm 41:11), and assures that our prayers are answered if they are in God’s will Psalm106:4. 26 Such popular concepts that “hope springs eternal” and that things will be better with “the dawn of a new day come” all come from Psalm 30:5. Verse 6–7: When God Removes Prosperity David’s unbroken successes due to his being lifted up and rescued by God made him somewhat haughty. He was on top of the world and would stay that way because God was with him. David took that for granted, as did Moses (Numbers 20:10–12). Both of them missed out on what they greatly desired. “And in my prosperity I said, I shall never [not olam, not for the eon] be moved. YHWH, by your favor you have made my mountain to stand strong: you did hide your face, and I was troubled Psalm 30:6–7 God’s death sentence woke David up. Certainly he expected to die some day, but God surprised him with the pronouncement of a death much sooner than he expected. God Himself told David he would die, and at the moment of the peak of his success. He expected that once God put him in power and gave him rest from all his enemies (2 Samuel 7:1), that he would have a long reign. David knew that God made him great, but he forgot that God can diminish him and keep him humble. Verses 8–10: David Cries Out to God “I cried to you, O YHWH; and unto YHWH I made supplication. What profit is there in my blood, when I go down to the pit [shachath, grave]? Shall the dust praise you? shall it declare your truth? Hear, O YHWH, and have mercy upon me: YHWH, be you my helper.” Psalm 30:8–10 Knowing he was wrong David appeals to God on the basis that nothing that God wants done can come from those who are dead. The dead know nothing. They cannot praise. They cannot speak truth. “He made a pit [bowr, crypt], and dug it, and is fallen into the ditch [shachath, grave] which he made.” Psalm 7:15 Verses 11–12: Turning and End David was rescued by God from death and his internment in the “house of David” was delayed. At the end of his life David once again is joyful for his gifts from God, gifts that were undeserved, yet welcomed. “You have turned for me my mourning into dancing: you have put off my sackcloth, and girded me with gladness. To the end that my glory may sing praise to you, and not be silent. O YHWH my Elohim, I will give thanks unto you for ever [olam, for the eon].” Psalm 30:11–12 Putting on sackcloth is not only associated with mourning (Genesis 37:34; 2 Samuel 3:31), but also with repentance in crisis (see Nehemiah 9:1; Jeremiah 6:26; Jonah 3:5–9; and particularly Matthew 11:21). The reason for putting on sackcloth for repentance was to mourn and lament one’s own anticipated death. 27 Death was exactly what David anticipated in 2 Samuel 7:11–12 (paralleled in 1 Chronicles 17:10–11). God performs the action of putting off the sackcloth and putting on the girdle of gladness. Comparison with Hezekiah Compare the lament of King David in Psalm 30 with the lament and supplication to God by King Hezekiah some 250 years later. Hezekiah making his request to God seems almost to paraphrase David’s lament of Psalm 30. Note the terms sheol, soul, grave, crypt, praise, truth, corruption, life/live and their cognates used by both: Psalm 30:2–3, 9–10 (King David) Isaiah 38:16–19 (King Hezekiah) “O YHWH my Elohim, I cried unto you, and you have healed me. O YHWH, you have brought up my soul from the grave [sheol]: you have kept me alive, that I should not go down to the pit [crypt]. … What profit is there in my blood, when I go down to the pit [grave]? Shall the dust praise you? shall it declare your truth? Hear, O YHWH, and have mercy upon me: YHWH, be you my helper. You have turned for me my mourning into dancing: you have put off my sackcloth, and girded me with gladness; To the end that my glory may sing praise to you, and not be silent.” “O YHWH, by these things men live, and in all these things is the life of my spirit: so will you recover me, and make me to live. Behold, for peace I had great bitterness: but you have in love to my soul delivered it from the pit [grave] of corruption: for you have cast all my sins behind your back. For the grave [sheol] cannot praise you, death can not celebrate you: they that go down into the pit [crypt] cannot hope for your truth. The living, the living, he shall praise you, as I do this day: the father to the children shall make known your truth.” Conclusion The title and subject of Psalm 30 may seem strange to set to music, but that is what David did. Singing and rejoicing about God’s rescue from illness, death, while dedicating a tomb seems contradictory. Putting together 2 Samuel chapter 7 with Psalm 30, we can know David’s thoughts about this crisis, and we can understand how David accepts what God has proposed for him, both the good and bad. He accepts, of course, God’s blessings (as we all do), but he also accepts God’s pronouncement of death and His preparation of his tomb, “the house of David,” which was a constant shadow over David. That house, that tomb, was to be — and is today — established for the eon. It shall accomplish its purpose to magnify God’s name for the eon (2 Samuel 7:26), so that God will be praised and His truth proclaimed (Psalm 30:9). Without realizing the implications of his request, David prays for God to bless “the house of David” so that the house would indeed be blessed and established for the eon (2 Samuel 7:29). “So shall my word be that goes forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” Isaiah 55:11 It seems arrogant for David to “accept” what God has already decreed. However, this is the way of kings. David knew that God is approachable if one’s attitude and heart is correct. With lapses, David was such a man after God’s own heart (1 Kings 15:3, 5; Acts 7:46, 13:22). As children of God, we can do the same, coming boldly to the throne of grace (Hebrews 4:16). Psalm 30 celebrates the dedication of “the house of David,” his tomb, which YHWH made for David “before” God Himself (2 Samuel 7:11). This means that the house of David has a close proximity to God’s presence, the Temple. God established that “house” (2 Samuel 7:25–26) and David decorated, and furnished the interior. Psalm 30 celebrates its dedication after the house was completed, some time before David died. At the end of Psalm 30 (like the 2 Samuel 7:18–29 and 1 Chronicles 17:16–27 passages), David resolves within himself to accept totally what God brings to his life — good or bad. God heals him (Psalm 30:2) and David continues being God’s servant, making other mistakes to be sure, but he is still God’s anointed king. In our personal lives today, for us as Christians, just like for David “our weeping may endure for a night, but joy comes in the morning.” That morning joy will come when the daystar arrives. That morning star is Christ. Read 2 Corinthians 4:6; 2 Peter 1:19; and Revelation 22:16 and the full context around those verses. God removes the “sackcloth” (Psalm 30:11) of our physical body and will “girdle” or put around us gladness. This is exactly what will happen in the resurrection. Our resurrected physical body will be removed and we will be girdled with a glorious resurrection body (1 Corinthians 15:52–54). For us, tears and weeping will go away, and joy will come with Christ (Psalm 126:5; 2 Timothy 1:4; John 16:19–22). David Sielaff, February 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 The House of David” at http://www.askelm.com/temple/t040801.htm and “The Location and Future Discovery of the Tomb of David” at http://www.askelm.com/temple/t061001.htm. The unopened tomb is just south of the correct Temple site. 2 See the discussion in the articles in note 1 above and also the evidence in Lyle Eslinger book on one chapter of the Bible, House of David or House of God: Rhetoric of 2 Samuel 7, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 164 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994). Jesus was legally of David’s seed (Acts 13:22–23): “And when he had removed him [King Saul], he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, ‘I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfill all my will.’ Of this man's seed has God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Savior, Jesus.” 3 The promises of the house of David, the seed of David (future kings from the Davidic line), and the kingdom from David are three distinct promises of God. The house of David refers to David’s tomb, his sepulcher. The seed refers to David’s descendants. The kingdom refers to the physical Davidic kingdom continuing for a long time in the future, derived from the one who will inherit David’s kingdom. We learn later this was Solomon. 4 Four sons were born to David and Bathsheba in Jerusalem (2 Samuel 5:14 and 1 Chronicles 3:5). It is unknown if the listing of the children in 1 Chronicles 3:5 represents their order of birth. If so, then the time between 2 Samuel chapter 7 and Psalm 30 is considerably longer. Nathan is listed as Jesus’ ancestor in Luke 3:31. Solomon is Jesus’ ancestor in Matthew 1:6–7. 5 Solomon was young when he took the throne: 1 Chronicles 29:1 and 22:1; 1 Kings 3:7. Solomon died about age 60 seeming to be an old man (1 Kings 11:4), having reigned for 40 years (1 Kings 11:42). Solomon’s son Reheboam was 41 years old when he succeeded to the throne (1 Kings 14:41). Therefore Reheboam was born 1 year before Solomon succeeded David. 6 This prayer of 2 Samuel 7:18–29 in the first person. The parallel account in 1 Chronicles 17:16–27 is presented in the 3rd person, meaning that someone else is relating the story from an objective vantage point. The Chronicles account has a few additions, no subtractions, and only minor word changes from the Samuel account. This indicates that a scribe is writing in Chronicles describing what David wrote, while the Samuel account is from David’s personal perspective. 7 David’s house, his tomb, was prophesied by God to last for the eon (2 Samuel 7:16, 1 Chronicles 17:14). 8 David is still dead at this moment (Acts 2:29). He has not been resurrected (Acts 2:34). We cannot be sure how many years of life David was given after God’s anger subsided and God healed him. 9 This is an instance of a textual emendation by the Sopherim changing YHWH to Adoni in reverence for the divine name. See Appendix 32 of Bullinger’s Companion Bible at http://www.levendwater.org/companion/append32.html. 10 This subscript “To the chief Musician” clearly goes with the preceding Psalm 30, rather than the beginning of Psalm 31. This is shown from the single psalm in Habakkuk chapter 3 which ends the chapter and book with the subscript at the end (Habakkuk 3:19: “To the chief singer on my stringed instruments”). James Thirtle, The Titles of the Psalms: Their Nature and Meaning Explained (London: Morgan & Scott, 1916), pp. 173–174. See also the psalm of Hezekiah in Isaiah chapter 38, ending in verse 20. Thirtle’s excellent small book is available online at http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/OTeSources/19-Psalms/Text/Books/Thirtle-PsTitles/Thirtle-PsTitles.htm. 11 H.L. Willmington, Willmington's Bible Handbook (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1997), S. 311. 12 H.L. Willmington, The Outline Bible (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1999), S. Ps 30. 13 E.W. Bullinger, Companion Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, reprint 1974), pp. 721, 746–747. 14 See Matthew Henry’s “Psalm 30” commentary at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc3.Ps.xxxi.html. 15 Other exemptions from military service were those men who had a newly planted vineyard and those who were newly married (Deuteronomy 20:6–7). After the exempting situation was ended, then military service was mandatory for all men. 16 I inserted the [a], [b], [c], [d]. Tyndale Concise Bible Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001), S. 212. 17 Note also the reference to the “tabernacle of David” in Amos 9:11 and Acts 15:15. 18 Psalm 87 celebrates the arrival of the Ark to Zion (2 Samuel 6:4, 14–15). See Thirtle, Titles of the Psalms, p. 171. The psalm of 1 Chronicles 16:4–37 was broken up and portions were used in various Psalms (in order): Psalm 105:1–15, 96:1–13, and 106:1, 47–48. This is clearly shown in James Newsome, ed., A Synoptic Harmony of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, with related passages from Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezra (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1986), pp. 33–36. 19 Franz Delitzsch, A Commentary on the Book of Psalms (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1883), p. 455. 20 W.T. Davison, The Psalms, I–LXXII (New York: H. Frowde, n.d.), p. 151 21 See my article “A Name for the Temple of God” at http://www.askelm.com/news/n020921.htm where the phrase “the house of the name” refers to the Temple without reference to King David at all. 22 Delitzsch, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, p. 455. 23 This structure of Psalm 30 is from David Dorsey, The Literary Structure of the Old Testament: A Commentary on Genesis–Malachi (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), pp. 183–184. Dorsey’s translation is from the RSV. Dorsey notes: “A parallel arrangement may be employed to establish or underscore an important pattern in the psalmist’s line of reasoning. The repetitions generated by this pattern may also serve to emphasize certain points.” 24 The entire passage of John 10:22–39 took place during that day of the Feast of the Dedication in the Temple in Solomon’s Porch (verse 23). It was during this confrontation with the Jews that Jesus quoted Psalm 82:6 (and by implication all 8 verses of Psalm 82). Jesus used that opportunity to make clear to the Jews that He was both the Messiah and the Son of God, a declaration of His divinity. The Jews clearly understood this to be so because they took up stones to stone Him for blasphemy, as the Jews said, “making Himself equal with God” (John 10:31–34). 25 Davison, Psalms, p. 153. 26 E.W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (New York: E. & J. B. Young & Co., 1898), S. 728. 27 “Sackcloth” in Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988): “The physical characteristics of the material made it suitable attire for times of danger, grief, personal and national crisis, and distress.”

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Scandinavian Legends and the Hebrew Bible




[The AMAIC considers the Middle East – West comparisons of John R. Salverda as interesting, with some of them we think being very likely. But we do not necessarily agree with all of the following]



Taken from: http://www.britam.org/AesirSalverda.html



Scandinavian Legends and the Hebrew BibleThe Aesir Legends from Norse Mythology

by John R. Salverda



The ancient religion of the Northern Europeans was originally divided into two groups of gods called the Aesir and the Vanir. After a bit of confrontation, these two groups seem to have realized their relationship to one another and joined forces to oppose their common enemy, the giants. The Vanir gods, such as Freyr, were fertility gods who were associated with ships and pigs. I suppose that the Vanir stories represent those who arrived in Europe via the sea in ships (those of Danish descent, the Swedes, the Frisians, and the Jutes or Anglos for example). The Aesir on the other hand were wanderers, they arrived over land (the Saxons and the Scythians or Goths). The Aesir group is the division of Norse mythology that this article mainly concerns itself (The Vanir group, which also has many correspondences with the ancient Israelites, although much more Canaanite in nature, can be dealt with separately.).Although the Norse had the notion of an over all god of everything, whom they referred to as "Alfadur" (Odin is sometimes referred to as Alfadur meaning "All-father," but this name is also used in a way that shows that the Norse had an idea of a deity superior to Odin, uncreated and eternal.), he was a mystery and they had virtually no mythology about him (after the end of time he is destined to step up and provide a new, perfected, Heaven and Earth). For all intents and purposes they called their supreme god "Odin." The name "Odin" is to be compared to the name "Adon," the very name that the Israelites used for God at the time of their Assyrian exile. To the Israelites "Adon" means "Lord" and the they used it because the Almighty's actual name was considered by them to be ineffable.

Oddly enough, the Greek and Roman historians who looked into the matter did not usually identify Odin with Zeus (Jupiter), but with Hermes (Mercury) as the god of wandering. This is not so strange as it may seem because the ultimate origin of the Greek mythological character Hermes was the Hebrew patriarch Moses (the serpent stick carrying messenger of god who freed the earthly wife of god (Io) from her captivity and lead her on her famous wanderings, see http://www.britam.org/salverda/io.html).

That is why the day of Hermes "Wednesday," as it is called in the Northern European languages, is named for Odin. The Norse myths about Odin, and indeed much of Norse mythology in general, is based upon the God of Moses and the writings of Moses.



Take for instance Norse mythology's debt to Genesis, the first book of Moses. At the foundation of the world of Norse Mythology is a very significant tree (called Ygdrasill). It grew at the center of a place called Midgard (Gen. 2:9), where Odin had formed and placed the first human pair Askr and Embla. He imbued them with life and gave them spirit with his breath (Gen. 2:7). Here also could be found the Norse archetype of evil, a serpent called the Midgard serpent (Gen. 3:1). Odin, foreseeing the trouble that the serpent posed, made it an outcast by throwing the serpent out of Midgard into the sea, where it grew and grew until it encompassed the entire world (Rev. 12:9). The first born son of Odin, Thor (Torah?) is destined, at the end of time, to destroy the Midgard serpent and sacrifice his own life in the act (Gen. 3:15). This is the outline of a very familiar story indeed, one that could easily be derived from the works of Moses.



At the base of the tree in the middle of Midgard is a spring that is divided into three heads (Gen. 2:9,10) one of which is called "the well of Ymir" it is the source of all knowledge (of good and evil?). Odin sacrificed one of his eyes in order to drink from it. Although the source of knowledge among the Norse was not the tree but a well, this Idea is not foreign to Israelite culture, consider the concept of "Miriam's well" as is outlined in Ginzberg were it is said that God made it on the second day of creation, and other Jewish Legends were it is said that the drinking of it inspired prophecies.



Furthermore, they had the motif of the fruits of the tree of eternal life. In the Prose Edda we read about a character named "Idun" (Eden?). Idun is described as a woman with a certain box within which she keeps the apples of eternal youth. The apples are eaten by the gods when they age to make them young again. The downfall of all creation is caused when access to the miraculous fruits are denied. The great flood is also a feature of Norse mythology. Odin killed the Giant Ymir. The blood from Ymir's wounds flooded the world (the blood of Ymir is explained in the myth as the seas.), and the Giants drowned. Only one, (a hero named "Begelmir"), was able to save himself and his wife, these were the ancestors of all later races. Also included is the symbolism of the rainbow. According to Norse mythology the rainbow (therein called "Bifrost") is the bridge between Heaven and Earth, as such it is the pathway between god and man, much like the Scriptural rainbow symbolizes the covenant between God and man (Gen. 9:11-17).



Just as it is in the Hebrew Scriptures, The Norse giants were not completely wiped out in the great flood of Norse myths. Nephilim, a Scriptural term, often translated as "giants" actually means something like "shades" or "ghosts," is very plausibly the origin of the Nordic term "Niffleheim " which is their name for the land of the dead. The usual term for the land of the human dead was "Hela" this was the Nordic equivalent to the Hebrew "Sheol," this was the repository for the bulk of mankind, the heroic dead went to Valhalla. However whenever a giant was dispatched it would go to Niffleheim (the world of the Nephilim?).



The racial features of the Amorites was depicted on the monuments of the Egyptians at Karnak. They were a tall people of blondes and brunettes with blue eyes. The Amorites were identified in the Scriptures as the descendants of the giants (the fallen angels). They had a sacred mountain that was the cultural focus of their nation, Mount Herman. It was the "Zion" (they called it "Sion" or "Senir") of the Amorites. According to Ginzberg's "Legends of the Jews" Mount Herman was the location where the Fallen angels had climbed down from Heaven to cohabitate with the daughters of men, ostensively the Amorite daughters. It was very probably the religion of the giants that is referred to in the Scriptures at Genesis 15:16 as "the iniquity of the Amorites," The religion of Moses stood in opposition to and superseded it (see http://www.britam.org/salverda/olympus.html).



In the Judeo-Christian continuum the giants began as the fallen angels who were bred into the Amorite nation. Later, when the Amorites were transplanted from the immediate vicinity, the giants devolved back into the fallen angels again, who would eventually reappear for a war against the good angels at the end of times. The Greeks, colonists from the Levant living far from the Amorites, portrayed the giants as leaders of a previous religious system that was defeated an exiled to the west by Zeus and the Olympians. When Olympianism took over the giants were pretty much out of the picture, a mere afterthought. However, for the Norse the "giants," as a national historical reality, continued to be an ongoing concern. The Norse had to live as neighbors with the remnants of the Amorites, the Germans (named for their original homeland in the shadow of mount "Herman"). Thus Norse mythology displays an enduring preoccupation with the giants unlike any other tradition. To them it was not the "spiritual" bad angels who had to be defeated, but the gods and the giants were at constant war, right up until the end of time, and there was no certainty of divine victory either.



Finally, as previously indicated, there is the notion of end times eschatology, not many religious systems include the idea that there will be an "end of times," an Armageddon as it were. This is a primarily Israelite notion, Christianity, an offshoot of the Judean religion, has it. Zoroastrianism (I would argue that it also is an offshoot of the Israelite religion, [see http://britam.org/zarathustra.html] has it. Muslims, another people of "the book" also have their version of it. That's about it, however, in keeping with the topic of this article, Norse Mythology has a very detailed end times eschatology, therein it is called "Ragnarok," the "twilight of the gods." At Ragnarok will occur the final battle of all creation, it is the culmination of the war between the gods and those giants from the days of old. At this time the rainbow bridge between Heaven and Earth, (the Norse symbol of the Covenant), will be broken to pieces. Also this is when the firstborn son of Odin is destined to finally destroy the Midgard serpent. This cannot help but remind one of the Judeo-Christian end times concept of war breaking out between the great leader of the host of Heaven and the fallen angels lead by the ancient serpent and its' destruction (Rev.12:7). From where did they get this notion? Well, I submit that they got it from the same source that all the others got it from, the Israelites, in this case it is a legacy of their Israelite heritage.

--

-John R. Salverda



New Series Also by John R. Salverda:

"Helleno-Yishurin. The Hebrew Origin of Greek Legends"

Greek Sisyphus and the Patriarch Joseph



[The AMAIC considers the Middle East – West comparisons of John R. Salverda as interesting, with some of them we think being very likely. But we do not necessarily agree with all of the following]





by John R. Salverda







Brit-Am Background:

John R. Salverda shows parallels between the Greek hero known as Sisyphus and Joseph the Patriarch. Sisyphus was a king punished in Tartarus by being cursed to roll a huge boulder up a hill, only to watch it roll back down, and to repeat this throughout eternity. Strabo pointed out a parallelism between Tartarus, world of the dead, and Tartessos in Spain facing the Atlantic Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean area in general. He says that the ancients placed Tartarus in this region. The British Isles became identified as the Place of the Dead. This was a Greek and Roman concept but the Gauls also believed it as mentioned by Julius Caesar. The idea in fact may have originated in Ancient Assyria where it was applied at first to Habor (a place of Ten Tribes Exile cf. 2-Kings 17) then to the Isles of the West ("Zeitschrift Fur Assyriologie", Berlin and Leipzig 1929, Strasbourg 1909).

Sisyphus as Joseph

One of the brothers of Athamus, another one of the sons of Aeolus, was a man named Sisyphus. Since Athamus has proved to share obvious similarities with a Hebrew patriarch, logic propels us to check the story of his brother Sisyphus, and see if we can find a possible origin among the Hebrew Patriarchs for him.

Sisyphus was a kind of local culture hero specific to the Corinthians, who claim him as their first king, and as the founder of their city Corinth. To find out more about Sisyphus it will help to know more about these Corinthians, and where they came from. Modern archaeologists, have almost unanimously identified the original Corinthians as a colony from the land of Phoenicia, a land that is otherwise known in the Scriptures, (where there is no mention of the word, 'Phoenicia,') as the land of Canaan, or Israel. There are many Phoenician characteristics associated with the city of Corinth, they even had their own version of the goddess Athena, whom they called 'Athena Poinike,' and the Corinthian calendar also had a month named after the Phoenicians called, 'Phoinikaios.' It was indeed said that the tomb of Melicertes, who has often been recognized as the Melquart of Tyre, was located in Corinth. Some have even suggested that the very name of the city, 'Corinth,' derives from the common Hebrew word for a city, 'Kiriath.'

The Corinthians were Phoenicians all right, the question is, could those Phoenicians have known, or possibly even have been, the Israelites? I believe that many were Israelites, (Ac.18:10, Joel 3:6) but even if they were not, even if they were 'only' Canaanites, you would still expect that a people, such as the Canaanites, who fought wars, made treaties, built a Temple, and intermarried, with the Israelites, would know a little something about the history of their own shared ancestors and native homeland. Out of all the pre-Exodus patriarchs, Joseph, who was buried in Shechem, not Hebron like all the others, has the best chance of being remembered by the Canaanites. Certainly the Canaanites would have known many of the stories about many of the more important historic Hebrew personages but especially Joseph. The usual Roman transliteration of the Hebrew name Joseph, as is evident by the name of the famed first century writer, Josephus Flavius, is 'Josephus,' however, perhaps there was a more ancient, Corinthian version of the name. I can not think of another name in all of Greek mythology, that is more like the name Josephus, than the name Sisyphus, spelled Sesephus by Hesychius.

Of course, if Sisyphus is to be identified with Joseph, then he could not really have founded the Greek city of Corinth, on the other hand, the descendants of Joseph were great founders of cities among the Canaanites. Only the legend of this great founding family actual made it to Greece, it came with those who colonized Corinth from Phoenicia. This is perhaps the reason why the Greek myths tell us, that when Sisyphus founded the city he did not call it Corinth, that name came later, Sisyphus called it, 'Ephyra.' This name is perhaps even more suspiciously Hebrew in origin, for it is the usual Hebrew word for 'fruitful,' and in its plural form, 'Ephraim,' (doubly fruitful) it is the name of a Hebrew city called after the son of Joseph, and, in fact, the entire House of Joseph (the northern ten tribes) was sometimes referred to as, Ephraim. Another form of the word, 'Ephrath,' (fruitfulness) is the name of the city where Joseph's mother was buried, otherwise known as, 'Bethlehem.'

Recognizing the Corinthians as members of the house of Joseph, fits well into the scriptural perspective concerning the historical migrations of the scattered ten tribes of Israel, because, if this was the case, then the city of Corinth turns out to have been the headquarters of the westward migration of, not merely the Corinthians, but of Ephraim. This migration, according to the history of Corinth, started with a colony at the Island of Corcyra, which spread the culture of Corinth throughout the Adriatic, then they influenced Eturia and Rome from their colony on the island of Ischia off the Bay of Naples, and let us not forget their colony at Syracuse (Syra-gaza, Syrian stronghold') of Sicily, which was founded, as a colony from Corinth in 735, and grew within 350 years to be, perhaps, the most powerful city in the world at that time. These Sicilians, as many others have already pointed out, were no doubt the same ones who have been identified as the 'Sheklesh,' a member nation of the 'Sea Peoples' confederacy who are mentioned in the Egyptian chronicles as being a circumcised people. It is noteworthy that these colonies of Corinth were all founded precisely when you would expect that the population of the city would be swelling with the exiled 'Phoenicians' fleeing from the wrath of the Assyrian raids of Tiglathapilezer.

Furthermore, it is not just a likeness between the names, and the ethnic makeup of the Corinthians, that leads us to conclude the probable identification of Sisyphus with Joseph, they also share titles, and their respective stories share themes, such as the assertion that Sisyphus, like Joseph, was hated by his brothers. This, of course, is not so remarkable a motif and can be seen in many Scriptural and mythical stories, from the account of Cain and Abel, to that of Atreus and Thyestes. It is not so much that they each were hated, but rather why they were hated, that makes the coincidence remarkable. Sisyphus was hated to the point of being given a special eternal punishment in Hades, this was for the crime, we are told specifically in the myth, of 'revealing divine secrets.' Joseph, who was derisively referred to as 'the dreamer,' had a similar reason for earning the hatred of his brothers. They did not like the interpretation of his dreams, and it was his ability to decipher the meaning of dreams for which the Pharaoh of Egypt gave him the title 'Zaphnath Paaneah,' which, in Hebrew means, we are told, 'the revealer of divine secrets.'

Joseph, an ex-slave and a convicted criminal among the Egyptians, was given in marriage, the hand of Asenath, the daughter of the priest at On, one of the holiest families in all of Egypt. One wonders indeed if, at first, she was not just a bit put off by this arrangement, for the Greek myths tell us that Sisyphus was married to a goddess, named Merope, she was one of the stars from the constellations known as the Pleiades, her particular star shines only dimly for it is said that she was ashamed to be the only one of the Pleiades who had married a mortal, and a criminal besides. The Pleiades are one of the very few constellations that is named in the Scriptures, the Hebrews called it the "Kimah" constellation. A possible link between Joseph and the Pleiades, is the fact that the Pleiades are located in the shoulder of Taurus, "the bull," which is the well known symbol of Ephraim, and the house of Joseph. Of course, Taurus the bull is more than just "the symbol" of Ephraim, for they worshipped Eloah as a bull god, and considered it to be the father of "the calf," the famed Idol of the house of Joseph.

Joseph furthermore, had a connection with the Greek sun god Helius, for as we have said, he had married into the priesthood, presumably of Ra, at the Egyptian metropolis of On, and it was this city that was known to the Greeks as 'Heliopolis.' It was the Egyptian sun god Ra that the Greeks called 'Helius,' this was, no doubt, the El of Canaan and the Eloah of Israel, with the usual Greek suffix '-us' appended. It is apparent that the Egyptians had a little trouble pronouncing the letter 'L' and used instead an 'R' in its place, so that the name of the sun god who was known to the Canaanites as 'El,' was pronounced 'Ra' by the Egyptians, a mere shibboleth and not another name altogether. This perhaps explains why the Corinthians, herein presented as the House of Joseph, worshiped Helius above all, the acropolis of Corinth, which they called the 'Acrocorinth' was considered by the Corinthians to be the sacred 'high place' of Helius where he was worshiped, and claimed their dynasty of kings to have descended from him in the same way that the Egyptians considered their king to be the 'son of Ra.'

Having covered most of the mythology that involves the character of Sisyphus himself, we shall now turn our attention to three myths that mention Sisyphus but concern themselves mainly with three other characters whose names are, Autolycus, Asopus, and Salmoneus.

In the Hebrew scriptures, as soon as Joseph was born, there was a contest of wits between two famous thieves, Jacob, who stole his brother's birthright, and Laban, who stole Jacob’s wages. In the Greek myth, it was the well known thief Sisyphus who played the role, not of Joseph but of Joseph's father, Jacob, and since it was Autolycus, just as well known as a thief, who was outwitted, it must be him, who is to be identified as a Greek version of the Syrian Laban. Sisyphus and Autolycus kept their flocks as neighbors, but Autolycus had a magic trick, he could change the appearance of cattle, from black to white, or spotted or mottled, or striped, even from horned to unhorned. So he started stealing his neighbor's cattle and changing their looks, but Sisyphus noticed that his flocks were shrinking while his neighbor's were growing. Sisyphus marked his cattle and discovered the deception, he called upon witnesses, showed them the scam, and got back his herds. Now, the discerning reader will argue, that in the Scriptures it was not Laban, who is here identified as Autolycus, that could change the color of the cattle. However, another, perhaps more precise, reading of the Scriptural account shows that it was Laban who kept changing, ten times, Jacob's wages, and these wages were in fact the cattle. Furthermore, it is Joseph who is herein identified with Sisyphus, and not Jacob, but this is only a slight discrepancy for it can rightly be said that the cattle in question did belong, at least, to the family of Joseph, who was born and was an heir to Jacob at the time. Regardless of the ostensive role reversal, the intricate theme of someone increasing his herds by changing the color of those belonging to his neighbor, and then appropriating them for himself, did not just pop up in Greek mythology independently, and without any connection to the story of Laban and Jacob, that just does not seem possible, especially since we know that the ancient Corinthians were indeed Canaanite in origin and therefore would have been familiar with this theme. I am not alone in recognizing the Greek debt to the Hebrew motif in this regard, for the well known modern mythologist, Robert Graves in his famous work, 'The Greek Myths,' quite confidently states, '... Autolycus's use of magic in his theft from Sisyphus recalls the story of Jacob and Laban.' Graves further cites as his reason for this statement, 'The cultural connexion between Corinth and Canaan, ...' Another probable clue to this identification may lay in the mythic assertion that not only was Sisyphus able to reclaim the cattle that Autolycus had taken but he, as Jacob did Laban's daughter, also took the daughter of Autolycus.

A further inclusion in the Sisyphus cycle of Greek mythology, was the story of a character named, 'Asopus,' his tale, which is also known as, 'the rape of Aigina,' clearly borrows, quite liberally, from the story of Jacob. Even the Greek names of the players retain their phonetic similarities to the original Hebrew cast. The name Asopus is plausibly a Greek form of the name Jacob, (with a soft 'c' and the usual Greek suffix '-us' appended,) moreover, the name of the daughter of Asopus, 'Aigina,' is a very likely Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name of Jacob's daughter, 'Dinah,' whose story, of course, has correspondingly come to be known as, 'the rape of Dinah.' It was this account for which Sisyphus became famously chided, as was Joseph elsewhere, as a tattle tale, because he gave a damning report for which he, it is said in the Greek myth, had earned his well known eternal punishment. More evidence for the identification of Asopus with Jacob, lies in the mythic claim that Zeus had inflicted Asopus with a permanent limp, as a result of his contention with the king of the gods. Jacob, of course, limped because of a similar contention.

Now, as promised earlier, we can return to the motif of the stone. Zeus was compelled to hide from Asopus by disguising himself as a stone, we are further told that this stone was the same one that Sisyphus was eternally forced to establish, however unsuccessfully, upon the infernal mountain. As even the casual student of Greek mythology will recall, this was not the first time that the king of the gods has used a stone to conceal himself from his contender. At the birth of Zeus it was Kronos who was his contender, and Kronos would have swallowed Zeus alive but for the ruse of the young god, who disguised a stone as himself, which was swallowed instead. Thus, Zeus was able to mature in safety, to return at a later date and assume the kingship, in the strength of his manhood, at which time the stone was disgorged, and, as Pausanius (X. 24. 5.) informs us, Zeus subsequently set up the stone at Delphi where it was ritually anointed with oil, of course, the Greeks are not the only culture, where one finds the odd practice of setting up and anointing a stone (Gen.28:18, 35:14). From the foregoing it would appear that Kronos should be compared to Jacob, but we have already equated Kronos, first with Adam, and then with Ham, therefore it seems that the real comparison, is between Kronos and the 'contender,' any contender, with god. The ancient Phoenicians seemed to have understood this, for as Philo of Byblos, who was quoted by Eusebius, has said, 'Kronos, whom the Phoenicians called Israel...' The 'Stone' is clearly what God has used as a trap in order to deceive his contender, He becomes this stone, 'a stumbling block to both houses of Israel,' as a disguise so He can, 'conceal His face from the house of Jacob,' but, the point is, that the ancient Greeks seem to have known this intricate theological doctrine, almost as well as Isaiah! (Isa.8:13-17).

For more articles by John R. Salverda on the Hebraic Connections of Greek Mythology, see:

"Helleno-Yishurin. The Hebrew Origin of Greek Legends"

Salverda suggests idea of Amazons came from prophetess Miriam and her followers



[The AMAIC considers the Middle East – West comparisons of John R. Salverda as interesting, with some of them we think being very likely. But we do not necessarily agree with all of the following]





Bellerophon

The Amazons and the Reproach of Egypt

by John Salverda



It is from Diodorus Siculus where we learn that the Amazons came originally from Libya, a land that we suppose began at the Western bank of the Nile River and ran to the shore of a huge lake called Lake Triton that occupied the entire Sahara Desert (not now, but anciently). Diodorus himself identifies this as the land of Mount Atlas and the Gorgons. They then took a large army of women into Egypt where they became allied to the Pharaoh, who was, at that time, Horus the son of Isis. (Diodorus places this mass movement of the Amazons into Egypt chronologically just before the deeds of Perseus.) From there they came up out of the land of Egypt under their Queen whose name has variously been handed down to us as "Myrina," "Marian," or as an alternative version of the name, given to us by Robert Graves has it, "Mariamne." Diodorus goes on to say that they then invaded Arabia and took over Syria before they eventually showed up in Asia Minor. This association of the Amazons with the Libyans also associates them with the Egyptians, for the Nile delta was peopled largely with Libyans who worshipped a Goddess named "Tanit," after whom the leading city of the district, and the capitol of Egypt, was named "Tanis" (not to mention the entire nation of Tunisia which is also her namesake). Tanit was perhaps even more well known as a "Phoenician" goddess while the Egyptians more regularly called her Neith or Nut and the Hebrews knew her as Anat or Zion, the Greeks used the name Athena. The Amazons were in fact well known worshippers of the warrior goddess Athena (Pallas Athene, Baalath Zion), who was identified, even in ancient times, with Tanit the chief goddess of the Egyptian city of Tanis, which city was otherwise known to the Hebrews by the (suspiciously "Zion" sounding) name of "Zoan," the very name of the Hebrew home during their period of Egyptian slavery.



Now, the question arises; When were the Amazons in Egypt' Diodorus himself gives us a clue to the answer, for he says that Horus, the son of Isis, was the Egyptian Pharaoh at the time. Since it was this same Horus who famously defeated Seth in a well known cataclysmic battle, and established the Osirian religion in Egypt. And since the Greeks have identified this conflict with the battle of Zeus against Typhon, and the establishment among the Greeks of "Olympianism," we can logically suppose that the Amazons came up out of Egypt under Mariamne about the same time that Zeus battled Typhon. Quoting Herodotus, "Before men, they said, the rulers of Egypt were gods, ... Of these gods one or another had in succession been supreme; the last of them to rule the country was Osiris' son Horus, whom the Greeks call Apollo; he deposed Typhon [Set], and was the last divine king of Egypt. (Histories 2. 144. 1) I consider this is to be a fair chronological reference for I have shown in an article called "The Olympians," that this was the exact same time that THE ALMIGHTY battled Leviathan (typical symbolic poetry used by the Hebrews to indicate the Red Sea crossing) and the Hebrews came up out of Egypt. Now, if the Amazons came up out of Egypt at about the same time that the Hebrews did, then perhaps we can find some mention of the Amazons in the Scriptural account of the Exodus. As we know, the Scriptures do mention that a large compliment of "mixed company" came up out of Egypt with the Hebrews, however, we certainly could not rely on such a general statement as this to identify the Amazons, but then, we don't have to.



There was a group of specifically women who were detached from the men, and were lead separately, by "Miriam," the little understood "sister" of Moses, at the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt. Furthermore these women had a very Amazonian sounding law that was enforced amongst them while they were in the land of Zoan, insisting that the male babies born must be put to death, but the girls should be preserved alive. Just as the name Mariamne, from the Greek stories, has it's equivalent Hebrew form Miriam, (thought to be Hebrew for "rebellion" but just as likely from an originally Egyptian name such as "Meri-Amon,") so, if the Greek word "Amazon" were the corruption of a Hebrew word, as many so called "Greek" words were, it could be referring to the "mothers" (ama) of "Zoan." Now, the question must be asked; How many groups, of specifically women, were lead up out of Egypt by a leader named "Miriam," into the land of Arabia and Syria, in the days when God/god fought the great dragon, were there'



While the Scriptures don't seem to mention the Amazons by that name, the Greek myths do give a fairly thorough account of their peregrinations. Of course the Greeks could not read the Scriptures, and don't seem to have had an interest in tracing the travels of Israel or any lost tribes thereof. The Greek myths are the reports of a disinterested third party, so to speak, and yet, they place the Amazons where ever and when ever the Scriptures, and later historians, place the Israelites. The Amazons went as foreigners into the land of Egypt, came up out of Egypt into Syria. (Io met the Amazons during the course of her famous wanderings and the first Greek hero to battle against them was Bellerophon, herein identified with Joshua.) Then, where the Scriptures loose track of the "lost" Israelites, the Greek myths trace the Amazons to all the places where historians claim that the Scythians and Cimmerians went. For the Greek myths then say that the Amazons went north to the area around the Black Sea, (near the Thermodon River, thence the Amazons are said to have fought on behalf of Priam's Trojans. Achilles, is said to have killed an Amazon Queen named Penthesileia. Priam speaks of himself as having, in his youth, fought against Amazons invading Phrygia, Iliad 3. 188) and from there they began to take over Asia Minor founding several cities such as Sinope, Ephesus, Cyme, Myrina and Smyrna before they were again obliged to move, flushed out by the Lydians (These Amazons were thought to be of the Scythian race, but this should not deter us from identifying them as a branch of the Dam-ascenes [Ashkenaz] and Samarians [Cimmerians] exiled by Tiglathapilezer, as many do.).

Alexander the Great finally had to build the Caspian gate in the Caucasus to keep out the "Red Jews" and, guess who' The Amazons, who were apparently with them, and, also apparently from this study, they were with (and in opposition to) the Israelites all along. At this point the reader's mind must be running wild wondering what was the role of the Hebrew women in saving the ancient world from Amazonian feminism. Well, obviously it would take another entire book to explain such a thing. It would be entitled "The Way of the Wells" and would include chapters with titles like; "Eve vs. Lilith and the Head Waters of Eden", "Sarah vs. Hagar and the Well of Ishmael's Salvation", "Dinah at Shechem and Jacob's Well", "Hebat vs. Persephone and the Well of Sheba", "Zipporah vs. Miriam and Miriam's Well", etc. But, this is not the place for such a book, and it will have to wait until someone writes it. Until then all we can expect from this article is to touch on the origins of the Amazons as they relate to the identity of Joshua with Bellerophon, and in regards to how the Hebrews saved civilization from matriarchy, the next few paragraphs will have to suffice.



It is apparent that Egypt was matriarchal at the time that Israel was enslaved there. However, the Hebrew midwifes eventually balked at the Egyptian command to sacrifice the male babies. The life of Moses was nearly aborted under the Egyptian system, (in fact, overcoming such circumstances is a well known messianic attribute.) Miriam, the older sister of Moses is accredited with overlooking the safety of the infant Moses. (The reader is urged to do a triple comparison between the story of Moses, the Greek myth of Perseus, and the Egyptian tale about the infancy of Horus, where Horus is fostered by Isis and Nephthys at the delta city of "Chemmis.") Although she probably nurtured Moses in the beginning, and was apparently reconciled to him in the end, "Miriam" was a "bitter rival" to the rule of Moses, murmuring and complaining about him throughout the Exodus wandering.

She denigrated the race of Zipporah, the Cushite wife of Moses and the expounder of circumcision, getting Aaron to join her in her in questioning the authority of THE ALMIGHTY's chosen servant. Miriam said, speaking for Aaron and herself, "Is it by Moses alone that THE ALMIGHTY has spoken' Is it not also by us that he has spoken'" THE ALMIGHTY Himself had to correct her of her error, reminding her of His direct support of Moses and striking her with a temporary bout of leprosy (Num. 12 :1-15). Although the "rebellion" of "Miriam" is downplayed in the Scriptural account, and gets rationalized in the legends, a more careful study of her story in conjunction with the Greek "myths" about the Amazons, reveals something a bit more disturbing concerning her rivalry. Moses certainly wrote Genesis 3:16, and it is evident that Miriam and her followers, the ancient feminists, resented their new station in regards to men. Furthermore, the Midianites whose priesthood Moses had married into, were strict circumcisers. (I believe that circumcision is patriarchal evolution's determining factor, and the turning point of civilization, tipping the scale from barbaric Amazonian feminism, which included child sacrifice and even cannibalism, toward a slightly more refined existence.) They were proud children of Abraham, the patriarchal champion of circumcision through his third wife Keturah.



The Hebrews had a very hard time overcoming the influences of Egyptian matriarchy. Moses adopts the priesthood of his wife Zipporah's father, not that of his own father, a point that causes the ever present "mumbling" of Miriam. On the other hand, it was the priesthood of Midian, as the descendants of Abraham through Keturah, that had more closely maintained the patriarchal Abrahamic traditions, such as circumcision and the name of THE ALMIGHTY, while Moses and Israel was being polluted under the Egyptian matriarchy. Zipporah chides Moses for not circumcising even his own sons. Moses, reluctant to be a patriarch, lets Miriam and the women march independently singing and dancing with their tambourines, and taking the credit for overthrowing the Pharaoh. Amazonian rites were also evident in the debauched worship of the calf god, but that was the last straw for Moses who would finally put his foot down. Even so the Israelites wanted to reject Moses and go back to Egypt. Those wayward leaders of Israel, the underlings of Moses, after much hardship and purging, which included killing many of them, would eventually come around and change their matriarchal ways. However, it would have to wait for a future generation to attempt a sincere effort to cleanse Israel of their Amazonian tendencies. Even they had to have one last plunge into dionysian matriarchal licentiousness at the incident of Baal Peor. It was not until Joshua at Gilgal when the reproach of Egypt would finally be rolled back. They celebrated their victory over the "reproach of Egypt" with a mass circumcision. And this, I suspect, is what has come down to us via Greek mythology as the defeat of the Amazons by Bellerophon.





For more articles by John R. Salverda on the Hebraic Connections of Greek Mythology, see:

"Helleno-Yishurin. The Hebrew Origin of Greek Legends"





Monday, January 30, 2012

Pelops as King Ahab



[The AMAIC considers the Middle East – West comparisons of John R. Salverda as interesting, with some of them we think being very likely. But we do not necessarily agree with all of the following]




Pelops, Ahab and the
Achaeans

by John R. Salverda

Contents: 

Brit-Am Editorial Comment.

Pelops and Ahab.
The Achaeans and Ahab.
Ahab in Greek Records?
Israelites, Arimoi, Kimmeroi (Cimmerians)!
Hittites and Israelites.
The Hurrian Mercenary Chariot Warriors and Olympianism.
Chaldeans and Chaldians.
Was Homer really King Omri of Israel?
Pelops, Hippodameia, and Naboth.
Elijah as Myrtilus.
The Murder of Stymphalus.
The Greek Mount Carmel?

Conclusions.

Brit-Am Editorial Comment:
John Salverda has authored a valuable and interesting series of articles showing Israelite Influence on Greek Mythology. The northern Ten Tribes lived separately from Judah. They intermixed with the local non-Israelite populations and adopted their beliefs and practices. It is not certain how literate they were and it may be that only a few actually knew how to read and write Hebrew. It was a violent age punctuated by wars, invasions, and traumatic crises. .

It was also a period of irrational forces and strong spiritual influences. Under such conditions we may well expect the actual belief system of the common people to have become transformed into something else altogether.
Our studies show that at some stage Israelites (especially from the tribe of Dan) did conquer the Greeks, influenced them and were influenced by them. Also in their movement westward elements from the Ten Tribes sojourned in the Greek sphere. We ourselves do not think there was much of a physical ethnic interaction between Hebrews and Greeks but there was a cultural one.
Archaeological findings show a strong link between Mycenaean (Bronze Age) Greece and Britain as well as between Bronze Age Britain and the area of Ancient Israel and its surroundings. The same applies to Scandinavia. Mycenaean finds in the region of Israel itself are plentiful and may have originated with Israelites. If such was the case then the Israelite component in findings from the British isles and the North of Europe may well turn out to be much greater than is realised.
The article below continues the exposition of John Salverda. The views are those of the author and not necessarily of Brit-Am.
John Salverda in fact says things we would heartily disagree with. Even so, he deserves to be read. It is also important to read properly what he is saying. For instance he claims that Israelite exiles who reached Greece were really Hittites and Chaldeans who had been influenced by Israelite culture. His attributing Gentile origins to Israelite Kings and their followers is doubtful. It could be however that Canaanites and other elements who were driven out or voluntarily left Israel had been influenced beforehand by Hebrew culture and they brought this influence with them to Greece?
This present essay shows parallels between Israel in the time of King Ahab and Elijah and events in Greek Mythology. The author argues his case well and in great detail. For they who may be interested yet find the mass of details a little too much for them we recommend that they at least peruse the Conclusions at the end of this article.

Pelops and Ahab
Nobody would equate, or even compare, the Greek mythological character Pelops with King Ahab from the Scriptural history of Israel. For the stories about Pelops were supposed to have occurred about the same time that the walls of Mycenae were being built. These walls are dated archeologically (through pottery and other items, some even bearing the names of the Pharaohs who lived at the time,) to have coincided with Egypt's 18th Dynasty, about 1400 BC. Thus long before the days of King Ahab who is said to have died about 850 BC. However, if we adjust events to reflect Immanuel Velikovsky's reconstruction of ancient history, which omits the so-called "dark ages" of Greece and makes Egypt's 18th Dynasty to be contemporary with the Kingdom of Israel, then we find that Pelops and Ahab lived at about the same time. This hypothesis is the premise under which the following article was written. Velikovsky makes Ahab to be a contemporary of the Egyptian Pharaohs Amenhotep III and Akhenaton (Velikovsky equates these with the Greek mythological characters Laius and Oedipus, who did incidentally figure in on the myth of Pelops) just before the time that we learn, from Hittite documents, of the arrival on the historic scene of a new people whom they called the "Ahhiyava" (the Greek  Achaeans).

[The AMAIC actually identifies Ahab with Akhnaton]

The Achaeans and Ahab
The sons of Danaus and Aegyptus (Danites and Jacobites see http://www.britam.org/salverda/danaan.html
had been established with the Inachids (Anakim) at Argolis for a few generations when the sons of Perseus, arriving from Joppa, joined them. Shortly after the sons of Perseus had completed building the walls of Mycenae, a new group came on the scene, the Achaeans. These Achaeans were, just as were the Perseids a couple of generations earlier, looked upon as royalty and they were given princesses of the royal families of Greece to wed. They were a circumcised people who spoke the same language as the Danaan sons of Perseus, but were never-the-less, in some respects considered to be rivals to the Danaans and proudly claimed Pelops, a foreigner to Greece, as their common ancestor. Considering the time of their arrival, their language, their religious beliefs and their royal status, it is my opinion that the name of this group "Achaeans," is based upon the Hebrew name of the well known King Ahab, of Israel's Omri dynasty. Achaab is the Greek Septuagint form of the name Ahab, thus Achaab-ians. The Hittites of Anatolia knew of the Achaeans and called them the 'Ahhiyava.' The Egyptians called them the Akaiwasha, (Also written 'Akwash' or 'Ekwesh' It is from the Egyptian 'Karnak inscriptions' where we discover that the Achaeans were circumcised.) the Hebrew 'H' being a guttural one, and both the 'V' and the 'W' are apparently transferred from the letter 'B,' while the suffix of the word means 'the men of' (the Hittite suffix 'a' approximates the 'oi' as in the Greek Achaeoi, while the Egyptian suffix 'asha' approximates the Hebrew  prefix 'ish,') thus the word, "Achaean" is a plausible transliteration of the phrase, 'the men of Ahab.'

The Hittite records of those days make mention of the Achaeans, as a maritime mercantile nation, who inhabited a nearby island or islands, some think Rhodes, but others think some other islands to the west of Asia Minor, for about 150 years (The Achaeans of Rhodes built the famous Colossus of Rhodes, one of the 'Seven Wonders of the ancient World. It was a huge statue of Helios [Eloah-us]. He drove a fiery chariot across the heavens [as in the story of the apotheosis of Elijah from the story of Ahab].). Hittite figurines have been found in Mycenaean Tiryns, as well as in Thessaly. Although as I will demonstrate, the Achaeans were from the Omri Dynasty of Israel, they were also strongly influenced by the Hittite culture. The Achaeans didn't have a long history, they came to Greece,  just after the sons of Perseus, about two or three generations before the Trojan War, and lasted about as long after the war, until the Dorian Invasion. Their history was short, but it was very eventful indeed. Much of classical Greek Mythology occurred during the short history of the Achaeans. The twelve labors of Heracles, the Calydonian boar hunt, Argonautica, the seven against Thebes, the Epigony, and the Trojan War, all took place while the Achaeans, were in the Peloponnesus (the island of Pelops).

Ahab in Greek Records?
Jehu's 'purge' (c. 842 BC.) was applied to the 'men of Ahab' who apparently fled (those who survived the purge) to the city of Pisa in Greece (they probably spent a generation or two in Paphlagonia) from where they later set up the nearby city of Olympia, and instituted the Olympic games (776 BC.) only 66 years later, bringing the stories of King Ahab with them. The original Olympic games were dominated by a death defying chariot race which was probably held in memory of the contest at Mount Carmel and the chariot/foot race between Ahab and Elijah. Evidence for the theory that the 'Achaeans' consisted of the 'sons of Ahab' can be seen in the remarkable coincidences between the story of 'Pelops and Hippodameia' and the story of 'Ahab and Jezebel.' Such as the story concerning Ahab and his ivory replacement shoulder; 'And the right shoulder shall ye give unto the priest for an heave offering of the sacrifices of your peace offerings.' (Lev. 7:32) Like the ram with its wave offering, (Num. 6:19) Pelops was sacrificed, not to god, but to 'the gods,' the Olympians (This is a point worth noticing in the light of associating Pelops with the polytheistic Ahab, Olympus = Elohim-us. The differences between Pelops and Oenomaus were religious in nature, just as were the differences between Ahab and Naboth. The Olympianism of Pelops was the polytheism of Ahab, while on the other hand Naboth was favored by [the ALMIGHTY] like Oenomaus, the grandson of Zeus, was favored by him. Diodorus Siculus says that Oenomaus used to give the contestants a head start, while he would sacrifice a ram to Zeus. Only after Oenomaus had completed this sacrifice, would he pursue and overtake the ill fated suitors.  Pausanias also notes; 'The Eleans say that Oenomaus used to sacrifice to Zeus whenever he was about to begin a chariot-race with one of the suitors of Hippodameia.' Paus. 5.14.6. See http://www.britam.org/salverda/olympus.html). Pelops was cut into pieces, cooked, then his shoulder was taken out and eaten. (by 'Demeter' [a feminine personification of the Levites'], the goddess to whom pigs were sacrificed. The gods were loath to accept a human sacrifice and did not eat, but Demeter didn't realize what she was doing because she was distraught over the fact that the Earth had just recently opened up and swallowed alive her daughter 'Core,' [Korah]. In fact she had been wandering for a long time in search of her daughter and it took the intercession of Zeus himself to get her to join the Olympians at this 'banquet,' [the convocation at Shechem]. It was actually Hades, the 'hidden god,' [El Olam] that had abducted Demeter's daughter who was also called, 'Persephone,' [the eponymous tutelary of "Beer Sheba"].) The pieces of Pelops were reassembled, he received a replacement shoulder made out of ivory, and he was brought back to life. Not only as good as new but perfected, as Apollodorus puts it; 'Pelops, after being slaughtered and boiled at the banquet of the gods, was fairer than ever when he came to life again.' (Epitome book E Chapter 2. 3). That the Achaeans believed in, a sacrificed messiah and his resurrection, is evident by the story that Pelops, their archetypical hero-king, had been sacrificed and resurrected. An entire series of mythological motifs, that are particular to the Greek myths about Pelops, appear to have been borrowed directly from the history and religious customs, not only of Israel, but of the particular "Hittite version" of Israel that existed in the area of Shechem and later Samaria, from the convocation through the Omri Dynasty. The original capital of Israel was a place called 'Shechem,' meaning, 'shoulder.' This place was destroyed and a replacement capital was built by Omri, the replacement 'shoulder' was called, 'Samaria.' Samaria was notoriously adorned with ivory panels, and its King, Ahab had famously built an ivory palace to live in. Ginzberg says that each of Ahab's seventy sons lived in Ivory houses as well. Archaeologists still find carved Ivory pieces all over the place (So called "Nimrud ivories" from the Levant of the 9th and 8th centuries were found, not only in the area of Samaria, but all over the Aegean, in Athens, Corinth, and Sparta, some 200 pieces were found in one Spartan temple alone. This was the "Ivory age" in Israel when King Ahab's house was paneled with Ivory, and those in Zion slept in Ivory beds see II Kings 22:39 and Amos 6:4). This is a plausible reason for the motif of the 'ivory replacement shoulder,' that was granted to Pelops/Ahab and played so prominent a role in his myth.
 
Israelites, Arimoi, Kimmeroi (Cimmerians)!
Pelops, it is said, came to Greece from Lydia. But Ahab, (whom I suppose to be the inspiration for the Greek character Pelops) never really went to either Lydia or Greece, his descendants and followers went there and took his story with them, transferring the stories of Jezreel to Pisa. Furthermore Lydia, where Pelops is said to have come from, is often confused by the ancient mythographers with Syria, the land of the 'Syrians' (Herodotus calls the Syrians, 'the Syrians of Palestine,' to distinguish them from the "Leucosyroi" of Cappadocia, he also maintains that they wore the sign of the circumcision.). Israel was considered to be Syrian, and not just by the Greeks. For as the Scriptures say; 'And thou shall speak and say before THE ALMIGHTY thy God, A Syrian ready to perish was my father, and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there with a few, and became there a nation, great, mighty, and populous.' (Deut. 26:5) We, following the lead of the Greeks, say Syria, but most everyone else says 'Aram.' Some Greeks knew of this other term for Syria, but weren't too certain as to its application, for as Strabo says, "In fact they make this (Strabo is here referring to Lydia) the setting of the mythical story of the 'Arimoi' and of the throes of Typhon," (Strabo, Geography 12. 7. 19) Again Strabo this time quoting Pindar; 'it was father Zeus that once amongst the Arimoi, 'smote monstrous Typhon.' But some understand that the Syrians are Arimoi, who are now called the Arimaians [and it is here that Typhon is buried]." (Geography 13. 4. 6) (Homer and Hesiod describe Typhon as being imprisoned in the land of the Arimoi, also known as the Arimaspoi, or Kimmeroi.) It is well known that Typhon was buried at the southern border of Syria, see Herodotus 'Histories' Book 3, Page 5. Thus, the confusion between Lydia and Syria has Typhon buried in both places, and makes both places the home of the Arimoi who the Greeks sometimes referred to as the Kimmeroi (the Cimmerians). Indeed the land of Lydia was undergoing incursions by the Scythians (Aramaeans) and the Cimmerians (Samarians) as early as 710 BC. Thus it is likely that the information, that the mythographers got from those 'Lydians,' was heavily laced with the stories about their old king Ahab which we would expect 'Cimmerians,' as displaced Israelites from the kingdom of 'Samaria' to know well. The language of the Lydians, spoken in the West of Asia Minor until the 1st century BC, was apparently a linguistic descendant of Hittite. This and the fact that one of Lydia's kings known to the Greeks bore the Hittite royal name Myrsilis (Mursilis) may indicate that this state was the purest cultural and ethnic continuation of the former Hittites. With this in mind, and combined with the fact that the Omri dynasty was known to, and heavily influenced by, the Hittites, it is no wonder that some thought Pelops to be from Lydia while he was actually from "Syria of Palestine."

Hittites and Israelites
Now, as to the name of Tantalus the father of Pelops. I am of the opinion that the name Tantalus is a Greek version of the Hittite name Tudhaliyas. There was a very famous King Tudhaliyas who started a Hittite dynasty about 920 BC. (this, of course, is in accordance with Velikovsky's reconstruction of ancient history which I use consistently). It may seem arbitrary to choose the name of an obscure King, the founder of a distant Hittite dynasty to supply the name of the Greek version of Omri of Israel, but I do have my reasons. For the Hittites where not so obscure as the conventional history of the time would lead us to believe. They did in fact have a considerable influence on the Levant during the Dynasty of Tudhaliyas, placing their princes as kings in important cities like Carchemish and Aleppo, and even facing up to the powerful Assyrian, Egyptian and Mitannian Kings of the time. The princes and nobles of the Tudhaliyas Dynasty were a very numerous and restless bunch who, I believe, had hired themselves out as mercenaries, mainly as charioteers and cavalrymen but also in other military roles. The Hittites famously had introduced horsemanship and chariotry skills all over the middle east and could forge and supply weapons of iron, many kingdoms used their expertise, but especially the Israelite nations. The Hittites made treaties with the Hebrews, Abraham became a confederate with Ephron the Hittite for the partial purchase of Hebron. Like the blond haired blue eyed Amorite women had been to the sons of God at Mount Herman in the days of old, so the Hittite women were to the Hebrews in the land of Canaan, irresistibly appealing. Thus Esau married Judith and Basemat, the daughters of the Hittites Beeri and Elon, respectively. And King David himself had Uriah the Hittite killed because he desired his wife Bathsheba. The Hittites were supposed to be completely exterminated out of the land of Canaan by Joshua, but they weren't, instead the Israelites made deals with them and intermarried with them. ...The Assyrian King Esarhaddon in his chronicles referred to Manasseh the King of Judah as a "king the Hittites."

Brit-Am editorial Comment:
The author below claims that King Omri of Israel was a Hittite. We doubt this very much and do not feel it is right to attribute foreign ancestry to a monarch of Israel when the Bible does not refer to it. Nevertheless in a cultural sense they may be something in what the author is suggesting. The same point applies to other proposals made below.

Therefore I believe that Omri, was a Hittite captain, an adventurous scion of the Tudhaliyas Dynasty who lead a group of Hittite mercenaries, and was hired by the previous Israelite dynasty, the House of Baasha. When Zimri, captain over half of the chariots, overthrew his lord and killed Elah, the son of Baasha, it did not go well for him. For Omri, a capable commander of the Army (Presumably a royal Hittite and captain over the other "half" of the chariots), having the support of not only his troops, but half of Israel, (largely the Hittite half no doubt) was elevated to the throne. A civil war ensued and Omri was victorious. The ancestry of Omri is not disclosed in the Scriptures, we are not even told the name of the Hebrew tribe from which he was descended.

[AMAIC comment: Omri was of the Hebrew tribe of Issachar, according to our identification of Baasha and his son Elah with, respectively, Ahab and Ahaziah (Hiel), making Omri, then, the same as Ahijah of the tribe of Issachar]

Omri built Samaria. No other time period in all of biblical history was so concerned with the skill of chariotry, as was the era of the founding dynasty of Samaria. The three generations of kings from that era, all scions of the house of Omri, namely, Ahab, Jehoram, and Ahaziah, each were fatally wounded while in their chariots. This preoccupation with 'chariotry' is just another 'coincidence' that the Omri dynasty had with the Achaeans and the story of Pelops.

As to the name of Pelops himself, I spent a lot of time trying to equate his name with the Hittite death and resurrection god Telipinus (There is the Hittite angle, they share some attributes and I considered the names as similar), however Ahab famously followed after the Baalism propagated by his wife Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal, king of Sidon. To quote Josephus; "Ahab's god was called Baal; ... Now this Baal was the god of the Tyrians; and Ahab, in order to gratify his father-in-law, Ethbaal, who was the king of Tyre and Sidon, built a temple for him in Samaria, and appointed him prophets, and worshipped him with all sorts of worship" (from "Antiquities of the Jews"). Josephus further tells us that Ethbaal was the priest of Astarte before murdering the previous king and usurping the Sidonian throne (quoting Menander, this time from "Against Apion," Book I, par. 18). Ahab built a temple for Baal and set up a sacred pole in honor of Astarte (1 Kings 16:30-33). Therefore perhaps the name Pelops, rather than a corruption of the name Telipinus is simply the usual Greek for the phrase "the face of Baal" (Bel-ops) a common Appellation for Tanit or Astarte, or anyone enamored of Baal.

When the Greek poets wanted to indicate riches they often referred to the wealth of the Lydian King Croesus, but when indicating the vastness of realm they would refer to the wide sway and many kingdoms of King Pelops. ("I would not Pelops' tilth untold nor all Kroisos' coffered gold, nor yet t' outfoot the storm-wind's breath, so I may sit this rock beneath, pretty pasture-mate, wi' thee, and gaze on the Sicilian sea." Theocritus, Idylls 8) The Hebrew legends spoke of Ahab in much the same way, "Ahab is one of that small number of kings who have ruled over the whole world. No less than two hundred and fifty-two kingdoms acknowledged his dominion. As for his wealth, it was so abundant that each of his hundred and forty children possessed several ivory palaces, summer and winter residences." (from Ginzberg's 'Legends of the Jews').

It is purely conjecture on my part but perhaps Ahab was deified by his descendants after his death as the incarnation of their resurrection god. This theory is not so far fetched after all as Josephus tells us that Ahab's rival Kings Ben-Hadad and Hazael were both deified, and the descendants of Pelops, the Greek Ahab, did think of their ancestor as a sort of King of Kings, whom it was claimed had been raised from the dead (clearly a Messianic, if not a divine attribute). In accordance with Velikovsky's reconstruction of history, Ahab lived at the same time as the Egyptian Pharaoh Amenhotep III. Dr. Velikovsky associated the Theban myth of Oedipus with the history of 18th Dynasty Thebes in Egypt and identified Amenhotep with Laius, the (true) father of Oedipus. Both Laius and Amenhotep III were famous charioteers who were crowned as a child and had a regent rule for them in their minority.

The Hurrian Mercenary Chariot Warriors and Olympianism

The story of Pelops and in fact, much of the myths connected with the Achaeans, are abounding with the skill of chariot driving as well, so much so that modern scholars who have studied the matter such as Robert Graves, have concluded that these Greeks must have had some sort of ritualistic royal sacrifice involving kings being dragged to death as a result of prearranged chariot crashes. ''chariot crashes were staged in the hippodromes.” ('The Greek Myths 2' 109. 4, 5). Well, one thing we do know, is that there was an ancient culture that was dedicated to the horse and chariot, it was called the 'Maryannu.' An ancient people called the Hurrians were the purveyors of this Maryannu culture and many peoples especially the Hittites had adopted the tenets of their way of life. Although the Scriptures do not use the name 'Hurrians' they do mention the Horites, Hivites and Jebusites all of whom archaeologists have identified as Hurrians. Furthermore, the cities of Harran, Nahor, Pethor and Carchemish are considered to be Hurrian settlements, and I would even go so far as to say that Abraham himself was from the land of the Hurrians (Ur) where the Chaldians (not incidentally, the Chaldeans who are perhaps the same people but were supposedly from Babylonia, a different location altogether) of Urartu (Ararat, the homeland of Noah) had lived. The descendants of the Scriptural Midian (son of Abraham by Keturah 1CH 1:32), it can be demonstrated, were the Mitanni, a branch of the Hurrians as well. Thus the land of Canaan was full of Hurrian culture, and those who weren't Hurrian by blood readily adopted their culture, as did the Hittites.

W. F. Albright said that the Maryannu were "chariot-warriors" claiming that "chariots played the same role in warfare that cavalry did later, and the chariot-warriors occupied the same social position that was held by the ... feudal knights of the Middle Ages." He agreed with F. C. Andreas that the root of the word "maryannu" comes from the Vedic term "marya" meaning "YOUNG MAN" but that it developed, through connotation, into "warrior." Since then R. T. O'Callaghan, relying on Egyptian and cuneiform sources, has come out saying; "... from the Mitanni kingdom down through Palestine beyond Ascalon, the term maryannu is to be understood primarily as A NOBLE WHO IS A CHARIOT WARRIOR." Now, the Scriptures don't seem to mention the 'maryannu,' by that name. However they do use, as did the Egyptians, the term 'naarim' (youths) instead. That the 'naarim' were young noble chariot warriors who were active in the Omri dynasty is pretty clear. see 1Kings 20: 13-25 where we see the phrase 'young men of the princes of the provinces' used four times in relation to its' use in a chariot battle. Ramses II used the Naarim as well, they saved him in the battle of Karkar.

Many kings of the Maryannu Age hired these professional chariot-warriors, and they did become a kind of aristocracy among the nations that employed them. King David had a Carian (Hurrian) bodyguard. 1CH 18:17 (therein called Cherethites) 'And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the Cherethites and the Pelethites; and the sons of David were chief about the King.' David had also placed Hittite warriors in positions of authority, such as 'Uriah the Hittite.' Queen Athaliah the very daughter of King Ahab also had such a body guard, unfortunately for her because they conspired against her and placed their own choice (a scion of David) on the throne. ('In the seventh year Jehoiada sent and fetched the captains over hundreds of the Carians and of the guard, and brought them to him into the house of [the ALMIGHTY]; and he made a covenant with them, and took an oath of them in the house of [the ALMIGHTY], and showed them the king's son.' 2 Kings 11:4 see also 11:19). It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the Israelites shared good military relations with the Hittites in those days, 2 Kings 7:6: "For the Lord had made the host of the Syrians to hear a noise of chariots, and a noise of horses, even the noise of a great host: and they said one to another, Lo, the king of Israel hath hired against us the kings of the Hittites, and the kings of the Egyptians, to come upon us."

Another similarity between the Israel of Ahab and the Hittites has to do with the multiplicity of their gods; "He (Ahab) was so devoted to idolatry, to which he was led astray by his wife Jezebel, that the fields of Palestine were full of idols." (from Ginzberg's 'Legends of the Jews') The Hittite writings themselves allude to 'the thousand gods of Hatti', and more than eight-hundred such names have been discovered.

According to conventional historians, a distinction is to be made between two groups of Hittites. The original Hittites who are coordinated chronologically with Egypt's 18th and 19th Dynasties, 1450-1200 BC. These lived mainly in Asia Minor dipping down a bit into the northern Levant. And another group whom they call the Neo-Hittites, or Syro-Hittites. These are supposed by many to have been those Scriptural Hittites of the 9th and 8th centuries BC. The conventional historians insert a period of "dark ages" into Hittite history for the interim, as they have done to Greek history, to make it fit into traditional (erroneous) Egyptian history. It has been proposed that this distinction, between the two groups of Hittites, is completely artificial. History makes much more sense without its imaginary dark ages forming lacunas in the continuum. Egypt's 18th and 19th Dynasties fit nicely into the 10th-7th centuries and consequently the Greek mythological age and the early Hittite era, work well as contemporary with the history of the Kingdom of Israel.

In order to understand the connection between Ahab and Pelops one has to be made aware of the impact of the Hittite religion on Israel. While the placement of the Greek mythological era in the time of Israel remains controversial, lining up the Greeks with the earlier Hittites of Asia Minor is taken for granted. Most scholars who have studied Greek myths are quick to point out that the Greeks owe much to the myths of the Hittites. (Anu, Kumarbi, Teshub = Uranus, Kronos, Zeus). But how did the religion of the Hittites from Asia Minor get to Greece? The Hittites are often cited as an influence on Greek mythology this is largely true, but the influence is not a direct one. The Hittite religion got to Greece because the Israelites of the Omri dynasty who were flushed out by the purge of Jehu, were to a large degree of Hittite origin. And these were the propagators of the [Religion] of Samaria that became the Olympianism of Greece.
 
Chaldeans and Chaldians
The Hittites are not known to have been a major immigrating group to Greece however the so called Phoenicians were. For the most part these Phoenicians were in reality the people of Israel (that is, Hittite Israel) and that is how the Hittite religion was able to have such a great influence over Greek mythology.  The Greeks don't seem to have known about the Hittites, and the Greeks supposed that the land of the Hittites was peopled by a group whom they called the "Phrygians." (modern scholars discriminate between the Hittites and the Phrygians, some even blaming the destruction of the earlier Hittites, and the imposition of their dark ages, on the incursion of the Phrygians upon their empire.) The Greeks themselves credit the Egyptians and the Chaldeans, (not the Egyptians and the Hittites who predominated in those days,) as the originators of their religion. I propose that exiled Israelites, (largely of Hittite extraction, and also referred to as Chaldeans because of their descent from Arpachshad) brought the Hittite religion to Greece, and that the Phrygians were for the most part the Hittites themselves (Hattian = Chaldian = Gordian).  The Hittites are realized as contributing to the makeup of Israel not only under that name but also the Hittites have been identified, by Velikovsky and others, as the Chaldeans, with whom the Hebrews share an ancestor. Arpachshad, was a son of Shem and the ancestor of the Hebrews through his grandson Eber. (Gen. 10:22, 24 ; 11 :10-13 ; 1 Chron . 1 :17-27) The Hebrew for chshad, the second part of his name, is the same as "Casdim" the first part of the word, "Chaldeans." Therefore he is the supposed eponym of the Chaldeans (otherwise that well known nation is not mentioned in the so called "table of nations" at all). There was a place called by Ptolemy (active c. 130 AD.) "Arrapachitis," in the area of the Lakes Urmia and Van, in Armenia, the land of the Chaldians (note the difference in spelling) that some (Koehler and Baumgartner, Veteris Testamenti Libros, p. 89) have associated with Arpachshad. This would relate the Chaldians to the Chaldeans.

Was Homer really King Omri of Israel?
King Omri himself, who as we know from the Scriptures, wrote at least one work, therein referred to as, "The Statutes of Omri." (For the statutes of Omri are kept, and all the works of the house of Ahab, and ye walk in their counsels; that I should make thee a desolation, and the inhabitants thereof an hissing: therefore ye shall bear the reproach of my people. Micah 6:16) Obviously the editors of the Scriptural account did not allow "all the works of the house of Ahab" to be expressed in the Bible. On the other hand the Elohistic view could not be completely expunged from the historic accounts that were relied upon to write the Scriptures. ...When an ancient law code (such as the Law of Moses, the Code of Hammurabi, the Noahic Laws or, as in the present case, the Statues of Omri) was written, it was often connected to or sandwiched in between the introduction of a new religious system, complete with a 'genesis' (the birth or origin of the gods, a Theogony giving them titles and distributing to them honors and arts, and setting forth their forms. ...). This is what gave force to the laws, for it was always insisted that the chief god of the integrated religion, was the actual author of the attached laws. The so called 'Statutes of Omri' no doubt, included the story of origins... Furthermore the law code would often authorize a school of priests, such as the Levites for the law of Moses. These would be the "lawyers" so to speak, experts in every feature of the law, able to explain, not only the legal but also the religious aspects of it. Now, I do not suppose that Omri wrote the works that scholars of Greek mythology attribute to Homer, but then on the other hand neither do those scholars think that one man named Homer wrote all that is attributed to him. Many believe that these "Homeric" writings were written by a group of "Poets," (whom I suppose to be the priests, or lawyers, of the "Statutes of Omri") thus I am agreeing with the majority opinion on this issue.

It seems to me that Omri must have built his statutes upon the religious concepts that grew out of the convocation at mount Gerizim and degenerated into the apostate belief system that took hold of the area surrounding the old capitol city of Israel at the Shechem of Abimelech. The Israelites had the religion of the Giants (Titans) also known as the "error of the Amorites" (Gen.15:13-16) being overthrown by the Twelve Tribes, the Midianites of Shechem had the Hurrian religion, and Omri had the closely related Hittite religion. These were apparently combined to form the "Olympian" Mythology of Homer. Herodotus helps us to identify the Scriptural "Omri," with the Greek "Homer," his helpful quote runs thus; "but whence the several gods had their birth, or whether they all were from the beginning, and of what form they are, they (the Greeks) did not learn till yesterday, as it were, or the day before: for Hesiod and Homer I suppose were four hundred years before my time and not more, (thus about 850 BC.) and these are they who made a Theogony for the Hellenes and gave the titles to the gods and distributed to them honors and arts, and set forth their forms:" ("Histories" Book 2, Page 53) Here Herodotus makes "Homer" (whom, it is supposed, was more ancient than Hesiod,) to have lived about the same time as Omri, and to have been the original purveyor of the Hellenic religion, that is, Olympianism. The "Statutes of Omri" were flushed out of Israel at this same time (c. 842 BC.) by the purge of Jehu. This group, as I hope to convince the reader, were the Achaeans flushed out of Omri Dynasty Israel by the purge of Jehu, the main purveyors of the Olympic system.

Pelops, Hippodameia, and Naboth
King Ahab and his queen were, of course, well known murderers. The infamous murder that they committed, was their conspiracy killing of Naboth for his vineyard. Queen Jezebel gets most of the blame for this act, but Ahab is clearly, implicated as well, it was a team killing. Stories about King and Queen pairs are somewhat rare in ancient history. But, stories that have the pair jointly committing a deceitful murder that prompted a prophet to bring down a curse, not just upon them, but upon their entire house, and descendants as well are even more rare. The two that come to my mind immediately are Ahab with Jezebel and Pelops with Hippodameia. The famous murder victim in the Greek myth of Pelops and Hippodameia, was named 'Oenomaus,' this is perhaps a worn down version of the phrase, 'oino Nomaus,' meaning, the 'vines' of 'Nomaus,' (the name Nomaus being a possible corruption of the name 'Naboth'). The name 'Hippodameia' has been interpreted to mean, 'horse tamer,' 'horse subduer,' or 'horse conqueror.' However, according to her identification with Jezebel and what we know about how she was conquered, (trampled by horses, 2 Kings 9:33) we should rather consider 'tamed by horses,' 'subdued by horses,' or 'conquered by horses.' Hippodameia herself was an evil queen not only had she connived, underhandedly, to get her husband Pelops the Kingdom he wanted by bringing about the death of Oenomaus, but afterward she had also falsely witnessed to have Myrtilus killed, and even later ordered the death of her stepson Chrysippus.

If Oenomaus is to be identified with Naboth and Hippodameia with Jezebel then it is difficult to understand why, in the Greek myth, Oenomaus is portrayed as a King and the father of Hippodameia. However, some think that Naboth was Ahab's first cousin, his father's brother's son; after all he did own the estate lying next to Ahab's, and he was set in a 'high place' among a gathering of the other nobles; in which case Ahab would have been next in line to inherit the estate of Naboth (It is worth pointing out that the sons of Naboth were put to death with him, and that Ahab did inherit Naboth's estate after he killed them all.). If this were the case then perhaps, contrarily, Naboth himself was a contender for the throne of Israel, in the event of the death of Ahab and his sons, which actually did occur eventually. Josephus had a commentary on the fact that Naboth was set on a high place among the nobles, he said that it was because Naboth was of "an illustrious descent." See 1Ki 21:8 "So she wrote letters ... unto the elders and to the nobles that were ... dwelling with Naboth." Here we see that, even before the banquet, Naboth was dwelling among the nobles.

 Perhaps the reason why Oenomaus is portrayed as a king in Greek mythology has something to do with the trumped up charge against Naboth by which Jezebel was able to orchestrate his execution. "The disastrous end of Ahab is to be ascribed chiefly to the murder of 'his kinsman' Naboth, whose execution on the charge of 'treason' he had ordered, so that he might put himself in possession of Naboth's wealth." (from Ginzberg's 'Legends of the Jews' Note that Ginzberg's "Legends" calls the charge "treason" and refers to Naboth as Ahab's "kinsman.") The false charge against him may have been that he had denied Ahab's right to the throne and had claimed himself to be the 'rightful' King. And the fact that he was set in a 'high place' among the other nobles, may have been done in order to strengthen the bogus charge. For while Naboth may have taken his place at the banquet as innocently accepting an honor that was being bestowed upon him, to others it may have looked as though Naboth was treasonously "positioning" himself as royalty. Unlike in Israel where there was one King over all, in Greece, where they had city-states, every city had a King. Perhaps Naboth, as the owner of the bordering plot of land, was naturally considered to be the King of the place when the story got retold in Greece. He was recognized several times in the Scriptures as Naboth 'of Jezreel,' especially in the Septuagint version of the Scriptures where the phrase is used over and over again.

Now, as to why the myth has Hippodameia as the daughter of Oenomaus; as we know Naboth was not the father of Jezebel, although she was the daughter of a King. The 'maiden' who was characterized in the Greek myth as Hippodameia was perhaps more than just a human woman, like many female figures who appear in Greek mythology, she may have also been considered to represent a land or a people or a throne, namely, the land, people, or throne of Pisa, the Greek version of the Hebrew Jezreel. This was in fact a common metaphor which was used, not only in mythology, but more than once by King Rib-Addi in the El-Amarna Correspondences, as he used to say when he was besieged in his palace, 'My field is a wife without a husband.' (In accordance with Velikovsky's' reconstruction of ancient history the El-Amarna Correspondences were written in those exact days by people who lived in the land of Canaan.) The location of this place has never been firmly established, but it obviously lays somewhere in the valley of Jezreel. In the light of the foregoing, one could fairly speculate that the place which we now refer to as 'Jezreel' in the valley of 'Jezreel,' was at one time known as 'Naboth's Vineyard.' Naboth 'of Jezreel' may have built it up to the point where it became a kind of city-state that bordered on Samaria. Naboth inherited this valuable property as a result of his 'illustrious descent,' although he could not be considered as its King, it was in his possession. Ahab wanted there to be no question as to the Kingship, or the possession, of the place, and Jezebel, by an underhanded stratagem was able to acquire the spot for him. The site was fortified and Jezebel built a temple to Baalath there, therefore the city was renamed "Jezebel" after her. After her scandalous death, it was once again renamed, 'Jezreel' so that people would not say, 'this is Jezebel.' (2 Kings 9:37 'And the carcass of Jezebel shall be as dung upon the face of the field in the portion of Jezreel; so that they shall not say, 'this' is Jezebel.' I stuck the word 'this' in quotes because I believe that we understand it incorrectly to be referring to the 'carcass of Jezebel,' when actually it alludes to the 'field in the portion of Jezreel.') Naboth was in possession of the place which was, later, to be named after Jezebel, and he inherited it by descent. In the parlance of symbolic poetry, the place was his daughter so to speak, and it was the place itself that was the prize over which Naboth and Ahab were contending. Pelops and Oenomaus were contending to the death, the survivor was to inherit the throne, winning not only the bride but also the Kingdom. In accordance with common mythic symbolism a contender for the throne is often portrayed as a suitor for the Queen. (Such as Cadmus and Harmonia or Perseus and Andromeda) Accordingly, winning the Bride means winning the Kingdom....We clearly understand the symbolism in terms of our own religion, but somehow the same symbolism is a mystery when we read it in a 'myth.'

We are told by Apollodorus, "Now Oenomaus, the king of Pisa, had a daughter Hippodameia, and whether it was that he loved her, as some say, or that he was warned by an oracle that he must die by the man that married her, no man got her to wife; for her father could not persuade her to cohabit with him, and her suitors were put by him to death." The versions of the story given by Tzetzes and the Scholiast on Eur. Or. 990 agree closely with each other and with that of Apollodorus, which they may have copied. They agree with him and with the Scholiast on Pindar in alleging an incestuous passion of Oenomaus for his daughter as the reason why he was reluctant to give her in marriage; indeed they affirm that this was the motive assigned for his conduct by the more accurate historians, though they also mention the oracle which warned him that he would perish at the hands of his in-law. The fear of this prediction being fulfilled is the motive generally alleged by the extant writers of antiquity. However it is apparent when studying the Greek myth as it relates to the story of Naboth, that the original tale had nothing to do with incest, it was just a matter of Naboth wanting to keep possession of his land and it was this "land" which was to subsequently become known by the name of the princess "Jezebel" (Hippodameia) to those who would later tell the myth of Oenomaus. Although it was not by the hand of Ahab directly, the death of Naboth was blamed upon the complicity of the King and therefore the warning of the oracle so saying that Oenomaus must die by the man that married Hippodameia rang true. The Achaean tellers of the myth were no doubt a bit biased in denying the oracle and slandering Oenomaus as incestuous instead, thereby granting their ancestor Pelops a measure of justification for the killing.

Elijah as Myrtilus

Myrtilus (a name suspiciously like another Hittite name of the same era, 'Mursilis' TISHBITE in Hebrew "Tishbi" implying from the settlement of Teshub. There is a play-on-words here. Tishbi uses the same letters that spell "Tashuv" i.e. return or repent. Elijah exhorted the Israelites to repent. Coincidently, "Teshub" was also the name of the chief god of the Hittites.) also was murdered, and in his case it was said to be accusations, that were lodged against him by Hippodameia, thus manipulating Pelops into committing the crime. This is the method employed by the Biblical Ahab and Jezebel against Naboth, but Jezebel brought accusations against, and called for the death of, someone else as well, one who was a bit more like the Greek Myrtilus, the great prophet Elijah. The greatness of Elijah, as portrayed in the Jewish literature, is not reflected in the mythological figure of Myrtilus, but the myth is a biased version of the Scriptural story, as told presumably, by the sons and followers of Ahab whom, we would not expect to honor Elijah. Even so, the sons of Pelops had to admit that the 'traitor' Myrtilus, did have some very Elijah-like attributes. The curse, for instance, that Myrtilus proclaimed against the house of Pelops, turned out to be a true prophecy. Myrtilus was acknowledged as a prophet, he was said to be one of 'the sons of Hermes,' (Hermes, the serpent stick carrying messenger of god, has elsewhere been identified as the Greek version of Moses, who in turn was sometimes referred to as 'Nebo,' meaning the 'prophet.' http://www.britam.org/salverda/io.html ) Similarly Elijah, as many believe, is supposed to have belonged to an organization that was called, 'the sons of the prophets,' (2KI 4:1.) .

'And there came a messenger, and told him, saying, They have brought the heads of the king's sons. And he said, Lay ye them in two heaps at the entering in of the gate until the morning.' (2KI 10:8) The Scriptural story about the 'heads' is almost certainly true, and it must have had a lasting traumatic effect on the psyche of those followers of Ahab who fled to Greece and told the tale of Pelops, for this morbid display is attested to in the Greek myths as well. Oenomaus, the myth relates, cut off the heads of those who dared to contest him in the chariot chase and lost. These heads he exhibited on the gate of his palace and the story specifically mentions the regret felt by Pelops upon seeing the 'faces' on display. (According to Hyginus, Fab. 84, when Pelops saw the heads of the unsuccessful suitors nailed over the door, he started to regret his impudence. He therefore appealed to Myrtilus, the charioteer of Oenomaus, promising half of the kingdom if he would change his affiliation and collaborate with him.) Ahab's corresponding regret, (appealing to Elijah, just as Pelops had appealed to Myrtilus) famously portrayed in the Scriptures (1 Kings 21:17-29) as an act of true repentance, resulted in a postponement of reckoning for his sin which would be imposed instead upon his sons, the same sons whose heads made up the grisly exhibition here referred to. It could be argued that Ahab himself did not actually 'see' the heads, however this argument could be refuted by saying that Ahab was afforded a 'vision' of the retribution visited upon his sons through the Prophet ('seer') Elijah.

In the Scriptures, the heads were also displayed because of a lost chariot chase, in this case it was Jehu (anointed by Elijah 1Kings 19:15,16) who furiously drove his chariot on behalf of the Almighty to work out His revenge for the death of Naboth. Jehu overtook his opponent's chariot piercing him through the heart and that is why the heads were on display. These heads were indeed the heads of the other suitors for the throne, the sons of Ahab. The Biblical quote runs thusly; ''And Jehoram king of Israel and Ahaziah king of Judah went out, each in his chariot, and they went out against Jehu, and met him in the portion of Naboth the Jezreelite. ... And Jehu drew a bow with his full strength, and smote Jehoram between his arms, and the arrow went out at his heart, and he sunk down in his chariot. Then said Jehu 'Take up, and cast him in the portion of the field of Naboth the Jezreelite: for 'Surely I have seen yesterday the blood of Naboth, and the blood of his sons, saith THE ALMIGHTY; and I will requite thee in this plat, saith THE ALMIGHTY. Now therefore take and cast him into the plat of ground, according to the word of THE ALMIGHTY. But when Ahaziah the king of Judah saw this, he fled ... And Jehu followed after him, and said, Smite him also in the chariot.' (II Kings 9:21-28) The chariot killing of Ahaziah the king of Judah and grandson of Ahab even more closely parallels the killing of the suitors by Oenomaus because, although it is difficult to piece together the different accounts, (compare 2 Chron. 22:7-9), it is apparent that Ahaziah fled and was captured by the men of Jehu, then Jehu ordered Ahaziah to be placed in his chariot so that he could be killed in it, then he was granted a head start. Ahaziah was mortally wounded as he fled to Megiddo, where he died of his wounds, he was buried in Jerusalem. So it was a kind of chase, as in the Greek myth.

Obviously the men of Ahab (the Achaeans) held Elijah (Myrtilus) in low esteem, considering him to be a traitor. However Ahab, as was true of all Hittite rulers, (in accordance with a known Hittite document restricting the absolute power of Hittite kings, called the "Edict of Telipinus") did not have absolute power (Jezebel, the daughter of a different kind of King, did not seem to understand this.). He was required to justify his decisions to the royal clan (comprised of princes, royal cousins, the priesthood, elders of the state, and others of prestige). Elijah was highly respected and Ahab could not hate him openly. When Elijah admonished Ahab, the King had to clearly and visibly display his repentance, not just out of fear of the curse but also in order to maintain the loyalty of the clan. Pelops as well is said to have regretted his treatment of Myrtilus, and after the death of the seer, Pelops is said to have introduced and enforced the worship of Hermes (the Greek Moses), the supposed father of Myrtilus, among the Achaeans. Pelops built a few shrines to Hermes, and even instituted some of the rites and rituals that were advocated by Hermes, such as maintaining an ark which contained the fleece of the sacrificed golden lamb (indicating the lamb of god no doubt) the purpose of which was to justify the Pelopid dynasty (an obvious parallel to the Mosaic Ark of the Covenant, containing the Messianic promise and justifying the Davidic dynasty). And in fact, there was a more honorable opinion of Myrtilus that was known to the ancient Greeks. Pindar, and other early writers, say that it was Poseidon's gift of the flying chariot that won the race for Pelops, not the treachery of the seer Myrtilus. Pindar describes how god bestowed on Pelops a chariot with winged steeds. 'Honoring him, the god gave him a golden chariot, and horses with untiring wings. He overcame the might of Oenomaus, and took the girl as his bride.' (Pindar, Olympian 1. 85) On a chest at Olympia the horses of Pelops in the chariot race were represented with wings (Paus. 5.17.7). The earliest mention of Myrtilus' treachery is to be found in the writings of Pherecydes in the 5th century BC. and, at any rate, Myrtilus was respected by many and was not unanimously despised even by the Achaeans (the men of Ahab).

It may be argued by some that Naboth was not like Oenomaus in that he is not associated with driving a chariot, and that his death did not involve a chariot race. True enough, for although the portion of the Scriptures that involves Ahab, is full of chariotry, and Ahab is portrayed as "contesting" with Naboth over his vineyard, the particular chapter of Naboth's murder does not involve a chariot. However, that argument overlooks the fact that the foremost clash, and overarching theme outlined in that section of the Scriptures is the contest between the polytheism of Ahab against the Monotheism of Elijah and incidentally of Naboth, whom Elijah had sided with against Ahab. The climax of this clash was the contest at mount Carmel which culminated with a very famous chariot race between Ahab and Elijah (in which Elijah miraculously succeeded although on foot). A more careful reading of the Greek myth reveals that Oenomaus, the Greek Naboth was not the driver of his own chariot he was merely riding along, and that his chariot was actually driven by his charioteer Myrtilus, the Greek Elijah, 'the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof.' Notice that Elijah is referred to Scripturally as the "horseman of the chariot," not just a rider in the chariot, but its horseman. Thus it is not unreasonable to conclude that Elijah was envisioned in his heavenly translation as not merely being picked up by it, but rather that he was ensconced in the heavenly chariot as its charioteer. "And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more: and he took hold of his own clothes, and rent them in two pieces." (2 Kings 2:11,12) Oddly Josephus himself seems to doubt the story of the heavenly chariot, saying of Elijah only, that no one knows of his death, "Now at this time it was that Elijah disappeared from among men, and no one knows of his death to this very day; but he left behind him his disciple Elisha, as we have formerly declared. And indeed, as to Elijah, and as to Enoch, who was before the deluge, it is written in the sacred books that they disappeared, but so that nobody knew that they died." (Antiquities, 9). At any rate it does seem reasonable for some to blame (or credit as the source may be) Jezebel, who called for his death and caused his exile, for his "disappearance."

After the chariot/foot race from Mount Carmel of Ahab and Elijah, Jezebel called for the immediate death of Elijah. Elijah himself prayed for his own death at that time (never-the-less the Scriptures have Elijah out living Ahab). Likewise the death of the seer Myrtilus was called for by Hippodameia. In both cases the last day of the great prophet/seer was spent in a flying chariot supplied by God/god. However in the myth told by the Achaeans the flying chariot was supplied to Pelops and it was he who invited the seer to take a ride in it. As they were flying high in the heavens Pelops killed Myrtilus by kicking him out.

The prophecies of Myrtilus continued to come true for generations after his earthly departure. Like Elijah, Myrtilus did not lose consciousness after death, he even, again like Elijah, came back occasionally to preside over the death of the cursed dynasty, especially royal chariot deaths, for as some say, that the ghost of Myrtilus was the 'horse scarer' in the Hippodrome at Olympia. Myrtilus, also like Elijah, was translated into heaven at his death, where he was placed in the heavenly chariot which is known to this very day as the constellation called, 'Auriga,' or as we say, 'the charioteer.' Here perhaps, the Greek myth has a more 'logical' explanation for the story of Elijah's apotheosis and the fiery chariot of the Heavenly God.

The Murder of Stymphalus
 Another famous murder committed by the Greek King Pelops, (It's the same story from a slightly different source, a source that was apparently more favorable to the monotheistic view of Elijah, who in this version of the story is referred to as Aeacus.) was the myth about the murder of Stymphalus (This name is perhaps a derisive parody applied by the Achaeans to the older Arcadian name 'Staphylus,' which means, 'a bunch of grapes,' and thereby, is plausibly in reference to Naboth's vineyard.).

The story of the sacrifice and resurrection of Pelops was told in order to display him as the archetypical King of Kings of the Achaeans. However, there was a very similar rival religion in the neighboring kingdom of the Arcadians. To them, it was Arcas, the eponym of their kingdom, who was to be the dynastic King of Kings. The Arcadians told the same story that the Achaeans told about the death and revival of Pelops but they applied it to their own hero Arcas. Lycaon, the grandfather of Arcas, Killed him, cut him into pieces, stewed him in a cauldron and served him to Zeus, whereupon the god brought Arcas back to life. This gruesome tale served as the prerequisite for the Arcadian 'messiahship,' in the same way that the sacrifice, eating of the body, and resurrection of Pelops was to the Achaeans. The two neighboring rival Kingdoms were contesting with each other in order to see which of their two very similar religions would be accepted as the true Pan-Hellenic dynasty. An interesting theological distinction can be gleaned from the fact that Arcas was sacrificed and served to only the 'one god,' Zeus. The sacrifice of Pelops, on the other hand, was served to the 'gods' of Olympus (Elohim). Thus the Arcadian religion was to the Achaean religion, as the religion of Elijah and Naboth was to the religion of Ahab.
According to Greek mythology, largely composed by the Achaeans themselves, Pelops and the religious views of his Achaeans superseded the older Arcadian beliefs. They succeeded in this way; Arcadia, a kingdom that bordered the Kingdom of Pelops, was ruled over by a descendant of Arcas called Stymphalus. Pelops decided to take over this adjoining kingdom, but was unable to do so in neither a forthright manner nor in a fair fight, although he did try (compare 1 Kings 21:1-3). Forestalled, he contrived to take the land in a sneaky and underhanded way (compare 1 Kings 21:7). Pelops pretended friendship with Stymphalus and invited him to a banquet in his honor (compare 1 Kings 21:8,9 and10). Once at the banquet Pelops had the gullible King murdered, cut into pieces and scattered over the land (See 1 Kings 21:12 and 13, compare 2 Kings 9:26 where we are informed that Naboth and his sons were killed, and that the just retribution for the sons of Ahab was to be killed, dismembered and cast into Naboth's field.). Zeus was horrified at this most heinous act and accordingly cursed the now enlarged kingdom of Pelops to a very severe and wide spread drought (compare 1 Kings 17:1 and 18:2). The drought itself was so great that it became even more famous than the act that caused it, (thus there were several other proposed causes for the dearth, but only the prayers of Aeacus worked against it.) kings all over Greece asked their prophets and oracles what could be done about it and were told that only the supplications of Aeacus, the most pious man in Greece, (the son of Zeus and Aegina) could terminate it. Accordingly the numerous Kings of Greece, representing many varying religious concerns, came together and agreed to send a petition to the widely known holy man (compare 1 Kings 18:10 and 11).

The Greek Mount Carmel?
The Greeks even had their own Mount Carmel. 'Complying with their petition, (1 Kings 18:1) Aeacus ascended the Hellenic mountain (Mount Panhellenius), and stretching out pure hands to heaven he called on the common god, and prayed him to take pity on afflicted Greece (compare 1 Kings 18:20 and 42 especially the phrase in verse 20, 'all the children of Israel' with the term 'Panhellenius,'  meaning 'all the Hellens'). And even while he prayed a loud clap of thunder pealed, and all the surrounding sky was overcast, and furious and continuous showers of rain burst out and flooded the whole land (compare 1 Kings 18:41 and 45). Thus was exuberant fertility procured for the fruits of the earth by the prayers of Aeacus' (Clement of Alexandria, Strom. vi.3.28, p. 753). In gratitude Aeacus built a sanctuary of Zeus on Mount Panhellenius (Paus. 2.30.4) (compare 1 Kings 18:31 and 32). Mount Panhellenius, the highest mountain of Aegina, is a conspicuous landmark viewed from all the neighboring coasts of the gulf, and in antiquity a cloud settling on the mountain was regarded as a sign of rain (Theophrastus, De signis tempestat. i.24) (compare 1 Kings 18:43). It is indeed remarkable how nicely this Greek myth compares with the Scriptural prototype.

When the time came for Aeacus to die, it is said in his mythology, that he didn't really die, but instead, with the consent of Zeus, he bypassed death and was translated directly into the afterlife where he retained his consciousness and was appointed to be one of the three judges in the land of the dead. According to Isoc. 9.15, Aeacus enjoyed the greatest honors after death, sitting as assessor with Pluto and Proserpine. Plato represents him as judging the dead along with Minos, Rhadamanthys, and Triptolemus (Plat. Apol. 41a), Lucian depicts Aeacus as a sort of ticket-collector of the dead, examining the new arrivals from Charon's ferryboat and making sure they had their fare. (See Lucian, Cataplus 4; Charon 2.) Elsewhere he speaks of Aeacus as keeping the gate of Hades (Lucian, Dialog. Mort. xx.1). Now, compare these legends of the Greeks with the 'Legends of the Jews' from Ginzberg; 'In heaven he (Elijah) goes on living for all time. There he sits recording the deeds of men and the chronicles of the world. He has another office besides. He is the Psycho pomp, whose duty is to stand at the cross-ways in Paradise and guide the pious to their appointed places; who brings the souls of sinners up from Gehenna at the approach of the Sabbath, and leads them back again to their merited punishment when the day of rest is about to depart; and who conducts these same souls, after they have atoned for their sins, to the place of everlasting bliss.'

For those who may wonder why there were two versions of the same story of Ahab's infamous murder, I offer this speculation. The Achaeans had their version of the story which was heavily tainted with the Hittite tradition of chariotry, while the Arcadians, not so Hittite in their traditions, told a story that followed more closely the Israelite point of view. It is the treatment, of each their own version of the character of the prophet Elijah, that gives away the two differing perspectives. The Achaeans give Elijah a Hittite character, with a Hittite name, "Myrtilus," and making him out to be a charioteer (this is not completely foreign to the Scriptural Elijah the "Tishbite" the "chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof.') On the other hand, the Arcadians seem to know much more about the deeds of Elijah, especially the tale of his going to the mountain where he offers prayers to lift the drought. Rather than the Achaean "traitor" Myrtilus, the Arcadians make Elijah to be Aeacus, the most pious man in the nation. To them Aeacus was considered to be the descendant of Asopus through Aigina (Jacob through Dinah see 
http://www.britam.org/salverda/sisyphus.html).
The Arcadians seem to be much more influenced by the Corinthian (Shechemite) school of Greek mythology who considered Sisyphus (Joseph) to be their great patriarch. Each version of the story had its own kernel of truth to it, and neither could be completely dismissed, so the mythographers took the, originally two versions of the same tale, and made the Arcadian one subsequent to the Achaean. This solution to differing versions of the same tale, was often used in Greek mythography and many other examples could be cited.

Conclusions

The Greeks told the story of an unscrupulous King and his conniving Queen, who increased his realm by the underhanded murder of his neighbor, the treachery of the Queen herself who manipulated the murder. A deceitful banquet was arranged, the body of a victim, who rightfully owned the coveted property, was chopped up and strewn across the land. A murder so heinous that it brought down a curse by god, not only upon him but also his descendants and even the nation itself was blighted. A great prophet was sent to deliver the curse. The story included a famous and miraculous chariot race, dissevered heads that were displayed at a gate, and the king had a famous episode of regret for his deeds. The drought was very severe, and the most pious man in the nation, although reluctant and hard to find, was searched out and beseeched to pray to the chief god for rain. The divinely favored man went to a mutually located mountain where he prayed for god to alleviate the drought and his prayers were granted. There was an episode involving a divinely provided flying chariot where the great prophet was killed. But he didn't really die, he was translated into the heavens where he can be seen driving the heavenly chariot known today as the constellation called Auriga (the charioteer). The man of great piety is said, instead of unconscious death, to continue as the gate keeper and judge in the land of the dead. Now where did the Greeks get such a story, if not from the Israelite story of King Ahab? The Greeks are in debt for the so called "myth" of King Pelops, almost certainly, to the well known Scriptural story of the infamous Israelite King Ahab. And this is without a doubt due to a strong cultural connection between Israel and Greece in the 9th century BC.
--
-John R. Salverda

For more articles by John R. Salverda on the Hebraic Connections of Greek Mythology, see:




And, from: http://www.dgdclynx.plus.com/lynx/lynx68.html


William Oxley: The Shoulder of Pelops

A brief reminder of the myth. Tantalus, beloved of the Gods, invited them to dinner: determined on a meal with a difference. Every host will know the feeling - hostesses perhaps even more so - but none are likely to go as far as Tantalus who killed his son Pelops, cut him up, boiled and served him as a ragoût extraordinaire. The Immortals - heavenly palates untitillated - knowing all things, refused to touch the meal; all save Demeter that is who, distracted with grief at the recent loss of her daughter, inadvertently tucked into the meal before the other Gods could stop her, and ate Pelops' shoulder. Then Zeus had Tantalus arrested and jailed forever among the immortal dead. After which the Olympian chief ordered Hermes - with whom Pelops' soul now was - to collect the dismembered pieces and place them in a cauldron, re-heat same, and thereby bring Pelops back to life. When this remarkable process of re-heating was over, Clotho - she of the three Fates whose job it is to spin the thread of a man's life - took the restored Pelops out of the cauldron and, as one shoulder was missing, fitted him up with an ivory replacement. Thereafter, all his descendants, the Pelopidae, as a mark of their origin were supposed to have one shoulder as white as ivory. Which mark became known as the curse of the Pelopidae. And it was a curse that was to have a profound influence on shaping the destiny of Ancient Greece and, by implication, that of us all.
Now, like any myth, that of Pelops operates on a number of levels; has many strands. For example, it is not difficult to interpret this myth in `historical' terms, it being easy enough to trace the influence of the curse (which the ivory shoulder symbolises) down through the House of Atreus to the fall of Troy, and beyond to the death of King Agamemnon by the hand of his wife at Mycenae. It is central, in fact to the aetiology of a number of misfortunes that afflicted the Greece of the ancient world: and was obviously of such significance - or, rather the Pelopidae were - that the afflicted gave their name eventually to the whole Peleponesus.
Certain features of the myth, however, clearly indicate that this is also a myth of process. A deep structural representation of the process of poetic creativity: the key to which interpretation lying in the use of the cauldron of re-birth or inspiration. This subject I have dealt with at greater length in my book The Cauldron of Inspiration (1), where I trace the recurrence of the cauldron motif in many different literatures and myths. For example, its appearance in the Celtic myths as recorded in The Mabinogion, whereby the men of the Island of the Mighty (Britain) use it as a means of restoring dead warriors to life, clearly signifies it as the cauldron of re-birth. Then its use by the witches in MacBeth as a means of prophecy or inspiration indicates another mythological dimension of it. But most of all the cauldron operates in these literatures of myth as a symbol of poetic creativity.
For every poem is a re-birth of the poet's self in words; which is why poetry - indeed every art - is regarded as creative. A poem is not born - only poets are born - but is a ritual re-birth out of the imagination. The story of the transformation of Gwion into Taliesin, again in The Mabinogion, is a further and very precise myth of the process, and involves a cauldron. In Celtic literature the cauldron vies easily with the fountain as chief symbol of inspiration and the imagination. In Hellenic literature the fountain is the more frequent symbol; but as the myth of Pelops shows, the cauldron does occur as well. It is even possible that this, among the most ancient of all the Greek myths, shows a direct Celtic influence; for it is an established fact that, in the third millenium B.C., the great Celtic migrations began in Eastern Europe - possibly in the region of the Caucasus - so that the original Pelasgian inhabitants of Greece, which included the tribe of the Pelopidae, may well have been Celtic. Consequently, it may be historically true - or mythologically correct, if it is preferred - that the cauldron is actually older than the fountain as symbol of the imagination.
Be that as it may, the cauldron of re-birth is certainly the key to the poetic interpretation of this particular myth. But what of the ivory shoulder? This is equally interesting and suggestive, for two reasons. Firstly, because of the idea of its being a curse. Secondly, because earlier Tantalus had been expelled from Phrygia in Asia Minor and had settled at Pisa in Elis on the Greek mainland. At first sight these two factors may not seem to be linked; but if it be recalled that Greek philosophy was born in Ionia, the coastal strip of Phrygia, and if one reads the following passage from The White Goddess of Robert Graves, the connection should become plainer:

`What interests me most ... is the difference that is constantly appearing between the poetic and prosaic methods of thought. The prosaic method was invented by the Greeks of the Classical age as an insurance against the swamping of reason by mythographic fancy. It has now become the only legitimate means of trnsmitting useful knowledge. And in England, as in most other mercantile countries, the current popular view is that "music" and old-fashioned diction are the only characteristics of poetry which distinguish it from prose: that every poem has, or should have, a precise single-strand prose equivalent. As a result, the poetic faculty is atrophied in every educated person who does not struggle to cultivate it ... From the inability to think poetically - to resolve speech into its original images and rhythms and recombine them on several simultaneous levels of thought into a multiple sense - derives the failure to think clearly in prose. ... This simple need is forgotten, what passes for simple prose nowadays is a mechanical stringing together of stereotyped wordgroups, without regard for the images contained in them. The mechanical style, which began in the counting-house, has now infiltrated into the university, some of its most zombiesque instances occuring in the works of eminent scholars and divines.' (2)
What Graves is clearly hinting at in this passage is the curse of Pelops - the ivory or mechanical shoulder of Greek and, by implication, of Western poetry (I leave aside the further twist of the decline of prose as well, with which the latter part of the passage is concerned). It is Graves' view that the philosophical and `prosaic method' of thought is a blemish on the otherwise perfectly created corpus poetica. Furthermore, he traces the continuance of this blemish, as the passage indicates, down to the present day. And the very choice of phrases he uses in the passage, even when speaking of prose (though prose he says should be poetry-nourished), like `mechanical stringing together', the `most zombiesque instances', have a remarkable affinity with the idea of the mechanical or false shoulder of Pelops. But I will stretch the point no further. Now, while I am convinced that there is a distinct tendency - when it suits them - on the part of poets to discount the role of philosophy; just as there is an equal tendency for poets to play up the importance of prose (c.f. Eliot: `To have the virtues of good prose is the first and minimum requirement of good poetry'); I am, nevertheless, convinced that Graves is basically right in what he says. Except for the fact that I am of the opinion that philosophy is the necessary sister - or perhaps I should say brother - discipline of the Muses, I agree that prose is the ivory shoulder of Pelops, as far as poetry is concerned. For there is only one subject - which, in truth, is not so much a subject as an attitude - that has no part in poetry and that is prose. Prose is the curse of poetry that runs through all the ages down to the present. The Pelopidae live, and have perhaps never been more prevalent than today - as Graves suggests.
Having said that prose is the only subject that is unfit for poetry, I think I should add that poetry, or the poem, is no fit subject for a poem either. To adopt a particularly unpleasant image coined by that lovely lyric poet Patrick Kavanagh, poems about poems are `masturbations in ashes' beside true poems. Why? Because poems about poems, or more correctly about the poetic process, are inevitably in some degree prosaic speculations. And, as Graves has demonstrated, such involve a way of thinking that is different from that required for the making of true poems. In brief, poems about poems are too necessarily self-conscious to ever be more than versified prose. So that any age abounds in such `poems', as does ours, is an age in which the shoulder of Pelops is clearly visible.
Another indication of the curse is the invention - or I should say, the particular prevalence today - of the academic poem (which does not necessarily mean a poem by an academic). That is, the perfect, or professional, imitation poem. A poem very difficult to distinguish from an original; a poem which as I.A.Richards, in his book Science and Poetry, says,: `By every intellectual test may succeed. But unless the ordering of the words sprang, not from knowledge of the technique of poetry ... but from an actual supreme ordering of experience ... a closer approach will betray it. Characteristically its rhythm will give it away'. (3) Even so, such as poem is easier to isolate in theory than in practice.
Not unrelated to the previous, and the latest manifestation of the Pelopsian curse, is the invention of what is known as `sub-texts'. This is largely an importation from France; and it is the first, perhaps the only, fruit of the Structuralists' theories. It has affinities with certain scriptural commentaries - especially in the Hindu and Islamic religions - where the commentaries of theologians have acquired a status on a par with original scripture. So, likewise, among critics of an academic and structuralist persuasion (and also now among post-structuralist or even de-constructionist critics) there is a movement towards the elevation of certain commentaries on poetry and on other forms of literature, to an equal status with their ostensible subject. I say `ostensible' because it is clear that the poem or novel is no longer being criticised so much as being used as the point of departure for the critic's own supposedly `creative' theorisings.
All these things have come about, are a consequence of the curse of Pelops in literature. And have been immeasurably aided in our century by the blurring of the distinction between poetry and prose, as, again, Graves has rightly suggested.
One of the most interesting and perhaps influential books of criticism bearing on our subject, of the last thirty years, has been Donald Davie's Purity of Diction in English Verse. I repeat, one of the most interesting works of criticism; it is also, I suspect, one of the most subtly subversive. In it Davie speaks of what he terms `strength of statement'; which quality, of course, is absolutely central to good prose. He says: `This strength of statement is found most often in chaste or pure diction ... it goes together with economy of metaphor'. (4) He then adds: `The poet who tries for such chastity and strength will never have his reader's love, but he may have his esteem'. A recipe for the psychology of the academic poem, if ever I heard one.
In my notebook for 1969, the year I first read Purity of Diction in English Verse, I included further quotes. For example, just about the first thing that struck me was where Davie says (and it should be remembered that he was writing in about 1950): `With most of my contemporaries, I thought that the surest sign of poetic greatness was the ability to organise experience by apt and memorable metaphor'. He then goes on to urge a move away from a poetic diction relying on or making much use of `apt and memorable metaphor' (a process which he terms `refining'): `We are saying that the poet who undertakes to preserve or refine a poetic diction is writing in a web of responsibilities'. What a fine metaphor is that `web of responsibilities' - strange not to have to take it as a sure sign of poetic greatness?
Apart from the minimisation of tropes, such refining of the poetic diction was to be achieved by the aforementioned lean towards statement; by the avoidance of neo-Wordsworthian fashion-mongering: `There are fashions in words for poetry, as in words for conversation, and out of these words that are fashionable every age constructs willy-nilly its own poetic diction which the bad poets (unconsciously) adopt' (the logic of this is totally self-contradictory: it seems to be saying that every age constructs its own poetic diction in this way, but only produces bad poets by so doing!); and, lastly, by a reconsideration of the question of `taste': `The word Imagination has been overstrained, from impulses honourable to mankind, to meet the demands of the faculty which is perhaps the noblest in our nature. In the interest of Taste, the process has been reversed; and from the prevalence of dispositions at once injurious and discreditable, being no other than that selfishness which is the child of apathy - which, as Nations decline in productive and creative power, makes them value themselves upon a presumed refinement of judging'. A further and incidental criticism of this last is that it appears to proceed from a confusion of the habits of the Augustan period in English poetry, when `taste' was, indeed, both a valid and exalted concept, with the England of the late Forties, early Fifties, a time of nations declining `in productive and creative power'.
But what Davie appears to be really saying is that although an age's poetic diction is fashioned `willy nilly' from `those words that are fashionable everyday constructs', that is to be avoided because it leads to bad poetry. In other words, unlike with the Wordsworth of Lyrical Ballads, the adoption of the demotic is out, as being an impure procedure. Yet, how can this be squared with the second quote: the implied attack on the notion of an aureate diction - such as all `poets of taste', as it were invariably adopt?
Michael Schmidt, himself a poet and critic somewhat influenced by Davie's ideas, has defined the `diction' in `purity of diction' to mean: `The selection of words and deliberation behind that selection'; which I think a fair enough definition in context. The only question is: what sort of diction does Davie leave available to poetry, if he has closed off all traditional `poetic' avenues to traffic? Frankly, I don't know; and I don't think Davie did either, in this monumentally ambivalent - but immensely stimulating - book of his. Though to be scrupulously fair there is a sort of clue to be had in two further quotes from Purity of Diction in English Verse.
One lesser avenue still available, apparently, is that followed by certain `... minor modern poets on both sides of the Atlantic (who) have employed succesfully for their limited ends a personal diction deliberately impure, eccentric and mannered. Robert Graves, Marianne Moore and John Crowe Ransom are examples.' The other is not so much an avenue to be followed, as an inference of one that has been followed and a statement of its consequences: `Finally, of course, one cannot avoid the fact that the poet's churches are empty, and the strong suspicion that the dislocation of syntax has much to do with it'. The phrase `dislocation of syntax' leads us stright to the matter of prose.
Prose is the antithesis of traditional poetic metres - in fact, is the antithesis of all metre. Indeed, this phrase has to mean the dislocation of metre because it is only in poetry that syntax is markedly ordered, and that according to prosodic strictness. The principal ordering of syntax in prose is semantic; in poetry rhythmic. Consequently, as Davie suggests, many modern poets having broken the rhythmic mould of poetry - which is true - have thereby availed themselves of the chief virtue of prose which is, of course, fluidity or absence of form (save in the widest sense).
I believe that the `subtle perversity' or ambivalence of Purity of Diction in English Prose, sprang from the fact that principally Davie could not solve the contradictions which his chosen mentor Ezra Pound - the first to preach the doctrine of `break the iambus' - had set up. The unadmitted resolution to which conflict, of course, being to turn poetry into prose - or make the shoulder of Pelops yet more visible in our time.
It is curious that Davie should have described Robert Graves as one of those `minor modern poets' who had employed `a personal diction deliberately impure ... etc'. Because Graves, in his turn, in an essay of his entitled `Dame Occupacyon' has this to say of poetry: `Personally, I expect poems to say what they mean in the simplest and most economical way; even if the thought they contain is complex. I do not mind exalted language in poetry any more than I mind low language, but rhetoric disgusts me'. (5) A statement that certainly would seem to incline towards some `purification of diction'.
More important, however, is the further question raised of `rhetoric'; more important because all good poetry employs some sort of rhetoric, no matter how personal. And not a rhetoric of inflation - such as one must presume Graves to be hitting at - but the operation of a rhetor that enables the elevation of the poem's feeling experienced (its primum mobile) into some degree of aural `visibility'. Also, it is this quality and functioning of rhetoric which is one of the factors that both unites and distinguishes poetry from prose. However, while it is sometimes difficult to avoid calling a passage of prose `poetic prose'; and while `poetic' poetry is a tautology; and prosy poetry a non-existence, being merely a label for bad poetry: the problem of distinguishing poetry from prose can always be overcome by remembering a simple rule. And this is: that while prose can sometimes evince feeling, hence poetical prose; poetry must always be the product of feeling and not of the intellect - which latter is what prose is mostly an expression of.
It is in the discouragement of all forms of rhetoric (and not just of the inflated rhetoric of argument, persuasion or sentiment) that modern poetic practice has erred. Has let graze on the slopes of Parnassus a cart horse of prose, in place of the traditional Pegasus. So that, again, we see poets - even one so aware of the dangers as Graves - unwittingly falling under the curse of Pelops.
`Rhetoric disgusts me', as also did the Augustan poet Alexander Pope, whom Graves termed `that sedulous ape'. Yet speaking in Pope's defence this is what Lytton Strachey had to say: `That Pope's verse is artificial there can be no doubt. But then there is only one kind of verse that is not artificial, and that is bad verse'. One understands, in its context, that Strachey draws no distinction between verse and poetry; yet one suspects it is a statement which would have horrified more or less equally Wordsworth, Pound, Graves or Donald Davie. But it shouldn't. For a good poem - a true poem - is very much a verbal artefact: something that is at a considerable remove from either the casual utterance of speech or even the most deliberative passage of prose. And it is precisely differentiated by its artistically worked-up rhythm and its carefully chosen phraseology: the latter so chosen as to aim to be the sole particular way, the unique way of saying or expressing something. But no such musical monumentality is aimed at in speech or prose: even if, occasionally, they may create just such a durable verbal event.
The ambivalence at the heart of Davie's book appears in his apparent condemnation of both the Wordsworthian dictum of fashioning poetry from common speech (not that I misunderstand his point about the making of a `fashion' of common utterance, but think it subordinate to his main point), and the `splendid diction' that is the product of Augustan eras. But it is an ambivalence arising from a certain misconception. Poetry, like language itself, like anything living requires nourishment. That nourishment poetry draws from a number of sources. From active or common speech: the customary or fashionable way of saying at any time; from traditional, even outmoded forms of expression - especially other poetry of the past; indirectly from other disciplines like philosophy and science, as well as from the more nebulous knowledge of myth: all of which sources form its fund of shaping-ideas; and, lastly, from actual experience of life itself in both its sacred and profane aspects. But the mistake - small at first and big later - is to narrow one's appetite, so to speak, to any single source of nutriment. This is Davie's error; and there has been a distinct tendency among poets to do this - Pope was maybe one, Wordsworth another - with the result that poetry, like Pelops, is impaired or in constant danger of being so.
Before moving on to consider individual poems, one thing should be firmly stressed. There is no exhaustive test of poems other than that they be proved to be alive. Poems must have some quantum of genuine life in them, otherwise they are simply dressed up corpses: the sort of academic or pseudo poems that I.A.Richards referred to earlier. But a sound critical tuning-fork should be able to detect the inner vitality that every poem must possess. Beyond this single requirement, the argument begins. Though it is not an argument that is furthered by imposing limited stylistic concerns or notions of a personal philosophy upon. For example, a reader may prefer Larkin's outlook on life to that of Dylan Thomas, but such is not a sufficient test of the respective quality of their poetry. Though that such an `imposing upon' is an ingrained critical habit of our times, the continuing debate between Romanticism and Classicism, for example, is sufficient proof of.
Let us now, following those remarks, consider briefly three celebrated and fairly well established Twentieth Century poems. Each, in its way, is a minor masterpiece: Yeats' `An Irish Airman Foresees His Death'; Dylan Thomas's `My Craft And Sullen Art'; and Larkin's `At Grass'.
The Yeats' poem begins thus:

`I know that I shall meet my fate
Somewhere among the clouds above;
Those that I fight I do not hate
Those that I guard I do not love;
My country is Kiltartan Cross,
My countrymen Kiltartan's poor...'
The tone is wistful; the diction straightforward; the measure fluent but not facile; the effect to convey a feeling of sad wisdom, as it were:
`A waste of breath the years behind
In balance with this life, this death.'
It is perfectly expressive of the `lonely impulse of delight' which `drove to this tumult in the clouds'. It meets at most points Graves' demand for poems to `say what they mean in the simplest and most economical way; even if the thought they contain is complex... etc.' Yet it has a rhetoric; not just one of its own; but one that employs traditional rhetorical devices of parallelism:
`My country is Kiltartan Cross
My countrymen Kiltartan's poor
and, later, in the oratorical sweep of the driving negatives:
`No likely and could bring them loss...
Nor law nor duty bade me fight,
Nor public men, nor cheering crowds...'
As a result one must suppose that the anti-rhetoric lobby would view this poem with some suspicion. Though for me the rhetoric acts as a binding agent in the poem's chemistry, to control rather than to exaggerate the airman's feelings. And an exquisite balance is struck throughout the poem. A similar rhetoric emerges in Dylan Thomas's `My Craft Or Sullen Art';

`Not for the proud man apart
From the raging moon I write
On these spindrift pages
Not for the towering dead... etc.'
Here the rhetoric is more emphatic, more `gesture' than in the plainer, less romantic Yeats; but it serves the same technical purpose of rhythmic agent. True, the poem is more lush with imagery than the `purer dictioned' Yeats' poem; but its meaning is still efficiently conveyed, beautifully conveyed, not despite the cluster of imagery but because of those images:
`When only the moon rages
And the lovers lie abed
With all their griefs in their arms
I labour by singing light'.
Such images provide a remarkable concretisation of both abstraction and feeling, giving such intangibles as `griefs' or `light' a greater immediacy. In fact the rhetoric is less criticisable in this poem than in the Yeats, for the greater `plainness' of `Those that I fight I do not hate' and `Those that I guard I do not love' makes them, such lines, more open to logical rebuttal (e.g. how can one fight without hate, protect without love? etc.) and the charge of rhetorical hollowness. So that, in a sense in Thomas's `sullen art' Davie is effectively answered. Diction may well be purified by hacking away metaphor and imagery, but it is also made more limited thereby. My third poem, Philip Larkin's `At Grass', is also characterised by directness and simplicity. But it is perhaps the least `direct' of the three, having little actually to say. Unlike the Yeats' and, to a lesser extent, the Thomas' poem, it lacks philosophical content or paraphrasable `message'. Essentially it is a poem of mood, with a touch of nostalgia:

`The eye can hardly pick them out
From the cold shade they shelter in,
Till wind distresses tail and mane;
- The other seeming to look on -
And stands anonymous again.'
Such is `descriptiverse' of the very finest kind:
`Do memories plague their ears like flies?
They shake their heads. Dusk brims the shadows.'
Actually, the theme of `At Grass' - two horses eating in a field - cannot be made other than fairly trivial; but Larkin employs all his considerable resources - i.e. many of the traditionally accumulated resources of English poetry - to convert a simple scene into an immortalised moment. This poem is less about the poet and more about externality, than either of the other two. The poet's voice tends to hover more in the background than Dylan Thomas's foregrounded personal pronoun, or Yeats' disguised ego in the mask of the airman. Also, the language of `At Grass' is much closer to prose - the rhetor being absent. But the solid turns of phrase, the deft measurement and movement so smooth and inevitable from the first two lines:

`The eye can hardly pick them out
From the cold shade they shelter in'
to the last:
`Only the groom, and the groom's boy
With bridles in the evening come.'
make it a most distinctive and pleasing poem. Indeed, one could expatiate at some length on this quietly subtle technique - which only falters in the line `The other seeming to look on', which is a trifle clumsy - but to no purpose: it is as firmly a poem in its own way as the other two. And it is so because it employs music and imagery which, however low-key, easily distinguish it from prose. The first lurch into prose by English poetry in our century came, in fact, with Pound's breaking of the iambus; and it caused such a shock that there was an immediate retreat into imagism.
That, of course, as is the way with all critical generalisations, is something of an oversimplification. But I find it a remarkable co-incidence that Pound could publish something like `Near Perigord' and, virtually simultaneously, people like T.E.Hulme, H.D., Amy Lowell, etc., should have founded a school (ironically, with Pound's active help) to produce poems many of which, like Hulme's for instance, consisted of nothing but single or multiple images. So, I repeat, it does appear an inevitable, if unconscious, reaction to Pound's `prosyfying' of poetry. Especially, if one remembers that any poem hinges on imagery (which can't be `broken', as such) and sound (which Pound broke), does this seem a plausible theory.
Despite, however, this recurrent curse of Pelops, good poetry continues to be written and good poets persist. It may well be true that often these poets prove better practitioners than their theories might suggest: Eliot I consider one such; but, still, the list of Hopkins, Sassoon, Owen, Graves, Eliot, Yeats, Auden, Dylan Thomas and, somewhat grudgingly, Philip Larkin, plus several others, is an impressive list. Even so, they were and are always flanked by a number of lesser outriders for whom prose was and is poetry: men with one shoulder whiter than the other.
That this curse is now very much a settled feature of the poetry landscape, a glance at any current and representative anthology will confirm. However, it would be invidious to select any of the recently emerged younger names for especial condemnation: for all but the most outstanding young poets in any generation need time to properly emerge from the chrysalis. So that just as it can be fatal to call young poets `promising' (as Cyril Connolly said: `Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first call promising'), equally, it is a mistake to condemn too soon. But I would like to conclude this essay by drawing attention to just one of the most recent generation of poets who, as the author of at least seven widely-reviewed books of poetry over the last dozen years or so, ought to be able to bear closer scrutiny by now.
Seamus Heaney as a critic is very sound in my view; cautious perhaps, careful certainly, but most perceptive in his analyses of poetry and the creative act. But his poetry itself, I find a more mixed achievement. This principally because of the hyper-concrete nature of much of his poetry.
In Heaney's work, two strands are now distinct. One strand, and the earliest and most persistent, is that of a rural Irish bog-praising equivalent of the American William Carlos Williams. A poem like `Widgeon', from his collection Station Island, I would class with such well-known pieces of Williams' as `A Red Wheelbarrow' and `Fine Work In Pitch and Copper'. `Widgeon' is as plain a piece of objectivist description as it is possible to come by.
The other strand in Heaney's poetry, and more recent development, emerges in things like the `Glanmore Sonnets' or the `Station Island' sequence, and is an attempt to break away - principally through narrative - from the exceedingly restrictive practice of `tactile' descriptivist pieces which form the fundament of his earlier achievement.
However, I would add - so as not to be thought to deliberately undersell Heaney's technique in, say, most of A Lough Neagh Sequence or Door Into The Dark - he strains hard most of the time to give a tellurien and mythic gloze to his descriptions: endeavours to make his readers feel the rooted livingness of things. The trouble is the process doesn't fire properly: many of the pieces come out of the kiln either not properly baked, or overdone and unsaleable, like perfectly finished cups without handles. It is alright in theory to insist that a poem should never `state' but only `suggest'; but the best poems are really a subtle interplay between statement and suggestion: and many of Heaney's poems are so involuted by their preoccupation with things, objects, that the `suggestion' never arises, the music lies dormant. There is no real sense of going beyond the immediate. Lines like these from `Sloe Gin':

`When I unscrewed it
I smelled the disturbed
tart stillness of a bush
rising through the pantry'
could have been written by any one of the New York objectivists. True the lines take one `beyond' the immediacy of the kitchen; but when I read a poem like `Sloe Gin' (even noting the pun of its title), I am still left with a distinct sense of `Yes - but so what?' One needs to be taken from the obvious to beyond the obvious, and not from bottled gin to its obvious source in a bush ... as in this poem. Equally, a poem like `An Ulster Twilight' is a boring reminiscence of childhood to everyone save the poet, who is unable to make it less boring to anyone else precisely because of the fact it is prose masquerading as poetry:

`The bare bulb, a scatter of nails,
Shelved timber, glinting chisels:
In a shed of corrugated iron
Eric Dawson stoops his plane... Where is he now?
There were fifteen years between the two
That night I strained to hear the bells
Of a sleigh of the mind and heard him pedal
Into our lane, get off at the gable,
Steady his Raleigh bicycle
Against the whitewash, stand to make sure
The house was quiet, knock at the door...
A doorstep courtesy to shun
Your father's uniform and gun,
But - now that I have said it out -
Maybe none the worse for that.'
The whole tone of that is prose; the last line of it `Maybe none the worse for that' is prose; the exact, the indifferent, the boringly dull scene-setting of the opening `The bare bulb... etc.', is prose; the stanza beginning `Into our lane, get off at the gable' is visibly prose in its awkwardness; even the feeling that motivated the piece (if `feeling' is not too grand a word for it), is so insufferably dull that one wishes Heaney had risked becoming properly sentimental ... So, yes, this is scarcely a real poem at all - even `bells/ of a sleigh of the mind' don't redeem it. One needs only to compare `An Ulster Twilight' with Patrick Kavanagh's `Inniskeen Road, July Evening' - a poem which, incidentally, Heaney discusses in a fine essay called `From Monaghan to the Grand Canal' - a poem composed of just as ordinary materials, yet with so different a result, to perceive the sort of distinction I am driving at:

`Inniskeen Road, July Evening

The bicycles go by in twos and threes -
There's a dance in Billy Brennan's barn tonight,
And there's a half-talk code of mysteries
And the wink-and-elbow language of delight.
Half-past eight and there is not a spot
Upon a mile of road, no shadow thrown
That might turn out a man or woman, not
A footfall tapping secrecies of stone. I have what every poet hates in spite
Of all the solemn talk of contemplation.
O Alexander Selkirk knew the plight
Of being king and government and nation.
A road, a mile of kingdom, I am king
Of banks and stones and every blooming thing.'
In Kavanagh's ordinary down-to-earth piece the glow of the ember is clearly visible: and the quotidian is transfigured. Great art converts the colloquial prose of `every blooming thing' into poetry's `language of delight' and `half-talk code of mysteries'. Whereas all I see in `An Ulster Twilight' are a few strips of prose transfixed to a page - a page that is as white as Pelops' ivory shoulder. And the presence of such `poems' and such pages in Heaney's volumes - indeed in many more books besides - seems to me not so much eloquent as boringly irritating proof of the working of an old and rather unpleasant myth.

Notes

1. William Oxley, The Cauldron of Inspiration, 1983, University of Salzburg.
2. Robert Graves, The White Goddess, 1956, Faber and Faber.
3. I.A.Richards, Science and Poetry, 1935, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubnor.
4. Donald Davie, Purity and Diction in English Verse, 1952, Chatto and Windus.
5. Robert Graves, The Crowning Privilege, 1955, Penguin.