tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-78886152059860097682024-03-17T18:35:58.457-07:00Lost Cultural Foundations of Western Civilisation"You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews". (John 4:22)AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.comBlogger535125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7888615205986009768.post-17729780891444629022024-03-17T18:34:00.000-07:002024-03-17T18:34:59.530-07:00Sparser Spartans<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrklEIlVv0C0jS38M0p3xABNcC2Xya-c1u6iZ0_1JmtRZmR_WZfCIY9wKIcX8pXGOY9-jstl8px0_YPxs_jbSHuPe6mlGFHgLAydIN4yyrLIy9NhAk078F-j4giTM2Yr1wMmUtmlVMPtIR_yMDlt9R8DtiDJj43Wp510H7lKmDWmZH6z0zcIL5tf_lemw/s275/images.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="183" data-original-width="275" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrklEIlVv0C0jS38M0p3xABNcC2Xya-c1u6iZ0_1JmtRZmR_WZfCIY9wKIcX8pXGOY9-jstl8px0_YPxs_jbSHuPe6mlGFHgLAydIN4yyrLIy9NhAk078F-j4giTM2Yr1wMmUtmlVMPtIR_yMDlt9R8DtiDJj43Wp510H7lKmDWmZH6z0zcIL5tf_lemw/s600/images.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
“Hugo Jones writes that the Spartans held in the highest regard a certain ancient law-giver, much like Moses the law-giver of Israel. The Spartans celebrated
new moons (Rosh Chodesh), and unlike their Greek counterparts, even
a seventh day of rest! Of course, the Spartans themselves were very different from other Greeks, particularly those in Athens, whom Sparta often battled”.
Mayim Achronim
According to King Arius of Sparta, his people shared a common ancestry with the Jews through Abraham. I Maccabees 12:19-23:
This is a copy of the letter that they sent to Onias: ‘King Arius of the Spartans, to the high priest Onias, greetings. It has been found in writing concerning the Spartans and the Jews that they are brothers and are of the family of Abraham. And now that we have learned this, please write us concerning your welfare; we on our part write to you that your livestock and your property belong to us, and ours belong to you. We therefore command that our envoys report to you accordingly’.
Given that Abraham was, as according to the meaning of his new name: “The Father of many nations” (Genesis 17:5): “Your name will no longer be Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I will make you the father of many nations”, then the task of identifying a more specific relationship between the Jews and the Spartans is not an easy one.
Legend tends to favour that the Spartans were descended from Abraham through his wife, Keturah.
A seemingly semi-mythological example of this tradition is given at:
https://www.mayimachronim.com/when-jews-and-greeks-were-brothers-the-untold-story-of-chanukah/
Greek Sons of Abraham
Sometime in the 2nd century BCE lived a Greek historian and sage named Cleodemus, sometimes referred to as Cleodemus the Prophet. He also went by the name Malchus which, because of its Semitic origins, makes some scholars believe he could have been Jewish. Cleodemus wrote an entire history of the Jewish people in Greek. While this text appears to have been lost, it is cited by others, including Josephus (Antiquities, i. 15).
Cleodemus commented on Abraham’s marriage to Keturah (typically identified with Hagar), and their children. This is recorded in Genesis 25, which begins:
And Abraham took another wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bore him Zimran, and Yokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuach. And Yokshan begot Sheva and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were Ashurim, and Letushim, and Leumim. And the sons of Midian were Ephah, and Epher, and Chanokh, and Avidah, and Elda’ah. All these were the children of Keturah. And Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac, while to the sons of the concubines that Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and he sent them away from Isaac, while he was still alive, to the east country.
Abraham had six children with Keturah, from which came at least seven grandchildren, and three great-grandchildren which the Torah names explicitly. The Torah then makes it clear that Abraham gave everything that he had to Isaac—including the Covenant with God and the land of Israel—while the others received gifts and were sent away from the Holy Land.
Cleodemus suggests that Epher (or another child named Yaphran), the great-grandson of Abraham, migrated to Africa—which is where the term “Africa” comes from! (This is particularly interesting because Epher was the son of Midian, and Tziporah the wife of Moses was a Midianite, and is described as a Cushite, or African/Ethiopian.) Cleodemus states that Epher, Yaphran, and Ashurim assisted the Greek hero Hercules in one of his battles. Following this, Hercules married one of their daughters—a great granddaughter of Abraham—and had a son with her. This son was Diodorus, one of the legendary founders of Sparta! ….
[End of quote]
Others, such as Steven M. Collins, narrow all of this down considerably more by identifying the Spartans as actual Jews (descendants of Abraham), even specifying that they were of the tribe of Simeon. And so we read at:
https://stevenmcollins.com/the-spartan-israelites-who-halted-the-persian-empire/
THE SPARTAN ISRAELITES WHO HALTED THE PERSIAN EMPIRE
by Steven M. Collins | Sep 17, 2018 | Ten Tribes - Ancient History
Many readers have, no doubt, seen the movie, 300, starring Gerard Butler which was released a number of years ago. It tells the inspiring story of King Leonidas of Sparta, who led 300 of his Spartan warriors to the pass at Thermopylae circa 480 BC to block the path of the immense Persian army under Xerxes that was descending upon Greece. Their noble sacrifice in the battle of Thermopylae inspired all of Greece and bought time for the various city-states to organize a resistance to the Persian invasion. The aforementioned movie is drenched in graphic and bloody combat scenes and is outlandish at times (especially in its portrayal of Xerxes), but the self-sacrifice of the martial Spartan detachment inspires people still today. That movie also is laughably inaccurate in its portrayal of the Spartan warriors, who are presented as soldiers who went to war with appropriate armaments but dressed only in capes and leather loincloths. There was an earlier movie, The 300 Spartans, released in 1961 starring Richard Egan, which told the same story but it showed the Spartans dressed and armored in a much more realistic manner. However, it dated to a time when Hollywood presented war movies in a very sanitized way where the battle scenes were acted out with very little blood being shown.
In both my books (available at the homepage of this website) and an article, I make the case that the Spartan warriors were Israelites from the Israelite tribe of Simeon, which, like the Spartans, was known for being warlike and ruthless. According to the book of First Maccabees, a Spartan king acknowledged in a letter to a Jewish High Priest that the Jews and Spartans were “kinsmen” and fellow descendants of Abraham. If so, where is the historic connection between the two groups of people? The Bible actually does offer us a solid historical context where the Spartans could have originated from a group of Israelites that branched off from the rest of the Israelite tribes. In the book of Numbers, there are two separate censuses taken of the Israelite tribes when they left Egypt. The first is in Numbers 1 and the second is in Numbers 26. The second census indicates that a majority of the tribe of Simeon left the Israelite encampment right after a chief Simeonite prince was executed by a Levite, Phineas, in Numbers 25. The context argues that Moses saw that so many people had left the Israelite encampment at that time that he decided to call for a second census to see how many had departed from the various tribes.
If they had struck out on their own, one would expect the Simeonites to found a martial city or nation of their own…in other words, a city-state just like Sparta. History records that the Spartans had a different origin than the rest of the Greeks. The fact that the Spartan letter cited in I Maccabees records that the Spartans regarded themselves as kinsmen of the Jews and jointly descended from the patriarch, Abraham, is strong evidence that the Spartans had to be from a fellow Israelite tribe, but where had they originated?
Since Numbers 25-26 confirms that most of the tribe of Simeon left the Israelite wilderness encampment circa 1410 BC, it makes sense that this warlike band of Simeonites would resurface later in history in a location other than the Promised Land. The origin of the city-state of Sparta is unknown, but it began to be noticed as an independent entity by at least the 11th or 10th century BC. Years ago, I wrote an article about the Spartan connection to the Israelite tribe of Simeon and I am including a link to that article. I urge all readers with an interest in history to read that article as it will enable you to see ancient Greek and Mediterranean history in an entirely new light.
As a side-bar, I’d like to note that there was an earlier “Brave Three Hundred” warrior group which was mentioned in the Bible. It is the group of 300 warriors that accompanied the hero, Gideon, when he, like Leonidas and his 300, fought against an immense army of invaders who came from the east (circa 1150 BC). The story of Gideon and his brave 300 warriors is told in Judges 6-7. Unlike Leonidas and his 300, Gideon and his 300 emerged victorious over the eastern host albeit with God’s intervention to grant the victory. Gideon and his 300 warriors were also Israelites. Leonidas and his 300 did not emerge victorious although their noble sacrifice has been honored throughout time. I cannot help but wonder how the story of Leonidas and his 300 holding the narrow pass at Thermopylae would have ended if they had not been sabotaged by a traitor who revealed a secret pass around the Spartan position to the Persians. Perhaps they might actually have won if it had not been for that betrayal. At the very least, they would have delayed the Persian host for a much longer period of time.
[End of quote]
I may be able to add another element that could bridge the long chronological gap for the Spartans, as descendants of Abraham, to a connection with Moses. The Spartans looked back to a great Lawgiver called Lycurgus (Lykourgos), generally considered to be semi-mythical. Lycurgus is commonly compared with the Lawgiver supreme, Moses.
Why?
Because, as I think, Lycurgus was actually based on Moses. See e.g. my article:
Moses and Lycurgus
(11) Moses and Lycurgus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Readers might pick up Moses likenesses also in the following by Ellen Lloyd (2023):
https://www.ancientpages.com/2023/01/09/enigma-of-lycurgus-of-sparta-great-reformer-and-his-foundation-of-a-warlike-superior-state/
As we trace the ancient history of Sparta and Lycurgus, we learn he emerged during a deep crisis. According to Spartanophilic Xenophon, a disciple of Socrates and soldier who fought for Sparta against Athens, Lycurgus lived during the time of Heraclidae, around 1,000 B.C.
Herodotus informs that Lycurgus “had brought the Spartans out of an era of extreme political disorder (kakonomotatoi) and into one of good order (eunomie), which in turn led to the city’s increased power.
With the support of the Delphic oracle, Lycurgus changed “all the laws,” and created the gerousia, the ephorate, and the Spartan military organization (there is mention of the syssitia among the military institutions).” 3
Lycurgus “was able to persuade his fellow Spartans to introduce the comprehensive and compulsory educational cycle called the Agoge (agôgê, literally a ‘raising’, as of cattle). This system of education, training and socialisation turned boys into fighting men whose reputation for discipline, courage and skill was unsurpassed.” 4
Some scholars suggest the political reforms in Sparta introduced by Lycurgus were the earliest system of Greek citizen self-government.
Many aspects Lycurgus system were strange to foreigners, and the Spartan rules and customs were radically different from the rest of the Hellenes. Perhaps this was also the goal because the Lycurgus altered decisively the psychological make-up of the citizens. The Spartans’ “own belief in their ideology was absolute. Throughout Spartan history there were very few defectors – or whingers.” 4
How Lycurgus came up with the laws is a mystery. Herodotus provides two entirely different versions of the Spartan lawgiver. One story tells Lycurgus received the laws directly from God Apollo. In another text, Herodotus ascribes the origins of Lycurgus’s laws to the Cretan constitution.
Modern historians have long downplayed the role of Lycurgus in the history of Sparta. Still, in recent years scholars have argued the ancient lawgiver may have been of greater importance to the state than previously assumed. ….
[Ends of quote]
There is enough here to suggest, too, that the Spartans were foreigners in Greece.
The first step, then, is to re-set Sparta in an Israelite direction by re-identifying the Lawgiver Lycurgus (c. 820 BC) as Moses (c. 1450 BC).
The second step is to carry this re-orientation down into the Judges period, by seeing Leonidas and his 300 as a Greek appropriation of Gideon and his 300 (Judges 7).
We read that Steven M. Collins had not missed this similarity (without making my connection):
….
As a side-bar, I’d like to note that there was an earlier “Brave Three Hundred” warrior group which was mentioned in the Bible. It is the group of 300 warriors that accompanied the hero, Gideon, when he, like Leonidas and his 300, fought against an immense army of invaders who came from the east (circa 1150 BC). The story of Gideon and his brave 300 warriors is told in Judges 6-7. Unlike Leonidas and his 300, Gideon and his 300 emerged victorious over the eastern host albeit with God’s intervention to grant the victory. ….
In e.g. my article:
Not so ‘Hot Gates’ of Thermopylae
(3) Not so ‘Hot Gates’ of Thermopylae | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
I suggested biblical antecedents for the so-called Battle of Thermopylae and the 300 Spartans.
If Leonidas and his 300 are not taken from Gideon and his 300, wherein the name Gideon has become Grecised as Leonidas:
[G]ID-EON = [L]EON-ID-AS
then I’ll eat my hat.
The third step is to recognise that:
Admiral Lysander was probably an Egyptian
(3) Admiral Lysander was probably an Egyptian | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Even The Iliad epic associated with the more obviously fictitious Sparta-ruling Menelaus has a biblical base:
‘Homeric’ borrowings from life of King Saul
(4) 'Homeric' borrowings from life of King Saul | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
King Ahab and Agamemnon
(4) King Ahab and Agamemnon | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Judith the Jewess and “Helen” the Hellene
(4) Judith the Jewess and " Helen " the Hellene | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7888615205986009768.post-75503105783970614872024-03-17T13:09:00.000-07:002024-03-17T13:09:38.224-07:00Not so ‘Hot Gates’ of Thermopylae<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3sWOq4KkmbQ7x9P0VYhtuqCfc03bgU9Ftu8dihwBf_gKXprbEANQifZ9w4VwO3OdEUw8CxKrguXpdSDAFkEOFMAoXyQA0N0WOZsAgXTkzqaEsnYksXSd_TIvUDG4eo_bqxqMirs2NyWn6Aqx4snKo-dvZI1rm6J8Lo-ESXTyRr7rS2QrYL-4mwKZ0NhU/s450/The%20300%20Spartans%20-%201962%2002_0.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="190" data-original-width="450" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3sWOq4KkmbQ7x9P0VYhtuqCfc03bgU9Ftu8dihwBf_gKXprbEANQifZ9w4VwO3OdEUw8CxKrguXpdSDAFkEOFMAoXyQA0N0WOZsAgXTkzqaEsnYksXSd_TIvUDG4eo_bqxqMirs2NyWn6Aqx4snKo-dvZI1rm6J8Lo-ESXTyRr7rS2QrYL-4mwKZ0NhU/s600/The%20300%20Spartans%20-%201962%2002_0.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
Morton Scott Enslin has intuitively referred to the Book of Judith’s
Bethulia incident as the “Judean Thermopylae” (The Book of Judith:
Greek Text with an English Translation, p. 80).
Introductory
Professor Paul Cartledge’s well written book about the alleged Battle of Thermopylae between the Spartans and the Persians in 480 BC holds firmly to the familiar line of British writers and historians that our Western civilisation was based front and centre upon the Greeks.
Thus, for instance, he writes in his book, Thermopylae: The Battle That Changed the World (Macmillan, 2006, p. 4):
“The Greeks were second to none in embracing that contrary combination of the ghastly and the ennobling, which takes us straight back to the fount and origin of Western culture and ‘civilization’ - to Homer’s Iliad, the first masterpiece of all Western literature; to Aeschylus’s Persians, the first surviving masterpiece of Western drama; to the coruscating war epigrams of Simonides and, last but most relevantly of all, to Herodotus’s Histories, the first masterpiece of Western historiography”.
And this is not the only occasion in his book where professor Cartledge expresses such effusive sentiments.
The problem is, however, that - as it seems to me, at least - these very foundations, these so-called ‘founts and origins’ of ‘Western culture and civilization’, had for their very own bases some significant non-Greek influences and inspirations.
An important one of these non-Greek influences was the Book of Judith, traditionally thought to have been written substantially by the high-priest Joakim in c. 700 BC.
Compare that to the uncertainty of authorship surrounding those major works labelled Homeric:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer
The Homeric Question—by whom, when, where and under what circumstances were the Iliad and Odyssey composed—continues to be debated. Broadly speaking, modern scholarly opinion falls into two groups. One holds that most of the Iliad and (according to some) the Odyssey are the works of a single poet of genius. The other considers the Homeric poems to be the result of a process of working and re-working by many contributors, and that "Homer" is best seen as a label for an entire tradition.[ ….
On previous occasions I have suggested that parts of The Iliad had appropriated key incidents to be found in the Book of Judith, with ‘Helen’ taking her cue from the Jewish heroine, Judith.
Accordingly, I have written:
“As for Judith, the Greeks appear to have substituted this beautiful Jewish heroine with their own legendary Helen, whose ‘face launched a thousand ships’.
Compare for instance these striking similarities (Judith and The Iliad):
The beautiful woman praised by the elders at the city gates:
"When [the elders of Bethulia] saw [Judith] transformed in appearance and dressed differently, they were very greatly astounded at her beauty" (Judith 10:7).
"Now the elders of the people were sitting by the Skaian gates…. When they saw Helen coming … they spoke softly to each other with winged words:
'No shame that the Trojans and the well-greaved Achaians should suffer agonies for long years over a woman like this - she is fearfully like the immortal goddesses to look at'" [The Iliad., pp. 44-45].
This theme of incredible beauty - plus the related view that "no shame" should be attached to the enemy on account of it - is picked up again a few verses later in the Book of Judith (v.19) when the Assyrian soldiers who accompany Judith and her maid to Holofernes "marveled at [Judith's] beauty and admired the Israelites, judging them by her … 'Who can despise these people, who have women like this among them?'"
Nevertheless:
'It is not wise to leave one of their men alive, for if we let them go they will be able to beguile the whole world!' (Judith 10:19).
'But even so, for all her beauty, let her go back in the ships, and not be left here a curse to us and our children'.
The dependence of The Iliad upon the Book of Judith may go even deeper, though, to its very main theme. For, previously I had written:
“Achilles
Many similarities have been noted too between The Iliad and the Old Testament, including the earlier-mentioned likenesses between the young Bellerophon and Joseph. Again, Achilles' being pursued by the river Xanthos which eventually turns dry (Book 21) reminds one of Moses' drying up of the sea (Exodus 14:21).
Was there really a person by the name of Agamemnon? [See Is Homer Historical? in Archaeology Odyssey, May/Jun 2004, pp. 26-35].
The interview of Professor Nagy of Harvard says ‘no, there wasn't’.
Achilles’ fierce argument with Agamemnon, commander-in-chief of the Greeks, at Troy - Achilles' anger being the very theme of The Iliad [Introduction, p. xvi: "The Iliad announces its subject in the first line. The poem will tell of the anger of Achilleus and its consequences - consequences for the Achaians, the Trojans, and Achilleus himself"] - is merely a highly dramatized Greek version of the disagreement in the Book of Judith between Achior [a name not unlike the ‘Greek’ Achilles] and the furious Assyrian commander-in-chief, "Holofernes", at the siege of Bethulia, Judith's town”.
And the famous Trojan Horse?
I continued:
“If the very main theme of The Iliad may have been lifted by the Greeks from the Book of Judith, then might not even the Homeric idea of the Trojan Horse ruse to capture Troy have been inspired by Judith's own ruse to take the Assyrian camp?
[According to R. Graves, The Greek Myths (Penguin Books, combined ed., 1992), p. 697 (1, 2. My emphasis):
"Classical commentators on Homer were dissatisfied with the story of the wooden horse.
They suggested, variously, that the Greeks used a horse-like engine for breaking down the walls (Pausanias: i. 23. 10) … that Antenor admitted the Greeks into Troy by a postern which had a horse painted on it….Troy is quite likely to have been stormed by means of a wheeled wooden tower, faced with wet horse hides as a protection against incendiary darts…".
(Pausanius 2nd century AD: Wrote `Description of Greece'.)].
What may greatly serve to strengthen this suggestion is the uncannily 'Judith-like' trickery of a certain Sinon, a wily Greek, as narrated in the detailed description of the Trojan Horse in Book Two of Virgil's Aeneid. Sinon, whilst claiming to have become estranged from his own people, because of their treachery and sins, was in fact bent upon deceiving the Trojans about the purpose of the wooden horse, in order "to open Troy to the Greeks".
I shall set out here the main parallels that I find on this score between the Aeneid and the Book of Judith.
Firstly, the name Sinon may recall Judith's ancestor Simeon, son of Israel (Judith 8:1; 9:2).
Whilst Sinon, when apprehended by the enemy, is "dishevelled" and "defenceless", Judith, also defenseless, is greatly admired for her appearance by the members of the Assyrian patrol who apprehend her (Judith 10:14). As Sinon is asked sympathetically by the Trojans 'what he had come to tell …' and 'why he had allowed himself to be taken prisoner', so does the Assyrian commander-in-chief, Holofernes, 'kindly' ask Judith: '… tell me why you have fled from [the Israelites] and have come over to us?'
Just as Sinon, when brought before the Trojan king Priam, promises that he 'will confess the whole truth' – though having no intention of doing that – so does Judith lie to Holofernes: 'I will say nothing false to my lord this night' (Judith 11:5).
Sinon then gives his own treacherous account of events, including the supposed sacrileges of the Greeks due to their tearing of the Palladium, image of the goddess Athene, from her own sacred Temple in Troy; slaying the guards on the heights of the citadel and then daring to touch the sacred bands on the head of the virgin goddess with blood on their hands. For these 'sacrileges' the Greeks were doomed.
Likewise Judith assures Holofernes of victory because of the supposed sacrilegious conduct that the Israelites have planned (e.g. to eat forbidden and consecrated food), even in Jerusalem (11:11-15).
Sinon concludes – in relation to the Trojan options regarding what to do with the enigmatic wooden horse – with an Achior-like statement: 'For if your hands violate this offering to Minerva, then total destruction shall fall upon the empire of Priam and the Trojans…. But if your hands raise it up into your city, Asia shall come unbidden in a mighty war to the walls of Pelops, and that is the fate in store for our descendants'. Whilst Sinon's words were full of cunning, Achior had been sincere when he had warned Holofernes – in words to which Judith will later allude deceitfully (11:9-10): 'So now, my master and my lord, if there is any oversight in this people [the Israelites] and they sin against their God and we find out their offense, then we can go up against them and defeat them. But if they are not a guilty nation, then let my lord pass them by; for their Lord and God will defend them, and we shall become the laughing-stock of the whole world' (Judith 5:20-21). [Similarly, Achilles fears to become 'a laughing-stock and a burden of the earth' (Plato's Apologia, Scene I, D. 5)].
These, Achior's words, were the very ones that had so enraged Holofernes and his soldiers (vv.22-24). And they would give the Greeks the theme for their greatest epic, The Iliad”.
But all of this is as nothing when compared to what I have found to be the multiple:
Similarities to The Odyssey of the Books of Job and Tobit
https://www.academia.edu/8914220/Similarities_to_The_Odyssey_of_the_Books_of_Job_and_Tobit
this Semitic literature presumably well pre-dating the fairy-tale Greek efforts.
Unsatisfactory Foundations
“It concerns a supposed night attack by loyalist Greeks on Xerxes’s camp
in the very middle of the Thermopylae campaign with the aim of
assassinating the Great King”.
Herodotus
So much concerning the truth of the supposed Battle of Thermopylae rests with Herodotus, whose Histories are thought to come closest of all to being a primary source for the account.
“He and [the poet] Simonides” are, according to professor Paul Cartledge, the “principal contemporary Greek written source for Thermopylae”. And, on p. 224: “… Herodotus in my view remains as good as it gets: we either write a history of Thermopylae with him, or we do not write one at all”.
One problem with this is that Herodotus was known as (alongside his more favourable epithet, the “Father of History”) - as professor Cartledge has also noted - the “Father of Lies”.
Where does Greek history actually begin?
The history of Philosophy - of whose origins the Greeks are typically credited - begins with shadowy ‘Ionian Greeks’, such as Thales of Miletus, whose real substance I believe resides in the very wise Joseph of Egypt.
Likewise the legendary Pythagoras.
For an overview of all of this, see my:
Re-Orienting to Zion the History of Ancient Philosophy
https://www.academia.edu/4105845/Re-Orienting_to_Zion_the_History_of_Ancient_Philosophy
Already I have de-Grecised such supposedly historical characters as Solon the Athenian statesman (who is but a Greek version of the Israelite King Solomon, and whose ‘laws’ appear to have been borrowed, at least in part, from the Jew, Nehemiah); Thales; Pythagoras; Empedocles, an apparent re-incarnation of Moses (Freud).
And I have shown that Greek classics such as The Iliad and the Odyssey were heavily dependent upon earlier Hebrew literature.
The ancient biblical scholar, Saint Jerome (c. 400 AD), had already noted, according to Orthodox pastor, Patrick H. Reardon (The Wide World of Tobit. Apocrypha’s Tobit and Literary Tradition), the resemblance of Tobit to Homer’s The Odyssey. The example that pastor Reardon gives, though, so typical of the biblical commentator’s tendency to infer pagan influence upon Hebrew literature, whilst demonstrating a definite similarity between Tobit and the Greek literature, imagines the author of Tobit to have appropriated a colourful episode from The Odyssey and inserted it into Tobit 11:9:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=12-02-036-f#ixzz2f1euwlrb
“The resemblance of Tobit to the Odyssey in particular was not lost on that great student of literature, Jerome, as is evident in a single detail of his Latin translation of Tobit in the Vulgate. Intrigued by the literary merit of Tobit, but rejecting its canonicity, the jocose and sometimes prankish Jerome felt free to insert into his version an item straight out of the Odyssey—namely, the wagging of the dog’s tail on arriving home with Tobias in 11:9—Tunc praecucurrit canis, qui simul fuerat in via, et quasi nuntius adveniens blandimento suae caudae gaudebat—“Then the dog, which had been with them in the way, ran before, and coming as if it had brought the news, showed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail.” ….
No other ancient version of Tobit mentions either the tail or the wagging, but Jerome, ever the classicist, was confident his readers would remember the faithful but feeble old hound Argus, as the final act of his life, greeting the return of Odysseus to the home of his father: “he endeavored to wag his tail” (Odyssey 17.302). And to think that we owe this delightful gem to Jerome’s rejection of Tobit’s canonicity!”
Reardon, continuing his theme of the dependence of Tobit, in part, upon, as he calls it here, “pagan themes”, finds further commonality with Greek literature, especially Antigone:
“Furthermore, some readers have found in Tobit similarities to still other pagan themes, such as the legend of Admetus. …. More convincing, I believe, however, are points of contact with classical Greek theater. Martin Luther observed similarities between Tobit and Greek comedy … but one is even more impressed by resemblances that the Book of Tobit bears to a work of Greek tragedy—the Antigone of Sophocles. In both stories the moral stature of the heroes is chiefly exemplified in their bravely burying the dead in the face of official prohibition and at the risk of official punishment. In both cases a venerable moral tradition is maintained against a political tyranny destructive of piety.
That same Greek drama, moreover, provides a further parallel to the blindness of Tobit in the character of blind Teiresias, himself also a man of an inner moral vision important to the theme of the play”.
[End of quote]
In light of all this - and what I have given above is very far from being exhaustive - and appreciating that those conventionally labelled as ‘Ionian Greeks’ may actually have been, in their origins, Hebrew biblical characters, then just how real is Herodotus of Ionian Greece (Halicarnassus)?
And, can we be sure that the Histories attributed to him have been (anywhere nearly) properly dated?
His name, Herod-, with a Greek ending (-otus), may actually bespeak a non-Greek ethnicity, and, indeed, a later period of time (say, closer to a Dionysius of Halicarnassus, C1st BC).
Xerxes
But, whatever may be the case with Herodotus, his classical version of “Xerxes” seems to have been based very heavily upon the Assyrian Great King, Sennacherib - another Book of Judith connection, given my view that Sennacherib was the actual Assyrian ruler of Nineveh named “Nebuchadnezzar” in Judith. E.g. 1:1: “In the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnez′zar, who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Nin′eveh …”. Emmet Sweeney has marvellously shown this in the following comparisons (The Ramessides, Medes and Persians):
SENNACHERIB
XERXES
Made war on Egypt in his third year, and fought a bitter war against the Greeks shortly thereafter. Made war on Egypt in his second year, and fought a bitter war against the Greeks shortly thereafter.
Suppressed two major Babylonian rebellions. The first, in his second year, was led by Bel-Shimanni. The second, years later, was led by Shamash-eriba. Suppressed two major Babylonian rebellions. The first, in his third year, was led by Bel-ibni. The second, years later, was led by Mushezib-Marduk.
The Babylonians were well-treated after the first rebellion, but savagely repressed after the second, when they captured and murdered Sennacherib’s viceroy, his own brother Ashur-nadin-shum. The Babylonians were well-treated after the first rebellion, but savagely repressed after the second, when they captured and murdered Xerxes’ satrap.
After the second rebellion, Sennacherib massacred the inhabitants, razed the city walls and temples, and carried off the golden stature of Marduk. Thereafter the Babylonian gods were suppressed in favour of Ashur, who was made the supreme deity. After the second rebellion, Xerxes massacred the inhabitants, razed the city walls and temples, and carried off the golden stature of Bel-Marduk. Thereafter the Babylonian gods were suppressed in favour of Ahura-Mazda, who was made the supreme deity.
Though I do not deny for a moment that Persia had a King Xerxes, a shortened version of Artaxerxes, the “Xerxes” of the Greeks is, however, purely fictitious.
Diodorus of Sicily, C1st BC (presuming he did actually write later than Herodotus), will contribute to the fiction by including a Judith element (not mentioned by Herodotus) to the tale of “Xerxes” at Thermopylae.
It is, in my opinion, just a re-run version of the assassination of “Holofernes”, admixed, perhaps, with the regicide of Sennacherib.
Professor Cartledge has written of it (op. cit., p. 232): “It concerns a supposed night attack by loyalist Greeks on Xerxes’s camp in the very middle of the Thermopylae campaign with the aim of assassinating the Great King”.
Based on the Book of Judith Drama
Morton Scott Enslin has intuitively referred to the Book of Judith’s
Bethulia incident as the “Judean Thermopylae” (The Book of Judith:
Greek Text with an English Translation, p. 80).
Comparisons between Book of Judith
and the Battle of Thermopylae
In both dramas we are introduced to a Great King, ruling in the East, who determines to conquer the West with a massive army.
Scholars have wondered about the incredible size of the Persian army.
“Almost all are agreed that Herodotus’ figure of 2,100,000, exclusive of followers, for the army (Bk VII. 184-85) is impossible” wrote F. Maurice in 1930 (“The Size of the Army of Xerxes in the Invasion of Greece 480 B. C.”, JHS, Vol. 50, Part 2 (1930), p. 211).
Sennacherib’s Assyrian army of 185,000 was likely - discounting, as an unrealistic translation, the one million-strong army of “Zerah the Ethiopian” - the largest army ever to that time (and possibly even much later) to have been assembled.
Apart from Kings, Chronicles and Isaiah, the same figure is referred to again in Maccabees, and in Herodotus’ Histories. The figure is not unrealistic for the neo-Assyrians, given that King Shalmaneser so-called III is known to have fielded an army of 120,000 men. (Fragments of the royal annals, from Calah, 3. lines 99–102: “In my fourteenth year, I mustered the people of the whole wide land, in countless numbers. I crossed the Euphrates at its flood with 120,000 of my soldiers”).
Invading from the East, the armies must of necessity approach, now Greece, now Judah, from the North.
Having successfully conquered everything in their path so far, the victors find that those peoples yet unconquered will speedily hand themselves over to their more powerful assailants. This process is known as ‘Medizing’ in the classical literature.
In the Book of Judith, the all-conquering commander-in-chief, “Holofernes”, will receive as allies those who had formerly been his foes. And these, like the treacherous ones in the Thermopylae drama, will prove to be a thorn in the flesh of the few who have determined to resist the foreign onslaught.
The armies arrive at a narrow pass, with defenders blocking their way.
Thermopylae in the Herodotean account – “Bethulia” (best identified as Shechem) in the biblical Book of Judith.
Dethroned Spartan King Demaratus, now an exile in Persia, will answer all of Xerxes’s questions about the Greek opposition, promising the King “to tell the whole truth—the kind of truth that you will not be able to prove false at a later date”.
Most similarly Achior, probably born in Assyrian exile, will advise “Holofernes” about the Israelites, promising his superior (Judith 5:5): ‘I will tell you the truth about these people who live in the mountains near your camp. I will not lie to you’.
A traitorous Greek, Ephialtes, will betray his country by telling the Persians of another pass around the mountains.
Likewise, the turncoat local Edomites and Moabites will advise the Assyrians of a strategy better than the one that they had been intending.
Conclusion
The so-called Battle of Thermopylae never happened.
No band of a mere 300 ever held the line against a massive Persian army.
The classical Xerxes is a complete fiction.
“Thermopylae: the Battle that changed the word”, in fact “changed” nothing.
Now, the Battle of the Valley of Salem at “Bethulia” (Shechem), on the other hand, changed a heck of a lot. For (Judith 16:25):
“As long as Judith lived, and for many years after her death,
no one dared to threaten the people of Israel”.
Also a Seleucid and more battles of Thermopylae
“Thermopylae is a mountain pass near the sea in northern Greece
which was the site of several battles in antiquity, the most famous being
that between Persians and Greeks in August 480 BCE”.
Mark Cartwright
The OTHER (supposed) Battles of Thermopylae:
https://steemit.com/history/@iaberius/the-other-battles-of-thermopylae
are given here as follows:
• 353 BC Battle of the Thermopylae. It took place during the Third Sacred War. Phocis and Thebes clashed over Delphi's control. The Phocians made heroic resistance in the Thermopylae against the ally of the Thebanians, King Philip II of Macedonia, father of Alexander the Great.
• 279 BC Battle of Thermopylae. An alliance of the Greeks (Beotians, Phocians, Etholians, Megarenses and Athenians) defended the passage against the invasion of the Breno's Celts. Breno tried to use the hidden path used by Persian army two thousand years earlier, but the Greeks were prepared this time. A garrison defends the rough road, so Breno deviates to Delphi. In a second attempt, he succeeds in passing thanks the fog. However, the Greeks had been evacuated in the Athenian ships. Every one of the contingent goes to defend their city.
• 191 BC Battle of Thermopylae. In this battle, the Seleucids clashed Romans, who came to Greece as allies of Macedonians. Marco Acilio Glabrio surrounded with his troops the army of King Antiochus III. They used the old mountain pass, and thus won the battle.
• 267 AD Battle of Thermopylae. Several barbarian tribes assaulted the Roman Empire. First, they looted the Balkans, and then they extended their raid for Greece. One of these people, the Heruli, arrived at Thermopylae passage, where they tried to stop them without success. As a result, they devastated the entire Attica and the Peloponnese peninsula. Even the city of Sparta was plundered.
Regarding the supposed Seleucid one of Antiochus (so-called) III, we read:
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_thermopylae_191.html
The battle of Thermopylae of 191 B.C. ended the Greek phase of the war between Rome and the Seleucid emperor Antiochus III. Antiochus had crossed into Greece from Asia Minor at the head of small army, hoping to find allies amongst the Greeks. He had been disappointed in this expectation – only the Aetolian League, who had invited him into Greece in the first place, offered him troops, and even then not as many as he had hoped.
The Romans responded by sending an army to Greece, commanded by the consul M. Acilius Glabrio. He was more successful in finding allies, most notably gaining the support of Philip V of Macedonia, who only a few years before had been crushingly defeated by the Romans at Cynoscephalae (Second Macedonian War). Between them Philip and the Romans quickly recaptured all of Antiochus’ conquests in Thessaly.
Antiochus decided to defend the pass of Thermopylae, where the greater Roman numbers would not be so telling. This position allowed him to remain in communication with Aetolia, and protected the crucial naval base at Chalcis. Antiochus defended the pass himself, with his 10,500 men, posting his slingers on the heights above the pass and his phalanx behind strong earthworks. The Aetolians were given the task of guarding his left flank, leaving 2,000 men at Heraclea in Trachis and posting 2,000 men in the forts that guarded the Asopus gorge and the mountain tracks that the Persians had used.
Unfortunately for Antiochus the Romans had read the history books.
They may have had as many as 40,000 men, and so on the night before the Roman attack they could afford to send 2,000 men around his western flank. On the day of the battle the Romans began with a frontal assault on his position. The first attack failed under a hail of missile weapons from the heights, and even when a second attack broke through the first Seleucid line, they were held off by Antiochus’ dug-in phalanx.
The turning point of the battle came when the Roman flanking force appeared behind Antiochus’ position, and defeated the Aetolian troops guarding the col of Callidromus. The Seleucid army in the pass broke and fled, suffering heavy losses in the retreat. Antiochus was only able to rally 500 men at Elatea. He then retreated to Chalcis, before setting sail for Ephesus and Asia Minor.
The war in Greece continued across the summer of 191, and saw Philip V recover some of the areas he had lost to the Aetolians after the Second Macedonian War. The Aetolians were then given permission to appear to the Senate, effectively suing for peace. At the same time the Romans turned their attention to an invasion of Asia Minor, winning a major naval battle at Corycus before winter ended the campaign of 191.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7888615205986009768.post-21462900320453888782024-03-14T23:55:00.000-07:002024-03-14T23:55:23.192-07:00Lysander and Usanhuru<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQpsb8WfcZ7z_vLgaIncs8EOksujuNqAls_DzAXGPeZaZEctcpPLx87SCaTWGpEAZ3lTZtgMwmF4IfcGayFei9nC9yyJhxKHUBLVqoY87tXC_PJ2S7VqFNPLGK6Cc5rFYa7jpfuhJDLSVfWmNsBy0ozxPjx7-AGgrPG0EEA6XWGe9UrbsOWX1KseHTzCU/s3840/ACOd-Lysander.webp" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="2160" data-original-width="3840" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQpsb8WfcZ7z_vLgaIncs8EOksujuNqAls_DzAXGPeZaZEctcpPLx87SCaTWGpEAZ3lTZtgMwmF4IfcGayFei9nC9yyJhxKHUBLVqoY87tXC_PJ2S7VqFNPLGK6Cc5rFYa7jpfuhJDLSVfWmNsBy0ozxPjx7-AGgrPG0EEA6XWGe9UrbsOWX1KseHTzCU/s600/ACOd-Lysander.webp"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
Herodotus, in The Histories, tells of a skilful physician, Democedes of Croton, a character that I claim to be fictitious and based upon a really attested historical figure, the Egyptian, Udjahorresne:
Udjahorresne and Democedes
(5) Udjahorresne and Democedes | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
The latter, who was a mentor in Egypt to Cambyses, appears under different names, all of which are mergeable the one with the other. Thus:
Esarhaddon and Nes-Anhuret, Ashurbanipal and Usanahuru, Cambyses and Udjahorresne
(5) Esarhaddon and Nes-Anhuret, Ashurbanipal and Usanahuru, Cambyses and Udjahorresne | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
The Greek writers (whoever they really were) have supposed Greek navy men, such as Polycrates, Lysander, fighting in Greek wars, but also interfering in Egypto-Persian battles. These supposed Greeks – and presumably their Greek wars (at least in part) – were a fiction.
With all of this in mind, the name Lysander (Greek: Λύσανδρος) now looms for me as a Greek-ised version of Usan[a]huru, the Assyrian rendering of the Egyptian name, Udjahorresne. Compare:
Usan[h]ur[u] and [L]usan[d]er
Lysander was supposedly, like Udjahorresne (Usanhuru) really was, a navy admiral.
Lysander was named admiral of the Spartan navy in 407 BC.
Lysander: The Ambitious Admiral - Spartapedia
Udjahorresne … had previously held the office of navy commander.
http://www.displaceddynasties.com/uploads/6/2/6/5/6265423/displaced_dynasties_chapter_7_-_udjahorresne_-_statue__tomb.pdf
Serving a Great King, Darius
…. Great King Darius of Persia replaced the local satrap Tissaphernes with Darius’ younger son, Cyrus. Cyrus was an ambitious prince with a desire to foster closer ties with Sparta that they might one day assist his future claim to the Persian throne. He was thus eager to build a relationship with the incoming admiral [Lysander].
Udjahorresne … identified as a high official under Cambyses and Darius I ….
Left something of a bad legacy:
… scholars have wrongly maligned him, falsely accusing him of collaborating with the enemy.
Lysander was a most unspartanlike Spartiate. Time and again he put him own goals before the common good, used his position for self-benefit, and promoted and celebrated himself in the most unpious fashion. In many ways, he exemplified the human flaws which characterized the unravelling of Lycurgan Sparta and its decline from power.
To fill him out completely, as Udjahorresne, Lysander probably needs to be aligned also with the physician, Democedes:
Udjahorresne and Democedes
(6) Udjahorresne and Democedes | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7888615205986009768.post-61652071701289316462024-02-28T10:58:00.001-08:002024-02-28T10:58:58.755-08:00That ‘Nineveh’ anachronism again: Apollonius, Mohammed, Heraclius <div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzDxBI4itKmj06ltbcIV1zBlq3EJexDkmOCa4TyqMlpEB2BBgQM-vLJ1esNbk3Ea6HrMorNXQ6fa4WFm8fL-Bzz2izwvgxd4R7ptcRn1dPC9S2383IbrrAcHjjf9HrIBR30BO2OFdm2ypdNuKw4u17n2dWnrSQiDuDj6Z3zOhWwDgjROMx1ppOegIRA3g/s286/images.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="176" data-original-width="286" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzDxBI4itKmj06ltbcIV1zBlq3EJexDkmOCa4TyqMlpEB2BBgQM-vLJ1esNbk3Ea6HrMorNXQ6fa4WFm8fL-Bzz2izwvgxd4R7ptcRn1dPC9S2383IbrrAcHjjf9HrIBR30BO2OFdm2ypdNuKw4u17n2dWnrSQiDuDj6Z3zOhWwDgjROMx1ppOegIRA3g/s600/images.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
“… Nineveh was so laid waste that it was considered a total myth of the Bible
throughout most of the recent centuries, that is until it was discovered
by Sir Austen Layard in the nineteenth century”.
Archaeology of Ancient Assyria
Poor old Nineveh!
That ancient city gets dragged into various pseudo-histories purportedly belonging to AD time.
And so I could not help exclaiming at the beginning of my article:
Heraclius and the Battle of Nineveh
(8) Heraclius and the Battle of Nineveh | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
What! What! What! The Byzantine emperor, Heraclius (reign, 610 to 641 AD), fighting a “Battle of Nineveh” in 627 AD!
And here I am mistakenly under the impression that the city of Nineveh was completely destroyed in c. 612 BC, and that it lay hopelessly dead and buried until it was archaeologically resurrected by Layard in the mid-C19th AD. ….
Again, I found that the Prophet Mohammed, a supposed contemporary of Heraclius - the latter being suspiciously, I thought, “A composite character to end all composites” - was likewise supposed to have had various associations with the (presumably long dead) city of Nineveh. See e.g. my article:
Prophet Jonah, Nineveh, and Mohammed
https://www.academia.edu/30409779/Prophet_Jonah_Nineveh_and_Mohammed
Now I find that Apollonius of Tyana, supposedly of the C1st AD, was guided in his extensive travels - somewhat reminiscent of those of Tobias and the angel Raphael in the Book of Tobit (including “Nineveh”, “Tigris” and “Ecbatana”):
A Common Sense Geography of the Book of Tobit
https://www.academia.edu/8675202/A_Common_Sense_Geography_of_the_Book_of_Tobit
by one, Damis, said to have been a native of Nineveh.
And this Apollonius of Tyana is thought by many to have been the real model for Jesus Christ.
I would have to agree with the following comment:
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/puppets-should-not-give-homilies
“The case of Apollonius of Tyana is not comparable with the evidence we have for Jesus.
We have multiple sources for the life of Jesus, while we only have one source for Apollonius. This source, Philostratus, claims to have recorded what eyewitnesses said about Apollonius, but your professor probably neglected to mention that the only eyewitness Philostratus mentions is one Damis from Nineveh. This city didn’t even exist in the first century (which means Damis probably did not exist, either). …”.
If Nineveh did not then exist, and Damis “probably did not exist”, then I think it would be safe to say that neither did Apollonius of Tyana probably exist, but was a fictitious Greek appropriation of Jesus Christ whom Apollonius occasionally resembles quite remarkably. For the reason why this is, see my article:
Apollonius of Tyana, like Philo, a fiction
(3) Apollonius of Tyana, like Philo, a fiction | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
In the amusingly entitled: “APOLLONIUS CREED VS. JESUS THE ROCK”, David Marshall writes:
One of the supreme principles of modern thought is that there must be no great inexplicable "gaps" in Nature. This is the source of controversy in biology, where proponents of Intelligent Design claim that life reveals micro-machinery that naturalistic evolution cannot explain. Critics of ID reply that no, all such "gaps" can in principle be explained, and the more we understand the story of life, the more such gaps have and will continue to close. Likewise, those who affirm miracles say that events such as the Resurrection of Jesus, or the sudden healing of a loved one after prayer, cannot easily be displayed on naturalistic grounds.
Skeptics again beg to differ: "Nothing to see here, move along, folks. We may not have all the details, but nothing has happened that cannot in principle be explained by deceit, inattention, cognitive dissonance, the Will to Believe, confused reporting, or perhaps a timely group hallucination or two. These are all events that happen commonly in the natural world, and as Hume explained, prosaic explanations are therefore infinitely more likely than a miracle." Which sounds like begging the question to believers. The same debate has now raged for two centuries over the person of Jesus, and reports about his life. Here, it appears, lies a God-sized gap in Nature if ever there was one. A man who healed the blind! Who spoke with a voice of thunder, casting traders out of the temple as if the place belonged to him! Who fed thousands with a few loaves and fishes, and raised the dead! Who claimed to be "one with the Father," and spoke as if all of Israel's history, indeed all world history, would somehow be consummated by his mission, which involved his own sacrifice and then ultimate conquest of that ultimate boogeyman, death! All skeptical "historical Jesus" scholarship can be seen as a Herculean attempt to plug this gap in the universe. That includes the most famous and popular such attempts in our day, such as the work of scholars like Bart Ehrman and Paula Fredrikson, populists like Reza Aslan, the writings of the famous (or infamous) Jesus Seminar (and stars emerging from that constellation like John Crossan, Marcus Borg, Robert Funk, and John Spong), and the more radical writings of people like Richard Carrier and less-educated fellows on the "Jesus mythicist" fringe.
I believe Christians should look on their colossal effort to "plug the gap" as an act of kindness.
Opponents of the Christian faith are doing wonderful work for truth: they sift ancient writings over hundreds of years (Thomas Jefferson was already part of the game), turning every stone along the Sea of Galilee, sifting every play, drama, epic and farce out of Athens, tunneling under the pyramids of Egypt, knocking on the doors of forest mystics along the Ganges, climbing the Tibetan plateau, in the world's greatest scholarly manhunt. Our skeptical friends (atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Hindus, New Agers, nominal Christians) have been searching high and low for centuries, to locate their "missing man:" someone, anyone, who faintly resembles Jesus of Nazareth. Or, to put the matter another way, those who find the Jesus of the gospels both attractive and threatening would dearly like to find a genuine "Fifth Gospel." (A term that has been used for both the so-called "Gospel of Thomas" and for Fyodor Dostoevsky's masterpiece, The Brothers Karamazov). To summarize what I think is the true state of affairs, the actual results of this massive manhunt, let me begin autobiographically.
Then let's take a brief look at one of the most popular ancient comparisons to Jesus. I have argued in three books that this search for a credible analogy to Jesus of Nazareth has utterly failed. (Or, from the Christian perspective, succeeded wildly, by showing just how huge the gap is between Jesus and all those the world would compare to him). I first set this argument down in a book called Why the Jesus Seminar can't find Jesus, and Grandma Marshall Could. After detailing twelve fatal errors committed by Jesus Seminar fellows, I described 50 characteristics that define the gospels, and make them unique. (Having to do with setting, style and literary qualities, character, moral teachings, pedagogy, social qualities, and theology). I then analyzed some works that are often compared to the gospels, including the "Gospel" of Thomas and Apollonius of Tyana, and found that when analyzed objectively, at best these supposed "closest parallels" only resemble the real gospels on 6-9 out of 50 characteristics.
(The closest parallel I have found so far is The Analects of Confucius, which is our best source for the life of Confucius – though it lacks many of internal qualities that demonstrate the general historicity of the gospels). Later, for a Harvest House book called The Truth About Jesus and the "Lost Gospels" I analyzed all extant Gnostic "gospels." In doing that research, I found myself in for an even greater shock. It turned out that eminent scholars, having searched the ancient world high and low, offered up ancient "parallels" to the gospels that were as different from them in almost every meaningful way as a sea slug is from a falcon. "Great scholars" like Ehrman, Crossan, and Elaine Pagels had clearly fooled themselves, and their followers, to a monumental degree, seeing what just was not there, and missing what was. As C. S. Lewis memorably put it (so I quote roughly, from memory), "They claimed to see fern seed, and overlook an elephant standing fifty yards away in broad daylight." Finally, in a chapter of Faith Seeking Understanding called "The Fingerprints of Jesus," I focused on five qualities that the gospels share: his aphorisms or sayings, how he treated the weak, the cultural transcendence of his teachings, his revolutionary attitude towards women, and the particular character of his miracles. I made the case that like fingerprints, "These traits help the gospels grip the mind of the reader and mark them as unique.
They are not the sorts of things a disciple would add intentionally, or in some cases even could invent." This "forensic" argument for Jesus and the gospels is distinct from, but I think complements, traditional and more purely historical arguments. (Such as those made by Craig Blomberg in his excellent "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels"). In the gospels, I argue, we meet a unique person, a person whose personality has imprinted itself powerfully on the minds of those who recorded the strange and wonderful events that took place in Palestine. Skeptics OUGHT to easily find numerous real parallels to the gospels. Again and again they seem to have persuaded themselves that they have succeeded and found this unholy "holy grail." But all such parallels have turned out to be mirages, a room full of grails as fake as those in Indiana Jones. (But much more obvious!) Every such attempt collapses upon sober analysis, as Lewis again noticed decades before the Jesus Seminar was yet a twinkle in Robert Funk's eyes: “I have been reading poems, romances, vision literature, legends and myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this.” Space and time being limited, I cannot give a very full argument here. I will, therefore, focus briefly on one of the most popular alleged parallels: The Life of Apollonius of Tyana. Apollonius is mentioned again and again by skeptics who hold him up as proudly as a fourth-grader with a five-pound trout. About 300 AD, the Roman governor Hierocles already compared the "god-like" Apollonius favorably to Jesus in his Lover of Truth. Like Jesus, Apollonius was said to have done miracles and to be "divine." Harvard Jesus scholar Paula Fredriksen likewise wrote that Apollonius "had numerous miracles attributed to him: spectacular healings, exorcisms, even once raising someone from the dead," showing that Jesus' miracles were not "unprecedented or unique." Funk also advised us to compare stories about Jesus with "what was written about other teachers and charismatic figures of his time," placing Apollonius at the top of her list: "It is revealing to know that there are other stories of miraculous births, that other charismatic figures healed people of their afflictions and exorcised demons." In my debates with Robert Price and Richard Carrier, both similarly pointed to Apollonius as a strong parallel to the life of Jesus. Carrier said, "Now everything he says about the gospels is true of all kinds of faith literature in all religions . . . There are other examples that look more like the gospels, for example, the Book of Tobit. Or Plutarch's biography of Romulus. Or Philostratus' biography of Apollonius of Tyana.
There are a lot of these examples of faith literature that look more like the gospels. And if you wanted me to sit down and research and find the most similar example, I could. But it's not necessary. There's plenty of examples like this that have all the characteristics of the gospels . . . " This "gap" in the universe has thus, in their eyes, been completely filled. Until, that is, you take the time to actually read the Life of Apollonius, or any of these works. (The ones he gives here are quite ridiculous. Another, perhaps even more comical parallel Carrier gave elsewhere in the debate was The Golden Ass – the story of a man who accidentally bewitched himself and turned into a donkey until he ate some roses and turned back into a man). When one stops laughing, one has to shake one's head. The sober historian will begin by reminding skeptics that not only did Apollonius live after Jesus, his "life" was written up some 150 years after the gospels. In fact, it was written by one Philostratus, for the Empress Julia Domna, an early 3rd Century patroness of the arts and opponent of Christianity.
The story tells how a popular 1st Century philosopher journeyed (like Hercules) to exotic locales, from Africa to India. The author claimed to work from (among other sources) letters his subject wrote to kings and philosophers, and from the diary of his Boswell and most famous disciple, one Damis of Ninevah. (A city which, unfortunately, did not actually exist at the time of the diarist's alleged birth, however). As I reminded Dr. Price, if you want parallels to Jesus to show that Jesus is really not so special, it is best to find some that are credibly independent of the gospels. If Apollonius were at all like Jesus, if his "miracles" were at all like the ones worked in the gospels, one very plausible hypothesis would be that Philostratus prettied him up to match his competitor. (A common tactic in religious entrepreneurship). Given that the book was sponsored by an opponent of Christianity, this hypothesis seems even more credible. And Philostratus may indeed have intended that at times. But one need not stress this point too much, because if you read the two sets of writings, what cries out to the heavens, the "elephant" in the room, is that in fact, Apollonius is nothing at all like Jesus. Not even his miracles, ripped off as some likely were from the gospels, are much like those of Jesus. I found that in fact, Apollonius of Tyana only shared six of 50 characteristics with the gospels fairly strongly, three weakly. Most of what they shared was not very important to historicity: that like Jesus, Apollonius was a teacher, and used a Q&A format to teach, and that the book tells stories.
Let me briefly detail eight points of difference that are historically relevant:
1. The gospels were written within the plausible life-times of Jesus' first followers. Apollonius was written some 150 years after most the events it allegedly records. Such a gap is of deep significance to historicity.
2. Jesus carries out a remarkable, and unique, dialogue with the Hebrew tradition. He is Jewish from head to foot, steeped in the traditions and faith of his people. But he also challenges that tradition to the core, citing and fulfilling a plethora of prophecies and types and images from the ancient Hebrew world. One cannot do justice to this unique quality of the gospels, to which I know of no parallels, in a few words. Apollonius is not a dialogue with tradition, it is a monologue. In some ways a typical tourist, Apollonius floats dreamily across the world on a cushion of Greek arrogance. He is pleased to find his hosts in Babylon and India speak Greek. (This often happens in Greek novels, which center on lucky coincidences in far-away places). He visits all the sights, and takes the proper verbal snapshots, like backdrops to a James Bond flick. He is warmly welcomed by foreign priests, whom he instructs in superior (Greek, presumably) ritual. Why does this matter to those who want to know whether the gospels are telling the truth about Jesus or not?
Apollonius is the kind of work a moderately clever writer could produce from his veranda, in pajamas and slippers. The gospels are not: they record an earthshattering encounter with a unique historical person who challenged his beloved tradition to its core.
3. The gospel writers relate many details about places correctly. Dozens of facts have been confirmed independently from Luke's description in Acts of the Apostles, for instance. By contrast, Philostratus sends us a series of post-cards from prominent cities on the edges of the ancient world. He describes how the citizens of Tarsus congregate by the river "like so many waterfowl," a tunnel under the Euphrates River, and a city in India hidden by what Star Trek fans might call a cloaking device. His account of geography and customs bare a relation to reality so long as his guru sticks to ground trampled by Macedonian army boots. But when he ranges past the conquests of Alexander the Great, Damis proves an "errant story teller:" "His description of the country between the Hyphasis and the Ganges is utterly at variance with all known facts regarding it . . . Damis, in fact, tells nothing that is true about India except what has been told by writers before him." (JW MCrinkle, quoted in Phillimore, Apollonius of Tyana, preface) Apollonius also describes special Indian fauna: griffins, phoenix, apes that cultivate pepper trees, sluggish, 30 cubit marsh dragons, and lively alpine dragons: "there is not a single ridge without one."
4. The Gospel narrative is mostly understated, "Just the facts, Ma'am" in a style that contrasts sharply with the words of Christ. Everyone else is a straight man, not because the disciples lack personality, but by contrast to the unforgettable central figure. "Master, master, we are perishing." "Are you the one, or should we look for someone else?" This distinguishes the gospels from Job, Bhagavad Gita, Candide, or most ancient novels or plays, in which the animating genius appears not as a figure within the text, but the literary puppet-master who brings all characters to life. All the characters in Job, for example, speak with the same gusto, even God. But in the gospels, the "spice" comes from the words of Jesus, not from Mark or even (usually) John. This, too, reflects the fact that the gospel writers were talking about a real, memorable person, not merely telling pretty stories. But Philostratus is telling stories.
Apollonius contains much dialogue, in easy, colloquial tones, full of phrases like "But tell me," "By Zeus!" and the idiom of informal philosophical discourse: "So then . . . " "And what else could it be?" "We may rather consider this to be the case." The words of Apollonius do not much stand out from the text, in my opinion.
5. The gospels are full of realistic details, as even A. N. Wilson pointed out, when he was still a skeptic. It is often said that novelists can easily make up such details. But did they? Philostratus wants us to know his subject was remarkable, and tries to show this through the reaction of onlookers. At one point, Apollonius took a vow of silence. But when he entered a town in conflict, he shamed it into making peace by a gesture and the look on his face. Another time, the sages discussed how boiled eggs keep a child from alcoholism. "They were astonished at the many-sided wisdom of the company." It is hard to believe anyone was so impressed by such folklore, even in the 1st Century. One rare realistic touch comes when the sage talks to an Indian king through an interpreter. But this is spoiled by an earlier claim that he spoke all languages without studying. (As Eusebius already pointed out 1700 years ago). Besides crested dragons, spice-loving panthers (an addiction that proved their downfall), and 400 year-old elephants that shoot at enemies with their trunks, the hero's surprising fame in India, and his inane observations, which little justify that fame, allow the text to "work" for a modern audience only as a farce.
Imagine the following dialogue between Steve Martin as Apollonius, and Bill Murray as a customs official, who at first takes Apollonius for a spirit: Bill Murray: "Whence comes this visitation?" Steve Martin: "I come of myself, if possible to make men of you, in spite of yourselves! All the earth is mine, and I have a right to go all over it and through it." Murray: "I will torture you, if you don't answer my questions." Martin (baring teeth): "I hope that you will do it with your own hands, so that you may catch it well, if you touch a true man." Murray (batting eyes): "By the gods, who are you?" Martin (with a magnanimous flourish): "Since you have asked me civilly this time and not so rudely as before, listen . . . I am Apollonius of Tyana . . . I shall be glad to meet your king." Subdued, the official offers gold, which the sage refuses. Then he suggests a barbecue, but recalls with horror that Apollonius is a vegetarian. Finally he offers vegan hors d'ouvres -- unfortunately not organic: Murray: "You should have leavened bread and huge dates as yellow as amber. And I can offer you all the vegetables that grow in the garden of the Tigris." Martin: "Wild, natural vegetables are more tasty than the forced and artificial!" The unintended comedy of Philostratus' work makes me rather glad that skeptics often appeal to it as a parallel to the gospels: I would have missed the fun of reading this unconsciously silly book otherwise. One wonders, though, how so many brilliant, highlyeducated skeptics can seriously claim Apollonius as some sort of parallel to Jesus. They are none so blind.
6. Jesus noticed and cared about individuals. Where the disciples noticed a "Samaritan" "woman," Jesus saw a hurting individual with a history of failed relationships who hungered for God. He often noticed individuals – a lady who had endured much from doctors, a woman about to be stoned, a man of faith, Zaccheus the Short – where others saw members of a class – tax collector, blind beggar, guide. Jesus possessed a quality rare in the healing profession, of looking a patient in the eye. With the sick, too, he saw not just a condition to attend, but a mother or brother or friend.
If we possessed divine healing powers, would we think to ask a blind beggar who called on us, "What do you want?" Jesus did not dispense medicine to a procession of charity cases: he met and cared for human beings. Richard Carrier claimed that "Apollonius of Tyana notices individuals," as Jesus does. In fact, the disciples of Apollonius seem a nebulous lot. In his early days, the sage gathered seven, of whom nothing is said, apart from this parting shot when the philosopher set off for India: "I have taken council of the gods, and I have told you of my resolve . .. Since you are so soft, fare you well, and be true to your studies. I must go my way where Science and a higher Power guide me." But Apollonius' servants are forced to accompany him. Damius, whom he meets later in Ninevah, is probably no more than a rhetorical device. He serves two rhetorical purposes: to chronicle his master's adventures, and as foil to allow Philostratus to comment on sights along the way. When needed, extras appear, like the servants. They are just props. When confronted by two men with rival claims to buried gold, Apollonius judges their claims from universal principles: "I cannot believe that the gods would deprive the one even of this land, unless he was a bad man, or that they would, on the other hand, bestow on the other even what was under the land, unless he was better than the man who sold it." With pompous disinterest in real people like that, no wonder Apollonius became a wandering sage. So no, Apollonius does not really notice individuals – he's too busy preening and offering "wisdom." As for that alleged wisdom:
7. Jesus' teachings were surprising, shocking, paradoxical, and challenging. They were always original and surprising in form or context. G. K. Chesterton explained:
"A man reading the gospel sayings would not find platitudes. If he had read even in the most respectful spirit the majority of ancient philosophers and of modern moralists, he would appreciate the unique importance of saying that he did not find platitudes. It is more than can be said of Plato. It is much more than can be said of Epictetus or Seneca or Marcus Aurelius or Apollonius of Tyana.
And it is immeasurably more than can be said of most of the agnostic moralists and preachers of the ethical societies; with their songs of service and their religion of brotherhood." The gospels startle a reader by "strange claims that might sound like the claim to be the brother of the sun and moon," "startling pieces of advice," "stunning rebukes," and "strangely beautiful stories." An objective reader: "Would see some very gigantesque figures of speech about the impossibility of threading a needle with a camel or the possibility of throwing a mountain into the sea. He would see a number of very daring simplifications of the difficulties of life; like the advice to shine upon everybody indifferently as does the sunshine or not to worry about the future any more than the birds. He would find on the other hand some passages of almost impenetrable darkness, so far as he was concerned, such as the moral of the parable of the Unjust Servant. Some of these things might strike him as fables and some as truths; but none as truisms." By contrast, Apollonius of Tyana is choked with platitudes: "Is there any form of consumption so wasting as (falling in love)?" "Blessed are you then in your treasure, if you rate your friends more highly than gold and silver." Apollonius says little that is unique, and is often simplistic, making raids into the inane. But Philostratus is supposed to be one of the more clever writers of his time. Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John (according to our skeptics) are all anonymous writers, except maybe for Luke. Even on the traditional account, Jesus' disciples were a motley and mostly low-class crew. So why do the sayings of Jesus shine so much brighter than those of the "great sage," as transcribed by a "leading writer?" (And why do his words stand out from everyone else in the gospels?) The simplest explanation is clearly the best: the words of Jesus truly do trace to one unique genius, and represent a genuine, early memory of the actual teachings of our Lord.
8. But what about miracles? Isn't Apollonius proof that the miracles of Jesus were nothing special? Actually, I think such claims are proof, again, that some of our skeptical friends need to visit the eye doctor. The uber skeptic, Morton Smith, argued that miracles appear in the gospels because, indeed, Jesus did such things: "All major strands of the gospel material present Jesus as a miracle worker who attracted his followers by his miracles. All of them indicate that because of his miracles he was believed to be the Messiah and the son of a god. Anyone who wants to deny the truth of these reports must try to prove that within 40 to 60 years of Jesus' death all the preserved strands of Christian tradition had forgotten, or deliberately misrepresented, the most conspicuous characteristic of the public career of the founder of the movement." (Jesus the Magician: Charlatan or Son of God?, 4) Smith's own solution was to conflate "miracle" with "magic," which as I argue in Jesus and the Religions of Man, shows a failure in critical observation in itself. (Another way Smith dealt with Jesus was by inventing a saying of Mark to make Jesus look gay, probably as a gag). But this observation is accurate: Thomas Jefferson aside, one can't credibly take the miracles out of the gospels, anymore than one can de-bone a horse and still ride it. Glenn Miller has shown in a detailed summary that for two and a half centuries before the time of Jesus, miracle workers were essentially absent from the Roman world. ("Copy-Cat Savior" at ChristianThinktank.com). Skeptics like John Crossan often point to alleged parallels like Honi the CircleDrawer and Hanina ben Dosa, who strictly speaking, did no miracles at all. One prayed for rain, and rain came in a timely manner.
But even that was reported long after the fact, and after the writing of the gospels. The desperation on the part of those who would make Jesus less lonely, is palpable. It is stunning that such seem to be the closest parallels skeptics can find, after an epic canvassing of ancient records. The search for an historical person who parallels Jesus on these points – the character and fact of his miracles – should convince us not that miracle workers were common, but exceedingly rare. No one seems to have found any records in the ancient world that parallel the realism, piety, practicality, and historicity of the miracle stories of Jesus. So what about Apollonius' "miracles?" Philostratus begins his work by reminding us that a philosopher can dabble in magic without tainting his credibility, as he says Plato, Pythagoras, Socrates, and Anaxagoras all did. For the most part, he prefers to describe Apollonius as philosopher rather than magician. Occasionally, though, his hero disappears or foretells the future. The Hindu gurus also practice levitation, for which a metaphysical explanation is given. The secret to virtue is not magic, but "science." Often, when called on to cure people of an illness, Apollonius chose to rebuke them of sin, instead, and let them know they had what came to them, coming to them. Often this looks like blaming the victim. Anthropologist Rene Girard even used Apollonius as a case study of scape-goating. When the people of Ephesus asked the good sage to save them from a plague, he did so by having them stone a beggar to death. Beaten to a bloody pulp, the beggar's eyes glowed red, thus revealing him to be a demon. Girard reacted to this "horrible miracle" by noting, "Jesus is poles apart from Apollonius. Jesus doesn't instigate stonings; rather, he does all he can to prevent them." (Girard, I See Satan Fall Like Lightening, 54) Philostratus also raised a girl from apparent, but possibly misdiagnosed death. Even those at the scene "could not decide" whether or not she had been alive. So while Philostratus, writing long after the gospels and probably aware of them, claimed his sage did miracles, too, they were infrequent, and of a totally different character from those of Jesus. Parallels with Christ's miracles are therefore superficial, and this "proof text" is the exception that proves the rule. There simply are no serious parallels to Jesus in the ancient world, on this, as on many traits, or the sum total of those traits, even less. For two thousand years, skeptics have tried to find some parallel to the life of Jesus, so as to render it less unique, and, if possible, dismiss it as "just another tall tale." This attempt has utterly failed, revealing Jesus as unique indeed. Apollonius of Tyana is a dreadful choice as a parallel Christ. It is about someone whose career mostly occurred after the life of Jesus, was written up hundreds of years later, perhaps purposely in order to compete with or undermine Christianity. Yet even so, read these two sets of ancient writings, and no comparison could be more incongruous. No one could be less like Jesus than the cocky, banal, self-satisfied, inane, and ridiculous Apollonius, who has nothing much to say that has not been said better on Saturday Night Live. Why is that? Philostratus is supposed to the more cosmopolitan and clever writer. Something obviously much deeper and more remarkable is going on in the Gospels than mere literary cleverness. It says something about the gospels that so many skeptics have spent so much time looking for parallels, yet the best they can come up with is something like Apollonius of Tyana. Divine fingerprints rest upon the gospels, of a visitation to which no remote parallel has yet been found. ….
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7888615205986009768.post-13649075222131957962024-02-28T10:38:00.000-08:002024-02-28T10:38:28.256-08:00A Jewish tradition has Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ as Emperor Hadrian<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhe28c7eHQyGnxcMomd00B83Y87r5h9ZZsYEda_2KWPOBlB_Woy-pzHFXBqxegbeouprjuIBbyUdAKp9bFAwqPRJNiBJvZr14iW0HWw36wPhyphenhyphenLO1wfzchH1Uw1uhM-F8E2e2mScNyabrGHnmsIrjOGj0q4ZVBTBLzWbeHTgyiwaz3CseyvjInYuzUhB63A/s2138/m3htcqe9slc81.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="1465" data-original-width="2138" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhe28c7eHQyGnxcMomd00B83Y87r5h9ZZsYEda_2KWPOBlB_Woy-pzHFXBqxegbeouprjuIBbyUdAKp9bFAwqPRJNiBJvZr14iW0HWw36wPhyphenhyphenLO1wfzchH1Uw1uhM-F8E2e2mScNyabrGHnmsIrjOGj0q4ZVBTBLzWbeHTgyiwaz3CseyvjInYuzUhB63A/s600/m3htcqe9slc81.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
The tyrant in the rabbinic versions, however, is not Antiochus Epiphanes but Hadrian: “Hadrian came and seized upon a widow …” (S. Eliyahu Rab. 30)
This story bears remarkable parallels to that of the widow-martyr, Hannah, in 2 Maccabees, especially in my revised context according to which the Seleucid king Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’ was Hadrian:
Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Emperor Hadrian. Part One: “… a mirror image”
https://www.academia.edu/32734925/Antiochus_Epiphanes_and_Emperor_Hadrian._Part_One_a_mirror_image_
and:
Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Emperor Hadrian. Part Two: “Hadrian … a second Antiochus”
https://www.academia.edu/35538588/Antiochus_Epiphanes_and_Emperor_Hadrian._Part_Two_Hadrian_a_second_Antiochus_
For one, an “Antiochus” denounces the mother and her daughters to the emperor Hadrian.
In 2 Maccabees 7 it is Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ who tortures the victims, but who is named in Jewish legends, “Hadrian”.
In the Christian tale the mother has only daughters.
In the Maccabean account the mother has only sons.
St. Sophia is, as Hannah is (according to Jewish tradition), a widow.
In both tales the children remain composed even whilst being tortured.
In both tales the pious mother, who encourages her children, outlives them all, but soon dies (St. Sophia 3 days later).
Here is my account of the Jewish widow-martyr, according to my revised history, with the Herodian and Maccabean ages now contemporary, and Hannah tentatively suggested as the New Testament widow, Anna the prophetess:
Anna was a widow - and, appropriately, the woman-martyr in Maccabees has no husband with her but only sons. Soon we shall read that she was, according to rabbinic tradition, “a widow”.
And she was indeed very wise and prophetic, as would befit an Anna the prophetess.
Moreover, Anna had had the inestimable privilege of witnessing the future hope of Israel and she accordingly “gave thanks to God and spoke about the Child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem” (Luke 2:38).
If Anna were also the woman of Maccabees, then her experience of meeting the Holy Family would have greatly fortified her in her worthy task of urging her seven sons not to apostatise. Her hope had become their hope.
And so the youngest of the sons can hopefully proclaim to the king (2 Maccabees 7:32-35):
‘It is true that our living Lord is angry with us and is making us suffer because of our sins, in order to correct and discipline us. But this will last only a short while, for we are still his servants, and he will forgive us. But you are the cruelest and most disgusting thing that ever lived.
So don’t fool yourself with illusions of greatness while you punish God’s people. There is no way for you to escape punishment at the hands of the almighty and all-seeing God’.
The wise mother also manages to ‘shatter the theory of evolution’ with her ex nihilo remark (7:28):
‘God did not make them out of existing things’:
http://www.usccb.org/bible/2mc/7 “that is, all things were made solely by God’s omnipotent will and creative word; cf. Heb 11:3. This statement has often been taken as a basis for “creation out of nothing” (Latin creatio ex nihilo)”.
Hannah’s (Anna’s) martyrdom, along with her seven sons, I would estimate to have occurred very soon after the Presentation.
The Holy Family was now safe from “the king”, in Egypt.
Now, a traditional Jewish interpretation of this dramatic account of martyrdom may have great import for our revised Maccabean-Herodian history and for the ‘shaving off’ of Romans. My question has been: And who is Caesar Augustus?
… whilst Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ was the king present during the martyrdom of the woman and her seven sons, there are accounts in the Jewish Talmud and Midrash according to which the king in the story was “Caesar” (e.g. Talmud, Gittin 57b and Midrash Eicha Rabba 1:50). Even more shockingly (in standard historical terms) the cruel king overseeing the martyrdom is sometimes named “Hadrian”. Stephen D. Moore, in The Bible in Theory: Critical and Postcritical Essays, p. 196, when discussing the famous incident in the Maccabees of the mother and her seven martyred sons, adds this intriguing footnote (51) according to which Antiochus was replaced in rabbinic tradition by Hadrian:
Nameless in 4 Maccabees, the mother is dubbed … Hannah … in the rabbinic tradition …. The tyrant in the rabbinic versions, however, is not Antiochus Epiphanes but Hadrian: “Hadrian came and seized upon a widow …” (S. Eliyahu Rab. 30); “In the days of the shemad [the Hadrianic persecutions]…” (Pesiq. R. 43). ….
As said, this is ‘shocking’ in a conventional context which would have Antiochus (c. 170 BC) separated in time from the reign of the emperor Hadrian (c. 117-138 AD) by some three centuries. But it accords perfectly with the descriptions of Hadrian as “a second Antiochus” and “a mirror-image of Antiochus”.
[End of quote]
Now, here is the story of the Christian saint and her daughters - all so marvellously named:
https://oca.org/saints/lives/2012/09/17/102641-martyr-love-with-her-mother-and-sisters-at-rome
Martyr Love with her mother and sisters at Rome
The Holy Martyrs Saint Sophia and her Daughters Faith, Hope and Love were born in Italy. Their mother was a pious Christian widow who named her daughters for the three Christian virtues. Faith was twelve, Hope was ten, and Love was nine. Saint Sophia raised them in the love of the Lord Jesus Christ. Saint Sophia and her daughters did not hide their faith in Christ, but openly confessed it before everyone.
An official named Antiochus denounced them to the emperor Hadrian … who ordered that they be brought to Rome.
Realizing that they would be taken before the emperor, the holy virgins prayed fervently to the Lord Jesus Christ, asking that He give them the strength not to fear torture and death. When the holy virgins and their mother came before the emperor, everyone present was amazed at their composure. They looked as though they had been brought to some happy festival, rather than to torture. Summoning each of the sisters in turn, Hadrian urged them to offer sacrifice to the goddess Artemis. The young girls remained unyielding.
Then the emperor ordered them to be tortured. They burned the holy virgins over an iron grating, then threw them into a red-hot oven, and finally into a cauldron with boiling tar, but the Lord preserved them.
The youngest child, Love, was tied to a wheel and they beat her with rods until her body was covered all over with bloody welts. After undergoing unspeakable torments, the holy virgins glorified their Heavenly Bridegroom and remained steadfast in the Faith.
They subjected Saint Sophia to another grievous torture: the mother was forced to watch the suffering of her daughters. She displayed adamant courage, and urged her daughters to endure their torments for the sake of the Heavenly Bridegroom. All three maidens were beheaded, and joyfully bent their necks beneath the sword.
In order to intensify Saint Sophia’s inner suffering, the emperor permitted her to take the bodies of her daughters. She placed their remains in coffins and loaded them on a wagon. She drove beyond the city limits and reverently buried them on a high hill. Saint Sophia sat there by the graves of her daughters for three days, and finally she gave up her soul to the Lord. Even though she did not suffer for Christ in the flesh, she was not deprived of a martyr’s crown. Instead, she suffered in her heart. Believers buried her body there beside her daughters. ….
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7888615205986009768.post-10334687741868868902024-02-26T15:09:00.000-08:002024-02-26T15:09:46.837-08:00Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’ and Julian ‘the Apostate’<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMQSAH0hRGmkhlynAPpJqDRbqM_MBxpUgloGZfpHY9tITrKDayBe6u4axypyk9fUsJX5ddDtucUiFp6w_7e1GCdKqTr811kxBXSSYqFPLmh4Y2yo47apZRQ19jD8vqw6Orbgg8vnpQv7aOeKw6hylwfEXZZ-0HJpGSY5Jz3iGLeJjDe1q_Jm3ewdU-S_I/s512/unnamed.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="600" data-original-height="512" data-original-width="477" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMQSAH0hRGmkhlynAPpJqDRbqM_MBxpUgloGZfpHY9tITrKDayBe6u4axypyk9fUsJX5ddDtucUiFp6w_7e1GCdKqTr811kxBXSSYqFPLmh4Y2yo47apZRQ19jD8vqw6Orbgg8vnpQv7aOeKw6hylwfEXZZ-0HJpGSY5Jz3iGLeJjDe1q_Jm3ewdU-S_I/s600/unnamed.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
“Antiochus Epiphanes thought nothing was more certain than that he would annihilate the Jewish nation. Julian the Apostate convinced himself that it was already in his power to uproot the Christian religion”.
Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.)
This is a quote from the book, Psalms 1-72 (p. 14).
If Julian ‘the Apostate’ bears comparison, at least to some extent, with the emperor Hadrian:
Hadrian and Julian the Apostate
(4) Hadrian and Julian the Apostate | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
“… Julian … and Hadrian were both 'full of zeal for idolatry', 'superstitious […] astrologers wanting to know everything, so constantly inquisitive as to be accused of magic'.”
then I might expect, also, some useful comparisons of this Julian with emperor Hadrian’s alter ego, king Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’, as according to my series:
Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Emperor Hadrian. Part One: “… a mirror image”
https://www.academia.edu/32734925/Antiochus_Epiphanes_and_Emperor_Hadrian._Part_One_a_mirror_image_
and:
Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Emperor Hadrian. Part Two: “Hadrian … a second Antiochus”
https://www.academia.edu/35538588/Antiochus_Epiphanes_and_Emperor_Hadrian._Part_Two_Hadrian_a_second_Antiochus_
Collin Garbarino talks about “an appropriation of the past” - {appropriation being a word I have been much inclined to use for when I consider pagans to have borrowed from the Hebrew scriptures but claimed the material as their own} - by Christian writers of the Maccabean period (“Resurrecting the martyrs: the role of the Cult of the Saints, A.D. 370-430”, 2010).
Though, according to my radical revision of the Maccabees in relation to the Herodian era, the Maccabean martyrs at the time of Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’ fall right into the period of the Infancy of Jesus Christ.
See also my article:
Hadrianic patterns of martyrdom
(7) Hadrianic patterns of martyrdom | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Garbarino writes (emphasis added):
https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2348&context=gradschool_dissertations
This appropriation of the past could even reach back farther than the time of Christ [sic]. During this expansion of the cult of martyrs in the fourth century, bishops began venerating the Maccabeans who died in the Seleucid persecutions of the 160s BC. The various books of Maccabees describe the deaths of faithful Jews at the hands of Seleucid oppressors because of their refusal to abandon the Torah.
These stories contain many of the same elements that later characterized Christian martyrologies: trials designed to cause apostasy, tortures and promises given by the magistrate, and a confession of continued faith in God. In light of these commonalities, it is surprising that Christian communities did not adopt these Jewish saints earlier. The earliest extant evidence of Christians honoring the Maccabean martyrs is Gregory of Nazianzus’s Homily 15, On the Maccabees. …. Gregory probably preached this sermon in 362, during the reign of Julian the Apostate. …. He used the Maccabean situation to criticize in a veiled manner the anti-Christian policies of the emperor. In the sermon, he explicitly says that very few Christian communities honor these martyrs because their deaths predated Christ.
…. Gregory, however, found their cult useful for promoting Christianization, and this sermon acts as a turning point for the Maccabees. Martha Vinson writes, “Before this sermon, the Maccabees are merely faces in a crowd of Old Testament exempla ... while after it, as the homiletic literature from the last decades from the fourth century attests, they have been singled out from the pack as the sole beneficiaries not only of encomia but of a well-established cult.” …. By the year 400, the Maccabees were being honored as Christian martyrs by preachers around the Mediterranean.
[End of quote]
Barry Phillips will write in a footnote (p. 129, n. 19) to his article “Antiochus IV, Epiphanes” (Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 29, No. 2, 1910):
Dan. 11 st: " And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate." Cf. 8 12 9 27 12 11, 1 Macc. 1 54, 2 Macc. 6 2. Hoffman, Antiochus Epiphanes, p. 80, essays to compare Antiochus and Julian. In so far as the ideas of both were out of harmony with the spirit of the times, there is an apparent similarity between the persecutions of Antiochus and of Julian, far less, however, than the dissimilarity, owing to the fact that whereas Julian sought the extinction of Christianity as an end, Antiochus sought the extinction of Judaism but as a means to an end.
Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Julian ‘the Apostate’ are similarly likened to the Antichrist.
For instance, Stephen J. Vicchio tells of Cardinal Newman’s view in Vicchio’s The Legend of the Anti-Christ: A History, p. 314): “Newman goes on in the first advent sermon on the Anti-Christ to argue that some of these historical figures have been Antiochus IV Epiphanes and Julian, “who attempted to overthrow the Church by craft and introduce paganism back again …”.
We shall conclude, still on an antichrist type, the “666” of Revelation, with Reginald Rabett’s comment (in GLateinos@; Lateinos; or, The only proper and appellative name of the man, p. 138):
For example — If we were to speak of the Emperor JULIAN who is proverbially and emphatically styled THE APOSTATE, yet it would be necessary to use the Name - Julian - because it is the Proper Name of this Man; for were we to omit his Name, no one would of a certainty conclude that Julian the Apostate was meant; but probably Antiochus Epiphanès might be intended ....
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7888615205986009768.post-68254327104392848852024-02-26T14:35:00.000-08:002024-02-26T14:35:21.056-08:00Hadrian and Julian the Apostate<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRcoQ-QXcAak_nIrH27G8TH_2IxoQKYNqhs1LdTTK-rPgYJLRl2Afp6GtdNWK7dARIb3B-Zrnd83EkMrBqFoFgCyCd_aqhYWBpYKZKxSCjWZjBrldDZxjYpl4vevJx4mQxqHwJfeU7ryg5o1ZAPppjMIJxxxUKttEzoPHp1ylTkWD1WcroIRCMW9D2QHw/s1280/maxresdefault.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRcoQ-QXcAak_nIrH27G8TH_2IxoQKYNqhs1LdTTK-rPgYJLRl2Afp6GtdNWK7dARIb3B-Zrnd83EkMrBqFoFgCyCd_aqhYWBpYKZKxSCjWZjBrldDZxjYpl4vevJx4mQxqHwJfeU7ryg5o1ZAPppjMIJxxxUKttEzoPHp1ylTkWD1WcroIRCMW9D2QHw/s600/maxresdefault.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
“… Julian … and Hadrian were both 'full of zeal for idolatry',
'superstitious […] astrologers wanting to know everything,
so constantly inquisitive as to be accused of magic'.”
Emperor and Author
Some comparisons follow between Hadrian, his reign conventionally dated to c. 117-138 AD - but I have re-dated him to the Maccabean era:
Time to consider Hadrian, that ‘mirror-image’ of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus
(4) Time to consider Hadrian, that 'mirror-image' of Antiochus 'Epiphanes', as also the census emperor Augustus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
- and Julian ‘the Apostate’, his reign conventionally dated to c. 361-363 AD.
From Emperor and Author: The Writings of Julian 'the Apostate', p. 307 (edited by Nicholas J. Baker-Brian, Shaun Tougher):
What [Jean-Philippe-Rene de] La Bletterie says of Julian as Caesars' author differs markedly from his earlier characterization of him as emperor at the start of his 1735 biography; there, he represents Julian as as a ruler driven by 'an uncontrolled passion for glory' – one who pursued his policies with 'a kind of fanaticism', and who was not free of 'the faults which [his] amour propre perceive[d] only in others'. ….
Just what La Bletterie was thinking of, on that last count, can be inferred from his note on the passage in Caesars in which Hadrian is teased as a star-gazer who was forever prying into ineffable mysteries (311d). La Bletterie was prompted to remark that much the same could be said of Julian: he and Hadrian were both 'full of zeal for idolatry', 'superstitious […] astrologers wanting to know everything, so constantly inquisitive as to be accused of magic'. And the likeness did not end there: Julian, assuredly, 'did not have the infamous [homosexual] vices of Hadrian […], but he had almost all his [other] faults and absurdities'; both of them were ‘fickle, obstinate, and vain of soul’….
Moreover, at one point in his comparison of Julian with Hadrian, La Bletterie entertains a possibility which would imply a very hostile view indeed of Julian: 'they both passed very wise laws and performed many merciful actions; but Hadrian seemed cruel sometimes, and some say that [“l'on dit que”] Julian was only humane out of vanity'. ….
[End of quote]
We read at:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?660191-Julian-the-Apostate-the-most-fascinating-quot-what-if-quot-in-late-Roman-history
“Julian is often compared in character to Marcus Aurelius and Hadrian, indeed he is very much a blend of the two. He combines Hadrian's philhellenism with Marcus Aurelius' Stoicism, scholasticism, and militaristic determination”.
From Ammianus Marcellinus, p. 309, by Gavin Kelly:
“Ammianus …. rejects the comparison chosen by Valentinian's partisans to Aurelian .... He compares him to Hadrian in his depreciation of the well-dressed, the learned, the wealthy, the noble, the brave, 'so that he alone should appear to excel in fine abilities' (ut solus uideretur bonis artibus eminere, 30.8.10); Julian too had been compared to Hadrian in one of his faults .... His tendency towards timorousness is described …”.
From Emperors and Historiography: Collected Essays on the Literature of the Roman ..., p. 315, by Daniel den Hengst:
“… divination was practiced in an uncontrolled and lawless way affectata varietate, that is to say with overzealous efforts to practice all forms of divinatio. In the necrology Ammianus compares Julian to Hadrian in this respect. By doing so he harks back again to his description of Julian in Antioch, where Julian is characterized in this context as multorum curiosior. …. In this case, Julian may have been plagued by curiositas, but he shared this vice with a great predecessor [sic]. ….
Hellenistically inclined
Julian “the Apostate”
“… it is … worth looking at Julian’s political platform, as it is fundamentally intertwined with his program of religious reform. Susanna Elm (2012) summarizes his efforts into three primary categories: “logoi, hiera, and
the polis—Greek language and culture, its gods and all things sacred,
and the city as the physical locus of Greek culture, government and religion”— and each would be amended by refocusing Roman culture
around classical paideia …”.
Adrian Scaife
Like Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’
“Antiochus Epiphanes thought nothing was more certain than that he would annihilate the Jewish nation. Julian the Apostate convinced himself that it was already in his power to uproot the Christian religion”.
Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.)
The above is a quote from the book, Psalms 1-72 (p. 14).
If Julian ‘the Apostate’ bears comparison, at least to some extent, with the emperor Hadrian
“… Julian … and Hadrian were both 'full of zeal for idolatry', 'superstitious […] astrologers wanting to know everything, so constantly inquisitive as to be accused of magic'.”
then I might expect, also, some useful comparisons of Julian with Hadrian’s alter ego, king Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes, as according to my series:
Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Emperor Hadrian. Part One: “… a mirror image”
https://www.academia.edu/32734925/Antiochus_Epiphanes_and_Emperor_Hadrian._Part_One_a_mirror_image_
Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Emperor Hadrian. Part Two: “Hadrian … a second Antiochus”
https://www.academia.edu/35538588/Antiochus_Epiphanes_and_Emperor_Hadrian._Part_Two_Hadrian_a_second_Antiochus_
Collin Garbarino talks about “an appropriation of the past” - {appropriation being a word I have been much inclined to use for when I consider pagans to have borrowed from the Hebrew scriptures but claimed the material as their own} - by Christian writers of the Maccabean period (“Resurrecting the martyrs: the role of the Cult of the Saints, A.D. 370-430”, 2010).
Though, according to my radical revision of the Maccabees in relation to the Herodian era, the Maccabean martyrs at the time of Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’ fall right into the period of the Infancy of Jesus Christ.
Garbarino writes (emphasis added):
https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2348&context=gradschool_dissertations
This appropriation of the past could even reach back farther than the time of Christ [sic]. During this expansion of the cult of martyrs in the fourth century, bishops began venerating the Maccabeans who died in the Seleucid persecutions of the 160s BC.
The various books of Maccabees describe the deaths of faithful Jews at the hands of Seleucid oppressors because of their refusal to abandon the Torah. These stories contain many of the same elements that later characterized Christian martyrologies: trials designed to cause apostasy, tortures and promises given by the magistrate, and a confession of continued faith in God. In light of these commonalities, it is surprising that Christian communities did not adopt these Jewish saints earlier. The earliest extant evidence of Christians honoring the Maccabean martyrs is Gregory of Nazianzus’s Homily 15, On the Maccabees. …. Gregory probably preached this sermon in 362, during the reign of Julian the Apostate. ….
He used the Maccabean situation to criticize in a veiled manner the anti-Christian policies of the emperor. In the sermon, he explicitly says that very few Christian communities honor these martyrs because their deaths predated Christ. …. Gregory, however, found their cult useful for promoting Christianization, and this sermon acts as a turning point for the Maccabees. Martha Vinson writes,
“Before this sermon, the Maccabees are merely faces in a crowd of Old Testament exempla ... while after it, as the homiletic literature from the last decades from the fourth century attests, they have been singled out from the pack as the sole beneficiaries not only of encomia but of a well-established cult.” …. By the year 400, the Maccabees were being honored as Christian martyrs by preachers around the Mediterranean.
[End of quote]
Barry Phillips will write in a footnote (p. 129, n. 19) to his article “Antiochus IV, Epiphanes” (Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 29, No. 2, 1910):
Dan. 11 st: " And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate." Cf. 8 12 9 27 12 11, 1 Macc. 1 54, 2 Macc. 6 2. Hoffman, Antiochus Epiphanes, p. 80, essays to compare Antiochus and Julian. In so far as the ideas of both were out of harmony with the spirit of the times, there is an apparent similarity between the persecutions of Antiochus and of Julian, far less, however, than the dissimilarity, owing to the fact that whereas Julian sought the extinction of Christianity as an end, Antiochus sought the extinction of Judaism but as a means to an end.
Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Julian ‘the Apostate’ are similarly likened to the Antichrist.
For instance, Stephen J. Vicchio tells of Cardinal Newman’s view in Vicchio’s The Legend of the Anti-Christ: A History, p. 314): “Newman goes on in the first advent sermon on the Anti-Christ to argue that some of these historical figures have been Antiochus IV Epiphanes and Julian, “who attempted to overthrow the Church by craft and introduce paganism back again …”.
We shall conclude, still on an antichrist type, the “666” of Revelation, with Reginald Rabett’s comment (in GLateinos@; Lateino, p. 138):
For example — If we were to speak of the Emperor JULIAN who is proverbially and emphatically styled THE APOSTATE, yet it would be necessary to use the Name - Julian - because it is the Proper Name of this Man; for were we to omit his Name, no one would of a certainty conclude that Julian the Apostate was meant; but probably Antiochus Epiphanès might be intended ....
Like Herod ‘the Great’
“Julian is also compared with Herod, as wise men
whose behaviour is not particularly wise:
"Yet is it not all kinde of learning or wisedome which is availeable for the
true happinesse of a King or Kingdome (as may appeare in the miserable ends
of Herod, and Iulian the Apostate, both in their kindes wise and learned) but wise behavior in a perfect way, that is, Wisdom mixed with Piety, guided by Religion, and sanctified with Grace".”
Hakewill 50
On some particular likenesses between Julian and Herod, Manolis Papoutsakis has written (Vicarious Kingship: A Theme in Syriac Political Theology in Late Antiquity):
Accordingly, Julian is identified with Herod the Great a “foreigner” and, by implication (cf. Deut 17:15), a “usurper” of the Judahite throne: Herod's disruption of the legitimate line of kings resulted in the adventus of Christ, who came in order to reclaim His Judahite inheritance, that is, the Royal Office (malkutá). In his verses against Julian, Ephrem elaborates upon the Julian/Herod comparison by forcefully reading 2 Thess 2:3 into the cluster consisting of Gen 49:10 a-b and Matthew 2. As a result, Julian, a “Herodian” king who disrupted the dynasty of Constantine, the new David”, is appositely presented as a θεομάχος and is implicitly identified with the Antichrist-figure par excellence, namely, the Apostate at 2 Thess 2:3 ….
In GREGORY NAZIANZEN'S FIRST INVECTIVE AGAINST JULIAN THE EMPEROR, we read: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/gregory_nazianzen_2_oration4.htm
“Thou persecutor next |39 to Herod, thou traitor next to Judas, except so far as not ending thy life with, a halter, as he did;47 thou murderer of Christ next to Pilate; thou hater of God next to the Jews!”
In Jacobus de Voragine’s The Golden Legend: Lives of the Saints, we read this comment regarding Julian and a Herod (this time, though, not ‘the Great’, but Herod Antipas):
“Then Julian the apostate commanded that [John the Baptist’s] bones should be burnt. …. And like as Herod which beheaded him was punished for his trespass, so Julian the apostate was smitten with divine vengeance of God …”.
Julian has been likened, in his death, to “Herod”, to “Antiochus”:
https://www.lostplays.org/lpd/Julian_the_Apostate
Robert Albott reports that "Iulian the Apostate, at his death cast vp his blood into the ayre, crying Vicisti Galilaee" (3) …. This reluctant acknowledgement that Christianity was to become the dominant religion of the Roman empire is a point frequently related in references to Julian. Henry Burton notes: "And as Iulian the Apostate, pulling the mortall dart out of his bowels, though therein he saw and felt the hand of Divine revenge, yet he vttered his confession thereof with the voyce of blasphemy, Vicisti Galilaee: and so breathed out his blasphemous spirit in a desperat impenitency" (74). Stephen Jerome similarly observes how "as you haue heard the godly praying, or praysing and blessing GOD, speaking graciously, sending out their spirits ioyfully, and dying comfortably:
so prophane men dye eyther carelesly and blockishly," and relates that Julian the Apostate "in his last act of life, from his infected lungs sent out venome against Christ, calling him in dirision, victorious Galilean" (67-68). He also provides some early modern context for how Julian was perceived, citing "the examples of … Herod … Antiochus ….
Adrian Scaife writes (“Julian the Apostle: The Emperor who “Brought Piety as it Were Back from Exile”.”, pp. 113, 118-119):
…. it is still worth looking at Julian’s political platform, as it is fundamentally intertwined with his program of religious reform. Susanna Elm (2012) summarizes his efforts into three primary categories: “logoi, hiera, and the polis—Greek language and culture, its gods and all things sacred, and the city as the physical locus of Greek culture, government and religion”— and each would be amended by refocusing Roman culture around classical paideia (5).
….
The allegories also contributed to a growing theurgical framework in Julian’s new paganism whereby the adherent could create a spiritual connection with the divine (a process that began in To the Cynic Heracleius), imitating the most humanistic aspect of the Christian faith (Athanassiadi 2015, 136). Once again the shadow of Christianity looms: Julian drew from the established practices of a Greek philosophical movement to produce a religious handbook of sorts that offered spiritual advice by way of allegories—a result openly reminiscent of Christian scripture/scriptural interpretation. Meanwhile, the Hymn to King Helios pulled explicitly from Mithraism in anointing the sun-god as the central divine force. But Julian managed to incorporate the traditional pantheon of gods, too, by assigning each of the Hellenic gods an aspect of the larger Mithraic figurehead. In one typical fusion, Julian writes, “Among the intellectual gods, Helios and Zeus have a joint or rather a single sovereignty” (Hymn to King Helios, 136A-B). He continues through the pantheon one-by-one, drawing from the inspiration of Plato, Homer, Hesiod, and others to assign the various parts of the whole that is Helios: Aphrodite accounts for Helios’ creative function; Athena embodies pure intellect; and so on (Hymn to King Helios, 138A ff). The unity of the various traditional gods into the “One” can be seen as a reflection of the Christian model Julian’s uncle first established, but it also embodies the central tenet of Neoplatonism (Athanassiadi 2015, 160). In that sense, Julian simultaneously achieved a complex synthesis of a theurgical Mithraism, the Platonic form, and traditional Hellenic mythology. The emperor’s religious program, responding to unique obstacles of Late Antiquity, accounted for the diverse local mythical legacies that were so important to civic identity and established a divinity embodying the shared Romanitas of a united Hellenic empire. ….
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7888615205986009768.post-53885656671507913772024-02-26T11:59:00.000-08:002024-02-26T11:59:20.268-08:00Diocletian repeating Augustus?<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZGOUcTSX1n0sm8Gxqk5NTcCGj5dzbDcfTTyN_igD6l1wT6HtWJZ6dVOzxUjhUkcDL0n4f4p16WR3U4MMGvVCQASSj6yDl2a0kOK92SJZA42ukYRZJH4vGt_usA3BcdNQCS0Jb-J45jidqWP1bN9cRBxeM25gOQP0airVWoW_87bdBKSLDDix7PnPjaLo/s1040/diocletian.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="520" data-original-width="1040" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZGOUcTSX1n0sm8Gxqk5NTcCGj5dzbDcfTTyN_igD6l1wT6HtWJZ6dVOzxUjhUkcDL0n4f4p16WR3U4MMGvVCQASSj6yDl2a0kOK92SJZA42ukYRZJH4vGt_usA3BcdNQCS0Jb-J45jidqWP1bN9cRBxeM25gOQP0airVWoW_87bdBKSLDDix7PnPjaLo/s600/diocletian.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
“The purpose of the Roman empire’s subdivision by Diocletian and his tetrarchy was to permanently end the civil wars that had been raging since 88 BC (Marius [died 86 BC] against Sulla [died 78 BC]). This transformation from
a more central to a more decentralized administration did not take place 300 years after these massive internal conflicts, but during the time that Augustus was
still emperor. Diocletian did not organize decentralization to weaken Rome,
but to protect the capital. Diocletian was not an imitator of Augustus's reforms.
He was directly responsible for their implementation”.
Gunnar Heinsohn
More on the historical revision of antiquity by professor Gunnar Heinsohn (RIP):
https://q-mag.org/rome-and-jerusalem-a-stratigraphy-based-chronology-of-the-ancient-world.html
Rome and Jerusalem - a stratigraphy-based chronology of the Ancient World
Professor Heinsohn’s parallels between Augustus and Diocletian I find to be most interesting, indeed, presuming that they are accurate.
So far I have not thoroughly checked all of them:
https://www.q-mag.org/gunnar-heinsohn-augustus-and-diocletian-contemporaries-or-three-centuries-apart.html
Gunnar Heinsohn (15 June 2019)
AUGUSTUS AND DIOCLETIAN: CONTEMPORARIES OR 300 YEARS APART?
This all becomes especially intriguing for me in light of my article of somewhat similar parallelism between Augustus and Hadrian:
Hadrian a reincarnation of Augustus
https://www.academia.edu/43238752/Hadrian_a_reincarnation_of_Augustus
To recall a few examples of what I wrote there:
When reading through Anthony Everitt’s 392-page book, Hadrian and the Triumph of Rome (Random House, NY, 2009), I was struck by the constant flow of similarities between Hadrian and Augustus - which the author himself does nothing to hide.
Here are some of them:
Pp. 190-191:
Ten years into his reign, Hadrian announced to the world that, speaking symbolically, he was a reincarnation of Augustus.
P. x:
… Augustus, whom Hadrian greatly admired and emulated.
P. 145:
Flatterers said that [Hadrian’s] eyes were languishing, bright, piercing and full of light”. …. One may suspect that this was exactly what Hadrian liked to hear (just as his revered Augustus prided himself on his clear, bright eyes).
P. 190:
… the true hero among his predecessors was Augustus.
For the image on Hadrian’s signet ring to have been that of the first princeps was an elegantly simple way of acknowledging indebtedness …. Later, he asked the Senate for permission to hang an ornamental shield, preferably of silver, in Augustus’ honor in the Senate.
P. 191:
What was it that Hadrian valued so highly in his predecessor? Not least the conduct of his daily life. Augustus lived with conscious simplicity and so far as he could avoided open displays of his preeminence.
P. 192:
Both Augustus and Hadrian made a point of being civiles principes, polite autocrats.
….
Whenever Augustus was present, he took care to give his entire attention to the gladiatorial displays, animal hunts, and the rest of the bloodthirsty rigmarole. Hadrian followed suit.
….
Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus
“Diocletian's goal was to wipe out the Church. He hunted down Christians
and their Scriptures. He especially loved to get hold of church leaders”.
Christian History for Everyman
The career of Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus (formerly Diocles) (c. 300 AD, conventional dating), follows a pattern remarkably similar to that of the Seleucid tyrant king, Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’. This pattern can partly be perceived from the following comparison of Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Diocletian, as provided at: https://housetohouse.com/the-indestructible-word-2/
….
When Antiochus Epiphanes became ruler in Syria in 175 b.c. [sic] he destroyed the Jewish temple, sold the people of Jerusalem into slavery, and sought to do away with their sacred writings, forcing Greek culture upon the Jews. This was all done in an effort to substitute Zeus worship for the worship of God. Frank E. Hirsch in, “Abomination of Desolation,” wrote, “The observance of all Jewish laws, especially those relating to the sabbath and to circumcision, were forbidden under pain of death.
The Jewish cult was set aside; in all the cities of Judaea, sacrifices must be brought to the pagan deities. Representatives of the crown everywhere enforced the edict. Once a month the search was instituted, and whoever had secreted a copy of the law or had observed the rite of circumcision was condemned to death.”
However, God saw to it that efforts to destroy the sacred writings of the Old Testament failed.
Roman emperor Diocletian decreed death for any person who owned the Bible. After two years he boasted, “I have completely exterminated the Christian writings from the face of the earth.” In fact, he is said to have erected a monument over the ashes of burned Bibles. However, when Constantine came to the throne and desired copies of the Bible, offering a reward to anyone who could deliver one, within twenty-five hours fifty copies of God’s word were offered to the emperor.
Voltaire was a notorious French infidel. In 1778, he boasted that within one hundred years the Bible would be no more. Later, the very press that printed the blasphemous prediction was used to print Bibles, and the house in which he lived was used by the Geneva Bible Society to store Bibles and as a distribution center.
Bob Ingersoll, an American agnostic, once held a Bible up and boasted. “In fifteen years I will have this book in the morgue.” Within fifteen years, Ingersoll was in the morgue; however, the word of God lives on. —Wendell Winkler
Regarding the ‘Great Persecution’ of Diocletian – most reminiscent of that of king Antiochus – we read at: https://www.christian-history.org/diocletian.html
Diocletian and the Great Persecution
I won't spent a lot of time on the details of Diocletian and his Great Persecution. We have a higher goal than the details.
The Great Persecution, from A.D. 303 to 311, was a time of sudden transition and massive change in the history of Christianity. It's the change and what caused it that we want to focus on.
To do so, I want to rename the Great Persecution and give you my unique (but historically accurate) perspective.
Let's call it ...
The Great Judo Throw
I took judo for several years as a child. Even though I was very small, I was pretty good at it. In Judo, you don't have to be stronger than your opponent. Instead, you make your opponent's strength work for you.
I must have had a good teacher because I remember lots of surprise on the faces of larger kids as they crashed to the ground.
There's a secret to getting your opponent to help you throw him.
You push really hard. Your opponent automatically pushes back.
When they push, you pull and rotate into a throw. It's amazing how far their momentum will carry them.
The Push: Diocletian Persecutes the Church
Though it's popular to believe that Christians were always being persecuted in the Roman empire, it's not true.
Empire-wide persecutions were rare, and the Great Persecution under Diocletian was the only one of any great length, lasting eight years.
The "Great" Persecution?
It is argued that the Great Persecution was hardly great. It was possibly sporadic in the west and occasional in the east. Constantius and Maximian, co-emperors in the west, were not interested in it.
However, there is no doubt about the effects. At least the leaders of the churches were very affected, and many showed up at the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325) bearing scars from the persecution.
It was intense. Diocletian's goal was to wipe out the Church. He hunted down Christians and their Scriptures. He especially loved to get hold of church leaders.
Note: Diocletian retired in 305 (the only Roman emperor ever to voluntarily retire), and the persecution was carried on the east by Galerius. Constantius (then Constantine) and Maximian (then Maxentius) in the west had little interest in the persecution.
Mackey’s comment: But see my article on Constantine:
Constantine ‘the Great’ and Judas Maccabeus
(4) Constantine ‘the Great’ and Judas Maccabeus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
The article continues:
He was trying to turn them back to paganism, to the old Roman religion with the emperor as a God. Therefore, anyone he caught and tried could be released by offering a sacrifice to the gods or to the emperor.
They could also gain great favor by turning over copies of the Scriptures to be burned.
In addition, Diocletian destroyed their church buildings. This was something that couldn't be done earlier, as Christians rarely had devoted meeting places in the 2nd century. It was too easy to see them destroyed or taken over. While empire-wide persecutions were rare, local persecutions at the whim of a governer or prelate were not.
It was a horrible, difficult time for Christians (at least for the leaders). Many Christians fell away, and many others were tortured, thrown in a dungeon, or put to death. ….
The following piece, by Rev. Adrian Dieleman, appropriately lumps together, as ‘Antichrist’ types, Antiochus, Herod and Diocletian:
http://www.trinityurcvisalia.com/OTSer/dan11.html
….
Antiochus, however, will not be completely successful in his campaign against the "holy covenant." Daniel reminds and assures us that "the people who know their God will firmly resist him." Those, in other words, who live for the Lord, who walk with Him, who read His Word, who spend time in prayer, who faithfully attend worship, have the tools they need to fight off the attacks of the evil one. As I said before, those who put on the armor of God will be able to take their stand against him.
Daniel's message is that God will always preserve for Himself a church; no matter how hard the Antichrist tries, he will never succeed in total destroying the "holy covenant."
Of course, he won't be the first to discover this. Pharaoh discovered the church can't be wiped out. Jezebel and Ahab and Herod found that out too.
The emperor Diocletian set up a stone pillar on which was inscribed these words: For Having Exterminated The Name Christian From the Earth. If he could see that monument today, how embarrassed he would be!
Another Roman leader made a coffin, symbolizing his intention "to bury the Galilean" by killing His followers. He soon learned that he could not "put the Master in it". He finally surrendered his heart to the Savior, realizing that the corporate body of Christ and its living Head, the Lord Jesus, cannot be destroyed.
Like Antiochus Epiphanes, the Antichrist will attack the "holy covenant." Though his attacks are directed against the church, the real object of his attacks is God. Says Daniel, (Dan 11:36) "The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard-of things against the God of gods.
He would love to defeat God and sit on God's throne as King of heaven and earth. But since he cannot do that, he decides instead to establish his throne on earth and pretends that he is God. Daniel says he has no regard for any god, "but will exalt himself above them all" (vs 37).
http://www.korcula.net/history/mmarelic/diocletian.htm
“Diocletian's retirement, an act of self-denial, which in its intentions and results, recalled the abdication of Sulla, threw the constitution back into the melting pot. Diocletian's great palace and his luxurious baths were dedicated in 305-306 A.D [sic]”.
Did Diocletian, too, die the same disgusting, wormy death as did Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, as did Sulla, as did Herod ‘the Great’, as did Galerius?
He was not supposed to have died well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletian#Retirement_and_death
“Deep in despair and illness, Diocletian may have committed suicide. He died on 3 December 312”.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7888615205986009768.post-22570231121406704862024-02-25T20:30:00.000-08:002024-02-25T20:30:08.188-08:00Henry VIII’s palaces missing<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgi7Cw42hbIrvffXw9DJuXOeOQl4j3FeaLgYtVqMc84koTProqjlK8xOgwolJCz0QALHN1qWbP9LD51pwHYuhDKuxwRF0sXdoYldc2xelIsNUm0ujcOCMQ41KEY50qLlIlluJPseHb7xjtqJlSA4V-3uh2KqpBx-UDzHp3TcL666ChczlR4SOGuJoMja6A/s492/eb03862bc578fb0e9c3f0dad5e14412e.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="600" data-original-height="492" data-original-width="450" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgi7Cw42hbIrvffXw9DJuXOeOQl4j3FeaLgYtVqMc84koTProqjlK8xOgwolJCz0QALHN1qWbP9LD51pwHYuhDKuxwRF0sXdoYldc2xelIsNUm0ujcOCMQ41KEY50qLlIlluJPseHb7xjtqJlSA4V-3uh2KqpBx-UDzHp3TcL666ChczlR4SOGuJoMja6A/s600/eb03862bc578fb0e9c3f0dad5e14412e.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
“After the execution of Charles I it did not take long for the commonwealth to strip the palace of everything of worth, right down to the stone from which it was built, for profit and to destroy a symbol of the monarchy they had come to hate”.
Marcus Goringe
An article intriguingly entitled, The Lost Palaces of Henry VIII (2023), will examine a presumed ten palaces of the king:
https://tudorplaces.com/issues/lost-palaces#:~:text=The%20ten%20palaces%20featured%20in,Oatlands%20Palace%20and%20Nonsuch%20Palace.
Overview
This special issue of Tudor Places magazine features in-depth articles on ten of the palaces which Henry VIII built or acquired. The great halls of Eltham and Hatfield remain, providing a taste of the former size and splendour of those palaces, but of the others there are only tantalising hints; in gatehouses, sections of walls, remnants of cellars and street names, in foundations and traces of masonry, and in paintings, sketches, letters, accounts and ambassadors’ reports.
Each article includes information on the site, layout and decoration of the palace, and the momentous events that occurred there. We explore what of the palace can still be seen on site, or elsewhere, and how to visit, along with a list of books and articles for further reading.
The ten palaces featured in this special issue are: Eltham Palace, Richmond Palace, Greenwich Palace, Bridewell Palace, Hatfield Old Palaces, Suffolk Place, Whitehall Palace, Chelsea Manor, Oatlands Palace and Nonsuch Palace. ….
And Marcus Goringe, “a lifelong resident of Richmond”, as he says, wrote this account of the demise of Richmond Palace (2016):
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/richmond-lost-palace/
….
The end of the palace
….
We come now to the greatest tragedy to fall on the most beautiful of palaces: Oliver Cromwell. After the execution of Charles I it did not take long for the commonwealth to strip the palace of everything of worth, right down to the stone from which it was built, for profit and to destroy a symbol of the monarchy they had come to hate.
This was the straw that broke the camel’s back for Richmond. A small manor house was built but the palace never recovered. What was left fell into disrepair and the ruins were never rebuilt.
As time went on and the lands fell back into the hands of the crown, no one seemed to want to waste the money on rebuilding the palace. Instead, the crown eventually started letting out the grounds to bring in revenue.
By the early 18th century the land had been split into many new houses; the largest of these were the Trumpeters house and Asgil house, which together claimed most of the front of the land facing the Thames and still survive to this day. ….
[End of quote]
“What was left fell into disrepair and the ruins were never rebuilt”.
It is suspicious when a whole range of old buildings just goes missing.
And that appears to have been the case with Tudor architecture.
But that may not be the essence of the Tudor problem, for, as I wrote in my article:
Chewing over the House of Tudor
(8) Chewing over the House of Tudor | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
I'm Henry the eighth I am
Henry the eighth I am, I am
I got married to the widow next door
She's been married seven times before
And every one was an Henery (Henry)
She wouldn't have a Willy or a Sam (no Sam)
I'm her eighth old man, I'm Henry
Henry the eighth I am.
Herman’s Hermits
Talk about parallel lives!
Herod Antipas and Henry VIII. John the Baptist and Bishop John Fisher.
This is astutely picked up by Thomas McGovern, in his article for Catholic Culture.org, “Bishop John Fisher: Defender of the Faith and Pastor of Souls”
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7604
Adultery is worth dying for
Henry replied to the legates, in answer to the bishop, in a manner which clearly showed how resentful he was at the bishop's protest, particularly that he was ready to suffer like St. John the Baptist, as it naturally suggested a comparison between Henry and Herod Antipas.
However, the martyrdom of St. John had long been a familiar subject of contemplation to Fisher, as is clear from his treatise (1525) in defense of Henry's book against Luther — the "Defensio." "One consideration," Fisher writes, "that greatly affects me to believe in the sacrament of marriage is the martyrdom of St. John the Baptist, who suffered death for his reproof of the violation of marriage. There were many crimes in appearance more grevious for rebuking which he might have suffered, but there was none more fitting than the crime of adultery to be the cause of the blood-shedding of the Friend of the Bridegroom, since the violation of marriage is no little insult to Him who is called the Bridegroom."…. Bridgett draws the striking parallel between the fate of the Baptist and John Fisher: "At that time (1525) no thought of divorce had as yet, in all probability, entered the mind of Henry; Anne Boleyn, Fisher's Herodias, was then unknown. But the circumstances of Fisher's death bear so close a resemblance to those of the Baptist's, that it is strange even Henry did not observe and seek to avoid it. Both were cast into prison and left there to linger at the will of a tyrant; both were beheaded, and both by the revenge of impure women. But what Herod did reluctantly, Henry did with cruel deliberation."….
[End of quote]
Perhaps the received Tudor history needs to subjected to a more intense scrutiny. According to Oxford University historian, Dr. Cliff Davies, the very term “Tudor” is highly problematical. We read about this, for instance, at: http://www.bbc.com/news/education-18240901
‘Tudor era’ is misleading myth, says Oxford historian
By Sean Coughlan
BBC News education correspondent
29 May 2012
From the section Education & Family
The idea of a "Tudor era" in history is a misleading invention, claims an Oxford University historian.
Cliff Davies says his research shows the term "Tudor" was barely ever used during the time of Tudor monarchs.
….
Dr Davies says films and period dramas have reinforced the "myth" that people thought of themselves as living under a "Tudor" monarchy.
"The term is so convenient," says Dr Davies, of Wadham College and the university's history faculty. But he says it is fundamentally "erroneous".
Missing name
During the reigns of Tudor monarchs - from Henry VII to Elizabeth I - he said there was no contemporary recognition of any common thread or even any recognition of the term "Tudor". ….
[End of quote]
As already said: It is suspicious when a whole range of old buildings just goes missing.
I wrote about this strange phenomenon in the Introduction to my article:
Original Baghdad was Jerusalem
(9) Original Baghdad was Jerusalem | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
as follows:
Introduction
When an important ancient personage, or location, apparently leaves virtually no visible or recoverable trace, or none at all, my inclination is to search for an alter ego (or more) for that person, or a revised geography for that location.
In some cases, an important ancient character is lacking any depictions or statuary:
More ‘camera shy’ ancient potentates
(6) More 'camera shy' ancient potentates | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Or it might be, as in the case of Old Kingdom Egypt, some missing architecture:
Missing old Egyptian tombs and temples
(6) Missing old Egyptian tombs and temples | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
The famed capital city of Akkad (Agade) is just completely missing:
My road to Akkad
(6) My road to Akkad | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
and its related kingdom of Akkad is missing an appropriate archaeology:
Akkadian dynasty famous but archaeologically impoverished, Ur III dynasty, un-heralded but lavishly documented
(4) Akkadian dynasty famous but archaeologically impoverished, Ur III dynasty, un-heralded but lavishly documented | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
See also somewhat similarly to this:
Medo-Persian history has no adequate archaeology
(4) Medo-Persian history has no adequate archaeology | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
And one may find various other similar examples and configurations.
It is all enough to remind one of what G. K. Chesterton once so famously remarked about evolution:
“All we know of the Missing Link is that he is missing –
and he won't be missed either.”
Was there Anysuch Palace as Nonsuch?
“Sadly, there is no trace of the original building left today”.
In Historic Mysteries we read:
https://www.historicmysteries.com/history/nonsuch-palace/25312/
….
What Happened to the Palace?
However it seems that the palace was too grand a design to be realized for Henry. Despite the amount of money that it cost; the palace was still incomplete when the king died in 1547. It was sold in 1556 by his daughter Mary I.
….
Some of the materials and elements were incorporated into other buildings. The wood paneling is located and still can be seen today at the Great Hall in Losely Park. Sadly, there is no trace of the original building left today.
The British Museum holds some pieces that can be seen, and you can still see the land on which the old church used to be before it was demolished. It seems that Nonsuch was too large and too expensive to maintain for anyone apart from royalty, and so for the price of a few debts it was lost forever. ….
The plot thickens???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=FCf-o3Qhl2Y
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7888615205986009768.post-9000243690420018932024-02-25T10:34:00.000-08:002024-02-25T10:34:57.541-08:00Judith’s fame continued to spread<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiR9129fAR1DPLkSG9TJuUau9zoQU4ARvBjW31eDMLkU95MfkZUE6jrw2AhGRqWfGHW2uh4mUjklPbfQgaz9A4mSgNoFYGOrlVd2mva89hm1vBUc-D4ARTB2WLcveU-8oZ7QqgV2TQMQ_R8UWZFKGzIy0F1Kr9axuS5KVTOC3VoMqpUqF8Vco1xlm6WHw/s298/images.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="169" data-original-width="298" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiR9129fAR1DPLkSG9TJuUau9zoQU4ARvBjW31eDMLkU95MfkZUE6jrw2AhGRqWfGHW2uh4mUjklPbfQgaz9A4mSgNoFYGOrlVd2mva89hm1vBUc-D4ARTB2WLcveU-8oZ7QqgV2TQMQ_R8UWZFKGzIy0F1Kr9axuS5KVTOC3VoMqpUqF8Vco1xlm6WHw/s600/images.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
“Her fame continued to spread, and she lived in the house her husband had
left her. Before she died, Judith divided her property among her husband’s
and her own close relatives and set her slave woman free. When she died
in Bethulia at the age of 105, she was buried beside her husband,
and the people of Israel mourned her death for seven days.
As long as Judith lived, and for many years after her death,
no one dared to threaten the people of Israel”.
Judith 16:23-25
Introduction
Judith became immensely famous in the eyes of the people of Israel, for, as we read in Judith 16:23 that “her fame continued to spread”. Even before her heroic action in the camp of the Assyrians, we are told of this goodly woman that (Judith 8:7-8): “[Judith] lived among all her possessions without anyone finding a word to say against her, so devoutly did she fear God”.
Moreover she had, according to the elder, Uzziah, shown wisdom even from her youth (vv. 28-29):
“Uzziah replied, ‘Everything you have just said comes from an honest heart and no one will contradict a word of it. Not that today is the first time your wisdom has been displayed; from your earliest years all the people have known how shrewd you are and of how sound a heart’.”
Aside from the recognition of her renowned beauty, by
(i) the author (Judith 8:7; 10:4);
(ii) the elders of Bethulia (10:7);
(iii) the Assyrian unit and soldiery (10:14, 19);
(iv) Holofernes and his staff (10:23; 11:21, 23; 12:13, 16, 20), we learn that even the coarse Assyrians were impressed by her wisdom and eloquence (11:21, 23).
And Uzziah, after Judith’s triumph over Holofernes, proclaimed magnificently in her honour (Judith 13:18-20):
… ‘May you be blessed, my daughter, by God Most High, beyond all women on earth; and blessed be the Lord God, Creator of heaven and earth, who guided you to cut off the head of the leader of our enemies!
The trust which you have shown will not pass from human hearts, as they commemorate the power of God for evermore.
God grant you may be always held in honour and rewarded with blessings, since you did not consider your own life when our nation was brought to its knees, but warded off our ruin, walking in the right path before our God’.
And the people all said, 'Amen! Amen!'
And the stunned Achior, upon seeing the severed head of Holofernes, burst out with this exclamation of praise (Judith 14:7):
‘May you be blessed in all the tents of Judah and in every nation; those who hear your name will be seized with dread!’
Later, Joakim the high priest and the entire Council of Elders of Israel, who were in Jerusalem, came to see Judith and to congratulate her (Judith 15:9-10):
On coming to her house, they blessed her with one accord, saying: ‘You are the glory of Jerusalem! You are the great pride of Israel! You are the highest honour of our race! By doing all this with your own hand you have deserved well of Israel, and God has approved what you have done. May you be blessed by the Lord Almighty in all the days to come!’
And the people all said, 'Amen!'
‘Blessed by God Most High, beyond all women on earth’.
‘The glory of Jerusalem,
the great pride of Israel,
the highest honour of [her] race!’
What more could possibly be said!
From whence came this incredible flow of wisdom?
We may tend to recall the Judith of literature as being both beautiful and courageous - and certainly she could be most forthright as well, when occasion demanded it, somewhat like Joan of Arc (who was supposedly referred to, in her time, as ‘a second Judith’).
Yet, there is far more to it: mysticism.
T. Craven (Artistry and Faith in the Book of Judith), following J. Dancy’s view (Shorter Books of the Apocrypha) that the theology presented in Judith’s words to the Bethulian town officials rivals the theology of the Book of Job, will go on to make this interesting comment (pp. 88-89, n. 45.):
Judith plays out her whole story with the kind of faith described in the Prologue of Job (esp. 1:21 and 2:9). Her faith is like that of Job after his experience of God in the whirlwind (cf. 42:1-6), yet in the story she has no special theophanic experience. We can only imagine what happened on her housetop where she was habitually a woman of regular prayer.
[End of quote]
Although the women’s movement is quite recent, it has already provided some new insights and some radically different perspectives on Judith.
According to P. Montley (as referred to by C. Moore, The Anchor Bible. “Judith”, pp. 65):
… Judith is the archetypal androgyne. She is more than the Warrior Woman and the femme fatale, a combination of the soldier and the seductress …
…. Just as the brilliance of a cut diamond is the result of many different facets, so the striking appeal of the book of Judith results from its many facets. …
[End of quote]
M. Stocker will, in her comprehensive treatment of the Judith character and her actions (Judith Sexual Warrior, pp. 13-15), compare the heroine to, amongst others, the Old Testament’s Jael – a common comparison given that the woman, Jael, had driven a tent peg through the temple of Sisera, an enemy of Israel (Judges 4:17-22) – Joan of Arc, and Charlotte Corday, who had, during the French Revolution, slain the likewise unsuspecting Marat.
“If viewed negatively – from an irreligious perspective, for instance”, Stocker will go on to write, “Judith’s isolation, chastity, widowhood, childlessness, and murderousness would epitomize all that is morbid, nihilistic and abortive”.
Hardly the type of character to have been accorded ‘increasing fame’ amongst her people!
Craven again, with reference to J. Ruskin (‘Mornings in Florence’, p. 335), writes (p. 95): “Judith, the slayer of Holofernes; Jael, the slayer of Sisera; and Tomyris, the slayer of Cyrus are counted in art as the female “types” who prefigure the Virgin Mary’s triumph over Satan”.
Judith a Heroine of Israel
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The way that I see it, these early commentators had the will, if not the history/archaeology, to demonstrate the trustworthiness of the Judith story. Then, at about the time that the archaeology had become available, commentators no longer had the will.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What did the young Judith do to achieve her early fame?
Well, if the typical contemporary biblical commentators are to be believed, Judith did nothing in actual historical reality, for the famous story is merely a piece of pious fiction.
Here, for instance, is such a view from the Catholic News Agency [CNA]:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/bible/introduction-to-the-old-testament/judith/
Judith
….
Judith is often characterized as an early historical novel. Yet ironically, its content is unhistorical. The book begins by telling us that Nebuchadnezzer was the king of Assyria ruling in Ninevah. But Ninevah was destroyed seven years before Nebuchadnezzer became king. And he was king of Babylon, not Assyria. It would be similar to an author beginning a book, "In 1776, when Abraham Lincoln was the president of Canada..." The author of Judith clues us in that he is not telling a typical story. While the story is replete with proper names of places and people, many of them are not placed "correctly" and many of them are unknown from other sources.
The book of Judith is not trying to narrate an historical event nor is it presenting a regular historical novel with fictional characters in a "real" setting. Rather, Judith is iconic of all of Israel's struggles against surrounding nations. By the time of its writing, Israel had been dominated by the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians and the Greeks. The name "Judith" means "Jewess." The character of Judith is therefore representative of the whole nation of Israel. In an almost constant battle against the surrounding nations, the Israelites depended on the Lord for their survival and sustenance. Judith represents the best hopes and intentions of the Israelites-the vanquishing of the oppressors and the freedom of the land of Israel.
The general Holofernes, whom Judith assassinates, represents the worst of the oppressors. He is bringing 182,000 troops against a small city in a corner of Israel to force them to worship the head of foreign oppression: Nebuchadnezzer. The city is terribly outmatched, but Holofernes opts for a siege rather than a battle. When the people are at the point of despair because they have run out of water, Judith volunteers to try an unusual tactic. She leaves the city with her maid and gets close to Holofernes because of her beauty. She uses a series of tricks and half-truths to find Holofernes drunk and vulnerable. Then she beheads him with his own sword!
It is crucial to see the irony of the story and of Judith's words. For example, the Ammonite [sic] Achior who Holofernes rejected was supposed to share the cruel fate of the Israelites at the hand of the Assyrians, but he is saved with the Israelites instead (6:5-9). Judith uses the phrase "my lord" (Adonai in Heb.) several times, but it is unclear whether she is referring to Holofernes or to God. The great nation is defeated by a humble woman. The story is similar to the famous David and Goliath episode. The reader should look for ironic moments where a character's intentions or statements are fulfilled, but in the way that he or she would least expect.
The book of Judith is divided into basically two sections, ch. 1-7 and 8-16. The first seven chapters lay out the "historical" background and describe the political situation which led to Holofernes attack on Israel.
It is important to understand that the events are not historical, but they are full of details that one finds in a good novel. Achior plays a key role by narrating Israel's history and firmly believing in God's protection of his people (5). He eventually converts to Judaism after the Assyrians are defeated (14:10). The second half of the book (8-16) focuses on Judith herself and her heroic acts. Once the Assyrians discover Holofernes decapitated body, they flee in confusion and the Israelites rout them. Ch. 16 contains a hymn about Judith's deeds. ….
Judith is a book of the Bible that is meant to be enjoyed. By enjoying the story and the Lord's victory over the great nations through Judith, we can appreciate the paradoxical way God chooses to work on earth, using the weak to conquer the strong, the poor to outdo the rich.
[End of quote]
But this attribution of non-historicity to the Book of Judith was not the standard Catholic approach down through the centuries, until, say, the 1930’s. During that long period of time, Catholic scholars generally tended to regard the book as recording a real historical drama, whether or not their valiant efforts to demonstrate this were convincing.
The way that I see it, these early commentators had the will, if not the history/ archaeology, to demonstrate the trustworthiness of the Judith story. Then, at about the time that the archaeology had become available, commentators no longer had the will.
A combination of will and more scientific history/archaeology would make for a really nice change.
For, today it is very rare to find any who are prepared to argue for the full historicity of the Book of Judith.
I, in my university thesis, A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background (http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/5973), wrote regarding this situation (Preface, p. x):
I know of virtually no current historians who even consider the Book of Judith to be anything other than a ‘pious fiction’, or perhaps ‘historical fiction’, with the emphasis generally on the ‘fiction’ aspect of this. Thus I feel a strong empathy for the solitary Judith in the midst of those differently-minded Assyrians (Judith 10:11-13:10).
In that thesis I had argued (with respect to the book’s historical and geographical problems) for what I consider in retrospect to be the obvious scenario: that the Judith event pertains to the famous destruction of Sennacherib’s army of 185,000 Assyrians.
The heroine Judith initiated this victory for Israel by her slaying of the Assyrian commander-in-chief, which action then led to the rout and slaughter of the army in its panic-stricken flight.
For my up-dated version of this, see e.g. my article:
“Nadin” (Nadab) of Tobit is the “Holofernes” of Judith
http://www.academia.edu/36576110/_Nadin_Nadab_of_Tobit_is_the_Holofernes_of_Judith
This is the incident that had made Judith so famous throughout Israel in her youth – a fame that apparently only increased as she grew older.
But Judith, even more than being the most beautiful and courageous woman that she was, had already, at a young age, exhibited - as we have read - amazing wisdom and even sanctity.
Her wisdom (some might say cunning) was apparent from the way that she was able to beguile the Assyrians with her shrewd and bitingly ironic words.
Judith was so formidable and significant a woman and one would expect to find further traces of her in the course of her very long life.
She has a further significant biblical presence in the form of Huldah, teacher and expounder of the Torah:
Judith and Huldah
(2) Judith and Huldah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
I believe that Judith has, as well, been picked up in many literatures and mythologies of many nations.
Judith a Universal Heroine
Glimpses of Judith in BC Antiquity
Some ancient stories that can be only vaguely historical seem to recall the Judith incident. Two of these that I picked up in my thesis appear in the ‘Lindian Chronicle’ (dated 99 BC), relating to the Greco-Persian period, and in Homer’s classic epic tale, The Iliad.
The Lindian Chronicle
Thus I wrote in my thesis (op. cit., Volume Two, pp. 67-68):
Uzziah, confirming Judith’s high reputation, immediately recognized the truth of what she had just said (vv. 28-29), whilst adding the blatantly Aaronic excuse that ‘the people made us do it’ (v. 30, cf. Exodus 32:21-24): ‘But the people were so thirsty that they compelled us to do for them what we have promised, and made us take an oath that we cannot break’. Judith, now forced to work within the time-frame of those ‘five days’ that had been established against her will, then makes this bold pronouncement – again completely in the prophetic, or even ‘apocalyptic’, style of Joan of Arc (vv. 32-33):
Then Judith said to them, ‘Listen to me. I am about to do something that will go down through all generations to our descendants. Stand at the town gate tonight so that I may go out with my maid; and within the days after which you have promised to surrender the town to our enemies, the Lord will deliver Israel by my hand’.
A Note. This 5-day time frame, in connection with a siege - the very apex of the [Book of Judith] drama - may also have been appropriated into Greco-Persian folklore.
In the ‘Lindian Chronicle’ it is narrated that when Darius, King of Persia, tried to conquer the Island of Hellas, the people gathered in the stronghold of Lindus to withstand the attack. The citizens of the besieged city asked their leaders to surrender because of the hardships and sufferings brought by the water shortage (cf. Judith 7:20-28).
The Goddess Athena [read Judith] advised one of the leaders [read Uzziah] to continue to resist the attack; meanwhile she interceded with her father Jupiter [read God of Israel] on their behalf (cf. Judith 8:9-9:14). Thereupon, the citizens asked for a truce of 5 days (exactly as in Judith), after which, if no help arrived, they would surrender (cf. Judith 7:30-31). On the second day a heavy shower fell on the city so the people could have sufficient water (cf. 8:31, where Uzziah asks Judith to pray for rain). Datis [read Holofernes], the admiral of the Persian fleet [read commander-in-chief of the Assyrian army], having witnessed the particular intervention of the Goddess to protect the city, lifted the siege [rather, the siege was forcibly raised]. ….
[End of quote]
Apparently I am not the only one who has noticed the similarity between these two stories, for I now find this (http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/judith.html): “The Israeli scholar Y. M. Grintz has pointed out the parallels between the theme of the book [Judith] and an episode which took place during the siege of Lindus, on the island of Rhodes, but here again the comparison is extremely weak”.
Yes, the latter is probably just a “weak” appropriation of the original Hebrew account.
I have written a lot along these lines of Greek appropriating, e.g.:
Similarities to The Odyssey of the Books of Job and Tobit
http://www.academia.edu/8914220/Similarities_to_The_Odyssey_of_the_Books_of_Job_and_Tobit
Whereas the goddess Athena may have been substituted for Judith in the Lindian Chronicle, she substitutes for the angel Raphael in the Book of Tobit.
I made this comparison in “Similarities to The Odyssey”:
The ‘Divine’ Messenger
From whom the son, especially, receives help during his travels. In the Book of Tobit, this messenger is the angel Raphael (in the guise of ‘Azarias’).
In The Odyssey, it is the goddess Athene (in the guise of ‘Mentes’).
Likewise Poseidon (The Odyssey) substitutes for the demon, Asmodeus (in Tobit).
It may also be due to an ‘historical’ mix up that two of Judith’s Assyrian opponents came to acquire the apparently Persians name of, respectively, “Holofernes” and “Bagoas” (http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/judith.html): “Holofernes and Bagoas are to be identified with the two generals sent against Phoenicia, Palestine and Egypt by Artaxerxes III towards 350 [BC]. The names are certainly Persian, and are attested frequently …”.
Greco-Persian history is still awaiting a proper revision.
“The Iliad”
Earlier in my thesis (pp. 59-60) I had written in similar vein, of Greek appropriation, regarding the confrontation between the characters in the Book of Judith, “Holofernes” and “Achior”:
Achior had made an unexpected apologia on behalf of the Israelites. It had even come with this concluding warning to Holofernes (5:20, 21):
‘So now, my master and lord … if they are not a guilty nation, then let my lord pass them by; for their Lord and God will defend them, and we shall become the laughing-stock of the whole world’.
These words had absolutely stunned the soldiery who were by now all for tearing Achior ‘limb from limb’ (5:22). Holofernes, for his part, was enraged with his subordinate. Having succeeded in conquering almost the entire west, he was hardly about to countenance hearing that some obscure mountain folk might be able to offer him any meaningful resistance.
Holofernes then uttered the ironic words to Achior: ‘… you shall not see my face again from this day until I take revenge on this race that came out of Egypt’ (6:5); ironic because, the next time that Achior would see Holofernes’ face, it would be after Judith had beheaded him.
Holofernes thereupon commanded his orderlies to take the insolent Achior and bind him beneath the walls of Bethulia, so that he could suffer, with the people whom he had just verbally defended, their inevitable fate when the city fell to the Assyrians (v. 6).
After the Assyrian brigade had managed to secure Achior at Bethulia, and had then retreated from the walls under sling-fire from the townsfolk, the Bethulians went out to fetch him (6:10-13). Once safely inside the city Achior told them his story, and perhaps Judith was present to hear it. Later she would use bits and pieces of information supplied by Achior for her own confrontation with Holofernes, to deceive him.
[End of quote]
In a footnote (n. 1286) to this, I had proposed, in connection with The Iliad:
This fiery confrontation between the commander-in-chief, his subordinates and Achior would be, I suggest - following on from my earlier comments about Greco-Persian appropriations - where Homer got his idea for the main theme of The Iliad: namely the argument at the siege of Troy between Agamemnon, supreme commander of the Greeks, and the renowned Achilles (Achior?).
And further on, on p. 69, I drew a comparison between Judith and Helen of Troy of The Iliad:
The elders of Bethulia, “Uzziah, Chabris, and Charmis - who are here mentioned for the last time in the story as a threesome (10:6)” … - are stunned by Judith’s new appearance when they meet her at the town’s gate (vv. 7-8): “When they saw her transformed in appearance and dressed differently, they were very greatly astounded at her beauty and said to her, ‘May the God of our ancestors grant you favour and fulfil your plan …’.”…. Upon Judith’s request (command?), the elders “ordered the young men to open the gate for her” (v. 9). Then she and her maid went out of the town and headed for the camp of the Assyrians. “The men of the town watched her until she had gone down the mountain and passed through the valley, where they lost sight of her” (v. 10).
“Compare this scene”, I added in (n. 1316), “with that of Helen at the Skaian gates of Troy, greatly praised by Priam and the elders of the town for her beauty. The Iliad, Book 3, p. 45”.
See also my article:
Judith the Jewess and “Helen” the Hellene
(10) Judith the Jewess and " Helen " the Hellene | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
We recall that Craven had grouped together “Judith, the slayer of Holofernes; Jael, the slayer of Sisera; and Tomyris, the slayer of Cyrus …”.
Whilst Judith and Jael were two distinct heroines of Israel, living centuries apart, I think that Tomyris, the slayer of Cyrus must be - given the ancient variations about the death of Cyrus - a fictitious character. And her story has certain suspicious likenesses, again, to that of Judith.
Tomyris and Cyrus
I have added here a few comparisons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great#Death
Death …
The details of Cyrus's death vary by account. The account of Herodotus from his Histories provides the second-longest detail, in which Cyrus met his fate in a fierce battle with the Massagetae, a tribe from the southern deserts of Khwarezm and Kyzyl Kum in the southernmost portion of the steppe regions of modern-day Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, following the advice of Croesus to attack them in their own territory.[68] The Massagetae were related to the Scythians in their dress and mode of living; they fought on horseback and on foot. In order to acquire her realm, Cyrus first sent an offer of marriage to their ruler, Tomyris, a proposal she rejected.
Compare e.g.: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context
“Holofernes declares his intention of having sexual intercourse with Judith (12:12). Judith responds to his invitation to the banquet by saying “Who am I, to refuse my lord?”, clearly a double entendre! Holofernes, at the sight of Judith, is described as “ravished.” But he does not get any further with Judith than Cyrus would with Tomyris, for Judith, upon her return to the camp, will proclaim (13:15-16):
‘Here’, she said, ‘is the head of Holofernes, the general of the Assyrian army, and here is the mosquito net from his bed, where he lay in a drunken stupor. The Lord used a woman to kill him. As the Lord lives, I swear that Holofernes never touched me, although my beauty deceived him and brought him to his ruin. I was not defiled or disgraced; the Lord took care of me through it all’.
Wine will also play a vital part in the Cyrus legend, though in this case the defenders [i.e., the Massagetae - replacing the Israelites of the original story], rather than the invader, will be the ones affected by the strong drink:
[Cyrus] then commenced his attempt to take Massagetae territory by force, beginning by building bridges and towered war boats along his side of the river Jaxartes, or Syr Darya, which separated them. Sending him a warning to cease his encroachment in which she stated she expected he would disregard anyway, Tomyris challenged him to meet her forces in honorable warfare, inviting him to a location in her country a day's march from the river, where their two armies would formally engage each other. He accepted her offer, but, learning that the Massagetae were unfamiliar with wine and its intoxicating effects, he set up and then left camp with plenty of it behind, taking his best soldiers with him and leaving the least capable ones. The general of Tomyris's army, who was also her son Spargapises, and a third of the Massagetian troops killed the group Cyrus had left there and, finding the camp well stocked with food and the wine, unwittingly drank themselves into inebriation, diminishing their capability to defend themselves, when they were then overtaken by a surprise attack. They were successfully defeated, and, although he was taken prisoner, Spargapises committed suicide once he regained sobriety.
It is at this point that Tomyris will be stirred into action, more as a warrior queen than as a heroine using her womanly charm to deceive, but she will ultimately - just like Judith - swear vengeance and decapitate her chief opponent:
Upon learning of what had transpired, Tomyris denounced Cyrus's tactics as underhanded and swore vengeance, leading a second wave of troops into battle herself. Cyrus the Great was ultimately killed, and his forces suffered massive casualties in what Herodotus referred to as the fiercest battle of his career and the ancient world. When it was over, Tomyris ordered the body of Cyrus brought to her, then decapitated him and dipped his head in a vessel of blood in a symbolic gesture of revenge for his bloodlust and the death of her son.[68][69] However, some scholars question this version, mostly because Herodotus admits this event was one of many versions of Cyrus's death that he heard from a supposedly reliable source who told him no one was there to see the aftermath.[70]
Herodotus’s claim that this was “the fiercest battle of … the ancient world”, whilst probably not befitting the obscure Massagetae, is indeed a worthy description of the defeat and rout of Sennacherib’s massive army of almost 200,000 men.
But this was, as Herodotus had also noted, just “one of many versions of Cyrus's death”. And Wikipedia adds some variations on this account:
Dandamayev says maybe Persians took back Cyrus' body from the Massagetae, unlike what Herodotus claimed.[72]
Ctesias, in his Persica, has the longest account, which says Cyrus met his death while putting down resistance from the Derbices infantry, aided by other Scythian archers and cavalry, plus Indians and their elephants. According to him, this event took place northeast of the headwaters of the Syr Darya.[73] An alternative account from Xenophon's Cyropaedia contradicts the others, claiming that Cyrus died peaceably at his capital.[74] The final version of Cyrus's death comes from Berossus, who only reports that Cyrus met his death while warring against the Dahae archers northwest of the headwaters of the Syr Darya.[75]
[End of quote]
Scholars may be able to discern many more Judith-type stories in semi-legendary BC ‘history’.
Donald Spoto, in Joan. The Mysterious Life of the Heretic Who Became a Saint (Harper, 2007), has referred to the following supposed warrior-women, a re-evaluation of whom I think may be worth considering (p. 73):
The Greek poet Telesilla was famous for saving the city of Argos from attack by Spartan troops in the fifth century B.C. In first-century Britain, Queen Boudicca [Boadicea] led an uprising against the occupying Roman forces. In the third century Zenobia, Queen of Palmyra (latter-day Syria), declared her independence of the Roman Empire and seized Egypt and much of Asia Minor.
[End of quote]
But there are also a plethora of such female types in what is considered to be AD history.
Glimpses of Judith in (supposedly) AD Time
Before I go on to discuss some of these, I must point out - what I have mentioned before, here and there - a problem with AD time, especially its so-called ‘Dark Ages’ (c. 600-900 AD), akin to what revisionists have found to have occurred with the construction of BC time, especially its so-called ‘Dark Ages’ (c. 700-1200 BC). Whilst I intend to write much more about this in the future, I did broach the subject again in my article:
Mohammed, a composite of Old Testament figures, also based upon Jesus Christ
(10) Mohammed, a composite of Old Testament figures, also based upon Jesus Christ | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
and some of this will have a direct bearing upon Judith (see Axum and Gudit below).
But here is a different summary of attempts to expose the perceived problems pertaining to AD time, known as the “Phantom Time Hypothesis”, by a writer who is not sympathetic to it:
http://www.damninteresting.com/the-phantom-time-hypothesis/
by Alan Bellows
When Dr. Hans-Ulrich Niemitz introduces his paper on the “phantom time hypothesis,” he kindly asks his readers to be patient, benevolent, and open to radically new ideas, because his claims are highly unconventional. This is because his paper is suggesting three difficult-to-believe propositions: 1) Hundreds of years ago, our calendar was polluted with 297 years which never occurred; 2) this is not the year 2005, but rather 1708; and 3) The purveyors of this hypothesis are not crackpots.
The Phantom Time Hypothesis suggests that the early Middle Ages (614-911 A.D.) never happened, but were added to the calendar long ago either by accident, by misinterpretation of documents, or by deliberate falsification by calendar conspirators.
This would mean that all artifacts ascribed to those three centuries belong to other periods, and that all events thought to have occurred during that same period occurred at other times, or are outright fabrications. For instance, a man named Heribert Illig (pictured), one of the leading proponents of the theory, believes that Charlemagne was a fictional character. But what evidence is this outlandish theory based upon?
It seems that historians are plagued by a plethora of falsified documents from the Middle Ages, and such was the subject of an archaeological conference in München, Germany in 1986. In his lecture there, Horst Fuhrmann, president of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, described how some documents forged by the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages were created hundreds of years before their “great moments” arrived, after which they were embraced by medieval society. This implied that whomever produced the forgeries must have very skillfully anticipated the future… or there was some discrepancy in calculating dates.
This was reportedly the first bit of evidence that roused Illig’s curiosity… he wondered why the church would have forged documents hundreds of years before they would become useful. So he and his group examined other fakes from preceding centuries, and they “divined chronological distortions.” This led them to investigate the origin of the Gregorian calendar, which raised even more inconsistency.
In 1582, the Gregorian calendar we still use today was introduced by Pope Gregory XIII to replace the outdated Julian calendar which had been implemented in 45 BC. The Gregorian calendar was designed to correct for a ten-day discrepancy caused by the fact that the Julian year was 10.8 minutes too long. But by Heribert Illig’s math, the 1,627 years which had passed since the Julian calendar started should have accrued a thirteen-day discrepancy… a ten-day error would have only taken 1,257 years.
So Illig and his group went hunting for other gaps in history, and found a few… for example, a gap of building in Constantinople (558 AD – 908 AD) and a gap in the doctrine of faith, especially the gap in the evolution of theory and meaning of purgatory (600 AD until ca. 1100). From all of this data, they have become convinced that at some time, the calendar year was increased by 297 years without the corresponding passage of time. ….
[End of quote]
As with the pioneering efforts of Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky (Ages in Chaos) to reform BC time, some of this early work in AD revisionism may turn out to be extreme and far-fetched. But I would nevertheless agree with the claim by its proponents that the received AD history likewise stands in need of a massive renovation.
In my articles on Mohammed - {who, I am now convinced, was not an historical personage, but a composite of various biblical (pseudepigraphal) characters, and most notably (for at least the period from Birth to Marriage), was Tobias (= my Job), son of Tobit} - I drew attention to a very BC-like “Nehemiah”, thought to have been a contemporary of Mohammed.
Moreover, the major incident that is said to have occurred in the year of Mohammed’s birth, the invasion of Mecca by Abrahas the Axumite, I argued, was simply a reminiscence of Sennacherib’s invasion and defeat:
… an event that is said to have taken place in the very year that Mohammed was born, c. 570 AD, the invasion of Mecca by Abraha[s] of the kingdom of Axum [Aksum], has all the earmarks, I thought, of the disastrous campaign of Sennacherib of Assyria against Israel.
Not 570 AD, but closer to 700 BC!
Lacking to this Qur'anic account is the [Book of] Judith element that (I have argued in various places) was the catalyst for the defeat of the Assyrian army. ....
But, as I went on to say, the Judith element is available, still in the context of the kingdom of Axum - apparently a real AD kingdom, but one that seems to appropriate ancient Assyrian - in the possibly Jewish heroine, Gudit (var. Gwedit, Yodit, Judith), ostensibly of the mid- C10th AD.
Let us read some more about her.
Judith the Simeonite and Gudit the Semienite
Interesting that Judith the Simeonite has a Gideon (or Gedeon) in her ancestry (Judith 8:1): “[Judith] was the daughter of Merari, the granddaughter of Ox and the great-granddaughter of Joseph. Joseph’s ancestors were Oziel, Elkiah, Ananias, Gideon, Raphaim, Ahitub, Elijah, Hilkiah, Eliab, Nathanael, Salamiel, Sarasadai, and Israel”, and the Queen of Semien, Gudit (or Judith), was the daughter of a King Gideon.
That the latter, Gudit, is probably a fable, however, is suspected by the following writer: http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=314380
Bernard Lewis (1): The Jews of the Dark continent, 1980
The early history of the Jews of the Habashan highlands remains obscure, with their origins remaining more mythical than historical. In this they areas in other respects, they are the mirror image of their supposed Kin across the Red sea. For while copious external records of Byzantine, Persian, old Axumite and Arab sources exist of the large-scale conversion of Yemen to Judaism, and the survival of a large Jewish community at least until the 11th century, no such external records exist for the Jews of Habash, presently by far the numerically and politically dominant branch of this ancient people.
Their own legends insist that Judaism had reached the shores of Ethiopia at the time of the First temple. They further insist that Ethiopia had always been Jewish. In spite of the claims of Habashan nationalists, Byzantine, Persian and Arab sources all clearly indicate that the politically dominant religion of Axum was, for a period of at least six centuries Christianity and that the Tigray cryptochristian minority, far from turning apostate following contact with Portugese Jesuits in the 15th century is in fact the [remnant] of a period of Christian domination which lasted at least until the 10th century.
For the historian, when records fail, speculation must perforce fill the gap. Given our knowledge of the existence of both Jewish and Christian sects in the deserts of Western Arabia and Yemen it is not difficult to speculate that both may have reached the shores of Axum concurrently prior to the council of Nicaea and the de-judaization of heterodox sects. Possibly, they coexisted side by side for centuries without the baleful conflict which was the lot of both faiths in the Mediterannean. Indeed, it is possible that they were not even distinct faiths. We must recall that early Christians saw themselves as Jews and practiced all aspects of Jewish law and ritual for the first century of their existence. Neither did Judaism utterly disavow the Christians, rather viewing them much as later communities would view the Sabateans and other messianic movement. The advent While Paul of Tarsus changed the course of Christian evolution but failed to formally de-Judaize all streams of Christianity, with many surviving even after the council of Nicaea.
Might not Habash have offered a different model of coexistence, even after it’s purported conversion to Christianity in the 4th century? If it had, then what occurred? Did Christianity, cut off from contact with Constantinople following the rise of Islam, wither on the vine enabling a more grassroots based religion to assume dominance? While such a view is tempting, archaeological evidence pointing to the continued centrality of a Christian Axum as an administrative and economic center for several centuries following the purported relocation of the capital of the kingdom to Gonder indicates a darker possibility.
The most likely scenario, in my opinion, turns on our knowledge of the Yemenite- Axum-Byzantine conflict of the 6th century. This conflict was clearly seen as a religious, and indeed divinely sanctioned one by Emperor Kaleb, with certain of his in scriptures clearly indicating the a version of “replacement theology” had taken root in his court, forcing individuals and sects straddling both sides of the Christian-Jewish continuum to pick sides. Is it overly speculative to assume that those cleaving to Judaism within Axum would be subject to suspicion and persecution? It seems to me likely that the formation of an alternative capital by the shores of lake Tana, far from being an organized relocation of the imperial seat, was, in fact, an act of secession and flight by a numerically inferior and marginalized minority (2).
Read in this light, the fabled Saga of King Gideon and Queen Judith recapturing Axum from Muslim invaders and restoring the Zadokan dynasty in the 10th century must be viewed skeptically as an attempt to superimpose on the distant past a more contemporary enemy as part of the process of national myth making.
What truly occurred during this time of isolation can only be the guessed at but I would hazard an opinion that the Axum these legendary rulers “liberated” was held by Christians rather than Muslims. ….
[End of quote]
See also my series:
Judith the Simeonite and Judith the Semienite
(10) Judith the Simeonite and Judith the Semienite | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
and:
(10) Judith the Simeonite and Judith the Semienite. Part Two: So many Old Testament names! | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Judith and Joan of Arc
Perhaps the heroine with whom Judith of Bethulia is most often compared is the fascinating Joan [Jeanne] of Arc.
Donald Spoto again, in his life of Joan, has a chapter five on Joan of Arc that he entitles “The New Deborah”. And Joan has also been described as a “second Judith”.
Both Deborah and Judith were celebrated Old Testament women who had provided military assistance to Israel.
Spoto, having referred to those ancient pagan women (Telesilla, etc.), as already discussed, goes on to write (p. 74):
Joan was not the only woman in history to inspire and to give direction to soldiers. .... Africa had its rebel queen Gwedit, or Yodit, in the tenth century. In the seventh appeared Sikelgaita, a Lombard princess who frequently accompanied her husband, Robert, on his Byzantine military campaigns, in which she fought in full armor, rallying Robert’s troops when they were initially repulsed by the Byzantine army. In the twelfth century Eleanor of Aquitaine took part in the Second Crusade, and in the fourteenth century Joanna, Countess of Montfort, took up arms after her husband died in order to protect the rights of her son, the Duke of Brittany. She organized resistance and dressed in full armor, led a raid of knights that successfully destroyed one of the enemy’s rear camps.
Joan [of Arc] was not a queen, a princess, a noblewoman or a respected poet with public support. She went to her task at enormous physical risk of both her virginity and her life, and at considerable risk of a loss of both reputation and influence. The English, for example, constantly referred to her as the prostitute: to them, she must have been; otherwise, why would she travel with an army of men?
Yet Joan was undeterred by peril or slander, precisely because of her confidence that God was their captain and leader. She often said that if she had been unsure of that, she would not have risked such obvious danger but would have kept to her simple, rural life in Domrémy.
[End of quote]
I think that, based on the Gudit and Axum scenario[s], there is the real possibility that some of these above-mentioned heroines, or ancient amazons, can be identified with the famous Judith herself – she gradually being transformed from an heroic Old Testament woman into an armour-bearing warrior on horseback, sometimes even suffering capture, torture and death - whose celebrated beauty and/or siege victory I have argued on many occasions was picked up in non-Hebrew ‘history’, or mythologies: e.g. the legendary Helen of Troy is probably based on Judith, at least in relation to her beauty and a famous siege, rather than to any military noüs on Helen’s part.
In the name Iodit (Gwedit) above, the name Judith can be, I think, clearly recognised.
The wisdom-filled Judith might even have been the model, too, for the interesting and highly intelligent and philosophically-minded Hypatia of Alexandria.
Now I find in the Wikipedia article, “Catherine of Alexandria”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Alexandria
that the latter is also likened to Hypatia. Catherine is said to have lived 105 years (Judith’s very age: see Book of Judith 16:23) before Hypatia’s death. Historians such as Harold Thayler Davis believe that Catherine (‘the pure one’) may not have existed and that she was more an ideal exemplary figure than a historical one. She did certainly form an exemplary counterpart to the pagan philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria in the medieval mindset; and it has been suggested that she was invented specifically for that purpose. Like Hypatia, she is said to have been highly learned (in philosophy and theology), very beautiful, sexually pure, and to have been brutally murdered for publicly stating her beliefs.
Interestingly, St. Joan of Arc identified Catherine of Alexandria as one of the Saints who appeared to her and counselled her.
Who really existed, and who did not?
Judith of Bethulia might be the key to answering this question, and she may also provide us with a golden opportunity for embarking upon a revision of AD time.
For there are also many supposedly AD queens called “Judith”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Judith
Queen Judith may refer to at least some of these:
• Judith of Babenberg (c. late 1110s/1120 – after 1168), daughter of Leopold III, Margrave of Austria and Agnes of Germany, married William V, Marquess of Montferrat
• Judith of Bavaria (925 – June 29 soon after 985), daughter of Arnulf, Duke of Bavaria and Judith, married Henry I, Duke of Bavaria
• Judith of Bavaria (795-843) (805 - April 19 or 23, 843), daughter of Count of Welf and Hedwig, Duchess of Bavaria, became second wife of Louis the Pious
• Judith Premyslid (c. 1057–1086), daughter of Vratislaus II of Bohemia and Adelaide of Hungary, became second wife of Władysław I Herman
• Judith of Brittany (982 – 1017), daughter of Conan I of Rennes and Ermengarde of Anjou, Duchess of Brittany, married Richard II, Duke of Normandy
• Judith of Flanders (October 844 – 870), daughter of Charles the Bald and Ermentrude of Orléans, married Æthelwulf of Wessex
• Judith of Habsburg (1271 – May 21, 1297), daughter of Rudolph I of Germany and Gertrude of Hohenburg, married to Wenceslaus II of Bohemia
• Judith of Hungary (d.988), daughter of Géza of Hungary and Sarolt, married Bolesław I Chrobry
• Judith of Schweinfurt (before 1003 – 2 August 1058), daughter of Henry, Margrave of Nordgau and Gertrude, married Bretislaus I, Duke of Bohemia
• Judith of Swabia (1047/1054 – 1093/1095), daughter of Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor and Agnes of Poitou, married Władysław I Herman, successor to Judith of Bohemia
• Judith of Thuringia (c. 1135 - d. 9 September after 1174), daughter of Louis I, Landgrave of Thuringia and Hedwig of Gudensberg, married Vladislaus II of Bohemia
'Woe to the nations that rise up against my people!
The Lord Almighty will take vengeance on them in the day of judgment;
he will send fire and worms into their flesh;
they shall weep in pain forever'.
Judith 16:17
Judith of Bavaria
‘second Judith’ or ‘Jezebel’?
“The poems depict her as "a second biblical Judith, a Mary sister of Aaron in her musical abilities, a Saphho, a prophetess, cultivated, chaste, intelligent, pious, strong in spirit, and sweet in conversation”.
We read in my article:
Isabelle (is a belle) inevitably a Jezebel?
http://www.academia.edu/35191514/Isabelle_is_a_belle_inevitably_a_Jezebel
of a whole list of supposedly historical queens Isabelle (or variations of that name) who have been likened to the biblical Jezebel, or have been called ‘a second Jezebel’.
One of these queens was:
Isabella of Bavaria ‘like haughty Jezebel’
http://www.academia.edu/35177941/Isabella_of_Bavaria_like_haughty_Jezebel
Now the Bavarians do not fare too well, because apparently they also had a C9th AD queen Judith who was likened to Jezebel – though, alternately, to the pious Judith:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_of_Bavaria_(died_843)
Scandals: Contemporary criticisms of Judith’s role and behavior ….
However, the rise of Judith’s power, influence and activity in the court sparked resentment towards her. Agobard of Lyons, a supporter of Lothar, wrote two tracts Two Books in Favor of the Sons and against Judith the Wife of Louis in 833. These tracts were meant as propaganda against Judith from the court of Lothar in order to undermine her court and influence.
The tracts themselves attack her character, claiming her to be of a cunning and underhanded nature and of corrupting her husband. These attacks were predominantly anti-feminist in nature. When Louis still did not sever marital ties with Judith, Agobard claimed that Judith’s extramarital affairs were carried out "first secretly and later impudently".[4] Paschasius Radbertus accused Judith by associating her with the engagement in debauchery and witchcraft … of filling the palace with "soothsayers... seers and mutes as well as dream interpreters and those who consult entrail, indeed all those skilled in malign craft".
Characterized as a Jezebel and a Justina … Judith was accused by one of her enemies, Paschasius Radbertus, of engaging in debauchery and witchcraft with her purported lover, Count Bernard of Septimania, Louis' chamberlain and trusted adviser. This portrayal and image stands in contrast to poems about Judith.[2] The poems depict her as "a second biblical Judith, a Mary sister of Aaron in her musical abilities, a Saphho, a prophetess, cultivated, chaste, intelligent, pious, strong in spirit, and sweet in conversation".[2]
However, Judith also garnered devotion and respect. Hrabanus Maurus wrote a dedicatory letter to Judith, exalting her "praiseworthy intellect"[11] and for her "good works".[11] The letter commends her in the turbulent times amidst battles, wishing that she may see victory amidst the struggles she is facing. It also implores her "to follow through with a good deed once you have begun it"[11] and "to improve yourself at all times". Most strikingly the letter wishes Judith to look to the biblical Queen Esther, the wife of Xerxes I [sic] as inspiration and as a role model ….
[End of quote]
A tale of two more Judiths
“In the ninth century, two great families arose because of two women named Judith — a fortuitous name that recalled the widow who,
during the siege of Jerusalem [sic] by the Assyrians, saves her city
by pretending to offer herself to Holofernes only to behead him
and return in triumph to her people”.
Patrick J. Geary
Patrick Geary has written:
https://stravaganzastravaganza.blogspot.com/2014/01/medieval-age-tale-of-two-judiths.html#!/2014/01/medieval-age-tale-of-two-judiths.html
JUDITH OF BAVARIA AND JUDITH OF FLANDERS
If mythical women stood at the beginnings of origin legends, this may be because real flesh-and-blood women stood at the beginnings of great aristocratic families.
After all, such families of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries largely owed their status, their lands, and their power to women. As Constance Bouchard and before her Karl Ferdinand Werner have pointed out, the great comital families might often appear to spring from “new men” in the ninth or tenth centuries, but actually these new men owed their rise to fortuitous marriages with greater, established families. ….
Family chroniclers and genealogists were well aware of the importance of such marriages in preserving and augmenting family power and honor — it was a constant and essential element in generational strategies throughout the Middle Ages. As Anita Guerreau-Jalabert has argued, the image of a strictly agnatic descent through generations is more an invention of nineteenth-century genealogists than a reflection of medieval perceptions of kinship.2 At the same time, the question of how much credit for the successes of kindreds should be attributed to these women rather than to the men of the kindred remained very much in question. As Janet Nelson points out, elite women played a double symbolic role within their husbands’ lineages: first, they made possible the continuation of the lineage, but at the same time, because they did not themselves belong to it, they made possible the individualization of a particular offspring within the lineage.3 Thus reconstruction of family histories meant coming to terms, under differing needs and circumstances, with the relative importance of such marriages and of the women who put not only their dowries and their bodies but their personalities and kinsmen to work on behalf of their husbands and their children. Over time, the ideological imperative of illustrious male descent could best be fostered if memory of the women who made their rise possible was removed from center stage in favor of the audacious acts of men.
In the ninth century, two great families arose because of two women named Judith — a fortuitous name that recalled the widow who, during the siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrians, saves her city by pretending to offer herself to Holofernes only to behead him and return in triumph to her people.4 The biblical Judith was thus, as Heide Estes has pointed out, one of the few models of a woman playing an active role in public life available, although the reception of the story of Judith in the Middle Ages shows the dangerous ambiguity attached to this woman.5 The younger of the Judiths considered in this chapter was the grand-daughter of the elder, and their stories illustrate the two principal ways that women could be at the start of families’ fortunes. The story of how these beginnings were reformed over time suggests the complexities of aristocratic dynastic memory in the tenth through twelfth centuries.
….
… the alliance that moved this kindred to the very center of the Frankish stage was the marriage of Judith, daughter of Welf and Heilwig, to the emperor Louis the Pious in 819, following the death of Louis’s first wife, Irmingard. Judith, according to the Annales regni Francorum and the account of an anonymous biographer of Louis known as the Astronomer, was selected in a sort of beauty pageant, in which the emperor examined daughters of the nobility before making his choice, a practice some have seen as imitating Byzantine tradition.14 More recently, Mayke de Jong has pointed out that this description, and particularly that of the “Astronomer,” is less a reflection of Byzantine court tradition than an image of Judith modeled on the biblical figure of Esther, a comparison already made by Hrabanus Maurus in his defense of the empress. ….
[End of qu0te]
“... ideal of the Christian woman”
“Barbara Welzel has pointed out that Judith was first considered as
the ideal of the Christian woman … but became as well an important figure of identification for princesses, serving as a political exemplum”.
Maryan Ainsworth and Abbie Vandivere
The two authors write, with relation to Jan Cornelisz Vermeyen’s, famous painting of c. 1530 AD (conventional dating), “Judith with the Head of Holofernes” (pictured above):
https://jhna.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/JHNA_6.2_Ainsworth_Vandivere.pdf
….
When considering for whom this painting of Judith, expressing female power, wisdom, and fortitude, may have been painted, a likely candidate comes to mind -- Margaret of Austria, regent of the Netherlands. It may well have been through Jan Gossart or perhaps Bernard Van Orley (ca. 1491/92–1542) that Vermeyen was introduced to Margaret, who held her court in Mechelen.
He must have entered the service of Margaret in 1525, for a document of 1530 petitions the regent for back pay for a period of about five years, indicating that Vermeyen had already been working for her.37 During this time, Vermeyen seems to have been mostly engaged in making portraits of the royal family and other nobles, such as the Portrait of Cardinal Érard de la Marck that with the Holy Family formed a diptych which belonged to Margaret.
The importance of the widow Judith as a model of strength and feminine virtue for Margaret of Austria and the iconography of the Burgundian-Habsburg court cannot be underestimated. The reminders of Judith’s importance as a just, vigorous, and brave ruler took many forms. Some of these were ephemeral, such as the tableaux vivants devoted to Judith that were performed at the official entries of princesses, such as Margaret of York, Mary of Burgundy, and Juana of Castile, into Netherlandish cities.38 Margaret of Austria owned a Judith tapestry (no longer extant) that was originally part of her trousseau for her marriage to Juan of Castile, and when she returned to Flanders after Juan’s death, the tapestry accompanied her.39 Possibly commissioned by Margaret from Bernard van Orley (her court painter), although not mentioned in the inventory of her possessions, was a tapestry of the Triumph of Virtuous Women that survives only as a petit patron (Vienna, Albertina Museum, inv. no. 15463).40 Featured in the foreground before the triumphal all’antica chariot are Jael killing Sisera, Lucretia committing suicide, and Judith with the head of Holofernes on the tip of her sword. Margaret’s court sculptor, Conrad Meit, produced one of the masterpieces of Renaissance sculpture, a Judith with the Head of Holofernes (Munich, Bayerische Nationalmuseum), circa 1525–28. Although it is not listed among Margaret’s belongings, it certainly reflects courtly taste and was most likely commissioned by a woman for whom Judith was a noble exemplar.41
Margaret’s library contained books on virtuous women, among them Giovanni Bocaccio’s De femmes nobles et renomées (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, ms. Fr. 12420). Judith has a featured role in one of the most influential texts of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, the Parement et triumphe des dames, written in 1493–94 by Olivier de la Marche. Here the author gives lessons to a noble lady of the virtues of humility, wisdom, loyalty, fidelity, and so forth in prose stories of famous virtuous women. Margaret of Austria owned an early version of the text, published between 1495 and 1500 (Brussels, Bibliothèque royale de Belgique, ms. 10961-70).42
In 1509, Agrippa of Nettesheim dedicated to Margaret his treatise De nobilitate et praecellentia foemini sexus, where he notes that Judith “depicted herself as an example of virtue, which should be imitated not only by women but also by men,”43
Barbara Welzel has pointed out that Judith was first considered as the ideal of the Christian woman44 but became as well an important figure of identification for princesses, serving as a political exemplum.45 Just as Judith saved her people from the Assyrians, so, too, did Margaret defend her people in a politically active role.
Her success in this endeavor was acknowledged in a monumental woodcut by Robert Péril (Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett, inv. no. 849-21), showing the genealogy of the Habsburgs, which praised Margaret as: “the Regent and sovereign of the Low countries, which she wisely ruled for Emperor Charles, her nephew; she opposed the enemy with the force of weapons and transferred the lands of Friesland, Utrecht and Overissel into the following of his majesty [Charles V].”46
In terms of Margaret’s remarkable political acumen, a singular event comes to mind that may have a specific connection to Vermeyen’s Judith with the Head of Holofernes. In August of 1529, around the time of the painting’s presumed date, Jan Vermeyen accompanied Margaret to the signing of the so-called Paix des Dames or Ladies’ Peace, otherwise known as the Peace of Cam- brai: the most extraordinary diplomatic achievement of the regent’s career. Meeting her sister-in- law Louise of Savoy (mother of Francis I) almost in secret in Cambrai, Margaret -- representing her nephew Charles V -- negotiated a peace between the French and the Habsburgs. This treaty, which included the arranged marriage of Eleanor of Austria (sister to Charles V) to Francis I, ended, at least for a time, the fighting between the forces of King Frances I and Emperor Charles V. An obvious parallel exists between Margaret and Judith: two virtuous and powerful women, who managed to find a solution to the lust for battle of men and nations and create peace. Whether this painting commemorates a specific event or generally celebrates the heroic achievement of one woman, it is certainly a product of the milieu of Margaret of Austria’s court. ….
[End of quote]
Judith and Holofernes, Attila and Odabella
“Odabella implores him to kill her, but not to curse her.
She reminds his fiancé the story of the Hebrew Judith,
who saved Israel from the Babylonians [sic] by beheading
their leader Holofernes. Odabella has sworn to revenge …”.
“Attila” by Giuseppe Verdi
Judith and Holofernes, Attila and Ildico
“The tradition that Attila died in a wedding-night may be true.
But Attila is so much like Holofernes and Ildico so much like Judith…
that we suspect the tradition, even in its most sober version”.
Otto Maenchen-Helfen
Taken from: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/nice-things-to-say-about-attila-the-hun-87559701/
[Attila’s] spectacular demise, on one of his many wedding nights, is memorably described by Gibbon:
Before the king of the Huns evacuated Italy, he threatened to return more dreadful, and more implacable, if his bride, the princess Honoria, were not delivered to his ambassadors…. Yet, in the mean while Attila relieved his tender anxiety, by adding a beautiful maid, whose name was Ildico, to the list of his innumerable wives. Their marriage was celebrated with barbaric pomp and festivity, at his wooden palace beyond the Danube; and the monarch, oppressed with wine and sleep, retired, at a late hour, from the banquet to the nuptial bed.
His attendants continued to respect his pleasures, or his repose, the greatest part of the ensuing day, till the unusual silence alarmed their fears and suspicions; and, after attempting to awaken Attila by loud and repeated cries, they at length broke into the royal apartment. They found the trembling bride sitting by the bedside, hiding her face with her veil…. The king…had expired during the night. An artery had suddenly burst; and as Attila lay in a supine posture, he was suffocated by a torrent of blood, which instead of finding a passage through his nostrils, regurgitated into the lungs and stomach. ….
The real story goes as follows (Judith 13:1-10):
When evening came, his slaves quickly withdrew. Bagoas closed the tent from outside and shut out the attendants from his master’s presence. They went to bed, for they all were weary because the banquet had lasted so long. But Judith was left alone in the tent, with Holofernes stretched out on his bed, for he was dead drunk.
Now Judith had told her maid to stand outside the bedchamber and to wait for her to come out, as she did on the other days; for she said she would be going out for her prayers. She had said the same thing to Bagoas. So everyone went out, and no one, either small or great, was left in the bedchamber. Then Judith, standing beside his bed, said in her heart, “O Lord God of all might, look in this hour on the work of my hands for the exaltation of Jerusalem. Now indeed is the time to help your heritage and to carry out my design to destroy the enemies who have risen up against us.”
She went up to the bedpost near Holofernes’ head, and took down his sword that hung there. She came close to his bed, took hold of the hair of his head, and said, “Give me strength today, O Lord God of Israel!” Then she struck his neck twice with all her might, and cut off his head. Next she rolled his body off the bed and pulled down the canopy from the posts. Soon afterward she went out and gave Holofernes’ head to her maid, who placed it in her food bag. ….
Judith and Queen Elizabeth 1
Aidan Norrie has written (2016): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/rest.12258
Elizabeth I as Judith: reassessing the apocryphal widow's appearance in Elizabethan royal iconography
Abstract
Throughout her reign, Queen Elizabeth I of England was paralleled with many figures from the Bible.
While the analogies between Elizabeth and biblical figures such as Deborah the Judge, King Solomon, Queen Esther, King David, and Daniel the Prophet have received detailed attention in the existing scholarship, the analogy between Elizabeth and the Apocryphal widow Judith still remains on the fringes. Not only did Elizabeth compare herself to Judith, the analogy also appeared throughout the course of the queen's reign as a biblical precedent for dealing with the Roman Catholic threat. This article re-assesses the place of the Judith analogy within Elizabethan royal iconography by chronologically analysing of many of the surviving, primary source, comparisons between Judith and Elizabeth, and demonstrates that Judith was invoked consistently, and in varying media, as a model of a providentially blessed leader. ….
[End of quote]
Will true Elizabeth stand up?
Compared to Judith and Esther, she was a
new Moses and as wise as King Solomon.
According to this article:
http://www.ibrarian.net/navon/paper/The_Development_of_the_Cult_of_Elizabeth_I.pdf?paperid=20396591
On one … of the first portraits of [Elizabeth I] as a queen she appears in a religious context, she washes the feet of twelve poor women at a Maundy ceremony. …. On the title-pages of the different editions of the Bible Elizabeth’s figure appears: she is surrounded by the four cardinal virtues on the 1569 edition, while on the 1568 edition between the figures of Faith and Love she personifies the third New Testament virtue, Hope.
At the beginning of the Coronation Entry as she left the Tower she praised God for her deliverance from prison during the reign of Mary and compared herself to the prophet Daniel spared by God by special providence: “I acknowledge that Thou hast dealt as wonderfully and as mercifully with me as Thou didst with Thy true and faithful servant Daniel, Thy prophet, whom Thou deliverest out of the den from the cruelty of the greedy and raging lions. Even so was I overwhelmed and only by Thee delivered.” ….
During the first decade Elizabeth was mostly compared to figures of the Old Testament. In the fifth pageant of the Coronation Entry she appeared as Deborah, the Old Testament judge, listening to the advice of three figures representing the three estates of England, the clergy, the nobility and the commons. …. In sermons she was compared to Judith who rescued her people, and to Esther who interceded for her people. …. She was seen also as a new Moses leading his people out of the captivity of Egypt, and as Solomon the wise king.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7888615205986009768.post-44763111030626263562024-02-24T13:09:00.000-08:002024-02-24T13:09:50.828-08:00The “Essenes” in the Bible<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXMSm5Q7YV1mYFlv8QEdOnFGKFYa2hNAhiqPJekLGVHsd5WyGqq9MBUSAKH6pPQGZQIqumCvVW8ILH5GFA-xfYJISYTf1PtsYmHsNRZfvw2nmv1fy-V2DRJir5ZduF2W7BeyWxTUNHrPoACM0SNyEReHnO-76mD0bfMqil1Fpo2IxBVkimBH8LQOEszXE/s225/download.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXMSm5Q7YV1mYFlv8QEdOnFGKFYa2hNAhiqPJekLGVHsd5WyGqq9MBUSAKH6pPQGZQIqumCvVW8ILH5GFA-xfYJISYTf1PtsYmHsNRZfvw2nmv1fy-V2DRJir5ZduF2W7BeyWxTUNHrPoACM0SNyEReHnO-76mD0bfMqil1Fpo2IxBVkimBH8LQOEszXE/s600/download.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
“[Otto] Betz rightly concludes that the Herodians
mentioned in Mark are the Essene Scrolls authors”.
Marvin Vining
I: “Herodians”
Marvin Vining, author of the controversial book, Jesus the Wicked Priest. How Christianity was born of an Essene Schism (2008), considered an insight into the subject by Otto Betz to have been crucial for his own biblical identification of the enigmatic Essenes. And I, in similar fashion, owe it entirely to Marvin Vining for his having fully identified the Essenes, who would probably otherwise have continued to remain a complete mystery to me.
Vining’s important chapter 2, “Identifying the Essenes in the New Testament”, will break completely new ground as far as I am concerned. In # 13 of that chapter, “Herodians”: A Minor New Testament Name for the Essenes”, he writes, leading up to Betz (p. 28):
Many scholars have contributed to the identification of the Essenes in the New Testament. C. Daniel once uncovered a key historical reference to the Essenes that unraveled a great many mysteries. … He found that Josephus recorded the story of an Essene named Manaemos (Ant. 15.371-79). When Herod the Great was still a school boy, long before he took the throne, Manaemos predicted that Herod would become king.
This prediction by Manaemos found favour with Herod, as Vining tells continuing Josephus.
“And”, Josephus writes, “from that moment on [Herod] continued to hold the Essenes in honor” (Ant 154.379). The Essenes became Herod’s favorite sect, on whom he would often bestow special favors. For example, Herod excused them from an oath of loyalty (Ant 15.371). It is reasonable, then, to conclude that the common people would have nicknamed the Essenes the “Herodians”.
That the Essenes were the “Herodians” already opens up for us a whole new vista.
Thus Vining continues (pp. 28-29):
….
We now have good reason to believe the Essenes were called Herodians. How does that help us? The Gospels of Mark and Matthew contain references to the Herodians (Mk 3:6; 8:14-21; Mk 12:13 // Mt 22:16), and these passages answer a great many open questions. Otto Betz (a leading Dead Sea Scrolls scholar with whom I had the honor of corresponding before he died) commented that New Testament scholarship has always had difficulty identifying the Herodians, for it was assumed that they must have been political delegates of King Herod. … But who: Herod the Great? Herod Antipas? Herod’s dynasty? None of these interpretations ever made sense. The Herodians we find in the Gospels appear to be a priestly sect in league with the Pharisees against Jesus. The Herodians’ interests were not merely political but religious in nature, primarily so. Like the Pharisees they were concerned with what Jesus had to say about the Torah and the prophets.
The new identification of the “Herodians”, as Essenes (and there is more to come, see II:), will marvellously enable Marvin Vining to explain one of Jesus’s seemingly most obscure parables, “The feeding of the multitudes” (Mark 8:14-21). P. 29”: “[Jesus] phrased a warning to the disciples in what seems to my generation’s eyes just about the most esoteric parable that Jesus ever gave”. Vining, after recounting this parable, will proceed on p. 30 to tell of how the meaning of this parable had long “baffled” him, with no commentator on it being helpful. “Only when I read the fine work of Yigael Yadin, who published the Temple Scroll found in Cave 11, did I finally discover the accurate interpretation. Here follows Vining’s account of it:
Yadin found a passage in the Temple Scroll that dealt with rituals accompanying the Feast of Milluim, a time of ordination, a dedication of the priesthood during the first seven days of the month of Nisan (Ex 29; Ez 43:18-27).
According to the Temple Scroll, the Essenes had modified the Torah’s procedure for cleansing of the altar during the Feat of Milluim (11Q19 XV, 9-14; cf. Ex 29; Ez 43:18-27). Instead of offering up twelve baskets of bread for each of the twelve weeks of the Holy Presence in the Temple, as did the Pharisees, the Essenes altered their ritual. On each of the seven days of celebration, the Essenes gathered a basket of bread together with a ram, as a waive offering. Thus when Jesus warned the disciples to “beware the leaven of the Pharisees and the Herodians”, and then, in that corresponding order, reminded them of the number of baskets gathered after his two feedings, (a sympathetic association: Pharisees = twelve baskets, Herodians = seven baskets), he was referring to the respective rituals of each for the Feast of Milluim. Jesus saw himself as the “bread of life” (Jn 6:33-35), who, as God’s Son, could offer eternal life.
He was both the single sacrificial lamb and loaf of bread the disciples needed (Mk 8:14), by whom they and the multitude had all just been consecrated priests of the new era. The miraculous feeding of the multitudes was an ordination from God. ….
II: Scribes
On pp. 32-33, Marvin Vining will write of what he describes as “the cornerstone for this entire restoration”:
In James H. Charlesworth’s Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls … a chapter written by Otto Betz offers an additional correlation between the Essenes and Herodians by bringing forth another passage in which they are mentioned, Mark 3:6. In so doing, Betz confronts me with a stunning revelation that appears in chapter 7 (section 73).
That one piece of scholarship is the cornerstone for this entire restoration, as you will eventually see. For now it is enough that we confirm that the Essenes were called Herodians in the Gospels, where they are in league with the Pharisees against Jesus. This is easily done, for Mark records that Jesus antagonized two Jewish sects in the synagogue, the “Pharisees and Herodians” (3:1-6). The latter sect, the Herodians, were singled out for their extremely rigid observance of Sabbath laws, a characteristic trait of the Essenes (War 2:143-49). Betz mentions a parallel situation to this incident found in Matthew…. where Jesus cited and ridiculed a statute peculiar to the Scrolls, the prohibition against rescuing an animal fallen into a pit on the Sabbath (Mt 12:11; cf. CD XI, 13-14). Betz rightly concludes that the Herodians mentioned in Mark are the Essene Scrolls authors. With this knowledge, we are immediately able to assess Jesus’s relation with the Essenes.
We are given solid biblical evidence that Jesus directed much of his preaching against the Essenes, just as he did his other well-known spiritual enemies, the Pharisees. Clearly the Essenes/Herodians were opposed to Jesus, as we expected to find given their vast differences in doctrine. But this is just the beginning.
Though now entirely confident that the Herodians of the Gospels were the Essenes, Vining must yet come to terms with the meagre references to the Herodians as opposed to the historically well-known Essenes.
He commences on p. 33:
The Herodians are very seldom mentioned in the Gospels, so seldom that it seems unreasonable to believe they were the popular Essenes that Josephus, Philo, and other historians record. Could the Herodians have been a derogatory nickname the Gospel writers used only on occasion? It seems so.
This opens the way (his # 14 “A Door is Opened”) for Marvin Vining to identify the Essenes by the name by which they are more frequently known in the Scriptures:
A parallel citation to Betz’s synagogue incident, Mark 3:1-6, is found in Luke 6:6-11. The two groups in league against Jesus are not called Pharisees and Herodians, as in Mark’s version; Luke calls them Pharisees and scribes (Mk 3:6 // Lk 6:7). A little faith that the citations are indeed parallel, that they refer to the same event and persons, and we have just uncovered an unbelievably valuable prooftext. The Essenes/Herodians must have been the same New Testament group as the scribes. What a door has just opened!
Now that the biblical identity of the Essenes has been fully established, this may be a good opportunity to return to Josephus’s tale (considered in I:) of Herod ‘the Great’ and Manaemos. According to my reconstruction of this Herod, he was a Phrygian. Hence it is somewhat unlikely that he would have had contact with an Essene when Herod “was still a school boy”.
There may be a different underpinning to this story.
It calls to mind the account in Matthew 2 of the encounter between King Herod and the Magi, seeking the “infant king of the Jews”. It is notable, now, that King Herod enquired of the scribes, that is, the Essenes (2:4): “[King Herod] called together all the chief priests and the scribes of the people, and enquired of them where the Christ was to be born”.
Here we have the key elements of Matthew’s account: King Herod; a boy who would be king; and the Essene scribes, who were very Messianic in their outlook.
The Essene scribes would immediately have been able to inform Herod that the Christ was to be born (v. 5): “At Bethlehem in Judaea”, based on the prophet Micah (5:1). Perhaps Manaemos was one of their number, who stepped forward at the critical moment to provide the king with this biblical information.
Whether King Herod rewarded with favours the scribes for their assistance in this most pressing matter, we cannot say at this stage.
Marvin Vining will go on to develop this identification wonderfully and convincingly.
This is a must read.
There are other parts of his book, albeit interesting, that I would not endorse – some of which I would vehemently disagree with.
III: Meaning of the name, “Essenes”
In his # 16 “Etymology: the Essenes are “the Pious”,” pp. 37-39, Vining arrives at what is probably the true origin and meaning of whom we call “Essenes”:
… we must seek the etymology for the name Essenes in … the historical writings.
The English Essenes comes from the Latin Essenei, which was used by Pliny the Elder. In the Greek, the order is called Essaioi by Philo, and Essenoi by Josephus and an early Church father, Hippolytus. Epiphanius, also an early church father, described two divisions of Essenes, the Nazareans … in the north and the Osseaens in the south (Proem I 3.1-5; 19.1.1-3).
Scholars have determined that these writers are all referring to the same group by examining their common doctrine, location, and similar characteristics. But the etymology still remains an enigma, for the name Essenes held no intrinsic meaning in Latin of Greek.
It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the name had meaning in the original Semitic, which has probably come to us as a transliteration, such as Sadducees, meaning descendants of the Zadokite priests. If we are lucky, a word will pass meaningfully from one language and alphabet to another.
…
Why create confusion where none exists? If we place some faith, as we must, in the scholastic integrity of those who have gone before us, we see that Josephus and Philo were trying to translate as best they could from the original Semitic.
…,
Clearly the Essenes derived their name from and were known as the “holy” or the “sanctified”. Within the same word-field, it is not difficult to imagine that they were known as the “pious”, sometimes translated in the Bible as the “faithful ones” or “saints” (I Sam 2:9a; Ps 30:4a). It is the last derivation that finally allows us to translate back into the Semitic.
The work has already been done. Nearly a hundred years ago, an excellent scholar named Ginsburg collected more than twenty possible derivations from various scholars and concluded that the most logical was the Aramaic hsa, whose plural is hysn, the equivalent of the Hebrew hasid, usually translted as “the pious”. … Several nineteenth-century scholars had independently arrived at this conclusion – most notably Emil Schürer – and it is still the reigning view. The only apparent weakness of the derivation is that hysn, the plural of hsa, never occurs in Palestinian Aramaic, but only in Syrian Aramaic, the first Yiddish, the Jewish language of the Persian exile. Yet … this is hardly a weakness. It only stands to reason that the Essenes originally drew their name from Syrian Aramaic, for it is during the Persian exile that they first emerged.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7888615205986009768.post-41492030778571076022024-02-24T13:03:00.000-08:002024-02-24T13:03:07.492-08:00Essenes and Cistercians
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzB-NmhJZ2Fx9S2broy5MD1gY6Zd_r2rcgSF2ZVuzDFnfVXQlA_8Dns8-UFXt1JnZXK7sbVAo3_nrgL1xFWnAA0I253ZQLwy-VOPvk5NLeAGMwkFuU9AdbgyyjvPnrZrjpXb0bJh3GIy6VWk3lacdC3r1LaaCBbD0gkRw-gZ4t8TliR-L4PKiT1D2oD6g/s272/1000_F_579153176_pAQuuf5yVmmXXaH1H443fDHIJh0tG6Cp.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="185" data-original-width="272" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzB-NmhJZ2Fx9S2broy5MD1gY6Zd_r2rcgSF2ZVuzDFnfVXQlA_8Dns8-UFXt1JnZXK7sbVAo3_nrgL1xFWnAA0I253ZQLwy-VOPvk5NLeAGMwkFuU9AdbgyyjvPnrZrjpXb0bJh3GIy6VWk3lacdC3r1LaaCBbD0gkRw-gZ4t8TliR-L4PKiT1D2oD6g/s600/1000_F_579153176_pAQuuf5yVmmXXaH1H443fDHIJh0tG6Cp.jpg"/></a></div>
“Essene and Cistercians alike maintained a belief
in the founding of a “New Jerusalem”.”
A. Butler and S. Dafoe
The following interesting passages are taken from the book, The Knights Templar Revealed. The Secrets of the Cistercian Legacy (Magpie Books, 2006), by A. Butler and S. Dafoe:
Pp. 43-44:
…we can find no monastic institution anywhere near as similar to the Essene communities as that of the … Cistercians. … it is worth itemizing some of these similarities:
• The Essene specifically chose remote desert locations for their settlements, as did the Cistercians, for the word “desert” is specifically mentioned in the Order of the Cistercians. Both groups deliberately sought seclusion and redemption through both work and prayer.
• Both brotherhoods wore white. It isn’t known if the Essene placed the same reliance on sheep rearing as did the Cistercians, but the likelihood is that they did, and their garments, like those of the Cistercians, were undoubtedly of non-dyed and possibly bleached wool.
• Cistercians and Essene alike showed a great obsession with cleanliness and sanitary living conditions. This was not an exclusive consideration of all monastic settlements by any stretch of the imagination. The Essene may or may not have practised total immersion as a form of repeated baptism. There is no written evidence that this was the case and the cisterns found at Qumran and other locations may merely have been a means of retaining water in an extremely arid area. The Cistercians were expected to wash their heads, hands and arms daily. This might seem a perfunctory accession to cleanliness when seen from our modern perspective, but in medieval terms it was viewed with surprise and even alarm by some agencies. Like the Essene, the Cistercians made superhuman efforts to supply all parts of their monasteries and other establishments with ample water for all manner of uses. The layout of a typical Cistercian abbey might incorporate a modified stream, as at Fountains Abbey in Yorkshire, England, as well as waste water channels and other indications of an ingenious effort to supply every part of the establishment with running water.
Similar efforts were made at Qumran as well as at the Minoan palace of Knossos, where the supply of fresh water to all parts of the building were broadly similar, as were precautions taken for drainage and the disposal of sewage. We dare to suggest the Minoan/Philistine know-how, amassed over many centuries, might easily have been employed in the planning and building of settlements such as Qumran.
• Essene and Cistercians alike maintained a belief in the founding of a “New Jerusalem”. ….
• By their very nature both the Essene doctrine and that of the Cistercians harked back to the dawn of Judaism and the founding of the First Temple by Solomon. It should be remembered that the Templars were actually named after this institution (the poor Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon).
Comment: Judaism never called it the Temple of Solomon, but the Temple of Yahweh.
The article continues:
House of Solomon
… The fascination that both the Cistercians and the Templars held for this early period of Jewish history is quite without parallel and set the standard for the Old Testament interest prevailing in Europe at the time.
• Both groups believed that the final battle, preparatory to the creation of the New Jerusalem, would represent a physical as well as a spiritual struggle. … one of the documents found at Qumran is known as the War Rule Scroll and it details the last and greatest battle that would have to be fought against the forces of darkness. This is not simply a hypothetical document based on spiritual beliefs. On the contrary, it gives very specific military advice and instructions. … the form of armaments to be carried, together with the clothing and headgear that should be worn. Beyond this, it specifies a system of signals to be used at times of war. This is a strange document to have been compiled by a body that generally existed to wage spiritual rather than tangible war against its enemies. Nevertheless, it is more than paralleled in the case of the Cistercians ….
[End of quote]
For a compelling identification of the Essenes as the (Herodians)-scribes of the New Testament, see Marvin Vining’s Jesus the Wicked Priest. How Christianity was born of an Essene Schism (2008).
See also my (Damien Mackey’s) article:
The “Essenes” in the Bible
(5) Damien Mackey | The University of Sydney - Academia.edu
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7888615205986009768.post-66358392058344610132024-02-20T22:54:00.000-08:002024-02-20T22:54:55.375-08:00Qur’an catapults evil Haman way back to the era of Moses <div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbx9Hp2tuk9PfP8pps1VNe6BhR3M9gFddDQz2CWoApY93I5U7yQ1uCIERzu5OiLqkZjuaApx2HFVrcMwKj2I5G3iX0_gBZk1me2I2r499jD1S5VEUSwFQgTvJhpovMJlQB_Rx3L5RVO1c6GeSK2wdFujMROnQ-wTz29cdsAMmWz-Yu1YBfQFNIUIDGW7U/s318/images.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="159" data-original-width="318" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbx9Hp2tuk9PfP8pps1VNe6BhR3M9gFddDQz2CWoApY93I5U7yQ1uCIERzu5OiLqkZjuaApx2HFVrcMwKj2I5G3iX0_gBZk1me2I2r499jD1S5VEUSwFQgTvJhpovMJlQB_Rx3L5RVO1c6GeSK2wdFujMROnQ-wTz29cdsAMmWz-Yu1YBfQFNIUIDGW7U/s600/images.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
“If only Muslims could find the name “Haman” or something similar
in Egyptian records … as this would allow them to claim that Haman
is indeed an Egyptian name, and thus enable them to disconnect
the Haman in the Qur’an from the Haman found in the
biblical book of Esther”.
Jochen Katz
In conventional terms, this (the back-dating of Haman to the era of Moses) would be a dislocation of the biblical Haman backwards in time by approximately a millennium.
But that is what Islam does to ancient history, time and time again. It mangles it.
See for instance my article:
Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History
(7) Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
in which a supposed “Mohammed” of the C7th AD claims to be a “brother” of the prophet Jonah who is actually situated well back in BC time, and has connections with a “Nineveh” that had long ceased to exist.
For a proper chronology of Haman and his historical identity, see e.g. my article:
King Amon’s descent into Aman (Haman)
(7) King Amon’s descent into Aman (Haman) | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Now, Jochen Katz has attempted to restore some sanity with regard to the Qur’anic dislocation of Haman in his article, “The Haman Hoax”:
https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/katz/haman.html
Introduction
The Qur’an contains several instances of “historical compression”, i.e. stories in which two or more separate historical events are combined to create a new story, or a character from one story is transferred or imported into another story. For example, in the Qur’an we find Saul and David in the story of Gideon, or a Samaritan together with Moses in the Exodus narrative. A list of many more such historical compressions is provided on this page.
Damien Mackey’s comment: I might as well include these “historical compressions” here:
In the following some smaller discrepancies between the Qur'an and the scriptures it supposedly confirms.
Historical Compressions:
1. Saul, David, Gideon and Goliath
2. A Samaritan tempting the Israelites in Moses time?
3. Prophets and Kings in Israel before the time of Moses?
4. Moses and the Gospel?
5. Punishment for future disobedience?
6. Mary, the sister of Aaron?
7. Pharaoh and Haman?
8. A Pharaoh Who Forgot to Die in Time?
9. Was there a second period of slaying the sons of the Israelites?
10. Moses or Jacob?
11. Did Joseph's parents go to Egypt?
12. Abraham's name
13. Abraham and Solomon
Other contradictions in comparison to the Bible:
Introductory remark
14. Did God teach Adam the names of the animals?
15. Noah's Age
16. Were Believers Really Called Muslims Before the Time of Muhammad?
17. The Quran’s Mistakes regarding the Biblical Patriarchs
18. Who Adopted Moses: Pharaoh’s Daughter or Pharaoh’s Wife?
19. Adoption by Adaption analyzes various discrepancies inf the quranic version of the stories of Moses and Joseph.
20. A Flood in the time of Moses?
21. Israel, the Quran and the Promised Land
22. The Quran, Moses and the Tablets of Stone
23. Solomon Working with Demons
24. Israel's Response to the Covenant: ‘We Obey’ or ‘We Disobey’?
25. Where is the Blood?
26. Divinely Inspired Ignorance?
27. Which Prophets Did the Jews Kill?
28. What kind of book is the Injil?
29. Animal sacrifices for Christians?
30. Why did the Queen of Sheba come to Solomon?
31. Ezra the Son of God?
32. Jesus reached old age?
33. Did the golden calf say 'Moo'?
34. Did disobedience result in extra commandments?
35. How many messengers were sent to Noah's people?
Further discussion: Who are those messengers that were rejected by Noah's people?
36. The Progeny of Abraham?
37. Two young men?
38. How many wings does an angel have?
Jochen Katz continues:
Whether these stories and characters were confused by the author of the Qur’an out of ignorance or deliberately merged for a certain purpose, these new stories are presented to the readers as reports of historical events and therefore constitute historical errors in the Qur’an.
One of the best known examples of such apparent historical confusions in the Qur’an is the character of Haman in the story of Moses and Pharaoh. Pharaoh and Haman were two of the most dangerous figures in the history of the Jews. Both of these men attempted genocide against the Israelites. Pharaoh gave the command to kill all male newborn babies (Exodus 1) and Haman plotted to have all Jews killed who were living in exile in Persia (Esther 3).1
However, these two events were separated in two ways: (a) the geographical distance of several thousand kilometers between Egypt and Persia, and (b) about a thousand years distance on the historical timeline.
Since the character of Haman is so obviously out of place in the story of Moses and Pharaoh, this matter has a high embarrassment factor, and Muslims apparently felt the pressing need to find a reasonable solution to this charge of a historical error in the Qur’an.
If only Muslims could find the name “Haman” or something similar in Egyptian records … as this would allow them to claim that Haman is indeed an Egyptian name, and thus enable them to disconnect the Haman in the Qur’an from the Haman found in the biblical book of Esther.
In fact, apologists for Islam have managed to devise a hoax that has impressed and misled many people over the last 15 years. This hoax went through three main stages of development (associated with Maurice Bucaille, Islamic Awareness, and Harun Yahya) and all three stages are available on the internet, plus plenty of variants.2 ….
As a foretaste of the things to come, let me mention in this introduction only two details out of the many false Muslim statements on this topic.
Maurice Bucaille claims to have consulted a prominent Egyptologist about the name Haman and a possible transliteration of that name in hieroglyphs. He then writes:
In order to confirm his deduction about the name, he advised me to consult the Dictionary of Personal Names of the New Kingdom by Ranke, where I might find the name written in hieroglyphs, as he had written before me, and the transliteration in German. I discovered all that had been presumed by the expert, and, moreover, I was stupefied to read the profession of Haman: “Chief of the workers in stone-quarries,” exactly what could be deduced from the Qur'an, though the words of Pharaoh suggest a master of construction.
For comparison, here is the entry in Ranke’s dictionary:
Quite obviously, Bucaille lied. Ranke’s transliteration does not say “Haman”, nor does Ranke say anything about him being the “Chief of the workers in stone-quarries”. [The meaning and implications of this entry will be discussed in great detail in the next two sections of this paper.]
Harun Yahya wrote about ten years ago:3
The name "Haman" was in fact mentioned in old Egyptian tablets. It was mentioned on a monument which now stands in the Hof Museum in Vienna, …
This is another lie. There is not even one Egyptian tablet, let alone many, on which the name Haman was found, nor is the artefact with the inscription that allegedly contains the name Haman “a monument”; it is a door post and it does not say “Haman”.
Most ironically, there has not even been a “Hof Museum” in Vienna for more than eighty years!
The whole story is a hoax from start to finish. ….
Damien Mackey’s comment: Read the whole of Jochen Katz’s article.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7888615205986009768.post-83108337562084830672024-02-16T21:14:00.000-08:002024-02-16T21:14:56.545-08:00Gog and Magog: Satan, Haman, Russia, or Macedonian Greek?<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvLa0mRMzTZ1SlvWFu20G4YXwtEI0pHC3mUdbxc0Rl8I3JdDRaCSEz11hL0epJRZu45X7WtA54gzz1BLJhHD8_X7UucPftGSZy7GcTgOCKb8w4taEI9G9Kk9IYcxwwyuWvIEmnIlvHUbr1124Mw2JRVpEz50seImmFzsAXF_Ba7K7wvGTSfhcUOaBpjTo/s375/Depiction-of-Judah-fighting-a-Seleucid-warrior-Breaking-Israel-News-375x250.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="250" data-original-width="375" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvLa0mRMzTZ1SlvWFu20G4YXwtEI0pHC3mUdbxc0Rl8I3JdDRaCSEz11hL0epJRZu45X7WtA54gzz1BLJhHD8_X7UucPftGSZy7GcTgOCKb8w4taEI9G9Kk9IYcxwwyuWvIEmnIlvHUbr1124Mw2JRVpEz50seImmFzsAXF_Ba7K7wvGTSfhcUOaBpjTo/s600/Depiction-of-Judah-fighting-a-Seleucid-warrior-Breaking-Israel-News-375x250.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
Reader Suggests “Gog is Satan”
A Reader’s opinion: Your view on Gog and Magog is similar to James Jordan's old view that it was about the Maccabees. Jordan changed his mind and believes it refers to Esther. Personally, I disagree with both approaches. I see Gog and Magog (and the other prophecies of an eschatological battle) as referring to the war of the Church to convert the nations throughout her history. Gog is the eschatological wicked king mentioned in Numbers 24, and it is stated there that the messiah's kingdom is higher than Gog.
For complex reasons I don't have space to go into now, I think Gog is Satan.
Mackey’s Response: This interpretation, Gog being Satan, reminds me a bit of the suggestion of some regarding the nephilim giants of Genesis 6:4, that they were fallen angels.
According to Fr. John Echert, with whom I am inclined to agree, an interpretation such as this can run into what Fr. Echert here calls, “metaphysical complications”:
Answer by Fr. John Echert on 1/22/2006:
Genesis records a strange hybrid which resulted from sexual unions between the "daughters of men" and the “sons of God.
6:1 When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, 6:2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose. 6:3 Then the LORD said, "My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years." 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.
While many scholars prefer to dismiss this entirely as myth which is borrowed from pagans cultures of the ancient near east, it is more appropriate to look for some truth and reality behind this mythical sounding text. Some of the Church Fathers, such as St. Augustine, Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria suggested that the “sons of God” may refer to righteous descendants (men) of Seth who took descendants (women) of Cain as wives. In such a case, “sons of God” associates the men with the goodness of God whereas “daughters of men” would be intended as a contrast to this. This is typical of ancient Semitic expressions which must not be interpreted literally as we understand such constructions but in accord with the customary use of language at the time. Knowing the background of Cain as a killer and the bad blood of his descendants, it is no wonder that such unions would be regarded in a negative light, which unions led to a situation in which humanity was corrupted and unacceptable to God. On the other hand, it is said of Seth and his line that these were the first to reverence the Name of Yahweh. The word “Nephalim” literally means “fallen ones” which sense would be consistent with an interpretation that views this group as a corrupt mixture of good and bad blood. Other commentators have suggested that the “sons of God” were (fallen) angels who somehow mated with human women, but this does present metaphysical complications in light of the natures of each. For now, I find the Patristic solution the most satisfying. ….
[End of quote]
There is a serious need today for a return to the studying of philosophia perennis, a sound Philosophy of Being, with its clear distinctions between the various levels of being (whether created or uncreated).
I find it most difficult to regard the “Gog” of Ezekiel 38 and 39 as being anything other than a human being, he being a prince-ruler of provinces known to us from the Assyrian records, and said to be leading an international army comprising soldiers from known places at the time, such as Persia and Ethiopia (Cush), these invading Israel, and there meeting catastrophic defeat.
The nephilim giants perished in the Flood - demons, of course, do not drown.
The Gerasene “Legion” may, perhaps have had their ‘wings dampened’, but it was only the herd of swine that actually drowned (Mark 5:12-13):
“The demons begged Jesus, ‘Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them’. He gave them permission, and the impure spirits came out and went into the pigs. The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned”.
Likewise, one does not bury Satan (‘I will give Gog a burial place in Israel’), nor his demon army. Neither will one find Ezekiel’s “human bone” remnants amongst non-human demons (39:11-16):
‘On that day I will give Gog a burial place in Israel, in the valley of those who travel east of the Sea. It will block the way of travelers, because Gog and all his hordes will be buried there. So it will be called the Valley of Hamon Gog. For seven months the Israelites will be burying them in order to cleanse the land. All the people of the land will bury them, and the day I display my glory will be a memorable day for them, declares the Sovereign LORD. People will be continually employed in cleansing the land. They will spread out across the land and, along with others, they will bury any bodies that are lying on the ground. After the seven months they will carry out a more detailed search. As they go through the land, anyone who sees a human bone will leave a marker beside it until the gravediggers bury it in the Valley of Hamon Gog, near a town called Hamonah. And so they will cleanse the land’.
James B. Jordan, who has written some interesting articles, had thought to connect the phonetically alike names, “Hamon” and “Haman” (the wicked conspirator in the Book of Esther). But he had realised that a connection between the two was problematic: “The main argument against my hypothesis would be that Ezekiel 38-39 picture an invasion of the land of Israel, whereas the events of Esther happened throughout the Persian Empire”: https://theopolisinstitute.com/the-battle-of-gog-and-magog/
{“… Numbers 24, and it is stated there that the messiah's kingdom is higher than Gog”.
No, Numbers 24:7 actually says “higher than Agag”, which may be an entirely different geographical prospect}.
Conclusion on Satan
Certainly, I think that one might legitimately argue that Gog and Magog may represent Satan and his minions on a metaphorical level of interpretation of Scripture.
But such an interpretation cannot at all be made to fit a literal level of interpretation, which is the level of interpretation with which I am concerned in this article.
Could Haman be Gog?
At least one able commentator, James B. Jordan, has suggested that the enigmatic Gog and Magog might well fit the drama of the Book of Esther, with the wicked Haman, enemy of the Jews, being Gog.
For instance:
“It seems to me that if I were a Jew living during the intertestamental era,
I would be struck by the correspondence between Haman and Hamon-Gog, and it would cause me to consider whether or not they are related”.
James B. Jordan has proposed the following interesting comparison: http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-2-the-battle-of-gog-and-magog/
The battle of Gog and Magog is found in Ezekiel 38-39. My purpose in this brief essay is to propound an explanation for this passage that I have not encountered in any of my commentaries, but that makes more sense to me than any other. I offer it here in the hope that others can enter into conversation over the matter. Thus, this essay is designed as a "first word" and not the "last word" on the subject.
….
At this point, Ezekiel describes the attack of Gog, Prince of Magog, and his confederates. Ezekiel states that people from all the world will attack God’s people, who are pictured dwelling at peace in the land. God’s people will completely defeat them, however, and the spoils will be immense.
The result is that all nations will see the victory, and "the house of Israel will know that I am the Lord their God from that day onward" (Ezk. 39:21-23). This is the same idea as we found in Zechariah 2:9, "They you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent Me," which I argued above most likely refers to the events of Esther.
Chronologically this all fits very nicely. The events of Esther took place during the reign of Xerxes, after the initial rebuilding of the Temple under Joshua and Zerubbabel and shortly before the restoration of the Temple by Ezra and the rebuilding of the walls by Nehemiah.
….
Looking at a few details, we see that the victory of the Jews over their enemies in Esther resulted in the deaths of 75,310 people (Esth. 9:10, 15, 16). This number of deaths is commensurate with the extent of the slaughter pictured in Ezekiel 38-39. The Jews were told that they might plunder those they slew (Esth. 8:11), but they did not take any of the plunder for their personal use (Esth. 9:10, 15, 16), which surely implies that it was regarded as holy and was sent to adorn the Temple. Was this the gold and silver "found in the whole province of Babylon" that Ezra brought to Jerusalem a few years later (Ezr. 7:16)?
Another interesting correspondence lies in the fact that the book of Esther repeatedly calls attention to the "127 provinces" of the Persian Empire, and in connection with the attack on the Jews, speaks of the "provinces which were from India to Cush" (Esth. 8:9). This goes well with the way Ezekiel 38 starts out, for there a number of nations are mentioned from all over the world, all of which were within the boundaries of the Persian Empire (Ezk. 38:1-6). In other words, the explicit idea that the Jews were attacked by people from all the provinces of Persia is in both passages.
Another possible cue [sic] is found in the prominent use of the Hebrew word for "multitude" in Ezekiel 39:11, 15, and 16. That word is hamon, which is spelled in Hebrew almost exactly like the name Haman. It was Haman, of course, who engineered the attack on the Jews in Esther. In Hebrew, both words have the same "triliteral root" (hmn). Only the vowels are different. (Though in hamon, the vowel "o" is indicated by the letter vav.) According to Ezekiel 39:11 and 15, the place where the army of Gog is buried will be known as the Valley of Hamon-Gog, and according to verse 16, the nearby city will become known as Hamonah. It seems to me that if I were a Jew living during the intertestamental era, I would be struck by the correspondence between Haman and Hamon-Gog, and it would cause me to consider whether or not they are related.
Yet another corroboration, to my mind, lies in the fact that Haman was an Amalekite. He was an "Agagite," a descendant of the Amalekite king Agag who was captured by Saul and hacked to pieces by Samuel (1 Sam. 15; Esth. 3:1). What Esther records is the last great attack upon Israel by Amalek, and the final destruction of Amalek. Now, Numbers 24:20 states that "Amalek was the first of the nations, but his end shall be destruction." The term "nation" is more closely associated with the Japhethites than with the Hamites or the Shemites. We don’t know which "nation" Amalek was, since it is not listed in Genesis 10, but it would seem to have been a Japhethite one.
At any rate, what is striking about Ezekiel 38 is that the nations listed as conspiring against Israel are Japhethite and Hamite nations seldom if ever heard from outside the primordial list of Genesis 10. Magog, Meshech, Tubal, Beth-togarmah, Tarshish, and Gomer are all Japhethite nations from Genesis 10:2-4. Cush, Put, Sheba, and Dedan are Hamite peoples from Genesis 10:6-7. Thus, the notion is of a conspiracy of primordial peoples against the true remnant of the Shemites. This certainly squares well with the fact that Haman was the preeminent representative of Amalek, the first of the nations.
[End of quote]
As James B. Jordan points out, there seem to be some compelling reasons to accept that the prophet Ezekiel’s Gog (and Magog) was a prefiguring of the Haman conspiracy in the Book of Esther.
Whilst I have been favouring the Macedonian (Seleucid) era, and the blasphemous Nicanor, the “Macedonian” element does appear also in the LXX version of the Book of Esther: “In the LXX, Haman is called a "Macedonian" by Xerxes (see Esther 16:10)”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haman_(biblical_figure)
Haman is variously also called a “Bougaean” and an “Amalekite”, the latter being the nationality for him favoured by James B. Jordan.
Haman is also, like Gog, an inveterate enemy of the Jews.
Moreover, as with Gog and Magog, so with Haman, the tables are turned when the beleaguered Jews gain the upper hand and annihilate their foes.
However, things are not always as they seem. According to my interpretations of the Book of Esther, Haman was not an Amalekite at all. He was, shock, horror - but yet according to a legend of the Jews - a Jew, and known to Mordecai.
I developed this startling notion in my article:
Haman un-Masked
(5) Haman un-masked | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
and it ultimately led me to the conclusion that Haman was in fact the Jewish king, Jehoiachin, or “Coniah the Captive”, and that it was from the Greek word for “captive” that Haman had mistakenly been confused as an Amalekite: “Now, ‘Amalekite’ (Greek: Amali̱kíti̱s) could no longer be regarded as Haman’s nationality, but as a misinterpretation of the epithet by which he, as king Jehoiachin, was best known: “the Captive” (Greek: aichmálo̱tos), of very similar phonetics”.
More recently, I wrote about it, and the origin of the name “Haman”, as an Egyptian name, in my article:
Setting the record straight on the historical Haman
(5) Setting the record straight on the historical Haman | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Some Islamic scholars have thought, but most anachronistically, to connect the name and person, Haman, with Hemiunu, the architect of King Cheops’s Great Pyramid:
Qur’an catapults evil Haman way back to the era of Moses
https://www.academia.edu/38676968/Qur_an_catapults_evil_Haman_way_back_to_the_era_of_Moses
My identification of Haman with the well-known (and ill-fated) biblical king Jehoiachin thus enables for any guess work to be taken out of the historical location of the Book of Esther.
Now, James B. Jordan himself has realised that there is a problem with his own reconstruction. And it turns out to be a major one. Jordan continues:
The main argument against my hypothesis would be that Ezekiel 38-39 picture an invasion of the land of Israel, whereas the events of Esther happened throughout the Persian Empire. At present, this argument does not have much force with me because of the fact that this entire section of Ezekiel is so highly symbolic in tone anyway. Chapter 37 gives us the vision of the valley of dry bones, after all, and chapters 40-48 are a thoroughly geometrical vision of the Restoration Temple. Thus, I can see no difficulty in assuming that Ezekiel is picturing the final world-wide attack of Amalek and his cohorts under the imagery of an attack on the land, imagery derived from the book of Judges (cp. Jud. 18:7, 10, 27 with Ezk. 38:8, 11, 14).
A final corroboration of this interpretive hypothesis comes from what we might call the "Amalek Pattern" in the Bible. Note in Genesis 12-15 that Abram moves into the land after escaping Pharaoh (ch. 12), settles down and experiences peace and prosperity (ch. 13), and then faces an invasion of a worldwide alliance of nations (ch. 14). This alliance captures Lot, but Abram rescues him, after which a Gentile priest blesses Abram (ch. 14). Finally, after this, God appears to Abram in a vision and makes covenant with him (ch. 15), guaranteeing him a "house."
Now look at Moses: After escaping Pharaoh (Ex. 1-14), the people are given food and water in the wilderness (Ex. 16). Then Amalek attacks and kills many Lot-like stragglers (Ex. 17; Dt. 25:17-19). Moses defeats Amalek, after which a Gentile priest (Jethro) blesses the people, and then God appears in the Cloud and makes covenant with them (Ex. 18-24), including the building of a "house" (the Tabernacle).
The same themes show up in the history of David: After escaping Pharaoh Saul (1 Sam. 18-26), David finds a place of rest in the "wilderness" at Ziklag (ch. 27). Then Amalek attacks and steals David’s wives (ch. 30), but David defeats them. Following this, a Gentile priest-king (Hiram of Tyre, whose as a Gentile king was also a priest) blesses David (2 Sam. 5:11-12), and then God appears to David in a vision, promising him a "house" (2 Sam. 7).
In this pattern, the attack of Gentile world powers (Gen. 14) is associated with the attack of Amalek (Ex. 17; 1 Sam. 27). As can plainly be seen, the same pattern recurs in the Restoration. After departing from Babylon, the people settle in the land and experience a degree of peace. Then comes the attack of Amalek and Gog & Magog. After this, Gentile priest-kings sponsor the return of Ezra and Nehemiah to restore the land and the "house."
While it would be fascinating to follow up this theme in the Gospels, Acts, and possibly Revelation, enough has been said to indicate that it is a recurring pattern, and one that lends some support to the hypothesis that the attack of Gog and Magog is fulfilled in the book of Esther.
[End of quote]
As intriguing as might seem to be “the correspondence between Haman and Hamon-Gog”, I would suggest that it is merely a phonetic coincidence, with no actual connection at all between the two names.
Nor do I think that Ezekiel 38-39’s “invasion of the land of Israel”, can be reduced to James B. Jordan’s “highly symbolic in tone”, but that it is rather what would actually turn out to be the biblico-historical case.
Conclusion on Haman
Haman is neither the Haman-Gog of Ezekiel 39, nor the Hemiunu of Old Kingdom Egypt.
Haman was the idolatrous Judean king, Jehoiachin the Captive, whose father had - as a vassal to pharaoh Necho - named his son after the Egyptian god, Amon.
The name has no connection whatsoever to Hamon-Gog.
Russia and the War of Gog and Magog
Are We Living in the Biblical End Times? What Scripture Says About Gog, Magog, and Russian Chaos
BILLY HALLOWELL, FAITHWIRE
02-25-2022
As Russia continues an unprovoked invasion into the sovereign nation of Ukraine, political warnings abound.
Ukraine Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba told the United Nations on Wednesday an outright war with Russia would be the “end of the world order.”
Others are pondering what Russian President Vladamir Putin’s obstinate and dangerous acts mean for the future of international affairs more broadly.
Amid all this dismay, though, is a lingering theological conversation that has unfolded for decades around the biblical end times and Russia’s theoretical involvement in it.
Are the end times upon us? Are Russia’s actions part of the eschatological landscape? What does it all mean? These are just some of the pressing questions before us.
Is Russia a Key End-Times Player?
Most Bible experts carefully discuss these issues and are cautious not to overstate or definitively make proclamations about nations and events, though viable theories have emerged that are worth exploring.
Author Joel Rosenberg has been among those who have vocally explored Old Testament prophecies about the biblical end of days, discussing Russia’s potential placement in the mix. He published a blog post a few years ago in which he discussed world events as they pertain to the writings of Ezekiel, a biblical prophet.
“The Hebrew prophet Ezekiel wrote 2,500 years ago that in the ‘last days of history, Russia and Iran will form a military alliance to attack Israel from the north,” Rosenberg wrote. “Bible scholars refer to this eschatological conflict, described in Ezekiel 38–39, as the ‘War of Gog & Magog.'”
NEW DEVELOPMENT... Russia Rejects Israel’s Claim to Golan Heights
The text discusses a “Gog, of the land of Magog” and points to not only a battle but a victory for the Lord before the world’s eyes.
Ezekiel 38:14-16 (NIV) reads:
“Therefore, son of man, prophesy and say to Gog: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: In that day, when my people Israel are living in safety, will you not take notice of it?
You will come from your place in the far north, you and many nations with you, all of them riding on horses, a great horde, a mighty army. You will advance against my people Israel like a cloud that covers the land. In days to come, Gog, I will bring you against my land, so that the nations may know me when I am proved holy through you before their eyes.”
….
What is Gog and Magog?
There are undoubtedly many opinions surrounding Gog, Magog, and the intensely complex themes in these biblical texts.
GotQuestions is one of the outlets that has provided an explainer regarding Russia, among other facets.
“Gog is a person. Whoever Gog is, he is from the land of Magog and is the leader of Tubal and Meshek (some translations add ‘Rosh’ to the list) and a confederacy of other nations: Persia, Cush, Put, Gomer, and Beth Togarmah (Ezekiel 38:5 –6),” the outlet notes. “And, whoever he is, he will have plans to ‘attack a peaceful and unsuspecting people,’ viz., Israel (verses 11, 14, and 18). But, regardless of Gog’s plans, the Lord God is against him and will defeat him soundly (Ezekiel 38:4-19 –23; 39:3–5).”
This is a pretty concise recap of what is believed to be happening in this text. But you might have a lingering question: Why is Russia believed to be Magog by so many?
If you take out a map and look to the north (these Scriptures note Gog comes from the “far north”), you’ll find Russia and former Soviet territories. So, it’s not surprising to see so many Bible experts point to this region.
One other note worth mentioning here is “Persia,” a nation listed as being in alliance with Magog, is modern-day Iran. Considering current affairs and trajectories, that piece is raising a lot of eyebrows.
….
[End of quotes]
Imposing an ancient scenario upon the modern-day world is never going to fit literally.
Though it may have some metaphorical value.
More sensibly, we read from Jeffrey Goodman (2012):
http://www.newscientificevidenceforgod.com/2012/02/debunking-russiawar-of-gog-and-magog.html
….
Debunking the Russia/War of Gog and Magog Myth
One of the more popular topics among Christians today is the “end times.” With each significant news story, a correlation between it and end times events prophesied in the Bible is sought. Because of recent military activities and tensions in Russia and Israel, the end times event prophesied in the Bible called “The War of Gog and Magog” is now a red hot topic. Ezekiel 38/39 tells how Gog, the powerful leader from the land of Magog, will lead a confederacy of nations to invade Israel during the end times and start a war of unprecedented size and devastation.
Many end times aficionados believe that Magog represents Russia and that Russia will soon come to invade Israel. However, the ancient Assyrians had dealings with Magog, and their Court records clearly identify Magog and it is not Russia. For decades Christians have been deceived and have been unwittingly deceiving others about who is to be involved in the prophesied invasion of Israel. Russia has absolutely nothing to do with Magog and being the nation that will lead an invasion of Israel.
While many may picture Russia as an “evil empire,” personal opinions, traditional views, incomplete research, and current events cannot be the basis of the identification of Gog and Magog and the interpretation of Ezekiel 38/39. The correct identification and interpretation of Ezekiel 38/39 must be based on scripture, with the aid of the archeological and historical context of these scriptures. (The scriptures of the Bible are set in a context of ancient cultures, nations, and times.)
While everyone is entitled to their own opinions, everyone is not entitled to their own set of facts. Although opinions may abound, there is not one verifiable fact or any primary evidence to support the belief that Magog represents Russia. II Peter 1:20 says “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” This is consistent with II Timothy 2:15 which says, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” Any interpretation of Ezekiel 38/39 requires recognition of the historical truth and obedience to the word of God which is truth.
The brief report below explains the great deception about Russia and the War of Gog and Magog. Complete details about this topic and other end time events are available in my new book THE COMETS OF GOD.
….
Russia and the War of Gog and Magog
While most end times Bible prophecy authors have argued that Russia's origins trace back to the ancient nation of "Magog” described in Ezekiel 38-39, this is simply not true. This myth that traces back to the mid 1800’s is built on historical statements that were deliberately altered, and on the assumption that the similarity of certain words could mean something else in another language. Although ancient records have been found that tell a different story about the identity of Magog and about Russia’s origins, the “Russia is Magog” myth persists.
Assyrian Court Records
The popular identification of the nations of Ezekiel 38-39 is not correct. Despite the traditional viewpoint, professional archeologists know the identity of these nations from the Assyrian Royal Court records. The reliable, clear and detailed records of Assyrian Royal Court show they dealt directly with each of these nations about 100 years before Ezekiel wrote. These are the same records that are referred to in Ezra 4:15, 19 and 5:17-6:7. These passages tell how the Jews of the fifth century BC 538 BC–457 BC overcame opposition by the local Persian governor to the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem by referring to these same Assyrian cuneiform court records. They are also the same records Bible scholars now use to provide independent verification and edification of the Bible’s historical accounts from about 805 BC to 530 BC.
The Assyrian Royal Court records provide direct evidence and represent an incontestable primary source on this subject, since they were written during the time period in question by people who were directly involved. Primary sources have greater value than secondary sources, which can include generalizations, speculation and interpretations made long after the occurrence of the events.
On this particular subject, too often what has been written about these countries constitutes secondary evidence and is not based on facts.
In some instances statements are the product of mischief, bias or not studying all of the available information.
The Assyrian Court records show dealings with Magog, Meshech, Tubal, and Togarmah (Ezekiel 38:3-6), the nations that stretched across ancient Asia Minor (modern Turkey) from west to east. From these records we also learn that the ancient nation of Gomer (Ezekiel 38:6), an enemy of the Assyrians invaded Asia Minor by coming down from an area around the northeast shore of the Black Sea. Archeologists know that the militant leader called “Gog” in Ezekiel 38/39 led a confederacy of these nations against invading Gomer. ….
[End of quote]
Russia is a crucial player in non-biblical prophecies approved by the Catholic Church, such as Fatima and the Divine Mercy (as opposed to the myriads of unapproved ones like Garabandal, Medjugorje, etc., etc.).
Fatima 1917
Brother André Marie asks:
https://catholicism.org/what-are-the-errors-of-russia.html
What Are ‘the Errors of Russia?’
MAR 23, 2017 BROTHER ANDRÉ MARIE
In her apparition of July 13, 1917, Our Lady of Fatima told Sister Lucy that “Russia will spread its errors throughout the world, raising up wars and persecutions against the Church.
The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, and various nations will be annihilated.”
People sometimes ask the question, “What are the errors of Russia?” In her article, Have the “Errors of Russia” Now Infected Rome?, Dr. Maike Hickson gives the most exhaustive list I have ever seen in reply to this question.
….
But, what, then, are the “errors of Russia” as they were developing at the time of the Bolshevik-Russian Revolution shortly after the Fatima apparitions? It would seem that they include, among other things, the following list of characteristics:
1. A reductively atheistic materialist world-view which aims at undermining anything Christian in society;
2. An ideology that is disconnected from Truth and reality;
3. A cultural Marxism that later permeated also the West with the help of the Frankfurt School and Antonio Gramsci’s ideas;
4. A revolutionary socialistic spirit that undermines especially major aspects of family life – especially with the help of feminism, divorce and abortion;
5. A Hegelian dialectic philosophy, along with dialectic materialism, which claims that strife and ongoing contention in society are necessary in order to bring about higher and unfolding forms of life; such an approach essentially denies and purportedly transcends the principle or law of non-contradiction.
6. A form of governing “revolutionary socialism” that is also constitutionally called “Democratic Centralism,” the latter formulation meaning that things have the appearance of being openly democratic, yet they are all centrally organized and managed in the background (Dr. Robert Hickson recently applied this principle to the current situation in the Church – especially with regard to the Family Synods – here);
7. A disregard for tradition and for the traditional institutions of society (or now of the Church, such as the Curia?) as “counter-revolutionary forces”;
8. A deceitful misuse of language with the intent to manipulate the public;
9. A method of branding one’s own opponents with sweeping and demeaning epithets that abstractly categorize them as “right-wing” or “counter-revolutionary” [and what about the most-common term in use among the left: “fascist”?];
10. An approach to ongoing revolutionary changes where there is both “a slow path” and “a fast path” of the Revolution; such is “the Dialectic” and the “dialectical process”;
11. Toward more moderate and compromising opponents, one first tries to incorporate them into the professed new system so as to use them as Lenin’s “useful idiots” in the sense that they help give to the world the illusory idea that nothing has really changed;
12. As a last element – but of course a very important and painful one for those who lived under Communism – there is a constant sense of distrust and fear, unto the imprisonment and killing of one’s intransigent opponents.
[End of quotes]
Divine Mercy
Divine anger at Russia: https://www.theprodigalfather.org/lecture-on-divine-mercy-what-jesus-said-about-russia-and-how-we-can-be-at-peace-in-a-time-of-war-cancel-culture-polarization-and-division/’
Sister Faustina Kowalska, standing in the breach as a new Moses:
…. This was December 19, 1936. [818] I have offered this day to Russia. I have offered all my sufferings and prayers for that developing country. After Holy Communion, Jesus said to me; I cannot suffer that country anymore. (Listen to this) Do not tie my hands, My daughter. (209) I understood that if it had not been for the prayers of souls pleasing to God, the whole nation would have already been reduced to nothingness. Oh, how I suffer for that nation which has banished God from its borders! ….
Conclusion on Russia
Gog and Magog pertain to antiquity, not to the modern era, Fatima and Russia’s errors, which are dealt with, instead, in the Fatima and Divine Mercy revelations of the C20th.
These are still most relevant today!
Some Geography
Old Testament texts, such as the much-discussed Ezekiel 38 and 39,
should be studied according to their own proper geographical setting,
rather than having superimposed upon them a modern global world scene.
The geography of Ezekiel 38 and 39 can be well understood, for instance,
from the Assyrian incursions into the same regions not much before Ezekiel’s own time.
One must reject a common tendency today to take words from, e.g., Ezekiel 38:2, such as rosh (רֹאשׁ), and meshech (מֶשֶׁךְ), and tubal (תֻבָל), and re-invent them as modern places, such as, respectively: “Russia”; “Moscow”; and “Tobolsk” (or “Tblisi”).
Not to mention the possibility that “Gog” (38:1, 2) himself might stand for “President Putin”.
Rosh is best interpreted, not as a place name, but as e.g. “chief”, hence (38:2): “Gog, of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal”, whilst the last two names are known from the Assyrian records as Mushki (Muški) and Tabal.
There seem to have been a western Mushki (= Phrygia) and an eastern Mushki (Cappadocia and Cilicia). “The Phrygian King Midas has been identified with Mita of Mushki, who appears in Assyrian records as a contemporary of Sargon II between ca. 718 and 709 BC”:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=sqOXCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA133&lpg=PA133&dq=mita+of+mushki+sargon+iI&source=bl&ots=CiKC0Byq8q&sig=JsvzmPuYdCGZCT6qifLpz6Lf8qo
Tabal was located in the Kayseri region of central Anatolia.
As for Magog, I like the following Assyrian-based explanation, once again, that the name simply means “the land of Gog” (http://blogs.christianpost.com/guest-views/debunking-the-russia-war-of-gog-and-magog-myth-8754/)
Gog is a historical man who the Greeks called Gyges of Lydia. In Gyges of Lydia we have the leader the Assyrians called "Gugu, King of Ludu," and "Gugu of Magugu," who is referred to in the Bible as Gog of Magog. "Magog" simply means "the land of Gog." In Akkadian ma means land, so in Akkadian Ma- gugu means "the land of Gugu," which becomes our Ma-gog. (Just as the Assyrian eponym for the land of the leader called Zamua is rendered as Ma-zamua). Magog is an eponym for the ancient nation of Lydia that was in the westernmost part of Asia Minor.
The Assyrians often referred to a new land by the name of the first leader they learned of from this land. The Assyrians dealt with Lydia through Meshech, who were subsequently defeated by Gomer, and thus the Assyrians finally came to deal with Lydia directly. ….
Then follows the typical extension of the ancient prophecy into a Christian framework:
“In the prophecy of Ezekiel 38/39 Gog is being used as a "historical type" of the "antichrist" who is prophesied to come during the end times, and Magog is being used as a "historical type" of "the land of the antichrist."
Passing on to verses 5-6, we encounter five more place names: “Persia, Cush and Put will be with them, all with shields and helmets, also Gomer with all its troops, and Beth Togarmah …”.
“Persia” = Persia;
“Cush” is Ethiopia;
The Maccabees, in whose era I would set the Gog incident, were confronted by various hostile governors of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia. Thus (2 Maccabees 3:4-6):
But a man named Simon, of the tribe of Benjamin, who had been made captain of the temple, had a disagreement with the high priest about the administration of the city market; and when he could not prevail over Onias he went to Apollonius of Tarsus, who at that time was governor of Coelesyria and Phoenicia.
He reported to him that the treasury in Jerusalem was full of untold sums of money, so that the amount of the funds could not be reckoned, and that they did not belong to the account of the sacrifices, but that it was possible for them to fall under the control of the king.
And (2 Maccabees 8:8-9):
When Philip saw that the man was gaining ground little by little, and that he was pushing ahead with more frequent successes, he wrote to Ptolemy, the governor of Coelesyria and Phoenicia, to come to the aid of the king’s government. Then Ptolemy promptly appointed Nicanor son of Patroclus, one of the king’s chief Friends, and sent him, in command of no fewer than twenty thousand Gentiles of all nations, to wipe out the whole race of Judea. He associated with him Gorgias, a general and a man of experience in military service.
And (2 Maccabees 10:11): “When [Antiochus] Eupator succeeded to the kingdom, he put a certain Lysias in charge of the government as commander-in-chief of Coelesyria and Phoenicia”.
“Gomer”, is generally thought to indicate the Cimmerians.
“Gomer fathered the Cimmerians who located southwest of the Black Sea. After being defeated by the Assyrians they settled in the area between Armenia and Cappadocia (Ezekiel 38:2 and 39:6)”.
http://jaymack.net/genesis-commentary/Dh-The-Line-of-Japheth.asp
“Beth Togarmah” is the Assyrian Til-garimmu
With whom Sargon II made a treaty.
Some of these nations were Japhetic in origin (Genesis 10:2-5):
The sons of Japheth:
Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshek and Tiras.
The sons of Gomer:
Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah.
The sons of Javan:
Elishah, Tarshish, the Kittites and the Rodanites. (From these the maritime peoples spread out into their territories by their clans within their nations, each with its own language.)
“On the mountains of Israel”
A key factor militating against the possibility of satisfactorily locating Ezekiel’s Gog incident to the Book of Esther, with Gog being Haman, was James B. Jordan’s point: “The main argument against my hypothesis would be that Ezekiel 38-39 picture an invasion of the land of Israel, whereas the events of Esther happened throughout the Persian Empire”.
He is right, for according to Ezekiel 39:1-6:
Son of man, prophesy against Gog and say: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against you, Gog, chief prince of Meshek and Tubal. I will turn you around and drag you along. I will bring you from the far north and send you against the mountains of Israel. Then I will strike your bow from your left hand and make your arrows drop from your right hand. On the mountains of Israel you will fall, you and all your troops and the nations with you. I will give you as food to all kinds of carrion birds and to the wild animals. You will fall in the open field, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD. I will send fire on Magog and on those who live in safety in the coastlands, and they will know that I am the LORD’.
Clearly, the geographical setting for the annihilation of the forces of Gog is ‘the land of Israel and its mountains’. And, whilst that region may not fit well the drama of the Book of Esther, it is precisely the geography for the many confrontations between the Seleucid armies and the Maccabean Jews.
Real Gog and Magog
Now the word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him …’.
Ezekiel 38:1-2
And you, son of man, prophesy against Gog, and say, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “Behold, I am against you, O Gog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal …”.’
Ezekiel 39:1
And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
Revelation 20:8
Certain books deemed apocryphal, that do not constitute part of the Jewish or Protestant canon, but which figure in the Catholic bibles, I have found to be absolutely essential for completing key identifications.
For example:
Without the Book of Tobit, one might not be able to come to realise that, contrary to the textbooks, Sennacherib succeeded his father, Shalmaneser [V] (Tobit 1:15): “But when Shalmaneser died, and his son Sennacherib reigned in his place ...”.
Hence my:
Assyrian King Sargon II, Otherwise Known As Sennacherib
https://www.academia.edu/6708474/Assyrian_King_Sargon_II_Otherwise_Known_As_Sennacherib
Again, without the Book of Tobit, I may never have been able properly to identify (at least as I see it) the prophet Job:
Job’s Life and Times
https://www.academia.edu/3787850/Jobs_Life_and_Times
And, without the Book of Judith, I may never have discovered what actually happened to the 185,000-strong army of Sennacherib:
“Nadin” (Nadab) of Tobit is the “Holofernes” of Judith
https://www.academia.edu/36576110/_Nadin_Nadab_of_Tobit_is_the_Holofernes_of_Judith
Without 1 Maccabees 11:38-51, I would not have had a clue as to what historical situation was being referred to in 2 Maccabees 8:20: “And of the battle that they had fought against the Galatians, in Babylonia; how they, being in all but six thousand, when it came to the point, and the Macedonians, their companions, were at a stand, slew a hundred and twenty thousand, because of the help they had from heaven, and for this they received many favours”.
Jews annihilate the “Galatians”
https://www.academia.edu/44850554/Jews_annihilate_the_Galatians_
Now it seems to me that 1 and 2 Maccabees, again, might enable for the interpretation of that enigmatic prophecy by Ezekiel concerning Gog and Magog, which is later taken up by the Evangelist St. John in the Book of Revelation.
“Holofernes” and Nicanor
Because of certain similarities between the Maccabean accounts of Nicanor against the Jews, and the arrogant “Holofernes” who sought to take Jerusalem, some commentators presume that the Book of Judith was written during – and mirrored - the C2nd BC era of the Maccabees.
Judith Parallels in Maccabean
Defeat of Treacherous Nicanor
The author(s) of the Nicanor narratives in 1 and 2 Maccabees may well have had in mind the stirring ancient saga of the heroine Judith’s defeat of “Holofernes”.
This last was, according to my reconstructions, e.g.:
A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf
the catalyst for the rout and defeat of Sennacherib’s 185,000-strong Assyrian army.
And Judas Maccabeus will duly allude to this epic Jewish victory in his prayer for victory against the blasphemous Nicanor:
I Maccabees 7:40-42: “Then Judas prayed and said, ‘When the messengers from the king spoke blasphemy, your angel went out and struck down one hundred and eighty-five thousand of the Assyrians. So also crush this army before us today; let the rest learn that Nicanor has spoken wickedly against the sanctuary, and judge him according to this wickedness’.”
Cf. Judith’s prayer (Judith 9:7-14):
‘Here are the Assyrians, a vast force, priding themselves on horse and chariot, boasting of the power of their infantry, trusting in shield and spear, bow and sling. They do not know that you are the Lord who crushes wars; Lord is your name. Shatter their strength in your might, and crush their force in your wrath. For they have resolved to profane your sanctuary, to defile the tent where your glorious name resides, and to break off the horns of your altar with the sword. See their pride, and send forth your fury upon their heads. Give me, a widow, a strong hand to execute my plan. By the deceit of my lips, strike down slave together with ruler, and ruler together with attendant. Crush their arrogance by the hand of a female.
Your strength is not in numbers, nor does your might depend upon the powerful. You are God of the lowly, helper of those of little account, supporter of the weak, protector of those in despair, savior of those without hope.
Please, please, God of my father, God of the heritage of Israel, Master of heaven and earth, Creator of the waters, King of all you have created, hear my prayer!
Let my deceitful words wound and bruise those who have planned dire things against your covenant, your holy temple, Mount Zion, and the house your children possess. Make every nation and every tribe know clearly that you are God, the God of all power and might, and that there is no other who shields the people of Israel but you alone’.
II Maccabees 15:22-24: “[Judas’s] prayer was worded thus: ‘You, Master, sent your angel in the days of Hezekiah king of Judaea, and he destroyed no less than one hundred and eighty-five thousand of Sennacherib’s army; now, once again, Sovereign of heaven, send a good angel before us to spread terror and dismay. May these men be struck down by the might of your arm, since they have come with blasphemy on their lips to attack your holy people’. And on these words he finished”.
Because of the undoubted similarities between the Judith drama and Maccabees here, some commentators conclude that the Book of Judith must be a late product reflecting Maccabean times. For example (http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/judith.htm):
Both the apocalyptic element in the book and certain details of the narrative suggest that it dates from the period of the Maccabees. Nebuchadnezzar, for example, is said to have wanted “to destroy all local gods so that the nations should worship Nebuchadnezzar alone and people of every language and nationality should hail him as a god” (3:8). Yet it was the Seleucids, not the Assyrians or Babylonians, whose kings first insisted on divine honors. In that case, “Nebuchadnezzar” might represent Antiochus IV, while “Holofernes” may stand for his general Nicanor, “Assyrians” for the Seleucid Syrians, and “Nineveh” for Antiochus's capital Antioch. This interpretation is supported by the existence of a Hebrew Midrash that tells the story of Judith in an abbreviated form, explicitly assigning it to the period of Seleucid oppression.
[End of quote]
The fact is that Judith of Bethulia and Judas Maccabeus belonged to two entirely different eras separated the one form the other by at least half a millennium.
Judith belongs to the neo-Assyrian era of Sennacherib (c. 700 BC). Hence, “Assyrians” in the Book of Judith means Assyrians, not “Seleucid Syrians”, and “Nineveh” means Nineveh, and not “Antioch”!
But there are, nevertheless, definite parallels between the two eras, just as someone arriving on earth in a thousand years’ time might discern parallels between the First and Second World Wars. May even end up concluding that this must have been just the one World War.
Judith’s era is somewhat like, but yet very different from, the era of Judas Maccabeus.
The Book of Judith, probably written by the high priest, Joakim (4:6), could not have been influenced by 1 and 2 Maccabees. Instead, it could only have been the other way around.
Comparing the two enthralling sagas, we find for example:
Just as the Assyrian king will send his competent second-in command (Judith 2:4), so will King Demetrius send Nicanor “ranking as Illustrious” (I Maccabees 7:1, 26).
Like “Holofernes” (6:2-6), Nicanor is arrogant and mocking (as according to Judas’s testimony above).
The Jews, the priests, in Jerusalem, in fear for their Temple, turn to God and ask for vengeance upon the Assyrians (4:9-12), as do those whom Nicanor had mocked and threatened (I Maccabees 7:36-37).
In both sagas, the small Jewish forces will be confronted by massive foreign ones.
Like “Holofernes”, Nicanor falls early, thus precipitating a rout.
The Jews then swarm upon the enemy from all quarters.
The head of “Holofernes” is publicly displayed (14:1), as is that of Nicanor (I Maccabees 7:47).
Judith and her victorious people will celebrate the victory for “three months” (16:20), whilst the Maccabees will mark the day as an annual day of celebration (Mordecai’s Day) (I Maccabees 7:48-49).
Peace then prevailed for a time (cf. Judith 16:25; I Maccabees 7:50).
The main point of this article, though, is to identify “Gog and Magog”.
How does the above relate to this enigmatic foe of Israel?
Is Nicanor the key?
Gog Long Foretold
Ezekiel 38:16-17
…. O Gog …. Thus saith the Lord GOD; ‘Art thou he of whom I have spoken in old time by my servants the prophets of Israel, which prophesied in those days many years that I would bring thee against them?’
Who foretold Gog?
Some Equivocal References
Prophetic utterance about Gog goes back to the time of Moses according to some versions of Numbers 24:7, such as the LXX, which renders Balaam’s prediction of “a king higher than Agag”, as “a king higher than Gog”. Likewise the Samaritan Hebrew text.
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=yjMHAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PA33&lpg=RA1-P).
But there is an Amalekite king called “Agag” at the time of King Saul (I Samuel 15:8): “[Saul] also took Agag king of the Amalekites alive …”.
Again (http://danielstreett.com/2011/09/23/gog-the-locust-king-lxx-texts-of-note-3/): “In Vaticanus, Deut 3:1, 13 read Γωγ [Gog] instead of Ὠγ [Og] as the king of Βασάν [Bashan]. Og, of course, also takes on mythic proportions in Jewish tradition”.
The name, “Gog”, also appears in the LXX version of Amos 7:1, the prophet Amos actually belonging to the neo-Assyrian period of the C9th-8th’s BC. We read of this at: http://danielstreett.com/2011/09/23/gog-the-locust-king-lxx-texts-of-note-3/
In Amos 7:1 LXX we have a most intriguing passage. Most English translations read something like this: “The sovereign LORD showed me this: I saw him making locusts just as the crops planted late were beginning to sprout. (The crops planted late sprout after the royal harvest.)” (NET Bible)
Gog the Grasshopper
The LXX, however, reads: οὕτως ἔδειξέν μοι κύριος καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπιγονὴ ἀκρίδων ἐρχομένη ἑωθινή καὶ ἰδοὺ βροῦχος εἷς Γωγ ὁ βασιλεύς. In English: “Thus the Lord showed me, and behold, a swarm of locusts coming early, and behold, one locust, Gog, the king.” It’s possible that the translator has seen in Amos 7:1 a link to Joel’s locust army, which comes from the north (Joel 2:20), and has thus linked it to Ezekiel’s Gog, which also comes from the north (Ezek 38:15).
[End of quote]
More Promising Predictions
Though the prophet Zechariah, who is late - whose life continued on into the post-exilic period - never actually mentions Gog, he does predict a Jewish victory over the Greeks (9:13):
I will bend Judah as I bend my bow
and fill it with Ephraim.
I will rouse your sons, Zion,
against your sons, Greece,
and make you like a warrior’s sword.
The most promising of all biblical anticipations of the Macedonian Greek hostile incursions into Palestine comes of course from the prophet Daniel, from as far back as “the first year of Darius the Mede” (11:1), who was none other than the King Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther.
The prophet Ezekiel refers to Daniel in several places. Though various modern commentaries suggest that this is not the Daniel of the Old Testament, but possibly a pagan king, Dan’el, of Ugaritic literature. In my article on this:
The Identity of the “Daniel” in Ezekiel 14 and 28
(DOC) Identity of the 'Daniel' in Ezekiel 14 and 28 | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
I quoted the following from The Jerome Biblical Commentary (my emphasis):
Inasmuch as Daniel (Hebr consonants d-n-‘-l, Danel, as in Ugaritic) is placed beside Noah and Job, he is probably a figure from antiquity known through popular tradition and not to be identified with the biblical Daniel. Probably, although not necessarily, the reference is to Danel of ancient Ugarit, known for the effectiveness of his intercession with the gods, for attention to their desires, and as a righteous judge (ANET 150).
Sticking, however, with the real Daniel, the biblical prophet, who I believe was Ezekiel’s “Daniel”, this is what that prophet foretold about the one who I think looms as a most likely candidate for Gog (11:21-31):
He will be succeeded by a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty. He will invade the kingdom when its people feel secure, and he will seize it through intrigue. Then an overwhelming army will be swept away before him; both it and a prince of the covenant will be destroyed. After coming to an agreement with him, he will act deceitfully, and with only a few people he will rise to power. When the richest provinces feel secure, he will invade them and will achieve what neither his fathers nor his forefathers did. He will distribute plunder, loot and wealth among his followers. He will plot the overthrow of fortresses—but only for a time.
With a large army he will stir up his strength and courage against the king of the South. The king of the South will wage war with a large and very powerful army, but he will not be able to stand because of the plots devised against him. Those who eat from the king’s provisions will try to destroy him; his army will be swept away, and many will fall in battle. The two kings, with their hearts bent on evil, will sit at the same table and lie to each other, but to no avail, because an end will still come at the appointed time. The king of the North will return to his own country with great wealth, but his heart will be set against the holy covenant. He will take action against it and then return to his own country.
At the appointed time he will invade the South again, but this time the outcome will be different from what it was before. Ships of the western coastlands will oppose him, and he will lose heart. Then he will turn back and vent his fury against the holy covenant. He will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant.
His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation. With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant, but the people who know their God will firmly resist him.
Who is Gog?
What did the prophet Ezekiel have in mind when he predicted the rise of Gog?
Since Ezekiel’s “Gog”, already foretold in bygone days, was to emerge at a time well beyond Ezekiel’s own era (38:8): “After many days you will be called to arms. In future years you will invade a land that has recovered from war …”, and well after the return from Babylonian Exile: “… whose people were gathered from many nations to the mountains of Israel, which had long been desolate. They had been brought out from the nations, and now all of them live in safety”, we would not expect the prophet to have crystal clear knowledge of this future enemy - just a general impression.
Ezekiel, apparently having an inspired awareness of the general region to be ruled by the future foe of Israel, chose to identify him by the generic name of “Gog”.
This was likely a hearkening back to the historical king Gyges of Lydia, whom the Assyrians called “Gugu, King of Ludu”.
For the Seleucids did indeed rule over the Lydian realm of Gyges.
(https://books.google.com.au/books?id=yklDk6Vv0l4C&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=eum):
“The Romans are said to have taken “India and Media and Lydia” from Antiochus and to have given them to Eumenes”. This is a reference to I Maccabees 8:8.
{Commentators say that “India” ought perhaps to be replaced here by “Ionia”, since the Seleucids are thought not to have reigned over India}.
I have already discussed Seleucid control over Coele Syria and Phoenicia, as well.
And, although Egypt and Ethiopia rightfully belonged to the Ptolemies, Antiochus IV “Epiphanes”, the stand-out candidate for Ezekiel’s “Gog”, would successfully invade Egypt with a great force (I Maccabees 1:17-20):
And the kingdom was established before Antiochus, and he had a mind to reign over the land of Egypt, that he might reign over two kingdoms.
And he entered into Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots and elephants, and horsemen, and a great number of ships:
And he made war against Ptolemy king of Egypt, but Ptolemy was afraid at his presence, and fled, and many were wounded unto death.
And he took the strong cities in the land of Egypt: and he took the spoils of the land of Egypt.
“[Antiochus] took the spoils of the land of Egypt”. Nothing surprising about that, of course.
But Ezekiel will give as Gog’s very motivation, loot and plunder (38:12-13):
‘I will plunder and loot and turn my hand against the resettled ruins and the people gathered from the nations, rich in livestock and goods, living at the center of the land. Sheba and Dedan and the merchants of Tarshish and all her villages will say to you, “Have you come to plunder? Have you gathered your hordes to loot, to carry off silver and gold, to take away livestock and goods and to seize much plunder?”’
And Antiochus’s next move would be to turn upon Israel and plunder Jerusalem and its Temple (vv. 21-34):
And after Antiochus had ravaged Egypt in the hundred and forty-third year, he returned and went up against Israel.
And he went up to Jerusalem with a great multitude.
And he proudly entered into the sanctuary, and took away the golden altar, and the candlestick of light, and all the vessels thereof, and the table of proposition, and the pouring vessels, and the vials, and the little mortars of gold, and the veil, and the crowns, and the golden ornament that was before the temple: and he broke them all in pieces.
And he took the silver and gold, and the precious vessels: and he took the hidden treasures which he found: and when he had taken all away he departed into his own country.
And he made a great slaughter of men, and spoke very proudly.
And there was great mourning in Israel, and in every place where they were.
And the princes, and the ancients mourned, and the virgins and the young men were made feeble, and the beauty of the women was changed.
Every bridegroom took up lamentation: and the bride that sat in the marriage bed, mourned:
And the land was moved for the inhabitants thereof, and all the house of Jacob was covered with confusion.
And after two full years the king sent the chief collector of his tributes to the cities of Juda, and he came to Jerusalem with a great multitude.
And he spoke to them peaceable words in deceit: and they believed him.
And he fell upon the city suddenly, and struck it with a great slaughter, and destroyed much people in Israel.
And he took the spoils of the city, and burnt it with fire, and threw down the houses thereof, and the walls thereof round about:
And they took the women captive, and the children, and the cattle they possessed.
Not long after this, however, Judas Maccabeus began to win battles against the hated foreigners. He defeated Apollonius, who had “gathered together the Gentiles, and a numerous and great army from Samaria, to make war against Israel” (3:10-11). And then an army led by “Seron, captain of the army of Syria” (vv. 13-24).
Naturally, these setbacks infuriated king Antiochus IV (vv. 27-33):
Now when king Antiochus heard these words, he was angry in his mind: and he sent and gathered the forces of all his kingdom, an exceeding strong army.
And he opened his treasury, and gave out pay to the army for a year: and he commanded them, that they should be ready for all things.
And he perceived that the money of his treasures failed, and that the tributes of the country were small because of the dissension, and the evil that he had brought upon the land, that he might take away the laws of old times:
And he feared that he should not have as formerly enough, for charges and gifts, which he had given before with a liberal hand: for he had abounded more than the kings that had been before him.
And he was greatly perplexed in mind, and purposed to go into Persia, and to take tributes of the countries, and to gather much money.
And he left Lysias, a nobleman of the blood royal, to oversee the affairs of the kingdom, from the river Euphrates even to the river of Egypt:
And to bring up his son Antiochus, till he came again.
So it is apparent that the profligate Antiochus “Epiphanes” was ever seeking more and more plunder and wealth. Just like Gog.
Moreover, due to the vastness of the Seleucid empire, Antiochus could draw on what Ezekiel says of Gog, “the many nations with you” (38:6). These included (vv. 5-6) “Persia”, to where Antiochus would march to replenish his treasury, “Cush”, included in his conquest of Egypt, “and Put will be with them, all with shields and helmets, also Gomer with all its troops, and Beth Togarmah from the far north with all its troops”, all lands belonging to the Seleucid empire.
Later Antiochus’s general, Nicanor, will march against the Jews with “no fewer than twenty thousand armed men of different nations”, or, as The Jerusalem Bible puts it, “an international force” (2 Maccabees 8:9).
From a reading through of 1 and 2 Maccabees one learns that the Maccabean family would have to face wave after wave of massive forces over a lengthy period of time. In other words, the assault by Gog upon Israel was not simply just one concentrated invasion at one point in time, as was the case with Sennacherib’s Assyrian army of 185,000. No, it was a prolonged affair. And it saw one Seleucid king succeed another.
Ezekiel, who knew the broad outline of the war, summarised it as follows whilst reverting to apocalyptic language (38:14-20):
Therefore, son of man, prophesy and say to Gog: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: In that day, when my people Israel are living in safety, will you not take notice of it? You will come from your place in the far north, you and many nations with you, all of them riding on horses, a great horde, a mighty army. You will advance against my people Israel like a cloud that covers the land. In days to come, Gog, I will bring you against my land, so that the nations may know me when I am proved holy through you before their eyes. This is what the Sovereign LORD says: You are the one I spoke of in former days by my servants the prophets of Israel. At that time they prophesied for years that I would bring you against them. This is what will happen in that day: When Gog attacks the land of Israel, my hot anger will be aroused, declares the Sovereign LORD. In my zeal and fiery wrath I declare that at that time there shall be a great earthquake in the land of Israel. The fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the beasts of the field, every creature that moves along the ground, and all the people on the face of the earth will tremble at my presence. The mountains will be overturned, the cliffs will crumble and every wall will fall to the ground’.
Gog’s war machine would be no amateur assortment of troops, but a well-oiled and well-armed fighting force that properly understood war (vv. 4-5): “… your horses, your horsemen fully armed, and a great horde with large and small shields, all of them brandishing their swords. Persia, Cush and Put will be with them, all with shields and helmets …”.
Likewise, the forces of Gorgias, one of the “mighty men of the king’s friends” (1 Maccabees 3:38, 4:7): “And they saw the camp of the Gentiles that it was strong, and the men in breastplates, and the horsemen round about them, and these were trained up to war”.
And, later, the troops of king Antiochus V, son of the now-deceased “Epiphanes” (1 Maccabees 6:28-30):
Now when the king heard this, he was angry: and he called together all his friends, and the captains of his army, and them that were over the horsemen.
There came also to him from other realms, and from the islands of the sea hired troops.
And the number of his army was an hundred thousand footmen, and twenty thousand horsemen, and thirty-two elephants, trained to battle.
V. 35: “And they distributed the beasts by the legions: and there stood by every elephant a thousand men in coats of mail, and with helmets of brass on their heads: and five hundred horsemen set in order were chosen for every beast”.
V. 39: “Now when the sun shone upon the shields of gold, and of brass, the mountains glittered therewith, and they shone like lamps of fire”.
V. 51: “And [Antiochus] turned his army against the sanctuary for many days: and he set up there battering slings, and engines and instruments to cast fire, and engines to cast stones and javelins, and pieces to shoot arrows, and slings”.
But all of this massed force will ultimately be in vain, for this is to be a victory, not of Gog’s, but of the Lord’s (38:21-23):
I will summon a sword against Gog on all my mountains, declares the Sovereign LORD. Every man’s sword will be against his brother. I will execute judgment on him with plague and bloodshed; I will pour down torrents of rain, hailstones and burning sulfur on him and on his troops and on the many nations with him. And so I will show my greatness and my holiness, and I will make myself known in the sight of many nations. Then they will know that I am the LORD.’
Historians writing about the Hellenistic era can tend to downplay the significance of the Jewish resistance as being of minor concern to the Seleucid kings, who, they estimate, had far bigger fish to fry.
That would probably have been the case had not the Seleucids had the misfortune to have encountered Judas Maccabeus, undoubtedly one of the greatest military tacticians and intrepid warriors in Jewish history.
Despite the fact that 1 and 2 Maccabees record victory after victory by the Maccabean-led Jews over armies - some of massive size and strength - sent against them by successive kings and governors, and commanded by some of their most illustrious generals, historians seem at pains to play it all down as being of no great import.
That is a common pattern that one finds with regard to biblical history and archaeology. There seems to be a predisposition by would-be scholars to give little or no credit to Israel, to minimalise, or even to annihilate from the historical record, the claims and achievements of Israel. And, ironically, the Israelis can be at the forefront of this, as witness Israel Finkelstein’s boast to have rid history of King Solomon.
Less radically than Finkelstein, but still following a minimalising tendency, Peter Green will describe the Jewish-led resistance of the Maccabees as “a comparatively minor affair” (Alexander to Actium: The Hellenistic Age, 1990, p. 497):
For the clarification of Hellenistic history it should always be borne in mind that the Jewish problem, including the nationalist revolution under Judas Maccabeus … was, from the viewpoint of Alexandria and, subsequently, Antioch, a comparatively minor affair, involving local tribal politics, and significant chiefly because of its strategic setting between Idumaea and Samaria, on the marches of Coele Syria ….
Green is right insofar as he notes Israel’s “significance” in relation to its geographical setting. Did not the prophet Ezekiel have Gog describe it thus (38:12): “I will plunder and loot and turn my hand against the resettled ruins and the people … living at the center [navel] of the land [earth]”?
The fact that king Antiochus “Epiphanes” had, to his chagrin, completely under-estimated the power of the Jewish resistance, is not the same as to say that it was in actuality something “comparatively minor”.
The situation is quite well described at: http://www.zianet.com/maxey/inter3.htm
JUDAS (166 - 160 BC)
In the early days of this growing revolt against his authority and abuses, Antiochus again made a major mistake -- he vastly underestimated the power and zeal of this band of Jewish rebels. He assumed this was little more than a minor incident which would be quickly put down. Therefore, he sent out some of his less capable generals [sic], with only a small army, to seek out the rebels and put down the rebellion. It would prove to be a costly miscalculation.
These generals and their forces were simply not equal to Judas, who was possibly one of the greatest military minds in all of Jewish history! Even though greatly outnumbered, Judas and his rebels defeated general after general in battle. He overpowered General [Apollonius] near Samaria; he routed General Seron in the valley of [Beth-horon]; and in a tremendous victory south of Mizpah he conquered three generals, who led a combined army of 50,000 troops .... and he did it with only 6000 poorly equipped Jewish rebels!! The people of Israel gave Judas the nickname "Maccabeus" because of his great daring and success in "hammering" the enemy forces into the ground.
Antiochus soon realized he had a full-scale rebellion on his hands, and that it was far more serious than he had originally believed. He decided, therefore, to end the revolt in a most dramatic fashion, and to exterminate the Jewish people in the process. He sent Lysias, the commander-in-chief of the Seleucid army, along with 60,000 infantrymen and 5000 cavalry, to utterly destroy the Jews. This vast army was additionally commanded by two generals serving under Lysias -- Nicanor and Gorgias. This powerful army finally encountered Judas, who had a force of only 3000 poorly equipped rebels, in the town of Emmaus, which was just over 7 miles from Jerusalem. Judas managed to gather together another 7000 rebels, but was still terribly outnumbered. He prayed to God for strength and deliverance (I Maccabees 4:30-33), and God answered! They won a huge victory over the Seleucid army!
Judas then determined to enter Jerusalem and liberate the city, and also to purify the Temple and rededicate it to God. When they entered the holy city, the extent of the destruction which they beheld caused them to be overwhelmed by grief (I Maccabees 4:36-40). Their grief, however, soon turned to determination and action. They set about the task of driving the enemy out of the city, and also of cleaning up the Temple. On December 25, 165 BC (exactly three years after Antiochus had defiled the altar of God by offering a pig upon it), the Temple of God was rededicated to God with rejoicing and sacrifices. The celebration continued for eight days. This is the famous "Feast of Lights" (Hanukkah) which is still celebrated by the Jews to this day.
[End of quote]
“To exterminate the
entire Jewish race”
King Antiochus “Epiphanes”
It seems that, whilst the initial motivation of the invading armies had been plunder and loot, as anticipated also by the words Ezekiel will put into the mouth of Gog (38:12-13; cf. v. 10):
‘I will plunder and loot and turn my hand against the resettled ruins and the people gathered from the nations, rich in livestock and goods …’. Sheba and Dedan and the merchants of Tarshish and all her villages will say to you, “Have you come to plunder? Have you gathered your hordes to loot, to carry off silver and gold, to take away livestock and goods and to seize much plunder?”’,
the fury that the unexpected Maccabean victories had stirred up in the hearts of kings Antiochus, Lysias, and Nicanor, had so affected them that the primary motivation now appears to have become - as with wicked Haman (Esther 3:6) - to destroy the Jews completely.
Thus the furious Antiochus “Epiphanes”, returning from Persia (II Maccabees 9:4):
And swelling with anger … thought to revenge upon the Jews the injury done by them that had put him to flight. And therefore he commanded his chariot to be driven, without stopping in his journey, the judgment of heaven urging him forward, because he had spoken so proudly, that he would come to Jerusalem, and make it a common burying place of the Jews.
But it would mainly be the Jews doing the burying as according to Ezekiel 39:11: ‘On that day I will give Gog a burial place in Israel, in the valley of those who travel east of the Sea. It will block the way of travelers, because Gog and all his hordes will be buried there. So it will be called the Valley of Hamon Gog’.
Moreover, it would be the Jews who would be enjoying the abundant booty (I Maccabees 4:23): “And Judas returned to take the spoils of the camp, and they got much gold, and silver, and blue silk, and purple of the sea, and great riches”. (II Maccabees 8:25): “They seized the money from the people who had come to buy them as slaves”.
Moreover, king Antiochus himself would now die a most horrible death (9:8-12):
Thus he that seemed to himself to command even the waves of the sea, being proud above the condition of man, and to weigh the heights of the mountains in a balance, now being cast down to the ground, was carried in a litter, bearing witness to the manifest power of God in himself:
So that worms swarmed out of the body of this man, and whilst he lived in sorrow and pain, his flesh fell off, and the filthiness of his smell was noisome to the army.
And the man that thought a little before he could reach to the stars of heaven, no man could endure to carry, for the intolerable stench.
And by this means, being brought from his great pride, he began to come to the knowledge of himself, being admonished by the scourge of God, his pains increasing every moment.
And when he himself could not now abide his own stench, he spoke thus: It is just to be subject to God, and that a mortal man should not equal himself to God.
Continuing now with: http://www.zianet.com/maxey/inter3.htm
Having finally achieved the liberation of Jerusalem, and the restoration of their religious practices in the Temple, Judas and his rebels now turned their attention to the task of seeking to liberate all of Palestine from pagan control. Within a rather brief period of time they were able to regain possession of much of the land. However, their successes were short-lived, for Lysias, now acting as king after the death of Antiochus, who had died during a military campaign in Persia, gathered a large army and marched upon Jerusalem.
In the autumn of 163 BC, Lysias, and an army of 120,000 men and 32 war elephants, met Judas and his army 10 miles SW of Jerusalem. Lysias made the elephants drunk on grape and mulberry wine so they would stampede over the Jewish rebels (I Maccabees 6:34). This time Judas was unable to prevail, and although they killed 600 of the enemy soldiers, they were nevertheless forced to retreat into the city of Jerusalem. During this battle, Eleazer (the younger brother of Judas) died in a most heroic manner when he single-handedly attacked a large elephant that he believed to be carrying the enemy king (I Maccabees 6:42-46). Lysias surrounded Jerusalem in the hopes of starving the Jews into submission. But during this siege he learned that one of his rivals was marching against his own capital city in an effort to overthrow him and take the throne. Being anxious to return home and defend his throne, he made an offer of peace to Judas -- the Jews would be allowed to worship their God unmolested, if they would remain politically loyal to the Seleucid Empire. Judas agreed to these terms, and Lysias and his army departed.
[End of quote]
At this point we read that (2 Maccabees 12:1): “When these covenants were made, Lysias went to the king, and the Jews gave themselves to husbandry”, for the Jews were apparently, according to Ezekiel (38:12), “stock-breeders and tradesmen”.
Nicanor
Contrary to the view above that king Antiochus had “sent out some of his less capable generals”, the highly-regarded Nicanor, for instance, was “ranked as Illustrious” (I Maccabees 7:26), and was “in the closest circle of the King’s Friends” (II Maccabees 8:9). Now, Nicanor’s brief was brutally straightforward: “Ptolemy immediately appointed Nicanor son of Patroclus … and sent him with more than 20,000 troops of various nationalities to wipe out the entire Jewish race. Ptolemy also appointed Gorgias, a general of wide military experience, to go with him”.
And: (I Maccabees 7:26): “… king [Demetrius] sent Nicanor … who was a bitter enemy to Israel: and he commanded him to destroy the people”.
It was on this occasion, when faced with Nicanor, that Judas Maccabeus would remind his army of the great Jewish victory over Sennacherib’s massive force of 185,000 (7:41).
Just as Ezekiel had foretold the anticipation of the merchant nations for Jewish booty (38:13): “Sheba, and Dedan, and the merchants of Tarshish, with all the young lions thereof, shall say unto thee, Art thou come to take a spoil?”, so do we read in 2 Maccabees 8:10-11:
Nicanor determined to make up for the king the tribute due to the Romans, two thousand talents, by selling the captured Jews into slavery. So he immediately sent to the towns on the seacoast, inviting them to buy Jewish slaves and promising to hand over ninety slaves for a talent, not expecting the judgment from the Almighty that was about to overtake him.
And again (v. 34): “The thrice-accursed Nicanor, who had brought the thousand merchants to buy the Jews …”.
Nicanor, as we read earlier in this series, had come against the Jews with an “international” force, and this claim is further substantiated by I Maccabees 6:29: “There came also to [Nicanor] from other realms, and from the islands of the sea hired troops”.
General Nicanor’s final effort to defeat the heroic Judas Maccabeus is narrated in 1 Maccabees 7:43-49:
And the armies joined battle on the thirteenth day of the month Adar: and the army of Nicanor was defeated, and he himself was first slain in the battle.
And when his army saw that Nicanor was slain, they threw away their weapons, and fled:
And they pursued after them one day's journey from Adazer, even till ye come to Gazara, and they sounded the trumpets after them with signals.
And they went forth out of all the towns of Judea round about, and they pushed them with the horns, and they turned again to them, and they were all slain with the sword, and there was not left of them so much as one.
And they took the spoils of them for a booty, and they cut off Nicanor's head, and his right hand, which he had proudly stretched out, and they brought it, and hung it up over against Jerusalem.
And the people rejoiced exceedingly, and they spent that day with great joy.
And he ordained that this day should be kept every year, being the thirteenth of the month of Adar.
And once again, more elaborately, in 2 Maccabees 15:25-36:
Nicanor and his troops advanced with trumpets and battle songs, but Judas and his troops met the enemy in battle with invocations to God and prayers. So, fighting with their hands and praying to God in their hearts, they laid low at least thirty-five thousand, and were greatly gladdened by God’s manifestation.
When the action was over and they were returning with joy, they recognized Nicanor, lying dead, in full armor. Then there was shouting and tumult, and they blessed the Sovereign Lord in the language of their ancestors. Then the man who was ever in body and soul the defender of his people, the man who maintained his youthful goodwill toward his compatriots, ordered them to cut off Nicanor’s head and arm and carry them to Jerusalem.
When he arrived there and had called his compatriots together and stationed the priests before the altar, he sent for those who were in the citadel. He showed them the vile Nicanor’s head and that profane man’s arm, which had been boastfully stretched out against the holy house of the Almighty. He cut out the tongue of the ungodly Nicanor and said that he would feed it piecemeal to the birds and would hang up these rewards of his folly opposite the sanctuary. And they all, looking to heaven, blessed the Lord who had manifested himself, saying, “Blessed is he who has kept his own place undefiled!”
Judas hung Nicanor’s head from the citadel, a clear and conspicuous sign to everyone of the help of the Lord. And they all decreed by public vote never to let this day go unobserved, but to celebrate the thirteenth day of the twelfth month—which is called Adar in the Aramaic language—the day before Mordecai’s day.
Though the Seleucids had intended for the Jews to be lying dead in heaps, as food for birds and worms, this turned out to be the fate, instead, of their vaunted leaders, such as king Antiochus, dying of worms and foul stench, and Nicanor, his tongue fed “piecemeal to the birds”.
Conclusion about Gog and Magog
This certainly pertains to the era of the Seleucid tyrant-king, Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, and his ill-fated general, Nicanor, who, Judas Maccabeus assured, went completely off his head.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7888615205986009768.post-68992832785609831582024-02-16T20:48:00.000-08:002024-02-16T20:48:32.767-08:00El Amarna in Chaos
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCabONs64jQ39Hl0dTwMLPN-_Re7pp61rDqQnU3dd8V5g2pqsjwBHi0ukqKsSS3cROpV2UMCGDdWpP3ZFg7CctXtLLKDr7QM-_lDyDy2Uyrje8wpISOopt6T1IvmmQWxqAD4VqS24xibR0zz526t5GAmeBNP95wSbomRwvW1wD4LxcmGphV9F6_L8_bOw/s1200/akhenaten-egypt-heretic-pharaoh-secrets.webp" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="690" data-original-width="1200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCabONs64jQ39Hl0dTwMLPN-_Re7pp61rDqQnU3dd8V5g2pqsjwBHi0ukqKsSS3cROpV2UMCGDdWpP3ZFg7CctXtLLKDr7QM-_lDyDy2Uyrje8wpISOopt6T1IvmmQWxqAD4VqS24xibR0zz526t5GAmeBNP95wSbomRwvW1wD4LxcmGphV9F6_L8_bOw/s600/akhenaten-egypt-heretic-pharaoh-secrets.webp"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
“But in the field of history nothing is established for ever: the discovery of new sources,
or simply a new perspective on events, can call into question an almost official historical truth which has been long-accepted by everyone”.
Michael Benoit, The Thirteenth Apostle (p. 355).
Who was Akhnaton? Who, or what, influenced him? What was he trying to do?
Part One: The Exodus?
If Egyptology had got it right with its Sothic dating of the reign of Akhnaton to c. 1350 BC, then a quite common view that would have Akhnaton as a contemporary of the Hebrew Moses, or even as Moses himself, might make one pause to consider its possibility.
For such was the radical religious revolution in Egypt, as brought about singlehandedly by the most unusual of pharaohs, Akhnaton, that the likes of Sigmund Freud, and others, have concluded that the apparent monotheism that the pharaoh enforced upon Egypt had influenced Moses into becoming a monotheist. “Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, even considered that Moses may have been inspired by Akhnaton. In his book Moses and Monotheism, published in 1939, he argued that the Hebrews had been followers of Akhnaton’s religion, and that their god was actually the Aten” (Graham Phillips, Act of God, Pan Books, 1998, p. 171).
There are not a few today who claim – or who wonder whether – Akhnaton was, in fact, the prophet Moses.
A well-known example of this is the Islamic scholar, Ahmed Osman, who made this very identification in his book, Out of Egypt. The Roots of Christianity Revealed (1999).
I critically reviewed the book in my articles:
Osman's ‘Osmosis’ of Moses. Part One: The Chosen People
https://www.academia.edu/44650799/Osmans_Osmosis_of_Moses_Part_One_The_Chosen_People
and:
https://www.academia.edu/44650907/Osmans_Osmosis_of_Moses_Part_Two_Christ_The_King
But there are others who argue that Akhnaton cannot properly be called a monotheist.
Rather, they say, Akhnaton was a henotheist.
Henotheism (Greek "one god") is a term coined by Max Müller, to mean devotion to a single primary god while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities. Müller stated that henotheism means "monotheism in principle and polytheism in fact". He made the term a center of his criticism of Western theological and religious exceptionalism (relative to Eastern religions), focusing on a cultural dogma which held "monotheism" to be both fundamentally well-defined and inherently superior to differing conceptions of God. https://www2.nau.edu/~gaud/bio301/content/heno.htm
This was Dr. I. Velikovsky’s take on the religion of Akhnaton. He wrote Oedipus and Ikhnaton in 1960.
Dr. Velikovsky had also thought that the cataclysmic Thera (Santorini) eruption - which some date to the time of Akhnaton (wrongly, I believe) - was a dramatic backdrop to the biblical Plagues of Egypt and the Exodus. This is yet another factor that has prompted some (e.g. Graham Phillips, op. cit.) to connect Moses to the time of Akhnaton. Dr. Velikovsky himself had re-dated Akhnaton and the whole El Amarna (EA) era to the time of kings Ahab of Israel and Jehoshaphat of Judah, c. 850 BC, some 500 years after the conventional date for Akhnaton.
Unfortunately, the who influenced whom of history gets seriously derailed by the conventional chronology coupled with a poorly documented biblical chronology.
For instance:
- Law of Moses likenesses are also discerned in the Code of Hammurabi, a famous king of Babylon. No one could deny these similarities;
- To King Sargon of Akkad is attributed a legendary story of his rescue from a basket in a river that is clearly like the Exodus account of baby Moses;
- Egyptian literature has a famous Tale of Sinuhe, which professor E. Anati rightly noted ‘shared a common matrix’ with the account of Moses’ flight from Egypt and sojourn in the land of Midian;
- Ramses II is dated to c. 1300 BC, and is claimed to be the Pharaoh of the Exodus;
- Akhnaton’s Sun Hymn is very much like King David’s Psalm 104.
Instinctively, historians will conclude in every case that Moses borrowed - from Sargon; from Hammurabi; from Sinuhe; and that David (if he existed at all) borrowed from Akhnaton. Instinctively, it is always concluded that the biblical tales were the beneficiary of (borrowed from) the pagan original (so-called) versions.
Refreshingly, G. Phillips, who adheres to the conventional chronology, has stated (op. cit., p. 172: “… Akhenaten took his ideas from the Hebrews”.
The revised chronology turns things upside down.
- Hammurabi, now dated to c. 1000 BC, post-dated Moses by half a millennium;
- Tale of Sinuhe appears late, in New Kingdom texts;
- Ramses II, now to be shifted from c. 1300 BC, to c. 700 BC;
- Akhnaton well post-dates Moses.
The only exception is Sargon of Akkad who did indeed pre-date Moses by some centuries. However, the written legend of him as a baby in a basket well post-dates Moses, emerging around the time of Ashurbanipal (c. 700 BC).
Moses was not Akhnaton, nor, chronologically, could he have been influenced by Akhnaton.
Part Two:
Monotheism, henotheism, or polytheism?
What was Akhnaton trying to do?
The account of Atenism that I shall be following here – that prompted me to write this current article, in fact – will be based upon Chapter Seven: “The One God”, of Graham Phillips’ book, Act of God, already referred to.
P. 155: “The most remarkable aspect of Akhenaten’s revolution in religious thought is that it apparently springs into existence – seemingly from nowhere – the moment he becomes king. Apart from passing allusions, there is only a handful of references predating Akhenaten’s reign which seem to give the Aten any real significance”.
Here Phillips gives four such earlier cases, from Amenemhet I of the Twelfth Dynasty to Amenhotep III, Akhnaton’s father.
Graham Phillips’ statement above (p. 155) had already set my mind thinking in the direction that Akhnaton may have been a foreigner, an invader of Egypt – and certainly not one involved in any sort of Exodus.
And when did such a foreign invasion of Egypt occur, one that attacked Egypt’s old religion? (- discounting the Hyksos invasion which, revised, occurred not long after the Exodus). That was the invasion of the Syrian Arsa, or Aziru, as referred to in the Great Harris Papyrus. (More on that later in this article).
Now, there was a prominent Syrian (or Amurru) named Aziru at the very time of Akhnaton, and he, Dr. I. Velikovsky has identified (rightly, I believe) with the Syrian king, Hazael, of the Bible. On this see e.g. my articles:
Is El Amarna’s Aziru Biblically Identifiable?
https://www.academia.edu/19589826/Is_El_Amarna_s_Aziru_Biblically_Identifiable?sm=b
and:
Is El Amarna’s Aziru Biblically Identifiable? Part Two: Aziru of Papyrus Harris
https://www.academia.edu/19601864/Is_El_Amarna_s_Aziru_Biblically_Identifiable_Part_Two_Aziru_of_Papyrus_Harris?sm=b
P. 156: “… Atenism is even stranger than it first appears: before Akhenaten’s reign this new supreme deity was not really considered a god at all”.
P. 157: “From the Karnak Talatat, together with the relief from early tombs that managed to escape desecration, we learn that Akhenaten had seemingly proclaimed the Aten supreme deity the moment he became pharaoh …”.
…
“From the beginning Akhenaten sees himself as a prophet …. Akhenaten described himself as ‘Divine Ruler of Thebes’.”
P. 158: “Although the Aten is supreme god and Akhenaten is its only prophet from the outset of the reign, there appears to have been no suppression of the old religion for the first four or five years. In fact, the high priest of Amun was still active in the year 4, overseeing the cutting of stone for a royal statue. However, by the year 5 Akhenaten proscribed the cult of Amun-Re, closed the god’s temples, and made a complete break from the past by founding his new city on a virgin site not previously sacred to any god”.
My comment: Na’aman the Syrian had, upon his conversion, taken a pile of Israeli soil to Syria.
2 Kings 5:17: ‘… please let me, your servant, be given as much earth as a pair of mules can carry, for your servant will never again make burnt offerings and sacrifices to any other god but the LORD’.
“Throughout the first half of his reign, Akhenaten seems to have been struggling to find a conventional Egyptian context with which to convey his new religious concept. …
The full title by which Akhenaten refers to his god in his early regnal years is: ‘Re-Herakhte, who rejoices in the horizon in his aspect of the light which is in the sun-disc’.”
P. 159: “However, Akhenaten clearly does not see his god as Re-Herakhte. Namely, ‘the light which is in the sun-disc’. In an attempt to distinguish his deity from any previous god, however, Akhenaten has its name contained in a double cartouche. All the same, it appears that his subjects still found it difficult to grasp the idea that the Aten was something other than Re-Herakhte”.
Prior to my reading of Graham Phillips’ book, I had been accepting of Dr. I. Velikovsky’s view that Akhnaton was a henotheist, having devotion to a primary god amidst a whole host of other gods. Now, thanks to Phillips, I am of the quite different opinion that Akhnaton was imposing monotheism upon Egypt, albeit a practical monotheism, it necessarily having to be adapted to a culture that was riotously polytheistic.
Na’aman had this problem upon his conversion.
2 Kings 5:18-19: ‘But may the LORD forgive your servant for this one thing: When my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I have to bow there also—when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the LORD forgive your servant for this’.
“‘Go in peace,” Elisha said”.
P. 163: ‘There are three essential aspects of Akhenaten’s god which sets it apart from all other Egyptian deities:
• It is the one and only universal god.
• It appears to have had no name.
• It cannot be represented by a graven image.”
My comment: Re the first point, recall here Na’aman’s (2 Kings 5:15): ‘Now I know … that there is no god in all the earth except in Israel’.
On pp. 164-165, Graham Phillips will show, from relevant scriptural quotations, that these three points were also the very essential aspects of the God of Moses.
Akhnaton was not a henotheist.
He was enforcing a one supreme deity upon a completely polytheistic Egypt.
Akhnaton did not live in the time of Moses, but at the time of the Split Kingdom of Israel (Ahab, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Ben-Hadad I).
Part Three: Who was Akhnaton?
The Great Harris Papyrus (GHP) tells of the invasion of Egypt by “a certain Syrian”, Arsa (Iarsu), or Aziru, and this I take to relate to the unconventional reign of Akhnaton in Egypt (Papyrus Harris I, 75: 2-6; Breasted 1905: IV, 198-9):
The land of Egypt was overthrown from without and every man was thrown out of his right; they had no chief for many years formerly until other times. The land of Egypt was in the hands of chiefs and of rulers of towns; one slew his neighbour great and small.
Other times having come after it, with empty years, Iarsu, a certain Syrian was with them as chief. He set the whole land tributary before him together; he united his companions and plundered their possessions. They made the gods like men and no offerings were presented in the temples.
(Quote taken from N. Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt, 1994, p. 270)
To subdue the land of Egypt so completely was no mean accomplishment. It would defy the best efforts of the mighty neo-Assyrian kings, until Ashurbanipal managed fully to accomplish it in the C7th BC (conventional dating).
Now, as we know from the EA letters, a certain Syrian, Aziru, was a contemporary of Akhnaton. He is considered to have been one of the vassal kings subservient to the successive EA pharaohs, Nimmuria (Amenhotep III) and Naphuria (Akhnaton).
Dr. I. Velikovsky had identified the EA Aziru with the biblical king of Syria, Hazael; and he had identified Aziru’s predecessor, Abdi-ashirta, with Hazael’s alleged father (the Bible does not make this connection, I believe), Ben-Hadad.
I fully accept Velikovsky’s twin identifications here. He was able to make this most striking observation in the case of Hazael (in Ages in Chaos, I, 1952):
In the only dialogue preserved in the Scriptures in which Hazael participates, there are three turns of speech that also appear in his [EA] letters. The context of the dialogue - the question of whether the king of Damascus would survive, and the statement that he, Hazael, the new king, would cause the cities of Israel to go up in smoke - is also preserved in the el-Amarna letters. It is therefore a precious example of the authenticity of the scriptural orations and dialogues.
In my university thesis, I took the identification further. Thus:
Hazael = Aziru (EA) = Aziru (GHP):
David Rohl had shown that the Syrian GHP name could be rendered as Hazael. I wrote:
Rohl will, in his explanation of the name Arsa, by which he designates the ‘Syrian’ Aziru, even come to the conclusion - interesting in my context - that this name can be rendered as ‘Asa-el’, which is equivalent to Hazael; though Rohl himself will actually look to date this Arsa to the time of king Asa of Judah (early C9th BC, conventional dating). Here is Rohl’s account of this:
ARSA: also written Arsu or Irsu. However the hieroglyph usually transcribed as ‘u’ was invariably vocalised as ‘a’ (e.g. Hut-waret = Haware; Hut-Hor = Hathor).
• The link between the Israelite Arsa and the Arsa of the Egyptian texts is intriguing but there is another identification possibility. The short name Asa could be a hypocoristicon of a longer nomen containing a theophoric element. The name Asa-el (‘El has made’) does occur in 2 Chronicles 17:8 …. The name Asa combined with the theophoric element El is attested at this time …. Asa, like the king of Damascus Hazael (Aramaean Haza-ilu) ….
But can we now extend this Hazael/Aziru identification even further, to incorporate Akhnaton himself?
That would at first seem most unlikely, given the universal view that EA’s Aziru was a vassal, and correspondent with, Akhnaton.
However, as I have shown in various articles, supposed vassal kings, writing to EA pharaohs, do not necessarily name any pharaoh in their letters. See e.g. my article:
To whom was Baalat-neše writing?
https://www.academia.edu/37765661/To_whom_was_Baalat_ne%C5%A1e_writing
Now the same situation I seem to find in the case with Aziru of EA. He, assassinator of his alleged father, Abdi-ashirta, then taken in as an ally by the Hittite emperor, Suppiluliumas, never actually names Akhnaton (Naphuria).
The kings who do refer to the pharaohs by their throne names tend to be the eastern Great Kings, of Babylon (Karduniash), of Mitanni, and of Assyria. (There is also a western coastal king). Thus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amarna_letters
EA# Letter author to recipient
EA# 1
Amenhotep III to Babylonian king Kadashman-Enlil
EA# 2
Babylonian king Kadashman-Enlil to Amenhotep III
EA# 3
Babylonian king Kadashman-Enlil to Amenhotep III
EA# 4
Babylonian king Kadashman-Enlil to Amenhotep II
EA# 5
Amenhotep III to Babylonian king Kadashman-Enlil
EA# 6
Babylonian king Burna-Buriash II to Amenhotep III
EA# 7
Babylonian king Burna-Buriash II to Amenhotep IV
EA# 8
Babylonian king Burna-Buriash II to Amenhotep IV
EA# 9
Babylonian king Burna-Buriash II to Amenhotep IV
EA# 10
Babylonian king Burna-Buriash II to Amenhotep IV
EA# 11
Babylonian king Burna-Buriash II to Amenhotep IV
….
EA# 14
Amenhotep IV to Babylonian king Burna-Buriash II
EA# 15
Assyrian king Ashur-Uballit I to Amenhotep IV
EA# 16
Assyrian king Ashur-Uballit I to Amenhotep IV
EA# 17
Mitanni king Tushratta to Amenhotep III
EA# 18
Mitanni king Tushratta to Amenhotep III
EA# 19
Mitanni king Tushratta to Amenhotep III
EA# 20
Mitanni king Tushratta to Amenhotep III
EA# 21
Mitanni king Tushratta to Amenhotep III
EA# 22
Mitanni king Tushratta to Amenhotep III
EA# 23
Mitanni king Tushratta to Amenhotep III
EA# 24
Mitanni king Tushratta to Amenhotep III
EA# 25
Mitanni king Tushratta to Amenhotep III
EA# 26
Mitanni king Tushratta to widow Tiy
EA# 27
Mitanni king Tushratta to Amenhotep IV
EA# 28
Mitanni king Tushratta to Amenhotep IV
EA# 29
Mitanni king Tushratta to Amenhotep IV
EA# 30
Mitanni king to Palestine kings
EA# 31
Amenhotep III to Arzawa king Tarhundaraba
EA# 32
Arzawa king Tarhundaraba to Amenhotep III(?)
….
EA#156
Amurru king Aziri to pharaoh #1
EA#157
Amurru king Aziri to pharaoh #2
EA#158
Amurru king Aziri to Dudu #1
EA#159 Amurru king Aziri to pharaoh #3
EA#160 Amurru king Aziri to pharaoh #4
EA#161
Amurru king Aziri to pharaoh #5
….
The Syro-Palestinian kings do not tend to do this.
Thus Akhnaton (Naphuria) and Aziru do not necessarily cancel out each other.
Akhnaton still can be the Syrian Aziru (= Hazael), the invader of GHP, who closed the temples and who made the gods like men (i.e., non-gods).
This new scenario now opens the door for those “empty years” of GHP to mean (Grimal, op. cit., ibid.): “A number of ‘empty’ years designate a period when the throne was effectively considered to be vacant because it was occupied by a usurping line”.
To the two questions:
Who was Akhnaton?
What was he trying to do?
I have so far concluded in this article:
Akhnaton was Hazael of Syria (Aram) = Aziru of EA.
Akhnaton was attempting to impose Mosaïc monotheism upon a polytheistic Egypt –
not at the time of Moses, though, but in the Divided Kingdom period (of Ahab,
Ben-Hadad, Jehoram).
But why?
What could possibly have prompted an apparently ruthless king of Syria – who had even assassinated his long-reigning Syrian predecessor – to subdue Egypt and to undertake the herculean task of trying to turn the Egyptians into monotheists?
The answer to this lies in ‘The Sinai Commission’.
The prophet Elijah had been commanded by Yahweh at Horeb (I Kings 19:15-17):
‘Go back the way you came. Go to the Desert of Damascus. When you get there, anoint Hazael as king over Aram. Also anoint Jehu as king over Israel. He is the son of Nimshi. And anoint Elisha from Abel Meholah as the next prophet after you. He is the son of Shaphat. Jehu will put to death anyone who escapes Hazael’s sword. And Elisha will put to death anyone who escapes Jehu’s sword’.
to wipe out the House of Ahab and to uproot Baalism.
Hazael was to be at the head of this divine commission.
But, again, why choose a Syrian to do this work? Jehu and Elisha, yes, they were Israelites sternly opposed to Baalism, but what sort of affiliation had they with this Syrian?
The answer to this is, plenty, if the Syrian were one upon whose very person the prophet Elisha had worked a miracle. I refer to Na’aman the leper, who was a Syrian captain.
He, I have previously identified with Hazael:
Na’aman and Hazael
https://www.academia.edu/42245731/Naaman_and_Hazael
But there was also a spiritual miracle, a metanoia, involved.
Na’aman had vowed never again to worship idolatrously. He was now entirely Yahweh’s man.
Legend has it that this Na’aman had actually been the cause of the death of king Ahab of Israel, the one who had mortally wounded him with an arrow.
As Hazael (presuming he were), he also took the credit in the Tell Dan inscription for the demise of Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah – a victory that the Bible accredits to Jehu.
As Elisha foresaw, Hazael was to cause havoc in Israel - though Elisha must nevertheless have consented to it. Mary of Nazareth must have detested with all her maternal instincts what was being done to her Son, who actually referred to the Na’aman incident with Elisha (Luke 4:27):
‘And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed--only Naaman the Syrian’, but she consented to it as being the fulfilment of a long-expected divine plan for the salvation of humanity: ‘Let it be it done unto me according to thy word’ (1:38).
So, at some stage, Hazael also subdued Egypt, possibly with Assyrian assistance since the contemporaneous Asuruballit of Assyria will later be called by his descendant, Adad-nirari, “subduer of Musru [Egypt]”?
Relevant to this situation of the land of Egypt under Syrian occupation, Graham Phillips has written (op. cit., p. 153): “So different was everything about the Amarnans that some scholars even concluded that they had not been Egyptians at all, but foreign settlers who had merely adopted the Egyptian language”. (A correct estimation, I believe).
Hazael would have felt some of the same sorts of tensions as he had, as Na’aman, when he – though now a monotheist – had had to move in a polytheistic (Rimmon) environment under the rulership of Ben-Hadad I (as previously discussed).
As in the time of pharaoh Hatshepsut under the influence of Solomon, Davidic wisdom began to pervade Egypt.
On this, see e.g. my article:
Solomon and Sheba
https://www.academia.edu/3660164/Solomon_and_Sheba
I have already referred to the commonly noted likenesses between Akhnaton’s Sun Hymn and King David’s Psalm 104 (with David having the precedence). And Akhnaton at Akhetaton, like Hatshepsut with Thebes, and David with Jerusalem, determined to rest there, “[Akhnaton] swore that he would never again leave the holy city” (G. Phillips, op. cit., p. 58).
Akhnaton, like Oedipus (as noted by Dr. Velikovsky), did indeed slay his father, under the guise of Aziru having slain Abdi-ashirta. Was this father, then, Amenhotep III ‘the Magnificent’, the Nimmuria of EA?
“But in the field of history nothing is established for ever: the discovery of new sources,
or simply a new perspective on events, can call into question an almost official historical truth which has been long-accepted by everyone”.
Michael Benoît, The Thirteenth Apostle (p. 355).
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7888615205986009768.post-88884304585048262392024-02-16T20:41:00.000-08:002024-02-16T20:41:56.257-08:00Chewing over the House of Tudor<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSwKnYfnW7fbkvI3YathDw78a578-L8DP750yJaxio01xpLWCpilWidB6ecF0fKOFQwNEjjdUoaL9Qqxz0NowEqC9kYabg4TCCH-ACzWn-WoVP3dIIp1QS2B0-fr1UQK0w1T5YyXUVezhzTuEd7MGqvC3pfls-32wCeQNTlBLN0v2m9DeaCLgRHgJ2C7s/s500/41FyNV88YBL.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="271" data-original-width="500" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSwKnYfnW7fbkvI3YathDw78a578-L8DP750yJaxio01xpLWCpilWidB6ecF0fKOFQwNEjjdUoaL9Qqxz0NowEqC9kYabg4TCCH-ACzWn-WoVP3dIIp1QS2B0-fr1UQK0w1T5YyXUVezhzTuEd7MGqvC3pfls-32wCeQNTlBLN0v2m9DeaCLgRHgJ2C7s/s600/41FyNV88YBL.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
I'm Henry the eighth I am
Henry the eighth I am, I am
I got married to the widow next door
She's been married seven times before
And every one was an Henery (Henry)
She wouldn't have a Willy or a Sam (no Sam)
I'm her eighth old man, I'm Henry
Henry the eighth I am.
Herman’s Hermits
Talk about parallel lives!
Herod Antipas and Henry VIII. John the Baptist and Bishop John Fisher.
This is astutely picked up by Thomas McGovern, in his article for Catholic Culture.org, “Bishop John Fisher: Defender of the Faith and Pastor of Souls”
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7604
Adultery is worth dying for
Henry replied to the legates, in answer to the bishop, in a manner which clearly showed how resentful he was at the bishop's protest, particularly that he was ready to suffer like St. John the Baptist, as it naturally suggested a comparison between Henry and Herod Antipas. However, the martyrdom of St. John had long been a familiar subject of contemplation to Fisher, as is clear from his treatise (1525) in defense of Henry's book against Luther — the "Defensio." "One consideration," Fisher writes, "that greatly affects me to believe in the sacrament of marriage is the martyrdom of St. John the Baptist, who suffered death for his reproof of the violation of marriage. There were many crimes in appearance more grevious for rebuking which he might have suffered, but there was none more fitting than the crime of adultery to be the cause of the blood-shedding of the Friend of the Bridegroom, since the violation of marriage is no little insult to Him who is called the Bridegroom."…. Bridgett draws the striking parallel between the fate of the Baptist and John Fisher: "At that time (1525) no thought of divorce had as yet, in all probability, entered the mind of Henry; Anne Boleyn, Fisher's Herodias, was then unknown. But the circumstances of Fisher's death bear so close a resemblance to those of the Baptist's, that it is strange even Henry did not observe and seek to avoid it. Both were cast into prison and left there to linger at the will of a tyrant; both were beheaded, and both by the revenge of impure women. But what Herod did reluctantly, Henry did with cruel deliberation."….
[End of quote]
Perhaps the received Tudor history needs to subjected to a more intense scrutiny. According to Oxford University historian, Dr. Cliff Davies, the very term “Tudor” is highly problematical. We read about this, for instance, at: http://www.bbc.com/news/education-18240901
‘Tudor era’ is misleading myth, says Oxford historian
By Sean Coughlan
BBC News education correspondent
29 May 2012
From the section Education & Family
The idea of a "Tudor era" in history is a misleading invention, claims an Oxford University historian.
Cliff Davies says his research shows the term "Tudor" was barely ever used during the time of Tudor monarchs.
….
Dr Davies says films and period dramas have reinforced the "myth" that people thought of themselves as living under a "Tudor" monarchy.
"The term is so convenient," says Dr Davies, of Wadham College and the university's history faculty. But he says it is fundamentally "erroneous".
Missing name
During the reigns of Tudor monarchs - from Henry VII to Elizabeth I - he said there was no contemporary recognition of any common thread or even any recognition of the term "Tudor".
Dr Davies, who specialises in 16th-Century history, says "the rather obvious thought occurred to me" of investigating whether there had been any references to "Tudor" during the years of the Tudor monarchs.
His years of trawling through contemporary documents yielded almost no references - with only one poem on the accession of James I (James VI of Scotland) recognising the transition from Tudor to Stuart.
Surprised by this absence of any contemporary usage, he says he expected "clever American professors to come up with examples to prove me wrong" - but so far there has been no such evidence.
There might also be suggestions that the use of "Tudor" was deliberately omitted - as monarchs, always sensitive to rival claims, wanted to assert their legitimacy.
"I do think that Henry VII was defensive about his past and wanted to downplay 'Tudor', which might have been used by his opponents."
He says that in Welsh documents the name of Tudor is "celebrated" but it was "considered an embarrassment in England".
Henry VIII preferred to represent himself as the embodiment of the "union of the families of Lancaster and York", says Dr Davies.
False memory
Dr Davies suggests that the idea of a distinct Tudor period of history was first established in the 18th Century by the historian and philosopher, David Hume.
This has proved a very "seductive" way of approaching history, he argues. It also helps to create the idea of a separate historical period, different from what came before and after.
But the text-book writers and makers of period dramas should re-think their terminology, as he says that talking about "Tudor men and women" introduces an artificial concept which would have had no contemporary resonance.
If historians aim to "recover the thought processes" of past generations - he says it means understanding how they saw themselves and their own times.
Dr Davies says that in the late 16th Century people in England would have understood the idea of living in the reign of Elizabeth I - but would not have identified her as a Tudor.
"The word 'Tudor' is used obsessively by historians," says Dr Davies. "But it was almost unknown at the time."
Will the true Elizabeth please stand up?
Compared to Judith and Esther, she was a new Moses and as wise as King Solomon.
According to this article:
http://www.ibrarian.net/navon/paper/The_Development_of_the_Cult_of_Elizabeth_I.pdf?paperid=20396591
On one … of the first portraits of [Elizabeth I] as a queen she appears in a religious context, she washes the feet of twelve poor women at a Maundy ceremony. …. On the title-pages of the different editions of the Bible Elizabeth’s figure appears: she is surrounded by the four cardinal virtues on the 1569 edition, while on the 1568 edition between the figures of Faith and Love she personifies the third New Testament virtue, Hope.
At the beginning of the Coronation Entry as she left the Tower she praised God for her deliverance from prison during the reign of Mary and compared herself to the prophet Daniel spared by God by special providence:
“I acknowledge that Thou hast dealt as wonderfully and as mercifully with me as Thou didst with Thy true and faithful servant Daniel, Thy prophet, whom Thou deliverest out of the den from the cruelty of the greedy and raging lions. Even so was I overwhelmed and only by Thee delivered.” ….
During the first decade Elizabeth was mostly compared to figures of the Old Testament.
In the fifth pageant of the Coronation Entry she appeared as Deborah, the Old Testament judge, listening to the advice of three figures representing the three estates of England, the clergy, the nobility and the commons. …. In sermons she was compared to Judith who rescued her people, and to Esther who interceded for her people. ….
She was seen also as a new Moses leading his people out of the captivity of Egypt, and as Solomon the wise king.
“Only in Wales was anything made of the Tudor name. Bards featured Tudor genealogy
in their praise poems. This tradition broke surface in English in 1547 when Arthur Ketton,
a Welshman and a citizen of Shrewsbury, published A Chronycle with a Genealogie”.
Clifford S. L. Davies
Cliff Davies (RIP) wrote:
https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/the-tudor-delusion/
The Tudor delusion
….
“The Tudors” and “the Tudor Age” are among the staples of English history. How can we do without them? Not only are the monarchs themselves referred to, individually and collectively in books, articles, plays, films, television series and exhibitions by their patronymic, but their subjects become Tudor men and women. In fifty years of studying sixteenth-century England, it did not occur to me to question the convention. Nor, apparently, did it occur to other historians. But how much was the Tudor word used at the time? Did the monarchs from Henry VII to Elizabeth I think of themselves as a Tudor dynasty?
Did their subjects think of themselves as Tudor people living in Tudor England?
In spite of the linguistic turn, historians cannot avoid some anachronistic use of terms. It is impossible to discuss, say, economic development meaningfully while only using language comprehensible to Shakespeare. But contemporary vocabulary imposed limitations on sixteenth-century people attempting to discuss economic affairs; their efforts to formulate even the straightforward connection between the quantity of money in circulation and price levels, for instance, were painfully slow. Tudor is a term too deeply entrenched to be banished from our vocabulary, but we should be aware that it, too, is an anachronism, creating a similar barrier to our understanding of contemporary thought.
The Tudor name made an unlikely journey from the fastnesses of Anglesey into English high political discourse. About 1430, Queen Catherine, the still young widow of Henry V (she was born in 1401), born a French princess, married a member of her household, Owain ap Maredudd ap Tudur. (The Tudors could equally well have been the Merediths.) The marriage was an embarrassment to the council which ruled in the name of her young son, Henry VI, and it was kept quiet, but nobody seems to have queried its legitimacy. ….
Outside Wales, the Tudor name was not used by Henry. The red dragon badge was certainly Welsh, but not specifically Tudor. Descent from Cadwaladr could equally well be claimed by Elizabeth of York; a Mortimer ancestor had married into a Welsh princely house, and Welsh bards had been as enthusiastic for Edward IV as they were for Henry VII. Henry is said to have commissioned an investigation into his Welsh genealogy; it may be too cynical to see this as pre-emptive action against those who would deny Owen Tudor even his gentry origins. Henry did provide a new tomb for his father at the Franciscan house at Carmarthen (moved to St David’s Cathedral when Henry VIII suppressed the house), and, as Leland reported, commemorated his own birth at Pembroke Castle. But Owen Tudor’s tomb at the Franciscan house at Hereford was provided by his bastard David Owen, and nothing was done to preserve it at the Dissolution. Certainly, no ancestral Tudors were allowed to sully the dignity of the Henry VII chapel at Westminster, although Lady Margaret Beaufort was given a place of honour.
Polydore Vergil, the first historian to provide a full account of 1485, at royal instigation, was also notable for his demolition job on the whole British history tradition, from Brutus to Cadwaladr. If Henry VII was less keen than is sometimes thought about his Welsh origins, Henry VIII apparently showed no interest in them at all. (Family piety seems to have been conspicuously lacking in his case.) After 1485 no Tudor monarch seems to have crossed the border into Wales, although Prince Arthur and, later, Princess Mary, were sent to Ludlow and Bewdley respectively to provide a nominal headship to what became the Council of Wales and the Marches.
….
Only in Wales was anything made of the Tudor name. Bards featured Tudor genealogy in their praise poems. This tradition broke surface in English in 1547 when Arthur Ketton, a Welshman and a citizen of Shrewsbury, published A Chronycle with a Genealogie. This traced the descent of Edward VI from Osiris, first King of Egypt, through Brutus, Arthur, Cadwaladr (the hundredth King of Britain and the last), and Tewdr Mawre who chased the Saxons, Danes, and Picts from the borders of Wales. Edmund, Earl of Richmond was, he claimed, of lineal descent from Tewdr Mawre and Cadwaladr, by eleven and twenty-one generations respectively. Ketton’s purpose was to praise Henry VIII, whose gentleness was especially demonstrated in his freeing the Welsh from bondage by giving them, through the Acts of Union, the status of Englishmen; an argument which would surprise modern nationalists.
The theme was taken up by the Welsh humanists, the circle of William Salesbury and Humphrey Llwyd, who were responsible for translating the Bible into Welsh. As the historian Steven Gunn reminds me, George Owen of Henllys, in his Description of Pembrokeshire (1603), talks of her Majesty whose name is Tyder. ….
Taken from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/rest.12258
Elizabeth I as Judith: reassessing the apocryphal
widow’s appearance in Elizabethan royal
iconography
…. Historians and literary scholars have long noted and analysed the appearance of biblical analogies as part of Tudor and Stuart royal iconography. Using the example of a biblical figure, monarchs demonstrated the divine precedent for their decisions, and subjects in turn could counsel their monarch to emulate the actions of a divinely favoured biblical figure. Queen Elizabeth I of England was the subject of the greatest number of biblical analogies drawn in the early modern period: analogies were drawn both by apologists and by Elizabeth herself throughout the entire span of the queen’s reign, and for almost a century after her death.
….
Elizabeth’s comparisons with Deborah the Judge, Queen Esther, Daniel the Prophet, King Solomon, and King David have all received varying levels of attention in the existing scholarship: but the analogy to Judith, the chaste widow of the Apocrypha, has generally escaped detailed analysis. …. Judith was invoked in various ways throughout Elizabeth’s reign, and the diverse analogies reflect the changing religio-political climate of the time.
This article offers a re-examination of the comparisons drawn between Elizabeth and Judith during the queen’s life. In doing so, I argue that contrary to claims in some of the existing scholarship, Judith was routinely and consistently offered to Elizabeth as biblical precedent for dealing with Roman Catholics – with violence, not just diplomatic rhetoric – and for the providential sanctioning of female rule; and that Elizabeth, in drawing the parallel to Judith herself, inserted her own voice into these debates. ….
Judith’s story can be found in the eponymous book of the Apocrypha. A prophecy was brought, foretelling that Bethulia, Judith’s city, would be lost to the invading Assyrians because of the Jews’ disobedience. Judith attempted to prevent this happening, and prayed to God that he would give her a ‘sworde to take vengeance of the [invading] strangers’. …. She and her handmaiden allowed themselves to be captured by the Assyrians, claiming that they had deserted. The Assyrians took her to Holofernes, the General of the Army. Judith lied to Holofernes that God had forsaken the Jews because they ate his offerings before the requisite time had past, and that he would not defend them until the sacrifices were re-offered, which would take many days to organize. Holofernes was pleased with this news, and allowed Judith to stay in the camp. On the fourth night at the camp, after a banquet, Holofernes passed out, drunk. His servants left the tent, and Judith remained inside, alone. She picked up Holofernes’ sword, grasped his hair, prayed, ‘Strengthen me, O Lord God of Israel, this day,’ and then ‘shee smote twise upon his necke with all her might, and she took away his head from him.’ …. She stowed the head in her handmaiden’s bag, and the two left the camp. She returned to Bethulia, and showed the head, saying, ‘Beholde the head of Holofernes the chiefe captaine of the army of Assur . . . the Lord hath smitten him by the hand of a woman.’ …. Without their general, the Assyrian army fell into disarray, and the attack was abandoned.
In the existing scholarship, the most comprehensive study of Elizabeth as Judith remains England’s Eliza, by Elkin Calhoun Wilson. The first chapter of Wilson’s book is called ‘Judith in the Broadsides’, which, despite its title, focuses on ‘the concept of Gloriana taking form’ throughout Elizabethan literature, including pamphlets and dramatic productions. …. Rather than systematically analysing Elizabeth as Judith, Wilson used the concept of the widow Judith – the chaste, God-fearing woman who saved her people – and attempted to trace this theme in depictions of the queen. Wilson ends his discussion of Judith, however, by noting the familiarity the English felt for Judith: ‘in the study of Elizabeth idealized as Elisa [sic], Diana, and Gloriana, it is always to be remembered that the Judith . . . is an elder cockney cousin of these court ladies; in her homely style she testifies to their honest English stock.’ ….
John N. King’s study of Tudor iconography remains the key work that argues for Judith’s potency and longevity. King observes that, ‘Judith, in her victory over Holofernes (now considered a type for militant Catholicism) . . . embodies triumphal power conventionally relegated to kings.’ …. By arguing that Judith’s gender did not prevent her from saving the Israelites, Elizabeth’s apologists were able to assert that God’s defence of England would continue, even with a female king on the throne. …. The analogy to Judith thus asserted Elizabeth’s position as England’s providential monarch, who would be given the necessary strength by God to overcome England’s enemies.
While I do not argue that Elizabeth was the first English monarch to be paralleled with Judith … the examples assembled here demonstrate that Elizabeth was both the first monarch to be compared to Judith in a sustained and systematic way for religio-political purposes, and also the first monarch to affirm the analogy in her own words. The importance of these two facts is often sidelined in the scholarship that does discuss the Judith analogy. Helen Hackett’s study of Elizabeth and the cult of the Virgin Mary is excellent, but dismisses Judith’s longevity by claiming, ‘biblical heroines like Deborah and Judith dominated early Elizabethan royal iconography.’ ….
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7888615205986009768.post-55225926574712346212024-02-15T12:50:00.000-08:002024-02-15T12:50:31.812-08:00Mohammed, a composite of Old Testament figures, also based upon Jesus Christ <div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCb1SLVWAp-8kAKF65caGtprhxlBDeibeyjSfOPD8nXChQOw2usrNVvv_i_Xdf1KbjsDFU_fJNgvD2qpuhWarul1Jwx0op_WSpYfiDrOgrW-0mpIG5oRWgS-eCjAJC8nUNnk4gJEYE_ZHKAquKkliVvf1qUL-lGDtPCQCBXGTTrDPKQjiRERaM8qCswUI/s430/muhammad-jesus2.webp" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="200" data-original-width="430" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCb1SLVWAp-8kAKF65caGtprhxlBDeibeyjSfOPD8nXChQOw2usrNVvv_i_Xdf1KbjsDFU_fJNgvD2qpuhWarul1Jwx0op_WSpYfiDrOgrW-0mpIG5oRWgS-eCjAJC8nUNnk4gJEYE_ZHKAquKkliVvf1qUL-lGDtPCQCBXGTTrDPKQjiRERaM8qCswUI/s600/muhammad-jesus2.webp"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
The Prophet Mohammed was, in fact, a non-historical composite
based upon various Old Testament characters, but also -
as we shall find - based upon Jesus Christ.
Scholars and writers have come up with all sorts of views and theories in their attempts to explain the well-known problems associated with Mohammed and the Qur’an (Koran).
Regarding Mohammed, the correct attitude is, I believe, as I noted in my article:
Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History
(6) Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
with reference to Robert Spencer:
I think that Spencer really gets close to hitting the nail on the head when he arrives at the conclusion that the Prophet Mohammed was, in fact, “a semi-legendary figure … whose exploits were greatly elaborated upon by later generations” - though my qualification of what he argues would be that this “semi-legendary figure” was based on real historical individuals, and not on figures as historically vague as the ones that Spencer will …. propose.
[End of quote]
My own firm conclusion is that:
The Prophet Mohammed was, in fact, a non-historical composite based upon various Old Testament characters, but also - as we shall find - based upon Jesus Christ.
1. Old Testament manifestations
I gave various of these in my “Biography of the Prophet Mohammed” article above, whilst excluding others, such as the prophet Jeremiah, who resembles Mohammed in, for example, his timidity when first called (Jeremiah 1:6), and his “23 years” (Jeremiah 25:3).
("23 Years" indicates the duration of Muhammad's Islamic ministry from 610 to 632 AD.)
Let us recall some of this here (not presented in biblical chronological order):
Nineveh, Tobias and Jonah
….
Yet we have found in … related “Heraclius and the Battle of Nineveh” articles (Heraclius supposedly having been a contemporary of Mohammed’s), that it is as if Mohammed had lived during the time of the powerful C8th BC neo-Assyrian kings. This would be in favour of my view that much of the life of the Prophet Mohammed was based on Tobias, son of Tobit, which family did actually live in ancient Nineveh:
The prophet Jonah, who had predicted the actual destruction of ancient Nineveh, and who was contemporaneously known to Tobit and Tobias (Tobit 14:4; cf. 14:8): ‘Go to Media, my son, for I fully believe what Jonah the prophet said about Nineveh, that it will be overthrown’, is incongruous as the “brother” of Mohammed, as the latter is supposed to have said of Jonah when speaking to a Christian slave supposedly from the town of Nineveh.
To make matters even worse, the Qur’an has those converted by Jonah as being Jonah’s own people:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/jonah.html
The Quran and the Islamic traditions agree on Jonah being sent to Nineveh:
If only there had been a single township (among those We warned), which believed - so its faith should have profited it,- except the People of Jonah?
When they believed, We removed from them the Chastisement of Ignominy in the life of the present, and permitted them to enjoy (their life) for a while. S. 10:98
And remember Zunnün, when he departed in wrath: He imagined that We had no power over him! But he cried through the depths of darkness, "There is no god but Thou: glory to Thee: I was indeed wrong!" So We listened to him: and delivered him from distress: and thus do We deliver those who have faith. S. 21:87-88
So also was Jonah among those sent (by Us). When he ran away (like a slave from captivity) to the ship (fully) laden, He (agreed to) cast lots, and he was of the rebutted: Then the big Fish did swallow him, and he had done acts worthy of blame. Had it not been that he (repented and) glorified Allah, He would certainly have remained inside the Fish till the Day of Resurrection. But We cast him forth on the naked shore in a state of sickness, And We caused to grow, over him, a spreading plant of the gourd kind. And We sent him (on a mission) to a hundred thousand (men) or more. And they believed; so We permitted them to enjoy (their life) for a while. S. 37:139-148
Here is Ibn Kathir on S. 10:98:
"... The point is that between Musa and Yunus, there was no nation in its entirety that believed except the people of Yunus, the people of Naynawa (Nineveh). And they only believed because they feared that the torment from which their Messenger warned them, might strike them. They actually witnessed its signs. So they cried to Allah and asked for help. They engaged in humility in invoking Him. They brought their children and cattle and asked Allah to lift the torment from which their Prophet had warned them. As a result, Allah sent down His mercy and removed the scourge from them and gave them respite.
... In interpreting this Ayah, Qatadah said: ‘No town has denied the truth and then believed when they saw the scourge, and then their belief benefited them, with the exception of the people of Yunus. When they lost their prophet and they thought that the scourge was close upon them, Allah sent through their hearts the desire to repent. So they wore woolen fabrics and they separated each animal from its offspring. They then cried out to Allah for forty nights. When Allah saw the truth in their hearts and that they were sincere in their repentance and regrets, He removed the scourge from them.’ Qatadah said: ‘It is mentioned that the people of Yunus were in Naynawa, the land of Mosul.’ This was also reported from Ibn Mas'ud, Mujahid, Sai'd bin Jubayr and others from the Salaf." ….
Ahab and Jezebel
Further possible confirmation that the Prophet Mohammed,
a non-historical character, is a biblical composite.
The biography of the Prophet Mohammed has borrowed so many of its bits and pieces from the Bible (Old and New Testaments) that it is no wonder that Mohammed has been portrayed as a most remarkable kind of man (verging on a superman), having such a breathtaking career.
The real miracle is that scholars down through the ages have been able to compile a coherent life of the man. The downside of it is - apart from religious implications - that it is historically a complete shambles. Better to view the whole thing as a marvellous work of fiction.
Now, a Turkish writer, Ercan Celik, believes that he has traced the so-called “uncle” of Mohammed, to the biblical king Ahab of Israel:
https://iqsaweb.wordpress.com/2015/05/26/celik_abu-lahab-jezebel/
Who were Abu Lahab and His Wife? A View from the Hebrew Bible
by Ercan Celik*
In The Qur’an and Its Biblical Subtext, G. S. Reynolds observes that
…scholars of the Qur’an accept the basic premise of the medieval Islamic sources that the Qur’an is to be explained in light of the life of the Prophet Muhammad…
However, he proposes that critical Qur’anic scholarship not depend on prophetic biography (sīrah) or traditional Qur’anic exegesis (tafsīr), but rather,
… the Qur’an should be appreciated in light of its conversation with earlier literature, in particular Biblical literature…This argument necessarily involves an examination of both the relationship of Muslim exegetical literature to the Qur’an and the relationship of the Qur’an to Biblical literature.
Sūrat al-Masad (Q 111) offers a valuable example for how a Biblical perspective can augment our understanding of the Qur’anic text. The text of the sūrah names its main character Abu Lahab, and mentions that he has a wife, but does not provide any further identifying information. Only extra-Qur’anic literature can give us more details about who he was. In this blog post, I compare how he may be identified through the Islamic literary sources and through the Hebrew Bible.
Abu Lahab In Islamic Literature
….
Abu Lahab, meaning “the father of flame,” is identified as the uncle of the prophet Muhammad, ʿAbd al-ʿUzza ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib, nicknamed Abu Lahab on account of his reddish complexion. He is said to have been a rich and proud man, and he and his wife Umm Jamil, sister of Abu Sufyan, are depicted as fierce enemies of Muhammad and the early Muslim community.
There are many anecdotes in the Islamic literary sources about their verbal and physical attacks on the prophet. Some Qur’an commentators say that Umm Jamil used to litter Muhammad’s path with harmful thorns of twisted palm leaf fibres, and that this is the historical context for the final verse of Sūrat al-Masad: “Will have upon her neck a halter of palm-fibre” (Q 111:5).
Abu’l-Ahab in Biblical Literature
In searching the Hebrew Bible for a wicked man whose name resembles Abu Lahab, one finds Ahab (Hebrew: אַחְאָב), the seventh kings of ancient Israel (r. ca. 885-874 BCE), son of King Omri and husband of Jezebel of Sidon. We could read “Abu Lahab” alternatively, and without substantial change, as “Abu’l-Ahab,” father of Ahab. According to the Hebrew Bible, the father of Ahab is Omri, who is described in 1 Kings 16:25 as having acted “more wickedly than all who were before him.”
His son Ahab, in his own time, “married Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians, and went to serve Baal and worshiped him . . . Thus Ahab did more to provoke the Lord God of Israel than all the kings of Israel who were before him” (1 Kings 16:31-33).
….
As for Jezebel, it is said that she ordered the killing of prophets (1 Kings 18:4). The prophet Elijah escaped her persecution and with God’s command confronted Ahab with a challenge to the priests of Baal: “You call on the name of your god and I will call on the name of the Lord; the god who answers by fire is indeed God” (18:24). The supporters of Baal called upon their god to send fire to consume their sacrifice, but nothing happened. When Elijah called upon the name of the Lord, fire came down from heaven immediately and consumed their offering.
Eventually Ahab in killed in battle, and when Elisha, successor to the prophet Elijah, anoints Jehu king of Israel, the latter had the house of Ahab killed. Jezebel was captured by her enemies, thrown out of a window, trampled by a horse, and her flesh eaten by dogs.
A Comparison of the Qur’anic and Biblical Characters
There are some significant parallels between the qur’anic character of Abu Lahab and the biblical character of Abu’l-Ahab. To illustrate these, let us evaluate Sūrat al-Masad in light of the biblical account:
May the hands of Abu Lahab [Abu’l-Ahab] be ruined and ruined is he. The biblical story of Ahab fits well with this verse, in both linguistic and narrative/thematic terms. The father is invoked for ruin. Omri was the first person to introduce the worship of Baal in Israel, for which his progeny are to be ruined. In Qur’anic Arabic terminology, hands (here, yadā) are symbolic of power and of progeny. The fate of Omri’s progeny is pronounced not so much in the tafsir literature as in the biblical texts.
His wealth will not avail him or that which he gained. The Ahab of the Bible seems to have had greater wealth than the Abu Lahab of Islamic tradition; his great wealth failed to prevent his demise by God’s command.
He will [enter to] burn in a Fire of [blazing] flame. Hellfire is an eschatalogical concept associated with unbelief, especially with the sort of idolatry instituted by Omri and Ahab.
And his wife [as well]—the carrier of firewood. The feature of firewood (ḥaṭab) is key. The challenge at Mount Carmel consisted of sacrificing bulls on firewood in order. We can imagine Jezebel supporting the Baalist priests by collecting the best woods to burn the sacrifice easily. The image of Jezebel carrying firewood makes more sense of this verse than that of Umm Jamil dumping thorns.
Around her neck is a rope of [twisted] fiber. Traditional exegetes struggle to explain the meaning of the rope of palm-fiber (masad). It may be better understood in light of the Jezebel story. The term masad appears to be a hapax legomenon in the Qur’an that might have a Hebrew root and be related to Jezebel’s violent death. This term begs for further examination along these lines.
See also my article on this:
Abu Lahab, Lab'ayu, Ahab
(7) Abu Lahab, Lab'ayu, Ahab | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
More Assyria, Tobit, Job, Ahikar
The ‘life’ of Mohammed will be shown to consist of, to a large extent,
a string of biblical episodes (relating to, for instance, Moses; David;
Job/Tobias; Jeremiah; Jesus Christ), but altered and/or greatly embellished,
and re-cast into an Arabian context. This has been achieved with the greatest
of skill, conflating all of these disparate sources, and re-arranging them
into a thrilling epic of literary magnificence.
THE NEO-ASSYRIAN FACTOR
Whilst it is not to be commonly expected for ancient Assyria to be discussed in the context of the Prophet Mohammed, given that the Assyrian empire had dissolved in the C7th BC, and here is Mohammed supposedly in the C7th AD, I have found compelling reason to raise this issue.
Why?
Because an event that is said to have taken place in the very year that the Prophet Mohammed was born, c. 570 AD, the invasion of Mecca by ‘Abraha[s] of the kingdom of Axum [Aksum], has all the earmarks, I thought, of the disastrous campaign of Sennacherib of Assyria against Israel.
Not 570 AD, but closer to 700 BC!
Lacking to this Qur’anic account is the [Book of] Judith element that (I have argued in various places) was the catalyst for the defeat of the Assyrian army.
But that feminine detail is picked up, I believe, in the story of the supposedly AD heroine, Gudit (possibly Jewish), who routed the Axumites.
Hence read: Gudit = Judith; and Axum can substitute for Assyria:
Judith the Simeonite and Judith the Semienite
https://www.academia.edu/24416713/Judith_the_Simeonite_and_Judith_the_Semienite
If that famous biblical incident involving neo-Assyria is some sort of chronological marker for the very beginning of those “biblical episodes” pertaining to Mohammed (as mentioned above), then the era of king Sennacherib of Assyria must be our (revised) starting point.
And, indeed, it is there that we find one who displays some striking resemblances to Mohammed: he is Tobias, the son of Tobit, who was born at this time, and whom I have identified with the prophet Job:
Prophet Job not an enlightened Gentile
(7) Prophet Job not an enlightened Gentile | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
His father Tobit tells us about this arduous time for his family, continuing on into the reign of Sennacherib’s successor, Esarhaddon (Tobit 1:18-22):
I [Tobit] also buried any whom King Sennacherib put to death when he came fleeing from Judea in those days of judgment that the king of heaven executed upon him because of his blasphemies. For in his anger he put to death many Israelites; but I would secretly remove the bodies and bury them. So when Sennacherib looked for them he could not find them.
Then one of the Ninevites went and informed the king about me, that I was burying them; so I hid myself. But when I realized that the king knew about me and that I was being searched for to be put to death, I was afraid and ran away.
Then all my property was confiscated; nothing was left to me that was not taken into the royal treasury except my wife Anna and my son Tobias.
But not forty days passed before two of Sennacherib’s sons killed him, and they fled to the mountains of Ararat, and his son Esarhaddon reigned after him. He appointed Ahikar, the son of my brother Hanael over all the accounts of his kingdom, and he had authority over the entire administration. Ahikar interceded for me, and I returned to Nineveh. Now Ahikar was chief cupbearer, keeper of the signet, and in charge of administration of the accounts under King Sennacherib of Assyria; so Esarhaddon reappointed him. He was my nephew and so a close relative.
Ahikar and Luqman
More needs to be said, too, about the immensely important Ahikar, because his wisdom - for much of which he would have been indebted to his uncle Tobit - has been drawn upon in the Qur’an:
http://archive.org/stream/TheStoryOfAhikar/Ahikar_djvu.txt
….
ON THE USE OF THE LEGEND OF AHIKAR
IN THE KORAN AND ELSEWHERE.
We pass on, in the next place, to point out that the legend of Ahikar was known to Mohammed, and that he has used it in a certain Sura of the Koran.
There is nothing a priori improbable in this, for the Koran is full of Jewish Haggada and Christian legends, and where such sources are not expressly mentioned, they may often be detected by consulting the commentaries upon the Koran in obscure passages. For example, the story of Abimelech and the basket of figs, which appears in the Last Words of Baruch, is carried over into the Koran, as we have shown in our preface to the Apocryphon in question. It will be interesting if we can add another volume to Mohammed’s library, or to the library of the teacher from whom he derived so many of his legends.
The 31st Sura of the Koran is entitled Lokman (Luqman) and it contains the following account of a sage of that name.
* We heretofore bestowed wisdom on Lokman and commanded him, saying, Be thou thankful unto God: for whoever is thankful, shall be thankful to the advantage of his own soul: and if any shall be unthankful, verily God is self-sufficient and worthy to be praised. And remember when Lokman said unto his son, as he admonished him.
….
O my son, Give not a partner unto God, for polytheism is a great impiety.
♦ ♦♦♦♦♦
O my son, verily every matter, whether good or bad, though it be of the weight of a grain of mustard-seed, and be hidden in a rock, or in the heavens, God will bring the same to light: for God is clear-sighted and knowing.
O my son, be constant at prayer, and command that which is just, and forbid that which is evil, and be patient under the afflictions that shall befall thee: for this is a duty absolutely incumbent upon all men.
♦ ♦♦#♦♦
And be moderate in thy pace, and lower thy voice, for the most ungrateful of all voices surely is the voice of asses.’
♦ ♦♦#♦♦
Now concerning this Lokman, the commentators and the critics have diligently thrown their brains about.
The former have disputed whether Lokman was an inspired prophet or merely a philosopher and have decided against his inspiration: and they have given him a noble lineage, some saying that he was sister’s son to Job, and others that he was nephew to Abraham, and lived until the time of Jonah.
Others have said that he was an African: slave. It will not escape the reader’s notice that the term sister’s son to Job, to which should be added nephew of Abraham, is the proper equivalent of the ἐξάδελφος by which Nadan and Ahikar are described in the Tobit legends.
Job, moreover, is singularly like Tobit.
A few comments are due here. Concerning the last statement “Job … is singularly like Tobit”, that is because, I believe, that Job was Tobias, the very son of Tobit.
Most interesting, too, that “Lokman … was a sister’s son to Job”.
Now, returning ‘Ahikar in the Koran’:
That [Lokman] lived till the time of Jonah reminds one of the destruction of Nineveh as described in the book of Tobit, in accordance with Jonah’s prophecy. Finally the African slave is singularly like Aesop … who is a black man and a slave in the Aesop legends. From all of which it appears as if the Arabic Commentators were identifying Lokman with Ahikar on the one hand and with Aesop on the other; i.e. with two characters whom we have already shown to be identical.
The identification with Aesop is confirmed by the fact that many of the fables ascribed to Aesop in the west are referred to Lokman in the east: thus Sale says: —
‘The Commentators mention several quick repartees of Luqman which agree so well with what Maximus Planudes has written of Aesop, that from thence and from the fables attributed to Luqman by the Orientals, the latter has been generally thought to be no other than the Aesop of the Greeks.
However that may be (for I think the matter may bear a dispute) I am of opinion that Planudes borrowed a great part of his life of Aesop from the traditions he met with in the east concerning Luqman, concluding them to have been the same person, etc. …’. *
These remarks of Sale are confirmed by our observation that the Aesop story is largely a modification of the Ahikar legend, taken with the suggestion which we derive from the Mohammedan commentators, who seem to connect Lokman with Tobit on the one hand and with Aesop on the other. ….
Comment: In all of this we find ourselves firmly grounded in the neo-Assyria era of the C8th BC.
The article now focusses upon the relevant Qur’anic text:
Now let us turn to the Sura of the Koran which bears the name Lokman, and examine it internally: we remark (i) that he bears the name of sage, precisely as Ahikar does: (ii) that he is a teacher of ethics to his son, using Ahikar’s formula ‘ ya bani ‘ in teaching him: (iii) although at first sight the matter quoted by Mohammed does not appear to be taken from Ahikar, there are curious traces of dependence. We may especially compare the following from Ahikar: ‘O my son, bend thy head low and soften thy voice and be courteous and walk in the straight path and be not foolish.
And raise not thy voice when thou laughest, for were it by a loud voice that a house was built, the ass would build many houses every day.’
Clearly Mohammed has been using Ahikar, and apparently from memory, unless we like to assume that the passage in the Koran is the primitive form for Ahikar, rather than the very forcible figure in our published texts. Mohammed has also mixed up Ahikar’s teaching with his own, for some of the sentences which he attributes to Lokman appear elsewhere in the Koran. But this does not disturb the argument. From all sides tradition advises us to equate Lokman with Aesop and Ahikar, and the Koran confirms the equation. The real difficulty is to determine the derivation of the names of Lokman and Aesop from Ahikar ….
Some of the Moslem traditions referred to above may be found in Al Masudi c. 4 : ‘ There was in the country of Ailah and Midian a sage named Lokman, who was the son of Auka, the son of Mezid, the son of Sar. ….
Comment: The mention of “Midian” in association with Lokman is also most significant in my context, because as I have argued in:
A Common Sense Geography of the Book of Tobit
https://www.academia.edu/8675202/A_Common_Sense_Geography_of_the_Book_of_Tobit
it was from Midian (wrongly given as “Media”) that the Naphtalian clan of Tobit and some of his relatives hailed.
Continuing with the article:
Another curious point in connexion with the Moslem traditions is the discussion whether Loqman was or was not a prophet.
This discussion cannot have been borrowed from a Greek source, for the idea which is involved in the debate is a Semitic idea.
But it is a discussion which was almost certain to arise, whether Lokman of whom Mohammed writes so approvingly had any special … as a prophet, because Mohammed is the seal of the prophets.
And it seems from what Sale says on the subject, that the Moslem doctors decided the question in the negative; Lokman * received from God wisdom and eloquence in a high degree, which some pretend were given him in a vision, on his making choice of wisdom preferably to the gift of prophecy, either of which was offered him.’ Thus the Moslem verdict was that Lokman was a sage and not a prophet.
On the other hand it should be noticed that there are reasons for believing that he was regarded in some circles and probably from the earliest times as a prophet. The fact of his teaching in aphorisms is of no weight against this classification: for the Hebrew Bible has two striking instances of exactly similar character, in both of which the sage appears as prophet. Thus Prov. XXX. begins :
* The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, even the prophecy*
and Prov. xxxi begins :
*The words of king Lemuel, the prophecy that his mother taught him.’
Both of these collections appear to be taken from popular tales*, and they are strikingly like to the sentences of Ahikar. ….
At the conclusion of the Syntipas legends, when the young man is solving all the hard ethical problems that his father proposes to him, we again find a trace of Ahikar, for he speaks of the ‘ insatiate eye which as long as it sees wealth is so ardent after it that he regards not God, until in death the earth covers his eyes.’ And amongst the sayings of Ahikar we find one to the effect that * the eye of man is as a fountain, and it will never be satisfied with wealth until it is filled with dust.’ Dr Dillon points out that this is one of the famous sayings of Mohammed, and if that be so, we have one more loan from Ahikar in the Koran.
Cf Sura 102, ‘The emulous desire of multiplying [riches and children] employeth you, until ye visit the graves.’ ….
[End of quotes]
….
We also learned previously that Mohammed had encountered a young man from Nineveh – quite an anomaly. And the pair discussed the prophet Jonah whom Mohammed called his “brother”.
Tobit, for his part, well knew of the prophet Jonah, having warned his son, Tobias (14:4): “Go into Media [sic], my son, for I surely believe those things which Jonah the prophet spoke about Nineveh, that it shall be overthrown”.
I would re-set the childhood of Mohammed, therefore, to the reign of king Sennacherib of Assyria, and have Tobias/Job as a major biblical matrix for it. Tobias’s/Job’s long life in fact, which extends - according to my revision - from Sennacherib to beyond the Fall of Nineveh, will suffice to encompass “biblical episodes” attached to Mohammed from his birth to his marriage to Khadijah bint Khuwaylid.
My primary source here, serving as a biography of Mohammed,
will be Yahiya Emerick’s Muhammad (Critical Lives), Alpha, 2002:
Birth of Mohammed
Given as c. 570 AD, the “Year of the Elephant”. But revised here to the reign of Sennacherib. Mohammed’s parents are traditionally given as ‘Abdullah and Aminah, or Amna.
Now, this information is what really confirms me in my view that Tobias is a major influence in the biography of Mohammed, because the names of Tobias’s parents boil down to very much the same as those of Mohammed. Tobit is a Greek version of the name ‘Obad-iah, the Hebrew yod having been replaced by a ‘T’.
And ‘Obadiah, or ‘Abdiel, is, in Arabic ‘Abdullah, the name of Mohammed’s father.
And Amna is as close a name as one could get to Anna, the wife of Tobit (as we read above).
Tobias (my Job) is the biblico-historical foundation for the young Mohammed!
In articles of mine such as:
Similarities to The Odyssey of the Books of Job and Tobit
https://www.academia.edu/8914220/Similarities_to_The_Odyssey_of_the_Books_of_Job_and_Tobit
I have drawn many parallels between the Hebrew and Greek tales, showing how Odysseus and his son, Telemachus, can sometimes resemble, respectively, Tobit and his son, Tobias; the goddess Athena can sometimes assume the part played by the angel, Raphael {In the ‘life’ of Mohammed, we … find one “Maysara” performing a service akin to that of the angel Raphael in the Book of Tobit}; the cruel Poseidon is the demon, Asmodeus; there are the many suitors, as with Penelope, with Sarah; and then there is the common factor of the dog, given the name of “Argos” in The Odyssey.
These extremely popular and much copied books of Tobit and Job have also influenced Mesopotamian literature.
Egypt - according to the Testament of Job, the prophet Job had been a “king of Egypt”.
We are finding the Prophet Mohammed to have been no more real a person (though less obviously mythical) than was Odysseus, or Telemachus.
Now, as explained in my “Odyssey” article, it can happen that events associated with the biblical original, for example, the father, can be, in the mythological version, attributed to someone else, say, the son. And we now find that to be the very case in the biography of Mohammed. For, whereas Mohammed is thought to have been orphaned and to have been raised by his grandfather and uncle, in the Book of Tobit the father was orphaned (Tobit 1:8):
“I [Tobit] would bring it and give it to them in the third year, and we would eat it according to the ordinance decreed concerning it in the law of Moses and according to the instructions of Deborah, the mother of my father Tobiel, for my father had died and left me an orphan”. {“Deborah” here may be a distant ancestor, possibly even the famous Deborah of the Book of Judges, given her close association with the tribe of Naphtali (e.g., Judges 4:10; 5:18), Tobit’s tribe (Tobit 1:1)}.
Now poor ‘Abdullah, the father of Mohammed, in an episode that harkens back to the era of the Judges, to Jephthah’s terrible vow (Judges 11:30): ‘… whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering’, was elected by his father, ‘Abdel Muttalib, as the one of his ten sons to be sacrificed to God in thanksgiving.
Ultimately ‘Abdullah was spared that grim fate, due to an encounter between ‘Abdel Muttalib and the shamaness, Shiya - Emerick tells about this Shiya on p. 19.
Saul, Jephthah
Here we may have a reminiscence of king Saul of Israel’s clandestine visit to the witch of Endor (I Samuel 28:7).
Indeed, a further facet of the Jephthah story will recur again, later, in the quite different context of who will have the honour of placing the fabled Black Stone of the Ka’aba back on the eastern wall after repairs. (This whole wall building episode is like that of Nehemiah). Emerick recounts it on p. 48. Abu Umayyah will advise the assembled crowd to wait for the next person who will come through a nearby gate in the courtyard of the Ka’aba.
That person was, as fate would have it, Mohammed himself.
The situation of Mohammed, born into a Qureish environment of universal idol worship, and with the Jews as a separate entity, is very much the situation of Tobit and his little family, whose the tribe of Naphtali (separate from the Jews) had completely apostatised (Tobit 1:4): ‘When I was in my own country, in the land of Israel, while I was still a young man, the whole tribe of my ancestor Naphtali deserted the house of David and Jerusalem’.
Again, ‘Abdullah’s involvement in caravan trading into Syria is entirely compatible with what Tobit tells us about himself in 1:12-14: ‘Because I was mindful of God with all my heart, the Most High gave me favor and good standing with Shalmaneser, and I used to buy everything he needed. Until his death I used to go into Media, and buy for him there’ – compatible especially given my identification (in my “Geography of Tobit”) of “Media” as Midian, including Bashan, “a part of the province of Damascus”:
As with Tobit’s genealogy, with the repetition of names of the same root (Tobit 1:1): ‘I am Tobit and this is the story of my life. My father was Tobiel …’, so was the case with Mohammed’s grandfather, ‘Abdel Muttalib, and his son, Abu Talib.
Samuel, David
Youth of Mohammed
When the aged ‘Abdel Muttalib died, Mohammed was taken in by his uncle, Abu Talib, who, more than Mohammed’s short-lived father, ‘Abdullah (despite the common name), represents Tobit and his wise and kindly mentoring of the young Tobias. Emerick (p. 33): “Abu Talib took Muhammad in and treated him with great affection. Although Abu Talib was poor, he and his wife …”. Cf. Tobit 4:21:
‘We’re poor now, but don’t worry. If you obey God and avoid sin, he will be pleased with you and make you prosperous’.
In a famous story, an old priest, in the fashion of Samuel choosing to anoint the young David from amongst the sons of Jesse, will pick out the 12-year old Mohammed amongst many. Emerick tells of it (pp. 34-35):
Around the year 582, Abu Talib decided to join the great caravan going to Syria in order to boost his finances. …. After a couple of weeks of long, hard travel, the caravan and its attendants decided to make camp in a region called Bostra, just short of Syria. Just ahead on the road was a small Christian monastery where a solitary monk by the name of Bahira lived. …. He sent an invitation to the men of the caravan to come to the monastery for a banquet, asking that everyone attend. When the merchants arrived, the priest looked them over and found nothing special about any of them. He asked if everyone from the caravan was present and was told that everyone was there except a small boy who was left behind to watch the animals. Bahira requested that he also be invited, so someone went to fetch young Muhammad.
Compare (the strikingly similar) I Samuel 16:10-11:
Jesse had seven of his sons pass before Samuel, but Samuel said to him, “The LORD has not chosen these.” So he asked Jesse, “Are these all the sons you have?”
“There is still the youngest,” Jesse answered. “He is tending the sheep.”
Samuel said, “Send for him; we will not sit down until he arrives.”
Like David, too, Mohammed (later) tended sheep (Emerick, p. 40): “Muhammad’s humble occupation as a shepherd impressed upon him the value of hard, honest work”.
Tobit, Tobias and Sarah
Marriage of Mohammed
The golden thread in the ‘life’ of Mohammed of the Book of Tobit (combined with Job) continues on, I believe, into the account of his marriage to the widowed beauty, Khadijah, also given as ‘Siti Khadijah’:
http://kelantan.attractionsinmalaysia.com/SitiKhadijahMarket
“Siti Khadijah Market (Pasar besar Siti Khadijah), as its name implies, is a local wet market. Its name after Prophet Muhammad’s wife, [who] is known for her entrepreneurial skill, as this market is mostly run by women”.
In the Testament of Job the prophet’s wife is similarly called “Sitis”:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/jul/26/judaism-job-philosoph
“Job’s first wife is Sitidos (Sitis). Her name may have the same root as the word Satan in Hebrew or Sotah (unfaithful wife). She is a princess and Job a tribal leader”.
She is, I have argued, the same as the wife of Tobias, Sarah, meaning “princess”, “lady”.
Sarah was apparently, then, just like Khadijah, a woman of high status. She was likewise beautiful and full of quality, as described by the angel Raphael (Tobit 5:12): “She is sensible, brave, and very beautiful; and her father is a good man”. Just as with Khadijah, whose former husbands had died (Emerick, p. 41): “… Khadijah … married not once but twice …. Each husband died in turn, leaving her with a huge personal fortune”, likewise (though rather more spectacularly) Sarah (Tobit 3:8): “Sarah had been married seven times, but the evil demon, Asmodeus, killed each husband before the marriage could be consummated”.
The poor and rather insignificant Muhammad got his big break in life when that lowly life of his would - like with the young Tobias - converge with that of his future wife. And it similarly involved a journey to Syria for business purposes.
When (as Emerick tells, p. 42): “In about the year 595, Khadijah announced that she would hire a local man to lead a particularly important caravan to go to Syria”, Abu Talib suggested to Muhammad that he should apply. “Abu Talib, always on the lookout for opportunities for his own or any family member’s advancement, suggested to his nephew Muhammad that he try to get a job with Khadijah’s caravan”.
The part played by Abu Talib in this situation reminds one of Tobit, who instructed his son (Tobit 4:20-21): ‘Tobias, I want you to know that I once left a large sum of money with Gabrias' son, Gabael, at Rages in Media. We're poor now, but don't worry. If you obey God and avoid sin, he will be pleased with you and make you prosperous’. In my “Geography of Tobit” I have proposed that “Rages” here equates geographically with the city of Damascus. Tobias was now a young man of marriageable age, and Muhammad was “twenty-five years old and still living with his uncle …” (Emerick, p. 42). Muhammad, similarly as with Tobit, “saw this caravan as an excellent opportunity to earn money …”.
“Abu Talib confidently told his nephew that he could get him double the salary of the man already hired … two camels”. And he duly informed Khadijah of it, “… we won’t accept less than four”.
Tobias, on the other hand, wants to give the disguised angel, who had guided him on the way, not “double the salary”, but “half of everything we brought back with us” (Tobit 12:2). And whilst that “two camels” can be found also in Tobit 9:1-2: “Then Tobias called Raphael and said to him:
“Brother Azariah, take along with you four servants and two camels and travel to Rages”,” we see from this text that those “four servants” have been ‘reincarnated’ in the Islamic version as “four [camels]”.
Khadijah here refers to Muhammad as “a close relative”. We find the identical description in Tobit 6:10-11, where the angel tells Tobias: ‘Tonight we will stay at the home of your relative Raguel. He has only one child, a daughter named Sarah, and since you are her closest relative, you have the right to marry her’.
Just as Tobit had looked out for a suitable travelling companion for his son, and had found in the angel-disguised-as-Azariah a good character (Tobit 5:13): ‘… you are from a good family and a relative at that! …. Your relatives are fine people, and you come from good stock. Have a safe journey’, so, in Maysara - whose name is phonetically compatible with Azariah - does Abu Talib perceive a good character and worthy travelling companion (Emerick, p. 43): “Abu Talib knew of Maysara’s good character and encouraged his presence on the journey”.
Khadijah, who “was known for rejecting all suitors” (p. 44), though for reasons less dramatic than in the case of Sarah’s loss of all suitors, now married the younger Muhammad, whose fortunes had just increased exponentially (p. 45): “not only was he suddenly getting married, his fortunes were also taking a dramatic turn for the better”.
So had the angel informed Tobias about Sarah (6:11): “… you have the right to marry her. You also have the right to inherit all her father's property”.
“Muhammad and Khadijah would have six children together, two boys and four girls”. Tragically, the life of the sons would be cut off early, just as with Tobias/Job.
Recommended viewing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=walncNs3sOw
…. Jay [Smith] DESTROYS THE BIOGRAPHY OF MUHAMMAD
in 20 minutes!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1. above we discovered that the Biography of Mohammed is based upon a notable bunch of Old Testament characters, such as (now in chronological order):
JEPHTHAH;
SAUL AND THE WITCH OF ENDOR;
(SAMUEL AND) DAVID;
AHAB AND JEZEBEL;
TOBIT, TOBIAS (JOB), SARAH;
AHIKAR;
(JEREMIAH)
which names by no means, I suggest, would exhaust the OT list.
Now we move on the consider the New Testament influences upon Mohammed and the Qur’an, culminating in Jesus Christ.
2. New Testament manifestations
…. But there is also a recorded incident in the otherwise unknown boyhood of Jesus (the Good Shepherd) at the age of twelve – and it, too, involves travellers (Luke 2:41-42):
“Every year Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem for the Festival of the Passover. When he was twelve years old, they went up to the festival, according to the custom.”
Emerick continues with the story of Bahira, with the boy Mohammed now present (p. 35): “After Muhammad joined the gathering, Bahira watched the boy carefully and noted his physical features and behaviour. He seemed to have an otherworldy look in his eyes, a strength in his bearing”.
David also had fine eyes and a good appearance (I Samuel 16:12): “Now [David] was ruddy and had beautiful eyes and was handsome”.
On pp. 56-57 Emerick, still in connection with the Bahira story which is here accepted as being quite “historically tenable”, will make this notable admission:
A fair amount of literature exists on the portents and signs prior to the rise of Muhammad as a religious leader. These writings may be based more on retrospective idealism than proven facts. One can logically assume that Muhammad had no knowledge of his future significance and that premonitions and recognition of his greatness by his contemporaries were greatly exaggerated. Beyond the episode with the monk Bahira when he was twelve, which was related not only by Abu Talib but also by several of his associates and thus gains more credibility, little except the predictions of a man named Waraqah seem historically tenable. The abruptness and unexpectedness of Muhammad’s rise may be simply inexplicable.
[End of quote]
Why I think that it might be very important for Islam to defend the veracity of the Bahira incident is because he is the one who would proclaim Mohammed as “the last prophet” in God’s great scheme of things. Thus Emerick (p. 35):
…. Muhammad boldly told the monk that he hated the idols. This statement impressed the aged Christian further. Then he asked for the boy to lift his shirt, and the monk found a birthmark on his back, just between the shoulder blades.
Bahira looked at the spot, which was about the size of a small egg, and declared, “Now I am most certain that this is the last prophet for whom the Jews and Christians [sic] await …”.
It is interesting that both Bahira and the Waraqah referred to above, seemingly lone individuals, non-Jews, but monotheists, are either Christian (Bahira) or, like Waraqah (Emerick, p. 31): “… [an] unaffiliated monotheist who also had some knowledge of Christianity”. ….
One might like also to read my article:
Dr Günter Lüling: Christian hymns underlie Koranic poetry
(8) Dr Günter Lüling: Christian hymns underlie Koranic poetry | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
“Many a verse of the Koran goes directly back to Christian liturgy”.
Uwe Topper
From Luke’s Gospel
The account of the pregnancy of Mohammed’s mother is predictably extraordinary, and one might be inclined to think of, for example, the pregnancy of Elizabeth with John the Baptist, and of the Virgin Mary with Jesus. If so, it would be only one of many borrowings from the Gospels, in this case Luke’s.
Emerick tells of it (pp. 21-22):
About two months after her husband left [having joined a caravan trade to Syria], Aminah called her servant … “I’ve had a strange dream! I saw lights coming from my womb, lighting up the mountains, the hills, and the valleys all around Mecca”. Her servant then predicted: “You will give birth to a blessed child who will bring goodness”.
In Luke 1:11-17, we read about the miraculous encounter of the Baptist’s father, Zechariah, the Aaronite priest, with an angel who will be identified in v. 19 as “Gabriel”:
Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear. But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John.
He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born.
He will bring back many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God. And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”
Common to the ‘life’ of Mohammed here are the visitation by the angel Gabriel (who also figures in the Book of Daniel); the avoidance of alcohol; and the exaltation of the child.
Further on in Luke’s Gospel it will be the Virgin Mary whom the angel Gabriel will address (Luke 1:30-32): ‘You [Mary] have found favor with God. You will become pregnant, give birth to a son … He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High’.
Luke 1:28 is sometimes translated as [Mary’s being] “Highly Favoured”.
Now, according to Emerick (p. 29):
“Highly Praised is the translation of the Arabic name Muhammad, which was an unusual name in Arabia at that time”. This name was given to the child by his grandfather, who had, in the ancient Israelite fashion of going around Jericho “seven times” (Joshua 6:15), walked with the new born baby “seven times around the Ka‘bah”. It was then that ‘Abdel Muttalib named the child, connecting him with an ancient House - as with the angel Gabriel’s (Luke 1:32-33): ‘The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end’. The joyful ‘Abdel Muttalib exclaimed: “Blessed child, I shall call you Highly Praised. The birth of this child coincided with the glory and triumph of the Ancient House, blessed be he?”
As in the story of Moses (Exodus 2:7-9), a wet nurse is provided for the child. “Aminah, frail from her depression and weakened by the arduous childbirth, engaged a wet nurse in the city …”. And also as with Moses (v. 10), “Muhammad would be raised by a foster mother …”.
Whereas both Moses and Jesus had to be saved from the wrath of a monarch, the situation with which baby Mohammed was faced was (p. 30): “An epidemic … going around the city …”. When it was safe to return, after some years had elapsed, exactly as with the young Jesus (Matthew 2:19-21), Mohammed came home.
Some of the Jesus Elements in Islam
Coins marked with Cross
There is that troublesome case of the Christian-ness of some supposedly Islamic coins.
On this, see my article:
Christian Cross depicted on Moslem coins?
(4) Christian Cross depicted on Moslem coins? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Would the leader of a religious group whose founding prophet claimed that Jesus would return at the end of the world and "break all crosses"—as an insult to himself and a testament to the transcendent majesty of Allah—really allow a cross to be featured on any inscription carved anywhere in his domains?
Would the followers of this new prophet, whose new religious and political order was defiantly at odds with that of the “cross worshippers,” have placed any figure bearing a cross on any of their coinage? Perhaps this can be interpreted as a gesture of Islam’s tolerance, given that Christians overwhelmingly populated the domains of the new Arabian Empire. Yet Islamic law as codified in the ninth and tenth centuries forbade Christians to display the cross openly—even on the outside of churches—and there is no indication that the imposition of this law was a reversal of an earlier practice. So it is exceedingly curious that Muslim conquerors of Christians would strike a coin bearing the central image of the very religion and political order they despised, defeated, and were determined to supplant.
Ascent into Heaven from Jerusalem
https://answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol1/3d.html
….
1. The Story of the Mi'raj in the Hadith.
One of the most famous Islamic monuments in the world is the Dome of the Rock which stands on the site of the original Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. It is the third-holiest in the Muslim world after the Ka'aba in Mecca and Prophet's Mosque in Medina and commemorates the alleged occasion of Muhammad's ascent through the seven heavens to the very presence of Allah. It stands above the rock from which Muhammad is believed to have ascended to heaven. The narrative of this ascent is recorded in all the major works of Hadith in some detail, but there is only one verse in the Qur'an openly refer ring to the incident and in a limited context at that.
The traditions basically report that Muhammad was asleep one night towards the end of his prophetic course in Mecca when he was wakened by the angel Gabriel who cleansed his heart before bidding him alight on a strange angelic beast named Buraq. Muhammad is alleged to have said:
I was brought al-Burg who is an animal white and long, larger than a donkey but smaller than a mule, who would place his hoof at a distance equal to the range of vision. I mounted it and came to the Temple (Bait-ul Maqdis in Jerusalem), then tethered it to the ring used by the prophets. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, p. 101).
Some traditions hold that the creature had a horse's body and angel's head and that it also had a peacock's tail. It is thus represented in most Islamic paintings of the event. The journey from Mecca to Jerusalem is known as al-Isra, "the night journey". At Jerusalem Muhammad was tested in the following way by Gabriel (some traditions place this test during the ascent itself):
Allah's Apostle was presented with two cups, one containing wine and the other milk on the night of his night journey at Jerusalem. He looked at it and took the milk. Gabriel said, "Thanks to Allah Who guided you to the Fitra (i.e. Islam); if you had taken the wine, your followers would have gone astray". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 196).
After this began al-Mi'raj, "the ascent".
Muhammad passed the sea of kawthar, literally the sea of "abundance" (the word is found only once in the Qur'an in Surah 108.1), and then met various prophets, from Adam to Abraham, as well as a variety of angels as he passed through the seven heavens. After this Gabriel took him to the heavenly lote-tree on the boundary of the heavens before the throne of Allah.
Then I was made to ascend to Sidrat-ul-Muntaha (i.e. the lote-tree of the utmost boundary). Behold! Its fruits were like the jars of Hajr (i.e. a place near Medina) and its leaves were as big as the ears of elephants. Gabriel said, "This is the lote-tree of the utmost boundary". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p. 147).
This famous tree, as-sidratul-muntaha, is also mentioned twice in the passage in Surah 53 describing the second vision Muhammad had of Gabriel (Surah 53.14,16) where he also saw the angel 'inda sidrah, "near the lote-tree". Gabriel and Buraq could go no further but Muhammad went on to the presence of Allah where he was commanded to order the Muslims to pray fifty times a day ….
[End of quote]
The correct story, I believe, is this one (Acts 1:9-11):
Jesus Ascends to Heaven
Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, who also said, ‘Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven’.
Moreover, what the two angels told the ‘Men of Galilee’, ‘This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven’, was perfectly fulfilled within ‘that same generation’ (Luke 9:27).
On this, see e.g. my article:
Jesus Christ came as Bridegroom
(5) Jesus Christ came as Bridegroom | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Jesus always keeps his Word!
Mohammed’s Biblical titles
This was already discussed above:
….
Further on in Luke’s Gospel it will be the Virgin Mary whom the angel Gabriel will address (Luke 1:30-32): ‘You [Mary] have found favor with God. You will become pregnant, give birth to a son … He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High’.
Luke 1:28 is sometimes translated as [Mary’s being] “Highly Favoured”.
Now, according to Emerick (p. 29):
“Highly Praised is the translation of the Arabic name Muhammad, which was an unusual name in Arabia at that time”. This name was given to the child by his grandfather, who had, in the ancient Israelite fashion of going around Jericho “seven times” (Joshua 6:15), walked with the new born baby “seven times around the Ka‘bah”. It was then that ‘Abdel Muttalib named the child, connecting him with an ancient House - as with the angel Gabriel’s (Luke 1:32-33): ‘The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end’. The joyful ‘Abdel Muttalib exclaimed: “Blessed child, I shall call you Highly Praised. The birth of this child coincided with the glory and triumph of the Ancient House, blessed be he?”
As in the story of Moses (Exodus 2:7-9), a wet nurse is provided for the child. “Aminah, frail from her depression and weakened by the arduous childbirth, engaged a wet nurse in the city …”. And also as with Moses (v. 10), “Muhammad would be raised by a foster mother …”.
Whereas both Moses and Jesus had to be saved from the wrath of a monarch, the situation with which baby Mohammed was faced was (p. 30): “An epidemic … going around the city …”. When it was safe to return, after some years had elapsed, exactly as with the young Jesus (Matthew 2:19-21), Mohammed came home. ….
Coupled with this, is the following extraordinary quote from my “Christian Cross” article above, which may just have managed to grasp the true situation:
“… it may be that the word muhammad is not a name at all but a title, meaning the “praised one” or the “chosen one”.”
….
Other coins from this period also bear the cross and the word Muhammad. A Syrian coin that dates from 686 or 687, at the earliest [sic], features what numismatist Volker Popp describes as “the muhammad motto” on the reserve side. The obverse depicts a ruler crowned with a cross and holding another cross.
….
The most obvious explanation is that the “muhammad” to whom the coin refers is not the prophet of Islam.
Alternatively, the figure on the coin could have evolved into the Muahmmad of Islam but was not much like him at the time the coin was issued. Or it may be that the word muhammad is not a name at all but a title, meaning the “praised one” or the “chosen one.” Popp, noting that some of these seventh-century cross-bearing coins also bear the legend bismillah—“in the name of God”—as well as muhammad, suggests that the coins are saying of the depicted ruler, “He is chosen in the name of god,” or “Let him be praised in the name of God.”
This could be a derivative of the common Christian liturgical phrase referring to the coming of Christ: “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.” In that case, the muhammad, the praised or blessed one, would be Jesus himself.
Supporting this possibility is the fact that the few times the Qur’an mentions Muhammad by name, the references are not clearly to the prophet of Islam but work equally well as general exhortations to obey that which was revealed to the “praised one,” who could be someone else. Jesus is the most likely candidate, because, as we have seen, the Qur’an tells believers that “Muhammad is nothing but a messenger; messengers have passed away before him” (3:144), using language identical to that it later uses of Jesus: “the Messiah, the son of Mary, is nothing but a messenger; messengers have passed away before him” (5:75). This opens the possibility that here, as elsewhere, Jesus is the one being referred to as the “praised one,” the muhammad.
The first biographer of Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq, lends additional support to this possibility.
Recall that in Qur’an 61:6, Jesus is depicted as prophesying the coming of a new “Messenger of God,” “whose name shall be Ahmad.” Because Ahmad—the “praised one”—is a variant of Muhammad, Islamic scholars take this passage to be a reference to the prophet of Islam. Ibn Ishaq amplifies this view in his biography of Muhammad, quoting “the Gospel,” the New Testament, where Jesus says that “when the Comforter [Munahhemana] has come who God will send to you from the Lord’s presence, and the spirit of truth which will have gone forth from the Lord’s presence, he (shall bear) witness of me and ye also, because ye have been with me from the beginning. I have spoken unto you about this that ye should not be in doubt. Ibn Ishaq then explains: “the Munahhemana (God bless and preserve him!) in Syriac is Muhammad; in Greek he is the paraclete.”
Ibn Ishaq’s English translator Alfred Guillaume notes that the word Munahhemana “in the Eastern patristic literature…is applied to our Lord Himself”—that is, not to Muhammad but to Jesus. The original bearer of the title “praised one” was Jesus, and this title and the accompanying prophecy were “skillfully manipulated to provide the reading we have” in Ibn Ishaq’s biography of Muhammad—and, for that matter, in the Qur’an itself.
Whichever of these possibilities is correct, the weakest hypothesis is that these muhammad coins refer to the prophet of the new religion as he is depicted in the Qur’an and the Hadith. For there are no contemporary references to Muhammad, the Islamic prophet who received the Qur’an and preached its message to unify Arabia (often by force) and whose followers then carried his jihad far beyond Arabia; the first clear records of the Muhammad of Islam far postdate these coins. ….
In other words, Mohammed is not the name of a person, but may be simply a Christian title for Jesus Christ himself.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7888615205986009768.post-41111893454456476852024-02-14T22:37:00.000-08:002024-02-14T22:37:56.069-08:00Christian Cross depicted on Moslem coins? <div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKORecwtzN7rFpmijOdt5Jvzh_Xj4vC2laWO3KdQbzpUPxP0bUfM5R8CEX52aExWSXkQsQwbicLjgP9DXfg0vmrTvtnhybIvsL1-bZa6mIYi8uX9tp_LYejVXmBtNYQdcAgMqFmy-zc7hK0yIN1Mos5STuQ-6xsUFslyeJxnYs2H2VeZue_u0y-pcEnAA/s320/ownload.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="180" data-original-width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKORecwtzN7rFpmijOdt5Jvzh_Xj4vC2laWO3KdQbzpUPxP0bUfM5R8CEX52aExWSXkQsQwbicLjgP9DXfg0vmrTvtnhybIvsL1-bZa6mIYi8uX9tp_LYejVXmBtNYQdcAgMqFmy-zc7hK0yIN1Mos5STuQ-6xsUFslyeJxnYs2H2VeZue_u0y-pcEnAA/s600/ownload.jpg"/></a></div>
“Would the followers of this new prophet, whose new religious
and political order was defiantly at odds with that of the “cross worshippers,”
have placed any figure bearing a cross on any of their coinage?”
http://academicatheism.tumblr.com/post/64217273791/jesus-the-muhammad
They did not slay him, neither crucified him" (Qur’an 4:157). Would the caliph, the leader of a religious group that claimed it a blasphemy for a rival religion to regard Jesus as the Son of God, really place the crowning symbol of that rival religion on his public inscriptions?
Would the leader of a religious group whose founding prophet claimed that Jesus would return at the end of the world and "break all crosses"—as an insult to himself and a testament to the transcendent majesty of Allah—really allow a cross to be featured on any inscription carved anywhere in his domains?
Would the followers of this new prophet, whose new religious and political order was defiantly at odds with that of the “cross worshippers,” have placed any figure bearing a cross on any of their coinage? Perhaps this can be interpreted as a gesture of Islam’s tolerance, given that Christians overwhelmingly populated the domains of the new Arabian Empire. Yet Islamic law as codified in the ninth and tenth centuries forbade Christians to display the cross openly—even on the outside of churches—and there is no indication that the imposition of this law was a reversal of an earlier practice. So it is exceedingly curious that Muslim conquerors of Christians would strike a coin bearing the central image of the very religion and political order they despised, defeated, and were determined to supplant.
Other coins from this period also bear the cross and the word Muhammad. A Syrian coin that dates from 686 or 687, at the earliest [sic], features what numismatist Volker Popp describes as “the muhammad motto” on the reserve side. The obverse depicts a ruler crowned with a cross and holding another cross.
….
The most obvious explanation is that the “muhammad” to whom the coin refers is not the prophet of Islam. Alternatively, the figure on the coin could have evolved into the Muahmmad of Islam but was not much like him at the time the coin was issued. Or it may be that the word muhammad is not a name at all but a title, meaning the “praised one” or the “chosen one.” Popp, noting that some of these seventh-century cross-bearing coins also bear the legend bismillah—“in the name of God”—as well as muhammad, suggests that the coins are saying of the depicted ruler, “He is chosen in the name of god,” or “Let him be praised in the name of God.”
This could be a derivative of the common Christian liturgical phrase referring to the coming of Christ: “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.” In that case, the muhammad, the praised or blessed one, would be Jesus himself.
Supporting this possibility is the fact that the few times the Qur’an mentions Muhammad by name, the references are not clearly to the prophet of Islam but work equally well as general exhortations to obey that which was revealed to the “praised one,” who could be someone else. Jesus is the most likely candidate, because, as we have seen, the Qur’an tells believers that “Muhammad is nothing but a messenger; messengers have passed away before him” (3:144), using language identical to that it later uses of Jesus: “the Messiah, the son of Mary, is nothing but a messenger; messengers have passed away before him” (5:75). This opens the possibility that here, as elsewhere, Jesus is the one being referred to as the “praised one,” the muhammad.
The first biographer of Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq, lends additional support to this possibility.
Recall that in Qur’an 61:6, Jesus is depicted as prophesying the coming of a new “Messenger of God,” “whose name shall be Ahmad.” Because Ahmad—the “praised one”—is a variant of Muhammad, Islamic scholars take this passage to be a reference to the prophet of Islam. Ibn Ishaq amplifies this view in his biography of Muhammad, quoting “the Gospel,” the New Testament, where Jesus says that “when the Comforter [Munahhemana] has come who God will send to you from the Lord’s presence, and the spirit of truth which will have gone forth from the Lord’s presence, he (shall bear) witness of me and ye also, because ye have been with me from the beginning. I have spoken unto you about this that ye should not be in doubt. Ibn Ishaq then explains: “the Munahhemana (God bless and preserve him!) in Syriac is Muhammad; in Greek he is the paraclete.”
Ibn Ishaq’s English translator Alfred Guillaume notes that the word Munahhemana “in the Eastern patristic literature…is applied to our Lord Himself”—that is, not to Muhammad but to Jesus. The original bearer of the title “praised one” was Jesus, and this title and the accompanying prophecy were “skillfully manipulated to provide the reading we have” in Ibn Ishaq’s biography of Muhammad—and, for that matter, in the Qur’an itself.
Whichever of these possibilities is correct, the weakest hypothesis is that these muhammad coins refer to the prophet of the new religion as he is depicted in the Qur’an and the Hadith. For there are no contemporary references to Muhammad, the Islamic prophet who received the Qur’an and preached its message to unify Arabia (often by force) and whose followers then carried his jihad far beyond Arabia; the first clear records of the Muhammad of Islam far postdate these coins.
Spencer, Robert. Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry Into Islam’s Obscure Origins, p. 44-46. Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2012. Print.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?195534-1/the-truth-muhammad
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7888615205986009768.post-56287315502241817202024-02-14T14:24:00.000-08:002024-02-14T14:24:29.104-08:00Dr Günter Lüling: Christian hymns underlie Koranic poetry
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIGQDxPl3kUt58KmNbylTTGz68mqyxIxAi7B9p2tQyuJawDEOqs71uihJjE3gvt7MNR2IxquEtbTWGVAPLWRBJM1v_9fK_Pn73wH-XPi4RZ9Pcfd8sKghIZVCpB59BB9AVKqDhXCG2ggrJQZrDPnnHCgOks9hWVY4cc9qJ0P84z4sseIzrD_8127KcXj4/s1280/maxresdefault.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIGQDxPl3kUt58KmNbylTTGz68mqyxIxAi7B9p2tQyuJawDEOqs71uihJjE3gvt7MNR2IxquEtbTWGVAPLWRBJM1v_9fK_Pn73wH-XPi4RZ9Pcfd8sKghIZVCpB59BB9AVKqDhXCG2ggrJQZrDPnnHCgOks9hWVY4cc9qJ0P84z4sseIzrD_8127KcXj4/s600/maxresdefault.jpg"/></a></div>
“Many a verse of the Koran goes directly back to Christian liturgy”.
Uwe Topper
Uwe Topper wrote (badly translated, 2009, from original German, 2005):
http://www.ilya.it/chrono/pages/rezlulingen.html
Lüling – an orientalist against the mainstream
Introduction into the writings of the theologian and philologist Günter Lüling, Erlangen
Berlin · 2005 Uwe Topper
Dr. Günter Lüling, one of the most erudite orientalists in Germany (see his biography) terms his own work as ‘liberal-theologian dogma-critical intention’ starting off at the point theologians left the discussion when World War I was at its hight [sic] which somehow strangled all dispute. At least as far as the discussion between Christiandom and Islam at our universities is concerned – that has ceased since then and could not be revived after World War II, as Lüling himself had to suffer in his own career. The basic theological antagonies [sic] were silenced since decades for reasons of ‘political correctness’.
….
Let us have a look at the most important of his books, the “Urqoran”, recently translated into English and published in India under the title A Challenge to Islam for Reformation (Motilal Banarsidas Publ., Delhi).
Its main object is … to restore the original meaning of the Koran as it might have been used before Islam. At first Lüling explains that at the moment of proclamation of Islam by the prophet Muhammad the region of Central Arabia had long since been intensively christianized, a fact known and worked out by many orientalists since several generations – as for Spain I only mention Miguel Asín Palacios. The main temple in Mekka originally was a church of Lady Maria, the frescos which Muhammad after his conquest ordered to be destroyed showed this clearly, and the architectural form as well (see Lüling 1992). The dogma of angeology in the Koran has been found of very similar structure in the New Testament by the forementioned theologians Schweitzer and Werner.
….
Lüling discovers in the Koran important changes of reading and interpretation similar to those pointed out by Christian researchers in the Bible, and he strongly advocates a return to the original text. In its present form the Koran turns the basic intention of the prophet into its opposite, and this can only be reversed by a thorough reconstruction.
The means Lüling uses in this task are the same scientific tools the best European erudites had applied in the 19th century : philological knowledge of Aramaic, Syriac and Aethiopian texts where he finds surprisingly many parallels to chapters of the Koran so that he can conclude : Many a verse of the Koran goes directly back to Christian liturgy.
To attain this aim it is necessary to analyse the basic structure of the koranic terms which on account of the missing vowels and punctuation of the consonnants [sic] can be read in very differing ways and even sometimes with just the opposite meaning. Only for this reason was a fundamental change of the koranic text in postmuhammedan time possible. The result is a new koranic text which emerged after 150 to 200 dark years of early Islam of which we have no certain knowledge. That means, the handing down of the Koran must have happened in a different way then tought [sic] at present. Opposite to the official version an unbroken oral succession of the wordings of Koran did not take place, instead the Koran must have been passed on by literal means only because by that way the words could have been altered graphically. New problems arise by this revolutionary view which might eventually be solved by our new chronological thesis.
With this strictly philological approach Lüling finds that many Christian hymns must have underlied [sic] the koranic verses. For example, the first five verses of chapter 97 (see note 1) go back to a Christmas carol. The figure of an angel and a spirit descending from heaven and bringing peace until dawn (an apocalyptic term) remind one of the Evangile. The koranic form by evoking the end of time has surpassed the supposed pattern and created something different ….
The “Night of Majesty” (Leilat al Qadr) as this Sura is called, can only refer to Christmas while modern interpretation applies it to the predication of Koran.
Transformations of this type are not rare … I have experienced several similar among Berber traditions in the High Atlas (Morocco). French poet and photographer René Euloge records a popular song that has the refrain: “He stood up, went forth, and they found his shroud”. This can only refer to the resurrection of Jesus, as a learned man of the tribe explained to me. Yet Euloge had not recognised this obvious meaning because the people from whom he transcribed the wording did not know the background and thought this to be a romantic poem of a shattered love affair (see Topper 1998-2, S. 198 ff).
….
Lüling resumes his results this way: Compared to the original Koran the modern version of the holy book of Islam is the product of total rearrangement by changing the value of the consonnants ending up in a text void of essence. The underlyeing [sic] Christian hymns have been emptied of their sense. Additional there is the damage done to Islam by the Persian culture in the time of the Abbassides.
Damien Mackey’s comment: On the Abbasides, though, see my articles:
Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism
(8) Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
and:
Original Baghdad was Jerusalem
(DOC) Original Baghdad was Jerusalem | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Uwe Topper continues:
And finally, by avoiding the discussion about the Christian sources the Islamic theology has darkened itself : “The simplicity to alter the text by changing consonnants and vowels graphically ... and the artificial language (Arabic) that defines its own rules ... as well as the inflexible religious domination have made Islam a monstre that lives its proper life beyond all religions ever thought of by mankind.”
In the end Lüling avowes what has moved him to deliver this enormous effort which can stand side by side to all achievements of German philology: The discovery of the Christian bases shall be a memento to both religions, Christians and Muslims alike, to stop their fights and reach a peaceful mutual understanding of the prophetical texts. This is a praiseworthy undertaking although it may be doubtful wether the two dominions will exept it. ….
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7888615205986009768.post-65680217584081643632024-02-12T22:11:00.000-08:002024-02-12T22:11:35.916-08:00Original Baghdad was Jerusalem<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZ8CmWIwRG4JThjxuTey0ziGHJghrFrEODd-y1HeFv5X6aCU5GDXGQ5VWqSnCp50TK99_z97z9HknWLuc0mCBwyYoKMd5qK7Y57dfMJhx7rF7d9HseXSfFNRrQAAapqnb3PGjCvCy2CunEehAnIEmkLOXZg1RjU00WLxFSNRNx4F-KUrc3e6FqCLa_5HE/s930/house-of-wisdom.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="529" data-original-width="930" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZ8CmWIwRG4JThjxuTey0ziGHJghrFrEODd-y1HeFv5X6aCU5GDXGQ5VWqSnCp50TK99_z97z9HknWLuc0mCBwyYoKMd5qK7Y57dfMJhx7rF7d9HseXSfFNRrQAAapqnb3PGjCvCy2CunEehAnIEmkLOXZg1RjU00WLxFSNRNx4F-KUrc3e6FqCLa_5HE/s600/house-of-wisdom.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
“Built of the baked brick, the city’s walls have long since crumbled,
leaving no trace of Madinat-al-Salam today.
….
According to the legend narrated by Al-Tabari, the four iron doors
in the main wall, and one in Al-Mansur’s palace, were originally crafted
for King Solomon by shaytans, or demons”.
Polina Ignatova
Introduction
When an important ancient personage, or location, apparently leaves virtually no visible or recoverable trace, or none at all, my inclination is to search for an alter ego (or more) for that person, or a revised geography for that location.
In some cases, an important ancient character is lacking any depictions or statuary:
More ‘camera shy’ ancient potentates
(6) More 'camera shy' ancient potentates | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Or it might be, as in the case of Old Kingdom Egypt, some missing architecture:
Missing old Egyptian tombs and temples
(6) Missing old Egyptian tombs and temples | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
The famed capital city of Akkad (Agade) is just completely missing:
My road to Akkad
(6) My road to Akkad | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
and its related kingdom of Akkad is missing an appropriate archaeology:
Akkadian dynasty famous but archaeologically impoverished, Ur III dynasty, un-heralded but lavishly documented
(4) Akkadian dynasty famous but archaeologically impoverished, Ur III dynasty, un-heralded but lavishly documented | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
See also somewhat similarly to this:
Medo-Persian history has no adequate archaeology
(4) Medo-Persian history has no adequate archaeology | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
And one may find various other similar examples and configurations.
It is all enough to remind one of what G. K. Chesterton once so famously remarked about evolution:
“All we know of the Missing Link is that he is missing –
and he won't be missed either.”
Ancient Baghdad
Ancient Baghdad clearly, I think, fits into more than one of the ‘missing’ categories.
I am not, of course, including here the modern city of Baghdad, one of the largest and most important cities today of the Moslem world.
After a World War III, towards which the world is sadly hastening, archaeologists of the future will nevertheless be able to find abundant evidence for the current city of Baghdad.
In the case of ancient Baghdad, however:
- Some of its presumed Caliphs have no visible representation.
- Its archaeology is completely missing.
- Plus some, at least, of its most famed characters can be shown to have been fictitious.
Polina Ignatova here gives a typical account of ancient Baghdad:
https://www.epoch-magazine.com/post/the-city-of-peace-reconstructions-of-the-round-city-of-baghdad
The City of Peace: Reconstructions of the Round City of Baghdad
Polina Ignatova | Lancaster University
‘I mention Baghdad first of all because it is the heart of Iraq, and, with no equal on earth either in the Orient or the Occident, it is the most extensive city in the area, in importance, in prosperity, in abundance of water, and in healthful climate. It is inhabited by the most diverse individuals, both city people and country folk; people emigrate to it from all countries, both near and far; and everywhere there are men who have preferred it to
their own country'
Muslim geographer Ahmad al-Ya'qubi wrote in the ninth century. While today Baghdad is predominantly associated with war, tragedy, and grief, the Baghdad of the eighth and ninth centuries, also known as Madinat-al-Salam, or the City of Peace, was one of the most advanced cities in the world.
Built of the baked brick, the city’s walls have long since crumbled, leaving no trace of Madinat-al-Salam today. Yet it is important to attempt to reconstruct the city, which once was a major architectural achievement of its time, both in terms of planning and scale. For historians, reconstructing the city on the basis of the preserved descriptions, Madinat-al-Salam represents a perfect case study for Muslim urbanism, while modern architects, writers, and artists draw inspiration from its unique cityscape.
….
Madinat-al-Salam was founded by the second Abbasid Caliph Abu Ja’far Abdallah ibn Muhammad al-Mansur in 762 CE, with the aim of moving the capital closer to Khurasan – the region which had supported the Abbasids in their struggle for power against the previous dynasty – the Umayyads. It was comprised of three perfectly round walls – the outer, the main, and the inner – pierced by four gates, with the Caliph’s residence in the middle. According to the Persian historian Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, before the constructions began, Caliph Al-Mansur commanded to draw the outline of the city in ashes. After walking around the city’s imaginary streets and courtyards, Al-Mansur ordered cotton seeds and oil spread along the outline, which was then set on fire for the Caliph to see the city as a whole.
….
Al-Mansur was only the second Caliph of the Abbasid dynasty. The city’s outline was modelled on ancient Persian cities, such as Gur (modern Firuzabad), reflecting his ambitions to retain and consolidate power. It is no coincidence that the new city was also located near Ctesiphon – the former capital of the Sasanian empire.
Even the building materials were to be obtained from the demolition of Ctesiphon’s palace of Khursaw, but the cost of breaking down the palace walls and then transporting the stone and brick upstream proved to be too high.
….
Madinat-al-Salam was clearly an Islamic place. Its name was a reminder of a Qur’anic expression (6:127) Dar-el-Salam, ‘the House of Peace’, which refers to Paradise (the name Baghdad comes from the village situated on the site chosen for the new capital). The city’s Kufa gate (South-West) pointed at Kufa, the starting point for pilgrimages, and more importantly, at Mecca. The other three gates were located at regular intervals from Kufa gate and were named by the Caliph himself according to the destinations for which they gave access. The gates were high enough to allow a horseman carrying a banner or a lance to come through, and had double iron doors, so heavy that several men were needed to open and close them. According to the legend narrated by Al-Tabari, the four iron doors in the main wall, and one in Al-Mansur’s palace, were originally crafted for King Solomon by shaytans, or demons.
….
In the centre of the city, protected by the inner wall, stood, side by side, the palace of the Caliph, also known as the Golden Gate, and the Great Mosque. The palace was crowned by a green dome with a weathervane in the shape of a horseman visible from all quarters of Baghdad. It was believed that the horseman was endowed with magical powers and pointed his lance in the direction from where the enemies of the Caliph were going to appear. Later the figure and the green dome were destroyed by a thunderbolt. On the North-West side were the barracks for the Caliph’s horse-guards and a portico, presumably occupied by the palace governor. The space surrounding these buildings was kept free of houses, but further away stood the palaces of the Caliph’s children, his servants’ dwellings, and public offices. Al-Mansur ordered that no one except himself could enter the central area riding, so everyone else had to leave their horse or mule outside of the inner wall, to the great annoyance of the Caliph’s frail and gout-ridden uncles. One account claims that Al-Mansur also built a secret passage leading to beyond the city walls to provide escape in case of a siege.
The gatehouses in the main wall – the sturdiest of the three – were also topped with green cupola supported by the columns of teak wood.
At the top story of each gatehouse, there was a chamber overlooking the city. The one above the Khurasan gate was a favourite resting place of Caliph Al-Mansur. On one occasion, while the Caliph was there an arrow, bearing a warning, was shot up and fell by his feet. Al-Mansur had nothing to fear though – it was believed that no Caliph would die in Baghdad.
Modern historical reconstructions of the Round City of Baghdad range from maps to 3D models and Minecraft cityscapes, while architectural artistic re-interpretations of Madinat-al-Salam demonstrate the importance and vibrancy of its legacy today. Indeed, for centuries the round shape remained the mark of wealth, prestige, and hopes for peace and prosperity. In 1804 French architect Claude Nicolas Ledoux published the project for a round ‘ideal city’ of Chaux – the constructions, however, never began.
The one modern round city project which was completed is Apple Park, constructed in the shape of a ring. In his presentation for the Cupertino City Council, Steve Jobs did not give any particular reasons as to why he had chosen the circle structure except that ‘this is not the cheapest way to build something’. Like Madinat-al-Salam at the time of its prime, Apple Park boasts the most advanced structure of its time. To date, it is the world’s biggest naturally ventilated building covered with the largest panels of curved glass.
….
its revealed name – ‘Paradis’ – clearly echoes Madinat-al-Salam’s aspirations to be compared to Dar-al-Salam, or Heaven.
….
The echoes of the Round City can also be found in modern fantasy novels. The Daevabad Trilogy, by S. A. Chakraborty, brings together many of the literary and folk elements of the Middle Eastern culture. The titular city of Daevabad is described as a perfectly round structure, surrounded by a wall and divided into quarters. As well as being integral to the divisions found in the plot, it also reflects the early Muslim way of building cities with different quarters belonging to different Arab tribes.
….
While no tangible traces have yet been discovered of the eighth-century Madinat-al-Salam, and as it is currently impossible to conduct excavations in Baghdad, one can only hope that one day material evidence may be discovered. Yet its legacy lives on – through academic works and state emblems, utopian aspirations and ambitious architectural projects, as well as fictional places, the Round City of Baghdad survives in our collective imagination as a symbol of power, prosperity, and peace.
[End of quote]
----------------------
The first thing to notice about ancient Baghdad is that it has left “no tangible traces”:
“Built of the baked brick, the city’s walls have long since crumbled,
leaving no trace of Madinat-al-Salam today”.
“While no tangible traces have yet been discovered of the eighth-century
Madinat-al-Salam, and as it is currently impossible to conduct excavations in Baghdad, one can only hope that one day material evidence may be discovered”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Baghdad
“The Round City was partially ruined during the siege of 812–813, when
Caliph al-Amin was killed by his brother,[a] who then became the new caliph.
It never recovered;[b] its walls were destroyed by 912,[c] nothing of
them remains,[d][6] there is no agreement as to where it was located.[7]”
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3899594
“Finally, in 1260, the Muslim Mamluks were able to defeat the Mongols in the battle of ‘Ain Jalut’ in northern Palestine. However, the total destruction of the Islamic empire was completed in 1258 through the capture and raze of Baghdad by the Mongols and brought an end to the ‘Golden Age’ of Islam. The subversive impact continued for centuries and Muslims, never could get back to their lost glories. Muslims had remained subdued for centuries and their economy and culture were at ruins. The ramifications were non-repairable, irreplaceable and insurmountable as the centre for education and scientific research was being shifted to the west”.
Next point is that ancient Baghdad was supposedly built by close descendants of the Prophet Mohammed, who is not in fact a genuine historical character, but a fictitious composite:
Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History
(8) Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Neither, then, can the stories surrounding Mohammed and his supposed descendants be considered as historical. As I quoted in my article:
King Solomon and Suleiman
(8) King Solomon and Suleiman | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
…. The Persian-looking Islamic coins are of course believed to date from the time of Umar (d. 664), one of the “Rightly-guided Caliphs” who succeeded Muhammad and supposedly conquered what became the Islamic Empire. Yet it has to be stated that there is no direct archaeological evidence for the existence either of Umar or any of the other “Rightly-guided” Caliphs Abu Bakr, Uthman or Ali. Not a brick, coin, or artifact of any kind bears the name of these men. Archaeologically, their existence is as unattested as Muhammad himself. ….
[End of quote]
Equally dubious, however, are the supposed intellectual luminaries of the Golden Age of Abassid Baghdad as I exposed in my article:
Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism
(8) Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
The Israelite kings, David and Solomon, frequently intrude into the legends of Charlemagne and Suleiman, both considered to be ‘a new David’ and ‘a new Solomon’.
Now, here we find attributed to King Solomon some early architecture of ancient Baghdad: “According to the legend narrated by Al-Tabari, the four iron doors in the main wall, and one in Al-Mansur’s palace, were originally crafted for King Solomon by shaytans, or demons”.
Now Baghdad, originally called Madinat-al-Salam, “City of Peace”, has the very same meaning as Jerusalem, “City of Peace”.
The name Baghdad itself can possibly mean “Bestowed by God”, another perfectly fitting appellation for Jerusalem.
Emperor Charlemagne’s fantasy Arabian Nights ally, Harun al-Raschid, based on the biblical Hiram, supposedly built the House of Wisdom (Bayt al-Hikmah) in Baghdad.
Likewise, thanks to the expertise of Hiram, King Solomon was able to have erected in Jerusalem his palace and the Temple of Yahweh, true centres of wisdom.
Baghdad was also regarded, like Jerusalem, as being the centre of the ancient world (cf. Ezekiel 5:5).
It, too, like Jerusalem, had a Golden Gate.
I conclude that the completely missing ancient city of Baghdad, with its lack of an appropriate archaeology, and the pseudo Islamic history and intellectualism that accompanies its ghostly self, was a fable based upon wise King Solomon’s Jerusalem and the Temple of Yahweh.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7888615205986009768.post-20158358938054525782024-02-11T11:34:00.000-08:002024-02-11T11:34:28.336-08:00 Heraclius and the Battle of Nineveh<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOz8dx868NbM0mQLGeXTHYk6jr0VIErSMS6LbeXN709QhyTKVLxObPwloodgDnWvEHHgEXiYLXXLM-BZFnV99R22qHOssKVdBRRBHglrvOie6v-jP_FjSX5rAlFZH1Nlj76HY1KAzDI3DsmdI9OrT4hl0zUoAICLNDccaFtNXRzf18Mn1XiBZkczY32EA/s600/b99595b9e2183c02099a2e30b7099f1b.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOz8dx868NbM0mQLGeXTHYk6jr0VIErSMS6LbeXN709QhyTKVLxObPwloodgDnWvEHHgEXiYLXXLM-BZFnV99R22qHOssKVdBRRBHglrvOie6v-jP_FjSX5rAlFZH1Nlj76HY1KAzDI3DsmdI9OrT4hl0zUoAICLNDccaFtNXRzf18Mn1XiBZkczY32EA/s600/b99595b9e2183c02099a2e30b7099f1b.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
‘Something is very rotten in the state of’ a part of our conventional AD history.
What! What! What! The Byzantine emperor, Heraclius (supposed reign, 610 to 641 AD), fighting a “Battle of Nineveh” in 627 AD!
And here am I mistakenly under the impression that the city of Nineveh was completely destroyed in c. 612 BC (conventional dating), and that it lay hopelessly dead and buried until it was archaeologically resurrected by Layard in the mid-C19th AD.
But perhaps I am not alone in thinking this. For, according to: http://www.bible-history.com/assyria_archaeology/archaeology_of_ancient_assyria_nineveh.html
Nineveh was the famous capital of ancient [Assyria] and one of the mightiest cities of all antiquity. It is situated on the east bank of the Tigris River just opposite modern Mosul. According to the Scriptures Nimrod was the founder of Nineveh.
Genesis 10:11
11 "From that land he (Nimrod) went to Assyria and built Nineveh."
The ancient Hebrew prophets foretold of Nineveh’s destruction and utter desolation:
Nahum 2:8-10
"Though Nineveh of old was like a pool of water, Now they flee away. 'Halt! Halt!" they cry; But no one turns back. Take spoil of silver! Take spoil of gold! There is no end of treasure, Or wealth of every desirable prize. She is empty, desolate, and waste! The heart melts, and the knees shake; Much pain is in every side, And all their faces are drained of color."
In fact Nineveh was so laid waste that it was considered a total myth of the Bible throughout most of the recent centuries, that is until it was discovered by Sir Austen Layard in the nineteenth century. The site of ancient Nineveh was extensively excavated and its occupational levels reach far back to the beginning of civilization.
[End of quotes]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The importance of Heraclius' reign as a historical watershed was recognized
by Gibbon two hundred years ago”.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That there is something quite rotten about our historical perception of this so-called “Dark Age” era is apparent from the research of German scholars, Heribert Illig and Dr. Hans-Ulrich Niemitz, the latter of whom has written, in “Did the Early Middle Ages Really Exist?” http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/volatile/Niemitz-1997.pdf
The easiest way to understand doubts about the accepted chronology and ‘well-known’ history is to seriously systematize the problems of medieval research. This will lead us to detect a pattern which proves my thesis and gives reason to assume that a phantom period of approximately 300 years has been inserted between 600 AD to 900 AD, either by accident, by misinterpretation of documents or by deliberate falsification (Illig 1991). This period and all events that are supposed to have happened therein never existed. Buildings and artifacts ascribed to this period really belong to other periods. To prove this the Carolingian Chapel at Aachen will serve as the first example. ….
[End of quote]
Revisionist historians are well aware of the so-called “Dark Ages” period (c. 1200-700 BC) that has been artificially imposed upon, say, ancient Hittite and Greek history, and well exposed by Peter James et al. in their brilliant book, Centuries of Darkness.
In the same year that this book was first published, in 1991, German historian Heribert Illig wrote his “Phantom Time Hypothesis”.
Just as Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky had pioneered a revision of BC history, so have these German writers, Illig and Niemitz, attempted to do the same for AD history. And I believe that both efforts were necessary, though I am far from accepting, in either case (the BC or the AD revision), all of the details of these pioneering works.
And this last comment leads me to mention another enthusiastic reviser of ancient history, Emmet Scott, who has now also become vitally interested and well-informed about the AD revision.
I neither accept all of Scott’s efforts in BC or AD, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading his helpful A Guide to the Phantom Dark Age, at:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=lIpYAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=emmet+s
For an English speaker, such as I, it is easier reading than the above-mentioned German efforts, and Emmet manages to fill in some areas that these may have left untouched. I thoroughly recommend the reading of this book, though with those reservations to be kept in mind.
Nineveh
But, getting back to Nineveh, it figures again in the biography of the prophet Mohammed, whose period of floruit, from his first supposed revelation until his death (610-632 AD), is practically identical to that conventionally assigned to emperor Heraclius (610 to 641 AD).
Prophet Mohammed, I have argued (and others who have written somewhat similarly, e.g., E. Scott), was by no means a true historical character but something of a biblical composite. See e.g. my article:
Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History
(5) Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
There we learn that Mohammed had supposedly encountered a young man from Nineveh – quite an anomaly. And the pair are said to have discussed the prophet Jonah, whom Mohammed called his “brother”.
Strangely, then, we are finding that the ancient city of Nineveh, destroyed in the late C7th BC, and not uncovered again until the mid-C19th AD - a period of approximately two and a half millennia, according to conventional estimates - experienced an eerie phase of ‘resurgence’ in the C7th AD, roughly halfway between these two cut-off points.
This is clearly a pseudo-history.
Again, Mohammed supposedly was contemporaneous with a Jew, one Nehemiah, who is like the BC biblical governor of that name strangely resuscitated in ‘another Persian era’. See my:
Two Supposed Nehemiahs: BC time and AD time
https://www.academia.edu/12429764/Two_Supposed_Nehemiahs_BC_time_and_AD_time
It all makes us have to worry, then, about the emperor Heraclius himself.
We read in a review of Walter E. Kaegi’s Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium (Cambridge University Press), that this Byzantine emperor was a ‘most strange and incoherent figure’:
http://www.historytoday.com/charles-freeman/heraclius-emperor-byzantium
Heraclius still appears to be one of the strangest and most incoherent figures that history has recorded. His reign is still considered as alternations of wondrous actions and inaction.
It is this inadequate conclusion from a biography of 1905 that Professor Kaegi seeks to confront in this full and detailed life of the Byzantine emperor, Heraclius. It is a major challenge. The sources for Heraclius’ life are diverse and discordant and remain virtually silent on his personality. He offended as many as he impressed and his defeats were every bit as spectacular as his victories. ….
[End of quote]
The intrigue continues.
The advent of Heraclius upon the ‘historical’ scene coincided perfectly with that of Illig’s “phantom time”, as Scott has well observed:
It was Heraclius, of course, who first came into military conflict with the Arabs, and it was in his reign that Constantinople lost Jerusalem to the Arabs, and it was in his reign that Constantinople lost Jerusalem to the Persians, in 614, a date which, according to Heribert Illig, marks the commencement of the phantom time.
….
The importance of Heraclius' reign as a historical watershed was recognized by Gibbon two hundred years ago. In Chapter 48 of the Decline and Fall he wrote: “From the time of Heraclius, the Byzantine theatre is contracted and darkened: the line of empire, which had been defined by the laws of Justinian and the arms of Belisarius, recedes on all sides from our view; the Roman name, the proper subject of our inquiries, is reduced to a narrow corner of Europe, to the lonely suburbs of Constantinople”.
Darkened and contracted indeed. Gibbon relied only upon written history, but that picture of contraction and darkening has been fully confirmed by archeology, which, in the past half century, has been unable to cast any fresh light upon the next three centuries of Byzantine history. On the contrary, excavators have been astonished by almost the complete absence of almost all signs of life during the latter seventh, eighth, ninth, and early tenth centuries.
The same darkness manifests itself in the West.
[End of quote]
We may need to do some unlearning
“Unlearning the Dark Ages” is the title of this review of another book by Emmet Scott, Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy. Once again, whilst I accept the basic thrust of this, I would not necessarily espouse every single idea presented here:
https://didactsreach.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/unlearning-dark-ages.html
Unlearning the Dark Ages
The best thing about reading iconoclastic, revisionist historians is that, in the process of reading and understanding their works and their ideas, you learn just how badly your schooling has let you down. Such was certainly the case when I read the truth about the Great Depression through the work of Amity Shlaes and her outstanding The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression. Such was true of Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism, which proved to be a thorough demolition job of the "standard" understanding of the (minimal) differences between fascism and communism. Such was the result of reading Thomas DiLorenzo's The Real Lincoln.
And now, to that distinguished list, I must add a new book: Emmett Scott's superb precis analysis of one of the most controversial theories in the field of classical and post-Roman history, Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy.
The book looks at the groundbreaking work and analysis of French historian Henri Pirenne, who came up with what was at the time the most radical rethinking of the history of the Dark Ages ever proposed. And to understand just why his proposal was so strange and so difficult for mainstream historians to digest, we need to briefly look at the "accepted" view of the way that the Dark Ages came about, how they led to the Middle Ages, and finally how the Renaissance came about.
The "Received Wisdom"
If your schooling was anything like mine, you were taught that the period following the fall of the Roman Empire, up until the advent of the Carolingian Age (i.e. the age of Charlemagne and his descendants) was a true "Dark Age", in which the wisdom, literacy, and artistic accomplishments of the Roman Empire decayed and disappeared as civilisation itself retreated and, at certain points, was in danger of dying out completely.
You were taught that the 6th through to the 9th centuries were a time of backwardness and decay, and that during this time the great cities of antiquity withered and died as the empire that the Romans had spent centuries to build up, crumbled into dust in the West and was tenuously guarded in the East by Byzantium. You were taught that the Church became an instrument of terror and repression, suppressing knowledge and condemning those who pursued forbidden topics as witches and heretics.
You were even perhaps taught that the Islamic world flourished into a true Golden Age as Europe retreated into backwardness and squalor. You were told that it was the Islamic world's preservation of ancient Greek and Latin texts that saved European civilisation; when Arabic and Persian scholars took those same books, translated centuries earlier into Arabic, back to Europe to be translated right back into European languages, the resulting transfer of knowledge kicked off the great rebirth of the Renaissance and eventually culminated in the Enlightenment.
All told, you were taught to think that the period from about 550AD (or thereabouts) to very roughly 850AD or 900AD was a three-century-long period of barbarism and backwardness so terrible that it very nearly destroyed what was left of Europe.
An Easily Believed Yarn
Obviously, I am skipping over certain key details here, but that is very broadly the historical consensus that existed before Henri Pirenne walked onto the scene. Both Edward Gibbon and J.B. Bury, perhaps the greatest historians the world has seen since Herodotus and Plutarch, argued convincingly, based on the evidence available to them at the time, that the disappearance of Roman civilisation from Western Europe resulted in a truly terrible Dark Age, and that it was Islam that saved the West. And that meme has persisted down to the present day, to the point where it is taught as near-Gospel in high schools and universities the world over.
There is just one problem with the entire theory: it is complete and arrant nonsense.
So said Henri Pirenne, who attacked the consensus understanding of the history of the period on every front. Drawing on the most up-to-date archaeological discoveries made up to that point, and looking carefully at geological, climatological, and contemporary source data, his conclusions were starkly at odds with the prevailing wisdom:
• Contrary to popular belief, the barbarians who settled the territories once occupied by Roman legions rapidly became Christians and Romanised all on their own, and quickly re-established a civilisation that was in many ways even more advanced than the one it had replaced;
• Trade between Europe, Britain, North Africa, and the Eastern Roman Empire flourished between 476AD and 650AD, creating massive prosperity and economic growth;
• The population of Europe did NOT shrink gradually but in fact entered a boom period, which abruptly cut off when the true Dark Age descended upon Europe;
• Most crucially, the specific reason why a Dark Age hit Europe was Islam itself
That last conclusion is by far the most unsettling. Henri Pirenne did not deny that a Dark Age did indeed descend across Europe; what he contested was the specific dates which were accorded to the period. And his analysis showed that the true Dark Ages corresponded virtually perfectly with the first great wave of Islamic expansion.
A Controversy Revisited
As can be imagined, such a radical revision of accepted historical narrative was a huge shock to most of Pirenne's contemporaries. In his analysis of and expansion upon Pirenne's work, Emmett Scott notes that even today, most historians find Pirenne's conclusions so difficult to swallow that they force themselves through all sorts of contortions of logic, evidence, and fact to avoid the extremely uncomfortable realities that those ideas would lead to.
Yet the evidence itself is beyond dispute. And Mr. Scott presents that evidence in a book that is a true pleasure to read.
He starts with the decline and fall of the Roman Empire itself, and carries on with his analysis all the way through to the latter 11th Century, when the Middle Ages were well and truly established. And his analysis, presented calmly, clearly, and in considerable yet fascinating detail, is extraordinary.
The history in this book reads like a detective story- and what a fascinating story it is. His tale is the forgotten history of a Europe that we are only now beginning to see and understand.
As Mr. Scott points out, the fall of the Roman Empire was not in fact quite the rupture that we are taught it was in school. It was actually basically a simple transition; the last Roman emperor simply stepped off the throne and handed the crown to the Germanic chieftain Odoacer. At that point in time, the population of the Roman Empire had indeed been in long-term decline; the stock of "ethnic Romans" had dwindled significantly, hence the reason why barbarian Germanic and Gothic tribes were allowed to settle within Roman territories in exchange for their service to the Empire. And that downward trend in population did continue into the early 6th Century.
But then something remarkable happened. The "barbarians" began to civilise. And they did so at a truly astonishing pace.
The Visigothic kingdoms of Spain emerged into a true Golden Age. In Gaul, the Merovingians consolidated and united the Gaulish tribes into a true nation and began building upon the centuries of accumulated wisdom of the Romans and the Greeks. England, a frontier outpost long abandoned by the Romans at that point, rebuilt a true Christian civilisation; Caledonia (Scotland) and Hibernia (Ireland), dreary and miserable islands that they were, also began to experience rapid social, technological, and spiritual progress, thanks in no small part to the introduction and rapid uptake of the Christian faith to those benighted lands.
From Spain in the west to Carthage in the south to Byzantium in the East, a true Mediterranean civilisation began to take shape.
The existence of expensive and expertly crafted African Red Slip pottery was proven well into the 7th Century in the northern reaches of former Roman territories, including Britain. In the East, the Byzantines held the line against the Persians, but were strong and flourishing in their own right.
Mr. Scott presents a true mountain of evidence showing that there was no Dark Age in Europe, right up to the middle of the 7th Century. In its place was an advanced culture in which art, science, and literature flourished at a rate not since since the days of the Rome of Marcus Aurelius. Not even the great plague of the Emperor Justinian's time, in the mid-6th Century, could put a stop to Europe's rapid pace of development.
Within and through it all, the Holy Church spearheaded the revival and revolution. The Benedictine order of monks proved instrumental in preserving, recording, and building upon the knowledge of the ancients. As Mr. Scott points out, there is no other group in all of human history that has done more to advance the knowledge and happiness of our species, and there is no institution in history that has ever done more for Mankind than the Church of Christ.
And then, suddenly, it all went horribly wrong.
Rupture
From the second half of the 7th Century, the evidence tells us that something happened which irrevocably changed Europe's fate. The advances of the previous two hundred years came to a screeching halt. Thriving metropolises were wiped out almost overnight, never to be resettled. Population growth crashed; trade across the Mediterranean collapsed; the fortunes of the Byzantines lurched from disaster to catastrophe with almost monotonous regularity for the better part of three hundred years.
And so the situation remained, until the Carolingian Age was well and truly established, and mediaeval Europe came into existence.
We know what the Middle Ages were like- or at least, we think we do. In reality, what we were taught in school about the Middle Ages is also basically wrong - in reality, the Middle Ages saw the advent of another advanced civilisation which was brought to its knees by the Plague. But that is not the era with which Pirenne or Scott concerned themselves. They were interested in the reason why an age of progress and expansion collapsed so quickly.
The answer can be summed up in one word: Islam.
The archaeological and historical evidence that Mr. Scott presents shows beyond a doubt that the extremely sudden reversal in Europe's fortunes coincides perfectly with the beginnings of the first wave of Islamic expansion, following the "prophet" Mohammed's establishment of a power base in Medina as a warlord.
In the latter quarter of the book, Mr. Scott presents a powerful analysis of the Islamic doctrine of war and shows that the canonical origin story of Islam, already highly suspect, is basically garbage. He further points out that the reason why the Arabs were able to expand so rapidly is not because of any great military skill on their part; the Arabs, a nomadic and squabbling people, were hugely outnumbered and outclassed in every way by the Byzantine Empire. Instead, it is far more likely that they made an alliance with the Sassanid Persians, and that the early victories of "Arab" Islam were in fact backed and financed by the vast wealth and power of the Persian empire in the East.
And anyone who knows anything about Islamic doctrines regarding warfare, piracy, the taking of slaves, and the division of the world into dar al-Harb and dar al-Islam will know that Mr. Scott is talking perfect sense when he points out that it was the rapid expansion of Islam that caused Mediterranean commerce and prosperity to come to a crashing halt almost overnight.
A Myth Debunked
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of Mr. Scott's work is his analysis of the much-ballyhoed "Islamic golden age".
This is another standard trope that we are all taught in school. We are taught to believe the politically correct lie that Islam was an enlightened religion of peace, which fostered scientific advancement, mathematics, medicine, physics, optics, and literature at a pace never seen in the West.
This is almost all complete BS.
In reality, whatever advances that the Islamic world made during the Dark Ages, which it created, were due to the works of far greater philosophers and authors from the Roman and Byzantine eras. In fact, the greatest findings attributed to "Arab" mathematicians and philosophers were actually Persian in origin. Indeed, the great advances in mathematics, such as the "Arabic" numbering system and the "Arabic" concept of zero and the "Arabic" method of algebra, are all Indian and Greek discoveries given a fresh coat of paint by Persian philosophers.
The true face of the Arabic Islamic empire of the time was in fact remarkably similar to what we see happening with ISIS today. It was backward, intolerant, abusive of Jews and Christians alike, utterly ruthless in dealing with pagans, violent, intolerant, and totally incapable of responsible governance over the territories that it conquered- which were once the wealthiest and most advanced creations of the children of the Roman Empire.
There is far, far more to this remarkable book than I can possibly do justice to here. But I cannot recommend it highly enough to anyone interested in the history of Islam's interactions with the West. It is a scholarly work of the first order that is as readable as any best-selling thriller, and as thought-provoking as anything that Thomas DiLorenzo has ever written. It will make you sit up and think; it will shock and amaze you; and you will very likely walk away from it with your entire understanding of the post-Roman era of history turned upside-down. ….
[End of quotes]
See also my article relevant to the Islamic Golden Age:
Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism
(6) Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
A composite character to end all composites
Heraclius seems to have one foot in Davidic Israel, one in the old Roman Republic, and, whatever feet may be left (because this definitely cannot be right),
in the Christian era.
What a mix of a man is this emperor Heraclius! What a conundrum! What a puzzle!
I feel sorry for Walter Emil Kaegi, who has valiantly attempted to write a biography of him: Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium.
The accomplishment of this scholarly exercise I believe to be a complete impossibility. And I could simply base this view on what I read from Kaegi’s book itself (pp. 12 and 13):
The story of Heraclius, as depicted in several literary historical traditions, is almost Herodotean in his experience of fickle fortune's wheel of triumph and tragedy, of ignorance or excessive pride, error, and disaster. ….
Mackey’s comment: To classify the story of Heraclius as “Herodotean” may be appropriate. Herodotus, ostensibly “the Father of History” (Cicero), has also been called “the Father of Lies” by critics who claim that his ‘histories’ are little more than tall tales.
Heraclius, as we now read, is spread ‘all over the place’ (my description):
At one level his name is associated with two categories of classical nomenclature: (1) ancient classical offices such as the consulship, as well as (2) many of the most exciting heroes, places, precedents, and objects of classical, ancient Near Eastern, and Biblical antiquity: Carthage, Nineveh, Jerusalem, the vicinity of Alexander the Great's triumph over the Persians at Gaugamela, Noah's Ark, the Golden Gate in Jerusalem, Arbela, the fragments of the True Cross, Damascus, Antioch, perhaps even ancient Armenia's Tigra-nocerta, and of course, Constantinople.
Mackey’s comment: According to a late source (conventionally 600 years after Heraclius): “The historian Elmacin recorded in the 13th Century that in the 7th Century the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius had climbed Jabal Judi in order to see the place where the Ark had landed”. http://bibleprobe.com/noahark-timeline.htm
Even that ancient location may not be correct. See this article:
A Candidate Site for Noah's Ark, Altar, and Tomb
https://www.academia.edu/60613140/A_Candidate_Site_for_Noahs_Ark_Altar_and_Tomb
Biblically, Heraclius has been compared with such luminaries as Noah, Moses, David, Solomon, Daniel, and even with Jesus Christ.
And no wonder in the case of David! For we read in Steven H. Wander’s article for JSTOR, “The Cyprus Plates and the “Chronicle” of Fredegar” (pp. 345-346):
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1291381.pdf
…. there is one episode from the military career of Heraclius that bears a striking similarity to the story of David and Goliath.
Byzantine chroniclers record that during his campaign against the Emperor Chosroes in 627, Heraclius fought the Persian general Razatis in single combat, beheading his opponent like the Israelite hero. …. George of Pisidia, the court poet, may have even connected this contemporary event with the life of David. In his epic panegyrics on Heraclius' Persian wars, he compared the Emperor to such Old Testament figures as Noah, Moses, and Daniel; unfortunately the verses of his Heraclias that, in all likelihood, dealt in detail with the combat are lost. ….
[End of quote]
That fateful year 627 AD again, the year also of the supposed Battle of Nineveh said to have been fought and won by Heraclius!
According to Shaun Tougher, The Reign of Leo VI (886-912): Politics and People: “Heraclius … appears to have been intent on establishing himself as a new David …”.
Likewise, in the case of Charlemagne:
…. Charlemagne has indeed been likened to King Solomon of old, e.g. by H. Daniel-Rops (The Church in the Dark Ages, p. 395), who calls him a “witness of God, after the style of Solomon …”, and he has been spoken of in terms of the ancient kings of Israel; whilst Charlemagne’s father, Pepin the Short, was hailed as “the new king David'. ….
So it appears that Heraclius may have some strong competition from the West in his ‘aspiring’ to be either the new King David or the new King Solomon!
Kaegi continues:
He and his writers sought to associate his name with famous names from antiquity: Alexander, Scipio and Constantine I, and with the Biblical Moses and David. Yet he will have to compete with a new name: Muhammad. ….
Mackey’s comment: He is up there with Scipio and Hannibal (another most dubious ‘historical’ character as well).
Thus we read at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclius
“Edward Gibbon in his work The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire wrote:
Of the characters conspicuous in history, that of Heraclius is one of the most extraordinary and inconsistent. In the first and last years of a long reign, the emperor appears to be the slave of sloth, of pleasure, or of superstition, the careless and impotent spectator of the public calamities.
But the languid mists of the morning and evening are separated by the brightness of the meridian sun; the Arcadius of the palace arose the Caesar of the camp; and the honor of Rome and Heraclius was gloriously retrieved by the exploits and trophies of six adventurous campaigns. [...] Since the days of Scipio and Hannibal, no bolder enterprise has been attempted than that which Heraclius achieved for the deliverance of the empire.[52]
[End of quote]
As for “Muhammad” (Mohammed), we have found him out to be very much a biblical composite.
Given all of the biblico-historical baggage with which emperor Heraclius has been fitted down through the centuries, it is little wonder then that, according to Kaegi:
No preceding or subsequent Byzantine emperor saw so much: the Araxes, the Khabur, Tigris, the Euphrates, and the Sea of Galilee (Lake Tiberias).
….
Heraclius was controversial while living and is controversial today. ….
Mackey’s comment: That last is putting it mildly.
But how can one such as Kaegi possibly (and all credit to him for trying) write a biography of Heraclius when, according to Kaegi’s own testimony:
Lacunae exist in our knowledge of Heraclius. First of all there are doubts about basic chronology, sometimes due to conflicting reports in the sources, at other times due to omissions of information about certain of his activities. Heraclius and his advisers left no diaries, memoirs, or personal letters. There are no archives of original documents. It is impossible to know biographical details about him that might be standard for nineteenth- and twentieth-century figures. The chronology is inexact for some important events. ….
Mackey’s comment: Phew! Yet, despite that horrific sequence of negatives:
… it is not the worst-documented period of the Byzantine Empire, for there is more documentation than for some other reigns of the seventh century, and for many of those of the fifth century.
Mackey’s comment: God help us!
Kaegi again:
Mysteries abound. The ultimate goals of Heraclius remain obscure. What did Heraclius really want? ....
I don’t think that we shall ever really know.
Channeling Alexander the Great
Heraclius, also often compared to Alexander the Great, appears to have usurped
some of the credentials of the famous Macedonian world-conqueror.
According to the supposed C7th AD historian, George of Pisidia, Heraclius was more than comparable to Alexander the Great and to Timotheus (admiral). This is discussed in the thesis by David M. Pritchard, The Emperor Heraclius; Investigations into the Image of an Emperor:
It is not just Heraclius' military skills that are praised in comparison with the pair of Alexander the Great and Timotheus. They are both Greek commanders one of whom was a general the other an admiral, and both of whom were operating in the same part of the world as Heraclius. However, Heraclius is superior as a person, he built his army up to be organised, well trained and brave, whereas Alexander inherited his from his father. Heraclius had to battle against fortune whilst Tyche smiled on Timotheus' endeavours: "Timotheus sleeping amidst battles, then Fortune handing over the cities on this side and on that". … These comparisons serve to summarise the virtues of Heraclius that George wants to extol. He is compared with biblical figures to illustrate his piety and the manner in which he has served God, whilst his military skills that are always in evidence, are complemented by the aid of God, which raises him above his pagan predecessors, thanks to that piety. ….
[End of quote]
But the comparisons with Alexander become even more specific. Previously in this series we may have been puzzled to learn that Heraclius had, in 627 AD, fought the “Battle of Nineveh”, despite the fact that the city of Nineveh no longer existed. Now, most strangely again, Heraclius is credited with also having fought - just as Alexander the Great had indeed done historically (in 333 BC, conventional dating) - the Battle of Issus. We read about it in this uncritical piece, “Echoing Alexander”:
http://larsbrownworth.com/blog/category/issus/battle-of-issus/
Pavel asks if Heraclius ever fought a battle at Issus- the famous spot where Alexander the Great defeated a huge Persian army led by his rival Darius.
There must have been something about the place that attracted armies. By the time Heraclius showed up in 622 A.D. Issus had seen two previous major, empire defining, winner-take-all clashes. The first (and most famous) was in 333 BC when Alexander the Great met Darius and broke the back of Persian power. The second was in 194 AD during the year of the 5 emperors when the armies of Septimius Severus defeated his main rival. (A few days after the battle the victorious Severus mopped up the still defiant and relatively nearby Byzantium, where- anticipating Constantine by more than a century- he rebuilt it in his own honor).
Heraclius in a way combined his two predecessors- a Greek-speaking, Hellenized, Roman Emperor. In the autumn of 622, he crossed the Aegean looking for the Persian army. They met at the famous Issus, but unlike the previous two battles this one wasn’t decisive. Neither army was really willing to come to grips and (despite an alleged prediction by Mohammed that it would result in a major Roman victory), it was more of a skirmish. Heraclius spent the next several years trying to force a Persian engagement and nearly lost it all when he was ambushed crossing a river. The tide turned in 624, but it wasn’t until December of 627- half a decade after the battle of Issus- that he was able to fight a decisive battle with the Persians.
[End of quote]
“… it wasn’t until December of 627- half a decade after the battle of Issus - that he was able to fight a decisive battle with the Persians”, that being, of course, the fictitious Battle of Nineveh.
Modern historian J. Bury followed George of Pisidia in his likening of Heraclius to Alexander.
Irfan Shahid tells of it in The Iranian Factor in Byzantium during the Reign of Heraclius, at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1291452.pdf
Bury conceived of Heraclius as another Alexander. …. There is indeed something in the career of Heraclius which is reminiscent of Alexander: mounted on his charger, Dorkon … he fought on occasion a Homeric aristeia in much the same way that Alexander, mounted on Bucephalus, had done before, though more significant is his role in the contest of East and West and in the victory of the latter over the former, represented by Persia.
…. Bury's views have been accepted in whole or in part by a number of scholars … but they have been rejected by others ….
Ostrogorsky … in his History of the Byzantine State …. After describing the linguistic change which took place during the reign of Heraclius-the dropping of Latin and the use of Greek exclusively as the official language of the Empire-he goes on to say:
Under the influence of this Hellenization an important change, which was at the same time a simplification, was made in the imperial title in the Byzantine Empire. Heraclius gave up the complicated Latin form of address, and following popular Greek usage he took the title of βασιλεύς. Thus the royal title of the ancient Greek kings, which had hitherto only been used unofficially for the Byzantine Emperor, now replaced the Roman titles, imperator [caesar] augustus.
In future the Byzantine Emperor was officially designated as Basileus and this was recognized as the actual imperial title. ….
Alexander the Great was, of course, a “king” (basileus) of the Ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon.
Heraclius again, just like “Alexander [who] … adopted the title ShahanShah (King of Kings) used by the rulers of the First Persian Empire”:
http://www.ancient.eu/Alexander_the_Great/
“took for himself the ancient Persian title of “King of Kings”, dropping the traditional Roman imperial title of “Augustus”.”:
http://www.themiddleages.net/people/heraclius.html
Alexander the Great had, historically again (in 331 BC, conventional dating), fought and won the Battle of Gaugamela. Not surprisingly, now, so did Heraclius. Steven Ward writes of it (Immortal, Updated Edition: A Military History of Iran and Its Armed Forces, p. 36):
Heraclius began a march against the palace of the Great King at Dastagird. The Persian army, now under the command of Razates, avoided combat, probably hoping the Greek move across Anatolia would wear down the soldiers and overextend their lines. An impatient Chosroes, however, ordered his generals to fight. In December 627, Razates inauspiciously attacked smaller Greek forces under Heraclius near Gaugamela.
[End of quote]
With the armies at a standstill, and as we read previously: “Heraclius [who] … appears to have been intent on establishing himself as a new David …”, famously fought Razates (Razatis) in single combat and – yes, you guessed it – beheaded him.
A “new David” he was, but also “the new Alexander”, the title of Gerrit J. Reinink’s article, “'Heraclius, the New Alexander: Apocalyptic Prophecies during the Reign of Heraclius” (Louvain: Peeters, 2002).
I shall conclude this section with a final parallel between Alexander and Heraclius as found in Barbara Baert’s article, “Heraclius and Chosroes or The Desire for the True Cross” (2005):
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Baert_Heraclius_Chosroes.shtml
In an early seventh-century source from Edessa, Heraclius is even compared with Alexander the Great. [6]
….
According to the Legend of the True Cross, the Byzantine emperor Heraclius (610-641) was involved in a battle against Chosroes II (588-628?), the Sassanian king who had stolen the cross in Jerusalem. Entering the astrological tower in Ctesiphon, Heraclius finds Chosroes sitting at his mechanical throne. It was kept in constant movement by horses, just as the universe is constantly moving. Into the throne, Chosroes had placed the cross relic "as the sun," and an image of a cock "as the ghost." Chosroes considered himself "as the father." Heraclius decapitates Chosroes on his throne and restitutes the cross to Jerusalem.
….
In 1878, M. J. Mohl published a German translation of the Firdausi verses written down in present-day Iran in 900 or thereabouts. [27] In this legend, a king builds a colossal "Taq dis"; etymologically this means "equal to the firmament" (fornici similis). [28] This "celestial throne" was made of the richest materials and embellished with all the signs of the zodiac. Four steps led up to a throne supported by lions. The Persian astrological throne functioned within a ritual context.
As the center of the heavenly realm, the ruler was manifested as one who has power to influence the stars. Indeed, the ruler is venerated as the entity into which the cosmic powers have poured. The throne symbolizes this power.
In the Firdausi verses, it is told that Alexander the Great, indifferent to the treasures of the palace and unfamiliar with the astrological potential of the construction, destroyed the dazzling "Taq dis." However, Chosroes II conceived the plan of restoring the ancient astrological temple. T. Nöldeke suggests that the specific passage of the legend in which Chosroes II appears was based on the "Book of Chosroes," a lost Arabic chronicle that goes up to 628 AD. [29] Cedrenos (Historiarum compendium, 1057) also supplemented his Elevation of the Cross passage with a description of the astrological temple. [30]
The throne of Chosroes corresponds to the planetarium or the cosmic clock. Philostratus [c. 200 AD] described such a structure in Babylon. The men’s hall in the palace had a domed vault that resembled the heavens. The dome was decorated with sapphires and with images of their gods, the planets. [31] ….
Heraclius of Jerusalem
The neo-Assyrian empire of the Sargonids, of the C8th-C7th’s BC - coupled with the contemporaneous drama of the Book of Judith - appears to have left its mark in various unexpected places.
For instance, as we have discovered in this series, the supposed C7th AD emperor of Byzantium, Heraclius, and his contemporaries, are horribly anachronistic, notably in relation to the Assyrians and Nineveh:
Strangely, then, we are finding that the ancient city of Nineveh, destroyed in the late C7th BC, and not uncovered again until the mid-C19th AD – a period of approximately two and a half millennia, according to conventional estimates – experienced an eerie phase of ‘resurgence’ in the C7th AD, roughly halfway between these two cut-off points. This is clearly a pseudo-history.
And in c. 960 AD, seeming flashes of the neo-Assyrian empire startlingly re-emerge, again in a Judith-like context, in the supposedly Ethiopian kingdom of “Aksum” (or Axum).
But it does not end there.
Later again, in the C12th AD, according to the history books, we find the supposed Seljuk Turks manifesting similar suspicious likenesses to the greatest of the neo-Assyrian kings, with events recorded about them strongly reminiscent, too, of the dramatic conflict described in the Book of Judith. See my article:
Seljuk, Zengi, and the neo-Assyrians
https://www.academia.edu/25411810/Seljuk_Zengi_and_the_neo-Assyrians
In this “Zengi” article I also introduced another supposedly historical Heraclius, but this time apparently ruling over, not Byzantium, but Jerusalem.
Thus I wrote:
Most interestingly, too, in light of my massive historical query … an “Heraclius” appears to get a re-run.
Firstly, king Chosroes II (said to have been a Persian king) of c. 600 AD was opposed to the Byzantine emperor Heraclius. Then, incredibly – or is it, anymore? – one named Heraclius (var. Eraclius) emerges in c. 1128-1190/91 AD, now as Patriarch of Jerusalem, at the time of Zengi.
Heraclius (Eraclius) and Eliakim
“The importance of Heraclius' reign as a historical watershed was recognized by Gibbon two hundred years ago. In Chapter 48 of the Decline and Fall he wrote: “From the time of Heraclius, the Byzantine theatre is contracted and darkened: the line of empire, which had been defined by the laws of Justinian and
the arms of Belisarius, recedes on all sides from our view; the Roman name,
the proper subject of our inquiries, is reduced to a narrow corner of Europe,
to the lonely suburbs of Constantinople”.”
Much of the information that we have concerning the Byzantine emperor, Heraclius, supposedly of the C7th AD, is either reminiscent of - or sometimes even directly related to - aspects of the ancient neo-Assyrian era, and the famous Assyrian capital of Nineveh, dated to about a millennium and a half earlier than c. 600 AD.
And the same remark applies to supposed contemporaries of Heraclius, such as Mohammed.
Most significantly, the supposed reign of Heraclius of Byzantium (c. 610-641 AD) - thought to have been contemporaneous with Mohammed (c. 570-632 AD) - coincides right at the time when the likes of Illig and Niemitz claim that there was no actual history (c. 614-911 AD). Their explanation of how it all came about is entirely different, however, from the approach that I am using here.
Here is a brief summary of their “Phantom Time Hypothesis”:
http://www.messagetoeagle.com/controversial-phantom-time-hypothesis-early-middle-ages-never-existed-because-the-western-calendar-was-misdated/#ixzz4bFcws8Kb
One of the most intriguing and highly controversial theories dealing with ancient history is without doubt the “Phantom Time Hypothesis”.
According to this unconventional and thought-provoking theory the Early Middle Ages (614-911 A.D) never existed because the Western calendar was misdated.
The Phantom Time Hypothesis was developed by German scientist Heribert Illig. Another German researcher Hans-Ulrich Niemitz expanded on this theory after he accidentally learned about the problem of faked documents in the Middle Ages.
….
In his science paper “Did the Early Middle Ages Really Exist?” Dr. Hans-Ulrich Niemitz points out that we can find medieval falsifications in every kind of documents. There are literally thousands of recognized forgeries from the Middle Ages. ….
…. These are facts that speak in favor for the Phantom Time Hypothesis.
“The easiest way to understand doubts about the accepted chronology and ‘well-known’ history is to seriously systematize the problems of medieval research.
This will lead us to detect a pattern which proves my thesis and gives reason to assume that a phantom period of approximately 300 years has been inserted between 600 AD to 900 AD, either by accident, by misinterpretation of documents or by deliberate falsification.
This period and all events that are supposed to have happened therein never existed. Buildings and artifacts ascribed to this period really belong to other periods, “Dr. Hans-Ulrich Niemitz says.
The reason why the Western calendar was misdated was because Holy Roman Emperor, Otto III, in collusion with Pope Sylvester II wanted to celebrate the end of the first millennium 297 years earlier.
By examining several curious historical gaps the scientists were able to elaborate further on the Phantom Time Hypothesis.
“We looked for ‘gaps’ in special reports and publications, also for periods of stagnation or strange events repeated in similar manner after approximately 300 years. I only refer to some of a great number of puzzles: a gap in the history of building in Constantinople (558 AD – 908 AD); a gap in the doctrine of faith, especially the gap in the evolution of theory and meaning of purgatory (600 AD until ca. 1100), a 300-year-long reluctant introduction of farming techniques (three-acre-system, horse with cummet) and of war techniques (stirrup), a gap in the mosaic art (565 AD – 1018 AD), a repeated beginning of the German orthography etc. etc. The puzzles of historiography led the way, pointing out again and again the ‘gap’ which we soon termed ‘phantom time’.”
[End of quotes]
In Heraclius of Byzantium’s namesake, Heraclius (or Eraclius) of Jerusalem we may be able to begin to discern why this strange situation may, in fact, have come about – what may be the biblico-Assyrian matrix for whatever about Heraclius is actually a pseudo history. As I said, my approach to the subject is quite different from that proposed by the exponents of the “Phantom Time Hypothesis”.
So far in articles I have argued that the “Eliakim son of Hilkiah”, who was King Hezekiah of Judah’s chief minister at the time of Sennacherib of Assyria’s first great western invasion, was also the high priest Joakim of the Book of Judith:
Hezekiah's Chief Official Eliakim was High Priest
https://www.academia.edu/31701765/Hezekiahs_Chief_Official_Eliakim_was_High_Priest
https://www.academia.edu/31701911/Hezekiahs_Chief_Official_Eliakim_was_High_Priest_Part_Two_Eliakim_points_to_Saint_Peter
and that he was, in fact, the great prophet Jeremiah:
Jeremiah as Baruch 1:7's ‘Jehoiakim son of Hilkiah’
https://www.academia.edu/43301105/Jeremiah_as_Baruch_1_7s_Jehoiakim_son_of_Hilkiah
This would mean that Eliakim would have been eye-witness to, and indeed deeply involved in, the two greatest dramas involving the might of neo-Assyria against the land of Israel.
And these two cataclysmic events have resounded down through time, being absorbed into mythologies and folklores, and possibly even influencing some of the events that we would associate with real Medieval history.
See e.g. my multi-part series:
World Renowned Judith of Bethulia
beginning with:
https://www.academia.edu/37051861/World_Renowned_Judith_of_Bethulia
And this is how I would interpret Heraclius, at least in those Assyrian-like elements associated with this most enigmatic character.
Now, from this foundation it is a fairly obvious step to identify, as the historical basis of Heraclius (Eraclius) the patriarch of Jerusalem (C12th BC), the biblical Eliakim son of Hilkiah.
One can immediately see that the names [H]Eraclius (Ἡράκλειος) and Eliakim (אֶלְיָקִים) are very similar, discounting the Greco-Roman ending –ius, and also taking into account the common interchangeability of the letters l and r. Thus, for example, we read, in the case of the Egyptian language:
http://www.kaa-umati.co.uk/bantu_rosetta_stones_part_c.htm
The Ancient Egyptian language does not use the consonant l but instead substitutes it with consonant r. Thus consonants l and r are freely interchangeable without loss in meaning. This type of a substitution was carried out to decipher CLEOPATRA’S name where consonant r replaced consonant l in her name. CLEOPATRA’S name was spelt CREOPATRA in the Ancient Egyptian language. Thus the name CREOPATRA = CLEOPATRA.
[End of quote]
Now, reading through the useful Wikipedia article, entitled “Patriarch Heraclius of Jerusalem” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Heraclius_of_Jerusalem), we can find some points of comparison between Heraclius of Jerusalem and Eliakim (Joakim) in Jerusalem.
I take here the relevant parts, adding to these my comments:
Heraclius or Eraclius (c. 1128 – 1190/91), was archbishop of Caesarea and Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem.
….
Comment: As in the case of Eliakim replacing the haughty Shebna (Isaiah 22), Heraclius will be preferred to the presumptuous William of Tyre for the patriarchate of Jerusalem.
William may subsequently have been, like Shebna, shamed:
In 1180, William considered himself the most likely candidate for the patriarchate of Jerusalem, but the king, Baldwin IV, delegated the choice to his mother Agnes of Courtenay, Lady of Sidon, and her ladies, according to the precedent of the previous election in 1157. Agnes and her committee chose Heraclius.
….
The claim in the Old French Continuation that [Heraclius] excommunicated William in 1183, forcing him to leave the kingdom … is demonstrably false.
No Western chroniclers noted what would (if true) have been a major ecclesiastical scandal. ….
….
Comment: As with the biblical trio (Eliakim, Shebna, Joah: Isaiah 36:11) who would face the Rabshakeh of the Assyrian army, Heraclius will be part of an ambassadorial triumvirate during a crisis:
In 1184, Heraclius, along with Roger de Moulins, Grand Master of the Knights Hospitaller, and Arnold of Torroja, Grand Master of the Knights Templar, travelled to Europe to seek help in solving the looming succession crisis in the kingdom.
Comment: Whilst Eliakim would be given “the key to the House of David” (Isaiah 22:22), Heraclius and his colleagues here:
… carried with them the keys of the city of Jerusalem, the Holy Sepulchre and the Tower of David, along with other memorabilia. ….
Comment: Certain chroniclers refer to Heraclius in terms indicating his good qualities:
…. Other chroniclers, Peter of Blois, Gerald of Wales,[1] Herbert of Bosham and Rigord, were more impressed by the Patriarch's spiritual qualities, describing him in phrases such as "vir sanctus et prudens", "vir sanctus" and "vitae sanctitatae non inferior". ….
Comment: There are some very strong similarities between the successful first invasion of Sennacherib at the time of Eliakim, and the likewise successful effort of Saladin at the time of Heraclius. Although Heraclius shape-shifts here to become King Hezekiah - in the latter’s illness at the time, and in his submission to the invader and stripping of the Temple of its gold and silver:
Defense of Jerusalem
In 1187, Saladin invaded the kingdom, and when Guy marched out to meet him, he asked Heraclius to march along with him at the head of the army with the relic of the True Cross. As Heraclius was ill, the bishop of Acre took his place. Despite the relic, Saladin inflicted a crippling defeat on them at the Battle of Hattin on July 4, capturing the king. ….
….
In Jerusalem Heraclius urged Balian of Ibelin to lead the defence of the city against Saladin. He ordered the stripping of the silver from the edicule in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to strike coins with which to pay the city's defenders. But Jerusalem was finally forced to capitulate on October 2. It was Heraclius who advised Balian to come to terms rather than fight to the death, which, he argued, would condemn the city's women and children to slavery and forced conversion. Heraclius helped Balian negotiate the surrender with Saladin, who allowed him and most of the other Christians leave the city unharmed.
He and Balian had organised, and contributed to, a collection of 30,000 bezants to ransom the poorer citizens.
Comment: Compare this with 2 Kings 18:13-16:
In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah’s reign, Sennacherib king of Assyria attacked all the fortified cities of Judah and captured them. So Hezekiah king of Judah sent this message to the king of Assyria at Lachish: ‘I have done wrong. Withdraw from me, and I will pay whatever you demand of me’. The king of Assyria exacted from Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. So Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the temple of the LORD and in the treasuries of the royal palace.
At this time Hezekiah king of Judah stripped off the gold with which he had covered the doors and doorposts of the temple of the LORD, and gave it to the king of Assyria.
Comment: Later we read of Heraclius bringing heart to the Crusaders at the siege of Acre, this reminding one of the high priest Joakim’s (Eliakim’s) sharing in the joy of Judith’s victory over “Holofernes”: “After the capture of Jerusalem, Heraclius sought refuge in Antioch, together with the queen. He then took part in the Siege of Acre, where his arrival heartened the army”.
As in the Eliakim-Joakim scenario, the defenders of Jerusalem, initially overwhelmed by the invader and utterly humiliated, would live to see, and rejoice in, a shattering victory over that same enemy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Acre_(1189%E2%80%9391
The Siege of Acre was one of the first confrontations of the Third Crusade, lasting from August 28, 1189 until July 12, 1191, and the first time in history that the King of Jerusalem was compelled personally to see to the defence of the Holy Land.[3] It was also the deadliest event of the whole period of the Crusades for the Christian ruling class of the east.[4] Nevertheless, it was a key victory for the Crusaders and a serious defeat for Saladin, who had hoped to destroy the whole of the Crusader kingdom.
[End of quote]
If I am not deluded here about identifying so much of supposed AD history - {and the full extent of it still remains to be determined} - with the era of the neo-Assyrians, and especially the dramatic events associated with the reign of king Sennacherib of Assyria and the reflections of it in the Book of Judith, then there are some enormous ramifications touching upon (a) a partly “phantom” AD ‘history’; on (b) the “watershed” reign of emperor Heraclius of Byzantium (E. Scott: A Guide to the Phantom Dark Age):
The importance of Heraclius' reign as a historical watershed was recognized by Gibbon two hundred years ago. In Chapter 48 of the Decline and Fall he wrote: “From the time of Heraclius, the Byzantine theatre is contracted and darkened: the line of empire, which had been defined by the laws of Justinian and the arms of Belisarius, recedes on all sides from our view; the Roman name, the proper subject of our inquiries, is reduced to a narrow corner of Europe, to the lonely suburbs of Constantinople” …
and, indeed, upon (c) the Crusades at their most famous peak: the supposed capture of Jerusalem by Saladin.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7888615205986009768.post-43245763951097486502024-02-11T11:33:00.000-08:002024-02-11T11:33:38.621-08:00 An early glimpse of Nebuchednezzar?<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigud6bHaDBUNKKJvQPf1Ypyy7Jip4q1ZCVwTRbpD8WSq4iY_JQTSUI-K_eJZx3uwhb5XMrx0eQyofASf0I3CHLz5cPMeDWlR2cN3WEpiJXdKwnUyptluGXyRCQBxRIfYlN4vXctEyqtyrCUJYQLTPZw5LxUW1zBPsiabXteSJ3tAgN4LksG-wo96xuCTE/s360/360_F_571283886_sIsmMHx7aNTogZwRASdgIo1yFAAFKZGn.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigud6bHaDBUNKKJvQPf1Ypyy7Jip4q1ZCVwTRbpD8WSq4iY_JQTSUI-K_eJZx3uwhb5XMrx0eQyofASf0I3CHLz5cPMeDWlR2cN3WEpiJXdKwnUyptluGXyRCQBxRIfYlN4vXctEyqtyrCUJYQLTPZw5LxUW1zBPsiabXteSJ3tAgN4LksG-wo96xuCTE/s600/360_F_571283886_sIsmMHx7aNTogZwRASdgIo1yFAAFKZGn.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
“Nebuchadnezzar, the "wicked one" ("ha-rasha'"; Meg. 11a; Ḥag. 13b; Pes. 118a), was a … son-in-law of Sennacherib (Targ. to Isa. x. 32; Lam. R., Introduction, 23, says "a grandson"), with whom he took part in the expedition of the Assyrians against Hezekiah, being one of the few who were not destroyed by the angels before Jerusalem (Sanh. 95b)”.
Jewishencyclopedia
According to the standard interpretation of history one could hardly expect the young Nebuchednezzar, who began to reign in 605 BC (conventional dating) to have been involved in the ill-fated final campaign of Sennacherib (d. 681 BC, conventional dating), when Israel’s heroine Judith brought the massive Assyrian army to a shuddering halt at ‘Bethulia’ (Shechem). See e.g. my article:
“Nadin” (Nadab) of Tobit is the “Holofernes” of Judith
https://www.academia.edu/people/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=mackey+nadin+%28nadab%29
In the less standard interpretation of events (e.g. my revision) this situation, a Jewish tradition, becomes quite possible, however. For, according to my reinterpretation of how things were, Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’ was the same person as Esarhaddon, the successor of - and thought to have been the son of - Sennacherib. See e.g. my recent series:
Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar
beginning with:
(3) (DOC) Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Turning now to the Jewish traditions, or legends, we learn two interesting things about Nebuchednezzar, the second of which is his alleged involvement in Sennacherib’s campaign. About the first, that Nebuchednezzar was a descendant of the Queen of Sheba, I have nothing further to add at present: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11407-nebuchadnezzar
....
—In Rabbinical Literature:
Nebuchadnezzar, the "wicked one" ("ha-rasha'"; Meg. 11a; Ḥag. 13b; Pes. 118a), was a son—or descendant?—of the Queen of Sheba by her marriage with Solomon ("Alphabet Ben Sira," ed. Venice, 21b; comp. Brüll's "Jahrb." ix. 9), and a son-in-law of Sennacherib (Targ. to Isa. x. 32; Lam. R., Introduction, 23, says "a grandson"), with whom he took part in the expedition of the Assyrians against Hezekiah, being one of the few who were not destroyed by the angels before Jerusalem (Sanh. 95b). He came to the throne in the fourth year of King Jehoiakim of Judah, whom he subjugated and, seven years later, killed after that king had rebelled. Nebuchadnezzar did not on this occasion go to Jerusalem, but received the Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem at Daphne, a suburb of Antioch, informing that body that it was not his intention to destroy the Temple, but that the rebellious Jehoiakim must be delivered to him, which in fact was done (Seder 'Olam R. xxv.; Midr. 'Eser Galuyyot, ed. Grünhut, "Sefer ha-Liḳḳuṭim," iii.; Lev. R. xix.; comp. Jehoiakim in Rabbinical Literature). ….
[End of quote]
That would mean that Esarhaddon was involved
“… Esarhaddon … attacked Egypt, when, as the Babylonian chronicle tells us,
‘the troops of Assyria went to Egypt: they fled before a great storm’.”
If the young Nebuchednezzar really had been involved in Sennacherib’s ill-fated campaign - as according to various Jewish traditions - then Esarhaddon, his alter ego as I have suggested,
must have been involved in that very campaign.
And that brings me right back to my university thesis:
A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf
wherein I had presented Esarhaddon as a central figure in the Sennacherib drama, which I identified as the drama of the Book of Judith.
In that thesis I had identified Esarhaddon – wrongly as I now believe – as the “Holofernes” of the Book of Judith. In more recent times I have corrected this view, making Esarhaddon’s oldest brother, Ashur-nadin-shumi, the tragic “Holofernes”. See “Nadin” article above.
Part of my reason earlier for equating Esarhaddon with “Holofernes” had been the fact that Esarhaddon’s army had fled during a campaign to Egypt. Now the disastrous Assyrian campaign as narrated in the Book of Judith had as its ultimate goal Egypt. Thus (Judith 1:12): “[The King of Assyria] vowed that he would put to death the entire population of Cilicia, Damascus, Syria, Moab, Ammon, Judah, and Egypt—everyone from the Mediterranean Sea to the Persian Gulf”.
This is how I had attempted to interweave Esarhaddon into the disastrous Sennacherib campaign (= Judith drama) in my thesis (Volume One, pp. 168-170):
….
With Esarhaddon generally considered to have been a younger son of Sennacherib, the eldest being Ashur-nadin-shumi whom Sennacherib made Viceroy of Babylon during his Twelfth Year (Fourth Campaign) (711 BC, revised), the chronology I am trying to develop here would be extremely tight indeed. But Esarhaddon in fact calls himself “the oldest son of [Sennacherib ...”.396 And, whilst this would appear to be contradicted by another statement of his, that Marduk had called him “from among my older brothers”,397 it may indicate that he had become the oldest of Sennacherib’s sons in line for the throne; with his previously older brothers either dead or no longer in contention because of their revolt.
This primary piece of evidence of Esarhaddon as “the oldest son” not only assists my reconstruction, but now makes highly attractive also an identification of Esarhaddon (i.e. Ashur-akhi-iddina) with Ashur-nadin-shumi, Sennacherib’s eldest. The latter’s supposed six years of reign over Babylon (c. 700-694 BC, conventional dating) would thus correspond with Esarhaddon’s reign over that city. And I suggest it was during this early period that Esarhaddon rebuilt, probably magnified, Babylon; but while his father Sennacherib was still alive, and indeed as a servant of the latter. They would have been co-regents of Babylon, given that Sargon’s Year 16 was also his 4th year as king of Babylon (the second time around).
My comment on this: From the “Esarhaddon a tolerable fit” article above, with Esarhaddon therein identified as Nebuchednezzar, the building of Babylon would actually have occurred only after the father’s death.
My thesis continues:
….
According to this new scenario, Esarhaddon would have served for six years as ruler of Babylon, from Sennacherib’s Year 12 to Year 18, and his reign would have terminated prior to the end of his father’s own reign.
My proposed identification of Esarhaddon with Ashur-nadin-shumi (and I am not of course claiming a precise name identification here) would not stand up though if the latter had really suffered the fate that Roux has attributed to this Ashur-nadin-shumi:398 “… disappeared, probably murdered” in Iran after the Babylonians had handed him over to the Elamites. However, I have not yet read anywhere that Ashur-nadin-shumi’s death at this stage was more than ‘probable’. There is no certainty attached to it.
….
And, if Ashur-nadin-shumi were Esarhaddon as seems very likely - and I hope to strengthen this case further on - then his death did not occur in Elam; though the circumstances of it may have been equally unfortunate as those given by Roux for Ashurnadin-shumi (“disappeared, probably murdered”).
….
If Sennacherib, soon to be ensconced in his glorious new palace at Khorsabad, had
virtually abdicated in favour of his son Esarhaddon, whom as heir he re-named Ashuretil-ilani-mukin-aplu (‘Ashur, the lord of the gods, has established an heir’), this would go a long way towards explaining historians’ puzzlement over the fact that there are no official annals for the last decade of Sennacherib’s reign. The annals are in fact available, I suggest, but they need to be looked for under the name of Esarhaddon, and even partly, as we shall see, under the name of Ashurbanipal.
My comment on this: I have since identified Esarhaddon with Ashurbanipal, as alter egos of Nebuchednezzar.
My thesis continues:
Unfortunately, Esarhaddon’s annals are, as noted earlier, fragmentary and carelessly arranged, making the editor’s job extremely difficult.
Perfectly in accordance with the new chronology of co-regency that is being developed here is this comment, in regard to Isaiah’s reference to the conquest of Egypt in his tauntsong response to Sennacherib’s letter:399 “Moreover, it is not Sennacherib who is being taunted, but Esarhaddon, who invaded Egypt in 671”. (Cf. Isaiah 37:9-14 & 37:21-35).
Thus an unconventional coincidence of Sennacherib’s reign with Esarhaddon’s conquest of northern Egypt!
Along similar lines, Hall has made the suggestion in regard to the famous loss of Sennacherib’s army - at Pelusium in Egypt according to Herodotus - that:400 “… the disaster really happened, not to Sennacherib, but to Esarhaddon, who in 675 attacked Egypt, when, as the Babylonian chronicle tells us, ‘the troops of Assyria went to Egypt: they fled before a great storm’.”
….
Esarhaddon soon became a potent force in the land, as commander-in-chief of Assyria’s armies. His military prowess became legendary; not least in his own mind:401 “... My equal did not exist, [my power] being unrivaled; and among the princes who went before me, none ...”.
Esarhaddon would now also greatly augment the Assyrian army:402 ….
In addition (?) ......... the charioteers (?) of the bodyguard (?), cavalry of the bodyguard(?), governors, many of them (?), chiefs (captains) (of?) the bowmen
(kitkittu), the workmen, the sappers, the shield-(bearers), the “killers”, the farmers, the shepherds, the gardeners, to the masses of Assur’s host and to the (military) establishment of the former kings, my fathers, in large numbers, I added and Assyria, to its farthest border, I filled up like a quiver.
[End of thesis quotes]
Dr. I. Velikovsky and others have suggested that the fleeing of Esarhaddon’s army supposedly from a great storm was at least reminiscent of the Sennacherib event.
https://www.varchive.org/tac/esarh.htm
“In the sixth year the troops of Assyria went to Egypt; they fled before a storm.” This laconic item in the short “Esarhaddon Chronicle” (7) was written more than one hundred years after his death; if it does not refer to the debacle of Sennacherib, one may conjecture that at certain ominous signs in the sky the persistent recollection of the disaster which only a few years earlier had overtaken Sennacherib’s army, threw the army of his son into a panic”.
Emmet Sweeney is more emphatic (The Ramessides, Medes, and Persians, p. 185, n. 263):
The Esarhaddon Chronicle mentions how in the king's second year, “the army of Assyria went to Egypt. It fled before a storm.” In view of the highly unusual nature of this entry — armies do normally flee before storms — it has often been supposed that this is a reference to the events of Sennacherib's second and unsuccessful expedition to Egypt, where his soldiers too were defeated by some natural event. Since Sennacherib's records do not mention the disaster, it is difficult to ascertain exactly when it occurred. Nevertheless, the silence of Assyrian records for the final nine or ten years of Sennacherib's reign suggest that it probably took place then.
Now, if the entry in the Esarhaddon Chronicle really does refer to the disaster of Sennacherib's reign, this implies a profound confusion on the part of the chroniclers. However, an even more probable explanation is that the writers of the document (working it should be said, long after Esarhaddon's death) themselves believed it to refer to Sennacherib's defeat, and so lopped off several years of Esarhaddon’s reign to make it “right”.
[End of quote]
The revision being presented here has an overlap of the disastrous military phase of Sennacherib with a co-regency of his oldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, the “Holofernes” of the Book of Judith, and with Esarhaddon/Ashurbanipal (also as the soon-to-be Nebuchednezzar) as well being involved in this drama in some capacity.
For more on this, see next section.
“Bagoas” only possible candidate for Nebuchednezzar if latter figures in Book of Judith
“So Bagoas left the presence of Holofernes, and approached [Judith] and said,
‘Let this pretty girl not hesitate to come to my lord to be honored in his presence,
and to enjoy drinking wine with us, and to become today like one of the Assyrian women
who serve in the palace of Nebuchadnezzar’.”
Judith 12:13
So far in this article I have determined that he who later became king Nebuchednezzar - and who had participated in, and survived, Sennacherib’s disastrous campaign according to some Jewish traditions - could chronologically have (according to my neo-Assyrian revisions) been present as a young prince during this catastrophic event.
We have also learned that Esarhaddon, one of my various alter egos for Nebuchednezzar, is recorded as having been involved in a military campaign to Egypt in which the Assyrian army is said to have “fled before a great storm”. [This is recorded in British Museum chronological tablet 25091. See E. A. Wallis Budge, The Mummy: A Handbook of Egyptian Funerary Archaeology - Revised …, p. 75].
This incident some consider to be most reminiscent of the Sennacherib disaster.
Emmet Sweeney, as we previously read, had noted that armies do not flee before storms.
I certainly think that the flight of the Assyrian army, as described in the Book of Judith, must have been the same incident as that described in the Esarhaddon Chronicle tablet.
If the young Nebuchednezzar really had been involved in Sennacherib’s ill-fated campaign, then there is at least some chance that he would make an appearance also in the Book of Judith, in close relationship with “Holofernes”, who, as Ashur-nadin-shumi (as previously determined) would have been Nebuchednezzar’s oldest brother.
Now, the only Assyrian of importance (besides “Holofernes”) referred to in the Book of Judith as participating in the ill-fated western campaign is (e.g. Judith 12:11) one “Bagoas the eunuch” (Βαγώᾳ τῷ εὐνούχῳ), not immediately the type of person that one might look to equate with a brother of the mighty, all-conquering Assyrian Commander-in-chief.
However, we might have a somewhat wrong idea about Assyrian (and other ancient) eunuchs.
Dr. Don C. Benjamin has asked the question: “Eunuchs: Physical or Political?”:
http://www.doncbenjamin.com/blog/29-general-blog-posts/50-eunuchs-physical-or-political
In ordinary speech eunuchs are castrated males. In the world of the Bible and in the Bible itself, eunuchs (Heb: saris) were trusted members of rulers’ inner circles of advisors. In exchange for this position of trust, eunuchs have waived their right to challenge the rulers they serve and take over their authority. They were a ruler’s defenders. For example, in Persia the eunuchs who defended Xerxes and other officials who wanted to overthrow him feuded. Ultimately, the eunuchs lost, and Xerxes was assassinated in 465 B.C.E.[1] Most rulers tried to maintain a balance of power between these two groups.[2]
Eunuchs were a special group of administrators in Assyria.
Originally, they were entrusted with protecting the harem, but as early as 2,000 B.C.E. they held various high offices, and during the Neo-Assyrian period (934-608 B.C.E.) eunuchs were an essential part of royal government. In fact, a collective term in Akkadian for royal officers was eunuchs and bearded ones.[3]
Assyrian reliefs, frescoes and seals typically portray eunuchs surrounding the Great King without beards, and other royal advisors with beards.[4] This artistic convention has led to the conclusion that eunuchs were castrated.[5]
Eunuchs were not castrated to prevent them from having intercourse with their rulers’ women in the harem. They were entrusted with these diplomatic wives because they had sworn unconditional allegiance to their rulers, and would not compete with their rulers for the covenants their marriages to their women had ratified.
Since they did not seem to have direct contact with the harem, most likely the term eunuch (Heb sārı̂s) should not be taken literally. It would be better translated as royal official. Near Eastern traditions refer to various royal officials and military officers as eunuchs.[6] Assyrian art depicts eunuchs carrying the bow, arrows and spear of their rulers, holding umbrellas over the heads of their rulers and waving fly-whisks or fans to protect their rulers from insects. Eunuchs also accompany their rulers on lion hunts where they carry their rulers weapons, drive their chariots and dress their kills. Eunuchs are also depicted as musicians playing lyres and harps; as scribes writing letters for their rulers, recording plunder and prisoners from battle, drafting the annals of their rulers on the battlefield.
The Akkadian root for the word eunuch (Akkadian: saris) is not sar meaning ruler, but sa resi meaning he who is chief. Assyrian art depicts eunuchs leading or directing others to their royal audiences. In the books of Samuel-Kings (1 Kgs 22:1-99) the saris is officer of the court who arrests and escorts defendants into the presence of a ruler. Likewise, in the book of Esther, seven eunuchs are sent to bring Vashti from her banquet to Xerxes. They may also have been sent to summon Haman to both of Esther’s banquets with Xerxes (Esth 5:5; 6:14). This access to rulers gave eunuchs significant authority.[7]
[End of quote]
The closeness of Bagoas to “Holofernes” would indicate that Bagoas was a most trusted member of the commander’s retinue. According to Robin Gallaher Branch, “Joakim, Uzziah, and Bagoas: A Literary Analysis of Selected Secondary Characters in the Book of Judith”, “Bagoas, the eunuch in charge of the belongings of Holofernes, is a most significant secondary character in the book of Judith”. And Branch’s description below, “Bagoas displays the following characteristics: arrogance, pride, power, condescension, and anger”, would definitely fit what we know of king Nebuchednezzar.
The author of that article writes: http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/ote/v25n1/04.pdf
Bagoas, the eunuch in charge of the belongings of Holofernes, is a most significant secondary character in the book of Judith. Arguably, his status, power, and influence depend on that of Holofernes, and the worldwide status of Holofernes is quite high. …. The text introduces Holofernes as the general in command of the armies of Nebuchadnezzar and second in command to Nebuchadnezzar in Assyria (2:4).79 Both are portrayed as villainous men full of pride. First by association with Holofernes, Bagoas likewise is Israel’s enemy; later Bagoas’ own deeds and words establish that the text considers him as such.
Bagoas’ textual introduction is probably intended for humour and emphasis. His name in Persian means eunuch. …. So a translation would be “He said to Eunuch the eunuch in charge of his personal affairs, ‘Go…’” (12:11).
Bagoas’ livelihood and life depend on Holofernes’ success. ….
As Holofernes’ aide de camp, Bagoas holds a gatekeeper position; he controls access to the great general. The status, fortunes, and lives of the two entwine throughout the narrative and military campaign. …. The text recounts Holofernes’ death specifically (12:8) and possibly indicates Bagoas’ death as among those of the scattered army (14:5).
Bagoas displays the following characteristics: arrogance, pride, power, condescension, and anger. Like Holofernes, he is beguiled by Judith. ….
Bagoas is a villain … trickster … and traitor. …. As a secondary character, he not only speaks (12:13; 14:18) but also proves pivotal in significant plot twists. …. For example, he arranges the banquet in which Holofernes entertains Judith; he creates a secluded enclave where his master’s seduction can succeed; he finds the headless corpse of Holofernes; and he sets the tone for mourning the fallen leader by yelling, wailing, groaning, and ripping his clothes.
1. Bagoas as Foil to Holefernes
Bagoas proves a foil for two characters: his master Holofernes and Judith’s silent, unnamed maid. Let us consider Holofernes first. Perhaps around the camp Bagoas mirrored Holofernes’ swagger and misplaced self-confidence. After all, Holofernes successfully “cut his way through Put and Lud and plundered all the Rassisites and Ishmaelites living on the edge of the desert south of Cheleon” (2:23). Holofernes’ other victories include setting fire to the tents of the Midianites and plundering their sheepfolds (2:26). The plain of Damascus likewise suffered, and fear and dread of Holofernes swept through the seacoast towns of Sidon and Tyre as well as among those living in Jamnia, Azotus, and Ascalon (2:27-28). By the time Holofernes neared Judea, he was in no mood to hear the warning of Achior the Ammonite against fighting the Israelites (5:5-21) and indeed considered it irrelevant and even treasonous (6:1-10). Arguably, his army and a personal servant like Bagoas follow his tone or even egg him on to more bravado and braggadocios talk (see 5:22-24).88 Arguably, the string of victories proved the authenticity of Nebuchadnezzar’s claim for world kingship and the invicibility of his general.
Next, taking his cue from Holofernes, Bagoas copies the general in his dealings with the people. He mirrors Holofernes’ reaction to Judith: delight in her words and in her defection to the camp of the Assyrians (11:20-21). …. Bagoas and Holofernes are part of the male acclaim united in responding to Judith’s long speech: “In terms of beauty and brains, there is not another woman like this from one end of the earth to another!” (11:21). As males, they agree on Judith’s beauty, wisdom, eloquence (11:23). As males they also see immediately what the text refrains from mentioning specifically: Judith’s desirability, availability, vulnerability, and her lack of male protection. As a general, Holofernes likes her promise of Assyrian victory without Assyrian deaths (9:13; 11:18-19).
But all too sadly Bagoas mirrors Holofernes in his stupidity. A good subordinate—whether a slave, servant, or paid employee—must at times question the one in charge. This is for the good of the one in charge and for all concerned. …. Tragically for his army and himself, Holofernes asks no questions of Judith. He believes her gracious words, a speech filled with double meanings and word plays (11:5-19). Thoroughly taken in by her beauty, brains, wisdom, and eloquence, Holofernes welcomes her into the camp, promising that if things work out as she has promised, then she “shall live in King Nebuchadnezzar’s palace and be famous throughout the world” (11:23). If Bagoas really had had his master’s best interests at heart, he would have asked questions.
He would have been exceedingly suspicious of a beautiful woman in a tiara and her beautiful maid coming so surprisingly to the camp of the enemy at night. …. Judith, truly a femme fatale, soon reduces the conqueror of the world to drunken stupor, and in his vulnerable unconsciousness, beheads him. …. Finally, Bagoas mirrors Holofernes’ sloppiness. Losing self-control, Holofernes acts without discretion (or suspicion!) toward one who is an enemy Israelite, the beautiful Judith. …. Consequently, the text portrays the general, his army, and his eunuch as ridiculously and fatally blind to their peril from the enemy in their midst. ….
2. Bagoas as a Foil to Judith’s Maid
Bagoas’ counterpart is the unnamed, silent maid of Judith. Much can be learned about her from the various Hebrew words associated with her. She is called abran, meaning graceful one or favorite slave in Jdt 8:10, 33; 10:2, 5, 17; 13:9; 16:23. She is called paidiske, maid, in 10:10 and doule, servant, in 12:15, 19; 13:3.95 As mentioned in our earlier article, in every way except verbosity she is Judith’s counterpart, taking part with her mistress in a life-or-death adventure. ….
The text introduces the maid as someone Judith trusts and has placed “in charge of all her property” (8:10). Granted, Bagoas likewise is a slave and in charge of Holofernes’ property. But Judith and her maid share a closeness the men lack: the text indicates the women are covenant believers in Israel’s God and arguably pray together, or at least Judith lets her maid observe her and serve her in her chosen lifestyle of prayer, celibacy, fasting, and devotion to God (8:5-8; 10:1-6). ….
The comparison/contrast between Bagoas and the maid bears more study. Bagoas knows Holofernes likes to party (12:19-20; 13:1). The maid knows Judith enjoys a quiet life of prayer, fasting, seclusion, and restricted eating. Each prepares food. …. Bagoas knows Holofernes likes wine and rich food; the maid knows that Judith eats selected food only once a day in the evening (12:19; 12:9). Each is a slave; but the maid receives manumission from Judith (16:23). Significantly, both know the sexual cycles and preferences of their masters. Judith prefers to stay a widow and remain celibate. Bagoas knows Holofernes is off his sexual cycle and needs sex—and enjoys a fresh conquest (8:4-8; 13:16; 16:21-22). Judith and her maid embark together on a daring, high-stakes quest; in this sense they are bonded together in a life-risking enterprise; conversely, the relationship between Holofernes and Bagoas evidences no such dependence or life-or-death commitment. ….
3 Bagoas and His Duties as Chamberlain
As the chamberlain in charge of Holofernes’ military household, Bagoas is used to private conversations with his master. The text recounts one. As host to visitors and the leader of an army of 120,000 infantry and 12,000 mounted bowmen (2:15),100 Holofernes has multiple duties that include battle strategy sessions, leading an army, and entertaining his highest staff. It also would be appropriate to entertain the beautiful defector who promises to lead his army through the heart of Judea to Jerusalem and assures victory without risking the life or limb of his men (11:19; 10:13).
Holofernes reveals to Bagoas his intention to seduce Judith. …. Holofernes wants her to come to an intimate banquet without his army commanders; he charges Bagoas to arrange all the details and to “persuade” Judith to attend (12:10-12).
Holofernes indicates to Bagoas his view that Judith expects to be seduced and indeed will laugh with mockery if Holofernes fails to perform. Holofernes indicates his honour as a warrior in front of his thousands of men will be disgraced if the camp talk the following morning does not include evidence that the beautiful visitor welcomed his embrace. Holofernes is quite blunt in his instructions to Bagoas: “Go ‘persuade’ the Hebrew woman who is in your care to join us, and to eat and drink with us. For we will be disgraced if we let such a woman go without having her, because if we do not make her, she will laugh at us” (12:11).
Bagoas goes as commanded to Judith to invite her to dine with the general. He displays a silver tongue. His condescending speech reveals his arrogance. First, Bagoas mirrors his master’s intimate chattiness when he says to Judith, “May this lovely maid not hesitate to come before my lord to be honoured in his presence and to enjoy drinking wine with us and act today like one of the Assyrian women who serve in Nebuchadnezzar’s palace” (12:13). Judith replies, “Who am I that I should refuse my lord? I will do whatever he desires right away, and it will be something to boast of until my dying day” (12:14) (italics added). Containing a word play on my lord and he, her response contains much irony, a noted folktale feature. …. Judith’s response, because of her choices of physical chastity and celibacy and of spiritual chastity to the God of Israel, means the opposite of what Bagoas believes she says. ….
Let us continue looking at this meeting, for it is textually quite rich. Bagoas insults Judith in several ways. First, he insults her by not using the pronoun you and talking to her as if she is an object. Second he insults her by his familiarity, by giving her a nickname, lovely maid, without her consent. He then reveals his disdain for women, for he views Assyrian women as alive to serve the sexual needs of Assyrian men. He equates Judith with Nineveh courtesans. Third, he insults her by acknowledging her age and yet calling her a lovely maid. He knows Judith is not a virgin but a widow—and therefore (presumably) sexually experienced. Yet he seeks to flatter her by slicing years off her age. He calls her a maid (12:13). …. Fourth, he insults her by letting her know that she is expected to be a courtesan like the Assyrian women; in modern parlance, the Assyrian court seems to be filled with sex groupies. …. His condescending manner indicates he views women as men’s playthings. However, in a way Judith invites Bagoas’ bad manners, for in front of an appreciative audience of men engaged in war, she already praised Holofernes as brave, experienced, and dazzling in the art of war (11:8).
Her response to Bagoas seems to give Holofernes the chance to dazzle her in bed. No doubt Bagoas quickly relays her reply to the executive tent!
4 Bagoas as a Fool
Arriving for the intimate banquet, Judith steps upon lambskins spread by her maid and provided by Bagoas (12:15). The evening progresses; Holofernes drinks more than he has ever drunk on any other day of his life; Bagoas closes the tent from the outside and dismisses the weary servants (12:20; 13:1). Judith’s maid alone remains nearby (13:9-10). Bagoas fails as a servant, for, in his attempt to be discreet, he leaves Holofernes unprotected. Bagoas’ discretion allows Judith to behead Holofernes.
The text humorously depicts Bagoas as waiting patiently past sunrise for his master to emerge from his sexual conquest.
Finally, duty demands that Bagoas must interrupt the (presumed) lovers. Notice the verbs; they convey his quick actions (14:14-16). He shakes the tent curtain, draws it aside, goes into the bedroom, and finds his master on top of the bedstool, a headless corpse! Bagoas suddenly acts quickly. …. It is in his best interests to do so, and his actions show a distinct measure of self-protection. He lets out a yell, and successively adds wailing, groaning, and shouting to it; he rips his clothes. All in all, it’s quite a convincing display of his surprise, outrage, and innocence. He immediately goes to Judith’s tent, finds her and her maid missing, and rushes into the midst of the people (14:17) (italics added). People is significant: one expects the text to say army. However, this textual putdown indicates the disunity of what is trumped up to be the best fighting force in the world. This Assyrian fighting force cannot withstand a change-of-command at the top. The story quickly verifies the veracity of the insult. ….
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7888615205986009768.post-12093839270745648392024-02-09T20:44:00.000-08:002024-02-09T20:44:58.653-08:00 Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRcJRo9nVn357ETCBS_1JUdB8nbB85zEO_Oe-LkCtwq91acUu4uIti_ozL9hSlcf3wpKyqE1jiZurPP7JVfyphQU3oHBDi2bjwuSBk8qhbMoWBVd_SbmTRNaBeMr0WXEciWDzZE2wrdt3tbsbFzvC8jJ-1-JEzJuBbEy221PsEZOIHSDueeYstuD63UbY/s735/124fc697452e710b8bb31e8ce899b569.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="472" data-original-width="735" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRcJRo9nVn357ETCBS_1JUdB8nbB85zEO_Oe-LkCtwq91acUu4uIti_ozL9hSlcf3wpKyqE1jiZurPP7JVfyphQU3oHBDi2bjwuSBk8qhbMoWBVd_SbmTRNaBeMr0WXEciWDzZE2wrdt3tbsbFzvC8jJ-1-JEzJuBbEy221PsEZOIHSDueeYstuD63UbY/s600/124fc697452e710b8bb31e8ce899b569.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
Scholars have long pointed out the historical problems associated with the life of the Prophet Mohammed and the history of Islam, with some going even so far as to cast doubt upon Mohammed’s actual existence. Biblico-historical events, normally separated the one from the other by many centuries, are re-cast as contemporaneous in the Islamic texts. Islamic author, Ahmed Osman, has waxed so bold as to squeeze, into the one Egyptian dynasty, the Eighteenth, persons supposed to span more than one and a half millennia.
Now, as I intend to demonstrate in this article, biblico-historical events
that occurred during the neo-Assyrian era of the C8th BC, and then later on,
in the Persian era, have found their way into the biography of Mohammed supposedly of the C7th AD.
Introduction
Whilst I have long held the belief that the Prophet Mohammed was actually of biblical origins - a largely BC time Israelite mysteriously projected into AD time - I have had the greatest difficulty in pinning him down to a specific character or to a specific biblical period. I better realise now that there is a good reason for this. Mohammed is a composite of a number of major biblical characters, spanning a succession of eras, but masterfully woven by Islam into the one credible figure – were it not for those shocking historical anomalies.
For some examples of fictitious composites based on the Bible, see e.g. my article:
Apollonius of Tyana, like Philo, a fiction
(4) Apollonius of Tyana, like Philo, a fiction | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
The Buddha is likewise one of these, based on e.g. Moses but also on Jesus Christ.
So is ‘Socrates’, so is Solon.
Credible, yes, yet also incredible.
The Prophet Mohammed is a larger than life figure, inspiring, magnificent, whilst being enormously complex.
He is also highly controversial. One has only to browse the website, Answering Islam (http://www.answering-islam.org/index.html), to discover this. Colourful articles such as:
William Di Puccio investigates Islam and Extremism: What is Underneath.
Silas rebuts an article by David Liepert published by the Huffington Post: Muhammad, Child brides, and David Liepert. Various articles on the nature and attributes of Allah: The Great Divorce: Allah and His Attributes and Allah’s Hands: More Than A Handful of Evidence by Anthony Rogers, Allah – the Best of the Inheritors? and Allah – the Heir? by Jochen Katz. Rebuttals to Bassam Zawadi: (1) Did Muhammad Contemplate Suicide?, (2) A Dawagandist Tacitly Accuses His Prophet of Being a Liar.
Did You Know That Muhammad Was A Misogynist? Did Abraham Build the Kaaba?
But my pressing interest in this article is not whether or not Mohammed was a paedophile, or had bad breath, or told lies, was an epileptic, or delusional.
No, what fascinates me is the historical problem.
And there are others out there who have confronted this issue, from popular writers such as author Robert Spencer, founder of the major website Jihad Watch, who some years ago published a book with the provocative title Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins (ISI Books, March 2012),
to some genuine scholarly efforts. The Foreword to Spencer’s book, for instance, as the blurb informs us:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/fjordman/unmasking-muhammads-dubious
… was written by the eminent scholar Johannes J. G. (Hans) Jansen, an Arabist and a Professor of Modern Islamic thought at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands until his retirement in 2008. Among his other accomplishments, he has translated the Koran into Dutch. Jansen points out that what sparse information and physical evidence we do have does not seem to confirm the traditional Islamic accounts of the sixth and seventh centuries.
In fact, archaeological findings contradict the traditional picture.
Only further archaeological work in present-day Arabia and Greater Syria can shed more light on these issues. In Saudi Arabia, such excavations are forbidden, and Wahhabi hardliners have actively destroyed some sites. Furthermore, the religious authorities may not be interested in bringing to light findings that might contradict their religious views or undermine Saudi Arabia’s central status in Islam. ….
As Jansen states, “An Iraqi scholar, Ibn Ishaq (c. 760), wrote a book that is the basis of all biographies of Muhammad. No biographical sketches of Muhammad exist that do not depend on Ibn Ishaq.
If an analysis of Ibn Ishaq’s book establishes that for whatever reason it cannot be seen as an historical source, all knowledge we possess about Muhammad evaporates. When Ibn Ishaq’s much-quoted and popular book turns out to be nothing but pious fiction, we will have to accept that it is not likely we will ever discover the truth about Muhammad.”
Moreover, a fully developed Arabic script did not yet exist at the time when the Koran was supposedly collected for the first time, which further introduces substantial sources of error. The Koran itself was probably far less stable and collected much later than Muslims believe.
Finally, the hadith collections which elaborate upon the personal example of Muhammad were developed many generations after the alleged events of his life had taken place, and are considered partially unreliable even by Muslims. It is likely that a great deal of this material was fabricated outright in a process of political and cultural struggle long after the first conquests.
[End of quotes]
Spencer does not claim to be an original scholar in these matters, but credits such individuals as Ignaz Goldziher, Theodor Nöldeke, Arthur Jeffery, Henri Lammens, Alphonse Mingana, Joseph Schacht, Aloys Sprenger and Julius Wellhausen, as well as more recent researchers such as Suliman Bashear, Patricia Crone, Volker Popp, Yehuda Nevo, Michael Cook, Ibn Warraq, Judith Koren, Ibn Rawandi, Günter Lüling, David S. Powers and John Wansbrough.
And we continue reading here:
Several contemporary critical scholars — Christoph Luxenberg, for example — have been forced to write under pseudonyms due to persistent threats against their lives. This virtually never happened to scholars in Christian Europe who critically examined the Bible or the historical Jesus during the nineteenth century, but it happens frequently to those who question Islam and its traditions.
One might suspect that the main reason why many Muslims often tend to react with extreme aggression against anyone questioning their religion is because it was originally built on shaky foundations and could collapse if it is subjected to closer scrutiny.
Non-Muslim chroniclers writing at the time of the early Arabian conquests made no mention of the Koran, Islam or Muslims, and scant mention of Muhammad. The Arab conquerors themselves didn’t refer to the Koran during the first decades, quite possibly because it did not then exist in a recognizable form.
Modern scholars like Patricia Crone have questioned whether Mecca as an important trading city and center of pilgrimage truly existed by the year 600 [AD], as Islamic sources claim. Its location makes no sense if it was supposed to be located on the trade routes between the Indian Ocean and Mediterranean Europe. No non-Muslim historian mentions it in any accounts of trade from the sixth or seventh centuries. Given the centrality of Mecca in traditional history, this casts the entire canonical story of the origins of Islam into doubt.
[End of quote]
On this issue of Mecca, J. Toler has asked the question: “Did Abraham Build the Kaaba?”: http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/toler/abraham_kaaba.html
… Why did the Kaaba play a central role in Muhammad’s fantasies? While no historical facts support his claims, Muslims are seldom deterred. Islam is built upon the notion that Abraham was not only a Muslim [Q. 2:31] but that he was selected by Allah to build the Kaaba in Mecca [Q. 2:125-127], and that while doing so he established the rituals and beliefs which are the cornerstones of Islamic worship. The pagan origins and practices of the Kaaba will not be discussed here, only the patriarchal journeys and the Islamic corruption of the Bible’s texts. Muslims claim that Mecca and the Kaaba are the centers of worship for the entire world. Christians and Jews know that it is Jerusalem, where lays the chief cornerstone of Yahweh's kingdom [Psalm 102:16; I Peter 2:6]. The City of David [Zion] is mentioned nearly 50 times in the Bible as the home of God's people [Isaiah 10:24] and where the hosts will reign [Isaiah 24:23]. Are Muslims going to tell us that these references are corruptions in the texts and that Mecca was the intended city the whole time? Hardly even remotely plausible.
The Kaaba in Mecca is without equal in veneration in Islamic tradition, and had been revered by Arab pagans long before Muhammad’s birth. The Muslim religion holds that the Kaaba was built by Abraham and Ishmael after hearing a direct revelation from Allah. This seems improbable. After all, once Allah guides a people on the right course and provides a mode of conduct for worship through a chosen Prophet, Allah does not then lead them astray into confusion or an inability to see the right course [Q. 9:115].
How is it then that such a man as Abraham would be sent to Mecca to deliver the people from polytheism and build the Kaaba only to later have them fall into apostasy and disbelief, needing yet another prophet in the 7th century A.D.? Abraham being in Mecca is just not consistent with important Islamic doctrines, and a myth. For example, in Q. 2:125 the Kaaba is being purified [Ar. 'tahara'], yet in Q. 2:127 the foundation are still being raised [Ar. Rafa'a]. Depending on the traditions being reviewed, the Kaaba was built by Allah or maybe Adam or possibly Abraham. But, is it true? ….
[End of quote]
Returning again to the Spencer article, we read about the problems associated with the original language:
The Koran claims to be written in clear Arabic, but even educated Arabs find parts of it hard to understand. The German philologist Gerd R. Puin, whose pioneering work is quoted by Ibn Warraq in What the Koran Really Says, states that up to a fifth of it is just incomprehensible.
Perhaps one of the reasons why the Koran stresses its Arabic nature may be, ironically, that portions of it were not originally written in Arabic at all, but in related Semitic languages.
Christoph Luxenberg has suggested that some sections of it were originally written in Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic that had long been used as a literary language in much of the Middle East and the Fertile Crescent. He demonstrates convincingly that certain puzzling Koranic verses make more sense if you read them in Syriac. The virgins that brave Muslim men are supposed to enjoy in Paradise (Koran 44:51-57, 52:17-24, 56:27-40) may not be virgins at all, but rather white raisins, or perhaps grapes. Yes, fruit.
It’s possible that some of these Christian Syriac texts were written by a heretical group that rejected the Trinity of mainstream Christianity.
It’s certainly true that a few Koranic chapters as we know them are somewhat more tolerant than others, but if we believe this non-traditional reading of history, some of them were based on pre-existing Jewish or Christian texts.
[End of quote]
Much of them, I should argue along similar lines, were based on the Old and New Testament!
I think that Spencer really gets close to hitting the nail on the head when he arrives at the conclusion that the Prophet Mohammed was, in fact, “a semi-legendary figure … whose exploits were greatly elaborated upon by later generations” - though my qualification of what he argues would be that this “semi-legendary figure” was based on real historical individuals, and not on figures as historically vague as the ones that Spencer will now propose:
In the final section of the book, Spencer sums up the findings to date. He suggests that Muhammad may have existed as a semi-legendary figure, comparable to Robin Hood, King Arthur or William Tell, whose exploits were greatly elaborated upon by later generations.
Yet the traditional account of him as Islam’s founder is riddled with gaps and inconsistencies.
The Arab conquerors may have known some vague monotheism partly inspired by Christians and Jews, but in the generations and centuries after the conquests they abandoned this and developed a more militant creed that came to function as a vehicle for Arab nationalism and imperialism. Perhaps the conquests shaped Islam more than Islam shaped the conquests.
But if someone more or less invented Muhammad, wouldn’t they want to invent a more sympathetic character than the very ruthless and brutal man we see emerge from the traditional accounts? Possibly yes, but as Spencer comments, the Arabs of this age may have thought that such a ruthless character was an inspiration for conquest and empire-building.
[End of quote]
Most surprising of all is the conclusion of Muslim convert, Muhammad Sven Kalisch, Germany’s first professor of Islamic theology, that ‘Mohammed probably never existed’: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122669909279629451
…. Muhammad Sven Kalisch … fasts during the Muslim holy month, doesn't like to shake hands with Muslim women and has spent years studying Islamic scripture. Islam, he says, guides his life.
So it came as something of a surprise when Prof. Kalisch announced the fruit of his theological research. His conclusion: The Prophet Muhammad probably never existed.
THEOLOGY WITHOUT MUHAMMAD
Read a translated excerpt from "Islamic Theology Without the Historic Muhammad -- Comments on the Challenges of the Historical-Critical Method for Islamic Thinking" by Professor Kalisch.
Muslims, not surprisingly, are outraged. Even Danish cartoonists who triggered global protests a couple of years ago didn't portray the Prophet as fictional. German police, worried about a violent backlash, told the professor to move his religious-studies center to more-secure premises.
"We had no idea he would have ideas like this," says Thomas Bauer, a fellow academic at Münster University who sat on a committee that appointed Prof. Kalisch. "I'm a more orthodox Muslim than he is, and I'm not a Muslim."
When Prof. Kalisch took up his theology chair four years ago, he was seen as proof that modern Western scholarship and Islamic ways can mingle -- and counter the influence of radical preachers in Germany. He was put in charge of a new program at Münster, one of Germany's oldest and most respected universities, to train teachers in state schools to teach Muslim pupils about their faith.
Muslim leaders cheered and joined an advisory board at his Center for Religious Studies. Politicians hailed the appointment as a sign of Germany's readiness to absorb some three million Muslims into mainstream society. But, says Andreas Pinkwart, a minister responsible for higher education in this north German region, "the results are disappointing."
Prof. Kalisch, who insists he's still a Muslim, says he knew he would get in trouble but wanted to subject Islam to the same scrutiny as Christianity and Judaism. German scholars of the 19th century, he notes, were among the first to raise questions about the historical accuracy of the Bible.
Many scholars of Islam question the accuracy of ancient sources on Muhammad's life. The earliest biography, of which no copies survive, dated from roughly a century after the generally accepted year of his death, 632, and is known only by references to it in much later texts. But only a few scholars have doubted Muhammad's existence. Most say his life is better documented than that of Jesus.
"Of course Muhammad existed," says Tilman Nagel, a scholar in Göttingen and author of a new book, "Muhammad: Life and Legend." The Prophet differed from the flawless figure of Islamic tradition, Prof. Nagel says, but "it is quite astonishing to say that thousands and thousands of pages about him were all forged" and there was no such person.
All the same, Prof. Nagel has signed a petition in support of Prof. Kalisch, who has faced blistering criticism from Muslim groups and some secular German academics. "We are in Europe," Prof. Nagel says. "Education is about thinking, not just learning by heart."
Prof. Kalisch's religious studies center recently removed a sign and erased its address from its Web site. The professor, a burly 42-year-old, says he has received no specific threats but has been denounced as apostate, a capital offense in some readings of Islam.
"Maybe people are speculating that some idiot will come and cut off my head," he said during an interview in his study.
A few minutes later, an assistant arrived in a panic to say a suspicious-looking digital clock had been found lying in the hallway.
Police, called to the scene, declared the clock harmless.
A convert to Islam at age 15, Prof. Kalisch says he was drawn to the faith because it seemed more rational than others. He embraced a branch of Shiite Islam noted for its skeptical bent.
After working briefly as a lawyer, he began work in 2001 on a postdoctoral thesis in Islamic law in Hamburg, to go through the elaborate process required to become a professor in Germany.
The Sept. 11 attacks in the U.S. that year appalled Mr. Kalisch but didn't dent his devotion. Indeed, after he arrived at Münster University in 2004, he struck some as too conservative. Sami Alrabaa, a scholar at a nearby college, recalls attending a lecture by Prof. Kalisch and being upset by his doctrinaire defense of Islamic law, known as Sharia.
In private, he was moving in a different direction. He devoured works questioning the existence of Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Then "I said to myself: You've dealt with Christianity and Judaism but what about your own religion? Can you take it for granted that Muhammad existed?"
He had no doubts at first, but slowly they emerged. He was struck, he says, by the fact that the first coins bearing Muhammad's name did not appear until the late 7th century -- six decades after the religion did.
He traded ideas with some scholars in Saarbrücken who in recent years have been pushing the idea of Muhammad's nonexistence. They claim that "Muhammad" wasn't the name of a person but a title, and that Islam began as a Christian heresy.
Prof. Kalisch didn't buy all of this. Contributing last year to a book on Islam, he weighed the odds and called Muhammad's existence "more probable than not." By early this year, though, his thinking had shifted. "The more I read, the historical person at the root of the whole thing became more and more improbable," he says.
He has doubts, too, about the Quran. "God doesn't write books," Prof. Kalisch says.
[End of quote]
Some Shocking Anomalies in Islamic ‘History’
Whilst one could point to many of these - and Rev. Mark Durie has in his books and speeches, I just want to mention a few that have struck me as being particularly incredible and bold.
Taking these in chronological order - that is, in a proper chronological order - they are:
(a) Mecca’s Ka’aba, so vital to Islam, built by Abraham;
(b) Egypt’s Vizier Hemiunu identified by some as Haman of the story of Queen Esther;
(c) ‘Abraha (‘Abrahas) attacks Mecca in year of Mohammed’s birth (to be explained);
(d) Nehemiah as a contemporary of Mohammed.
(a) Mecca.
Archaeological evidence suggests that the city of Mecca is late, and certainly could not have been relevant to the time of Abram (Abraham). A study from Dr. Rafat Amari (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ABakkah) shows that there is no historical record penned before the 4th century AD, that suggests that Mecca ever existed before that time, while other ancient Arabian towns are well attested in the historical record.[11] In another study, Dr. Rafat Amari found that no pre-4th century historical or archaeological record that suggests that the Kaaba existed before the early 5th century.[13]
‘Mecca’, as the centre of worship, at the centre of the world, of the nations (cf. Ezekiel 5:5), can only have been, originally, Jerusalem; the name Mecca having been derived from the Arabic Muqa (Mecca) in Bayt al-Muqaddas, referring to “Jerusalem”. For as quoted above: “Muslims claim that Mecca and the Kaaba are the centers of worship for the entire world. Christians and Jews know that it is Jerusalem, where lays the chief cornerstone of Yahweh's kingdom [Psalm 102:16; I Peter 2:6]”. The original Ka'aba, or “Cube”, could only have been the Holy of Holies in the Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem. The Holy of Holies “was a perfect cube” (http://the-tabernacle-place.com/articles/what_is_the_tabernacle/tabernacle_holy_of):
Within the Holy Place of the tabernacle, there was an inner room called the Holy of Holies, or the Most Holy Place. Judging from its name, we can see that it was a most sacred room, a place no ordinary person could enter. It was God’s special dwelling place in the midst of His people. During the Israelites’ wanderings in the wilderness, God appeared as a pillar of cloud or fire in and above the Holy of Holies. The Holy of Holies was a perfect cube — its length, width and height were all equal to 15 feet.
[End of quote]
Now, whilst Abraham himself never visited Mecca, he certainly did visit at least Mount Moriah, with his son, Isaac (Genesis 22:2).
Not surprisingly, the story of this famous incident occurs also in the Qur’an, but differently told. There even appears to be disagreement amongst Islamic scholars as to which son of Abraham was intended for the sacrifice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_of_Isaac
Among early Muslim scholars, however, there was a dispute over the identity of the son.[12] The argument of those early scholars who believed it was Isaac rather than Ishmael (notably Ibn Ḳutayba, and al-Ṭabarī) was that "God's perfecting his mercy on Abraham and Isaac" referred to his making Abraham his friend, and to his rescuing Isaac. On the contrary, the other parties held that the promise to Sarah was of a son, Isaac, and a grandson, Jacob,[13] excluded the possibility of a premature death of Isaac.[12]
[End of quote]
(b) Haman.
Also quite outlandish are certain attempts to merge the Vizier of Old Kingdom Egypt, Hemiunu, with Haman of the Persian era.
Though this preposterous situation seems to be quite consistent with Islam’s sometime worrying lack of any historical perspective (as more recently typified by the efforts of Ahmed Osman), ranking with this absurdity associated with Mary the mother of Jesus: http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/sister_of_aaron.htm
The Quran confuses Mary, the mother of the Lord Jesus, with Miriam the sister of Moses. The Quran identifies Mary as the sister of Aaron, the daughter of Imran, whose mother was the wife of Imran:
When the wife of Imran said, 'Lord, I have vowed to Thee, in dedication, what is within my womb. Receive Thou this from me; Thou hearest, and knowest.' And when she gave birth to her she said, 'Lord, I have given birth to her, a female.' (And God knew very well what she had given birth to; the male is not as the female.)
'And I have named her Mary, and commend her to Thee with her seed, to protect them from the accursed Satan.' S. 3:35-36 Arberry
Then she brought the child to her folk carrying him; and they said, 'Mary, thou hast surely committed a monstrous thing! Sister of Aaron, thy father was not a wicked man, nor was thy mother a woman unchaste.' S. 19:27-28
And Mary, Imran's daughter, who guarded her virginity, so We breathed into her of Our Spirit, and she confirmed the Words of her Lord and His Books, and became one of the obedient. S. 66:12
Compare this to what the Holy Bible says:
"Then Mary (Hebrew- Mariam), the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took the timbrel in her hand…" Exodus 15:20
"The name of Amram's wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, who was born to Levi in Egypt; and to Amram she bore Aaron and Moses and their sister Miriam." Numbers 26:49
"The children of Amram: Aaron, Moses, and Miriam. The sons of Aaron: Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar." 1 Chronicles 6:3
"For I brought you up from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, and I sent before you Moses, Aaron, and Miriam." Micah 6:4
[End of quote]
History well knows that Hemiunu was the famous Vizier of Egypt’s Fourth Dynasty, and possibly even the architect of the Great Pyramid at Giza.
Conventional history would date Hemiunu to c. 2500 BC - but, according to my revision of Egyptian history, this would be about a millennium too early.
See e.g. my series:
Moses - May be Staring Revisionists Right in the Face
(5) Moses – may be staring revisionists right in the face. Part One: Historical Moses has presented quite a challenge | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
(5) Moses – may be staring revisionists right in the face. Part Two: Moses as Vizier and Chief Judge | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
And, whether or not I am right in my identifying of Haman with king Jehoiachin (Coniah) “the Captive”, of Judah (based on Jewish legends that Haman was in fact a Jew):
Haman Un-Masked
(5) Haman un-masked | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
I am entirely confident, at least, that this estimate of mine is at least a millennium closer to the correct era of Haman than is the version put forward by Islamic Awareness, that would locate the evil Haman to old pharaonic Egypt.
J. Katz tells of this in “The Haman Hoax”:
http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/katz/haman/app_hammon_hemiunu.html
The psychology of Islamic Awareness: It may be probable that it is somebody else?
Just how much the IA-authors are groping in the dark can be seen in one little formulation in one of their footnotes. Before they turn to their “substantiation” and promotion of Bucaille’s claims, they present this introductory paragraph:
Haman is mentioned six times in the Qur'an: Surah 28, verses 6, 8 and 38; Surah 29, verse 39; and Surah 40, verses 24 and 36. The above ayahs portray Haman as someone close to Pharaoh, who was also in charge of building projects, otherwise the Pharaoh would have directed someone else. So, who is Haman? It appears that no commentator of the Qur'an has dealt with this question on a thorough hieroglyphic basis. As previously mentioned, many authors have suggested that "Haman" in the Qur'an is reference to Haman, a counsellor of Ahasuerus who was an enemy of the Jews. Meanwhile others have been searching for consonances with the name of the Egyptian god "Amun."[58]
There would not be much to comment on in this paragraph, were it not for the fact that they added the following footnote to their last sentence:
[58] Syed suggests that "Haman" is a title of a person not his name, just as Pharaoh was a title and not a proper personal name. Syed proposes that the title "Haman" referred to the "high priest of Amun". Amun is also known as "Hammon" and both are normal pronunciations of the same name. Syed's identification of Haman as "the high priest of Amun" may be probable. See S. M. Syed, "Historicity Of Haman As Mentioned In The Qur'an", The Islamic Quarterly, 1980, Volume 24, No. 1 and 2, pp. 52-53; Also see a slightly modified article by him published four years later: S. M. Syed, "Haman In The Light Of The Qur'an", Hamdard Islamicus, 1984, Volume 7, No. 4, pp. 86-87. (Source; bold emphasis mine)1
On one hand, they seem to discount the suggestion of connecting the name Haman with the god Amun since that is something that was only done by “others”, and they do not come back to this idea in their article. On the other hand, they write in their footnote that this “identification of Haman as ‘the high priest of Amun’ may be probable”. What is that supposed to mean? Is it probable or is it not probable? And if this identification is probable, does that mean that Bucaille’s claims are then improbable? Why then do they dedicate most of the space in their article to propagating Bucaille’s claims? After all, two contradictory answers cannot both be probable at the same time. In normal language, “probable” means that it has a probability that is higher than 50%. And that means that all other potential solutions have a probability that is less than 50%. Despite the fact that they expanded this footnote when they revised their paper, this nonsensical formulation stayed the same.
After Islamic Awareness argued their case for the Bucaille-ian Haman, they then write:
It is also interesting to note that there also existed a similar sounding name called Hemon[71] (or Hemiunu / Hemionu[72] as he is also known as), a vizier to King Khnum-Khufu who is widely considered to be the architect of Khnum-Khufu's the Great Pyramid at Giza. He lived in the 4th Dynasty of the Old Kingdom Period (c. 2700 - 2190 BCE).
It remains unclear, however, why Islamic Awareness considers this interesting. Do they seriously consider him a candidate for the quranic Haman, or do they not? If not, why would they introduce him in their article? Somehow, it seems to be an implicit suggestion of Hemiunu as a candidate for Haman – particularly since there are indeed a number of Muslims who are seriously propagating Hemiunu as the Haman of the Qur’an!2 In any case, we will take a closer look at Hemiunu shortly.
So, all in all, Islamic Awareness offers the world three Hamans: (a) the high-priest of Amun (a speculative construct and mere hypothesis, no evidence is provided in their article, not connected to a specific date or person), (b) “hmn-h, the overseer of the stone-quarry workers of Amun” (19th or 20th dynasty, roughly 1300-1100 BC), and (c) Hemiunu the vizier of Khufu (4th dynasty, ca. 2570 BC). First the Muslims had the problem that there was no Haman in Egypt, contrary to the claims of the Qur’an, and now we have the opposite problem that there are too many.
Why is that a problem? Because adding more and more “potential Hamans” to the discussion also means that the probability for each one of these to be the right one is decreasing. ….
[End of quote]
(c) ‘Abraha (‘Abrahas)
This is the one that really grabbed my attention. It is chronologically important because it is (unlike (a) and (b)) dated contemporaneously with Mohammed. In fact, it is dated to the very year of his birth, supposedly c. 570 AD. It is the account of a potentate’s march on Mecca, with the intention of destroying the Ka'aba.
The whole thing, however, is entirely fictional, though it is based upon a real event: namely, the famous march upon Jerusalem by the forces of king Sennacherib of Assyria (c. 700 BC).
The reference to “elephants” is irrelevant (or irrelephant) in the neo-Assyrian era.
As noted in (a), Mecca and Ka'aba ought to be re-read, in the context of Mohammed, as, respectively, Jerusalem and the Holy of Holies.
The legendary account is as follows:
http://www.dacb.org/stories/ethiopia/_abraha.html
'Abraha (Ge'ez: 'Abreha) also known as 'Abraha al-Asram or Abraha b. as-Saba'h, was an Aksumite Christian ruler of Yemen.
….
A number of legends of popular origin have been woven around 'Abraha's name in Arab tradition which have not yet been substantiated. Of these traditions, the best-known concern the expedition against Mecca. At this period Mecca was the thriving center of the pagan cult of the Ka'aba and the pilgrim traffic was in the hands of the powerful Qurays family. Fired with Christian zeal, 'Abraha set out to build a magnificent church at Sana'a to serve as a counter-attraction to the surrounding pagan peoples. This aroused the hostility of the Qurays who feared that the pilgrim traffic with its lucrative offerings would be diverted to Sana'a. It is sometimes said that one of their adherents succeeded in defiling the church and this led 'Abraha to embark upon a campaign against Mecca. This event is associated in Islamic tradition with the year of the Prophet's birth, c. 570 A.D.
'Abraha is said to have used elephants in the campaign and the date is celebrated as the Year of the Elephant, 'am al fil.' An indirect reference to the event is found in Surah 105 of the Quran. 'Abraha's expedition probably failed due to the successful delaying tactics of the Qurays and pestilence broke out in the camp, which decimated his army and forced him to withdraw. Another tradition relates the expedition to an unsuccessful economic mission to the Qurays by 'Abraha's son.
….
No reliable information exists about the date of 'Abraha's death although tradition places it immediately after his expedition to Mecca. He was succeeded on the throne by two of his sons, Yaksum and Masruq, born to him by Raihäna, a Yemenite noblewoman whom 'Abraha had abducted from her husband.
[End of quote]
This is just one of many later versions, more or less accurate, of the invasion of Israel by the almost 200,000-strong army of Sennacherib. E.g., Sirach refers to it accurately in 14:18-25, as did Judas Maccabeus in 2 Maccabees 8:19.
Herodotus managed to mangle it and re-locate it to Pelusium in Egypt:
http://www.varchive.org/tac/lastcamp.htm
Herodotus (II. 141) relates this event and gives a version he heard from the Egyptians when he visited their land two and a half centuries after it happened. When Sennacherib invaded Pelusium, the priest-king Sethos went with a weak army to defend the frontier. In a single night hordes of field mice overran the Assyrian camp, devoured quivers, bowstrings and shield handles, and put the Assyrian army to flight. Another version was given by Berosus, the Chaldean priest of the third century before the present era.
[End of quote]
“Pestilence”, or was it “field mice”?
Actually, it was neither. The real story can be read in the Hebrew Book of Judith, a simplified account of which I have provided in my article:
And the Assyrian will fall ‘by the hand of a woman’
https://www.academia.edu/44521678/And_the_Assyrian_will_fall_by_the_hand_of_a_woman
As with the story of Mohammed, this wonderful victory for ancient Israel has been projected into AD time, now with the (possibly Jewish) heroine, “Gudit” (read Judith), defeating the Aksumites [Axumites] (read Assyrians), the Axumites being the same nation as ‘Abraha’s:
http://www.africaspeaks.com/reasoning/index.php?topic=1103.0;wap2
Historian J.A. Rogers in the early 1900s identified Gudit as one in the
same with a black Hebrew Queen named Esther and associated her with the
"Falasha" Jewish dynasty that reigned from 950 to 1260AD. Many Falashas
today proudly claim her as one of their own.
Yet it is of dispute that Gudit was of the Jewish faith. And many in
fact believe she probably adhered to indigenous African-Ethiopian based
religion, hence her seemingly strong resentment towards a then
encroaching Judeo-Christian Axum.
Whatever her origins or real name, Gudit's conquering of Axum put an end
to that nation-state's reign of power. Her attack came so swift and
efficiently, that the Axumite forces were scattered in her army's wake.
[End of quote]
That sounds like the culmination of the Book of Judith!
There may be some true glimpses of Sennacherib in the account of the invasion by the forces of 'Abraha. It was actually Sennacherib’s son (the “Nadin” above) who was killed by Judith, and we read in my above article: “Another tradition relates the expedition to an unsuccessful economic mission … by 'Abraha's son”. And, as Sennacherib died shortly after his army’s demise, so:
“No reliable information exists about the date of 'Abraha's death although tradition places it immediately after his expedition to Mecca”. And Sennacherib’s death occurred at the hands of two of his sons, whilst: “['Abraha] was succeeded on the throne by two of his sons …”:
http://www.the-faith.com/featured/abrahas-elephant-destruction-kabah/
Moreover, Sennacherib had formerly sent up to Jerusalem his official, Rabshakeh (Isaiah 36:2):
“Then the king of Assyria sent his field commander with a large army from Lachish to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem”. Similarly: “From Al-Maghmas [Michmash?], Abraha sent a man named Al-Aswad ibn Maqsud to the forefront of his army”.
Now, the sarcastic Rabshakeh had taunted the officials of king Hezekiah with these words (v. 8): ‘Come now, make a bargain with my master, the king of Assyria: I will give you two thousand horses—if you can put riders on them!’ In a dim reflection of this powerful incident, whilst reversing it, we find 'Abraha’s man saying: “I have come to the House that is your religion and the religion of your fathers and that is your sanctuary and protection – for the purpose of destroying it. You do not speak to me about that, yet you speak to me about (a meager) 200 camels that belong to you!”
2000 horses reduced to a tenth and becoming 200 camels.
In a further connection with Assyria, with Nineveh, Mohammed is said to have encountered a young Christian from that famous city. One wonders, therefore, if Mohammed ought to be re-dated closer to c. 612 BC (when Nineveh was irrevocably destroyed), or, say (for symmetry), to c. 612 AD.
The Christian servant 'Addas was greatly impressed by these words and said: "These are words which people in this land do not generally use." The prophet (s) asked: "What land are you from, and what is your religion?" 'Addas replied: "I am Christian by faith and come from Nineveh." The prophet Muhammad (s) then said: "You belong to the city of the righteous Yunus (Jonah), son of Matta."
Even more worryingly, perhaps, Mohammed claimed to be the very “brother” of the prophet Jonah: “'Addas asked him anxiously if he knew anything about Jonah. The prophet (s) significantly remarked: "He is my brother. He was a prophet and so am I." Thereupon 'Addas paid homage to Muhammad (s) and kissed his head, his hands and his feet”.
For my reconstruction of Jonah and Nineveh, see my article:
De-coding Jonah
(5) De-coding Jonah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
(d) Nehemiah
Having fairly often read about the biblical Nehemiah, I nearly fell off my chair when I read in a French publication that there was supposedly a Jewish Nehemiah contemporaneous with the Prophet Mohammed, that Nehemiah doing the same sorts of things that the biblical version of the name had done. I have written about this in:
Two Supposed Nehemiahs: BC time and AD time
https://www.academia.edu/12429764/Two_Supposed_Nehemiahs_BC_time_and_AD_time
Anachronistic ‘Contemporaries’, Heraclius,
Khosrau, Nehemiah, Shahrbaraz
“I am not saying that this “Nehemiah” and his supposed C7th AD contemporaries, “Khosrau”, “Heraclius”, and “Mohammed” [and Shahrbaraz], have no historical basis whatsoever, but rather that “they all” are non-historical composites based on
real ancient (BC) historical notables”.
That is what I wrote in a previous article.
What! The Byzantine emperor, Heraclius (reign, 610 to 641 AD), fighting a “Battle of Nineveh” in 627 AD!
And here I am mistakenly under the impression that the city of Nineveh was completely destroyed in c. 612 BC, and that it lay hopelessly dead and buried until it was archaeologically resurrected by Layard in the mid-C19th AD.
But perhaps I am not alone in thinking this. For, according to: http://www.bible-history.com/assyria_archaeology/archaeology_of_ancient_assyria_nineveh.html
Nineveh was the famous capital of ancient [Assyria] and one of the mightiest cities of all antiquity. It is situated on the east bank of the Tigris River just opposite modern Mosul. According to the Scriptures Nimrod was the founder of Nineveh.
Genesis 10:11
11 "From that land he (Nimrod) went to Assyria and built Nineveh."
The ancient Hebrew prophets foretold of Nineveh’s destruction and utter desolation:
Nahum 2:8-10
"Though Nineveh of old was like a pool of water, Now they flee away. 'Halt! Halt!" they cry; But no one turns back. Take spoil of silver! Take spoil of gold! There is no end of treasure, Or wealth of every desirable prize. She is empty, desolate, and waste! The heart melts, and the knees shake; Much pain is in every side, And all their faces are drained of color."
In fact Nineveh was so laid waste that it was considered a total myth of the Bible throughout most of the recent centuries, that is until it was discovered by Sir Austen Layard in the nineteenth century. The site of ancient Nineveh was extensively excavated and its occupational levels reach far back to the beginning of civilization.
[End of quotes]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The importance of Heraclius' reign as a historical watershed was recognized
by Gibbon two hundred years ago”.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That there is something quite rotten about our historical perception of this so-called “Dark Age” era is apparent from the research of German scholars, Heribert Illig and Dr. Hans-Ulrich Niemitz, the latter of whom has written, in “Did the Early Middle Ages Really Exist?” http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/volatile/Niemitz-1997.pdf
The easiest way to understand doubts about the accepted chronology and ‘well-known’ history is to seriously systematize the problems of medieval research.
This will lead us to detect a pattern which proves my thesis and gives reason to assume that a phantom period of approximately 300 years has been inserted between 600 AD to 900 AD, either by accident, by misinterpretation of documents or by deliberate falsification (Illig 1991). This period and all events that are supposed to have happened therein never existed. Buildings and artifacts ascribed to this period really belong to other periods. To prove this the Carolingian Chapel at Aachen will serve as the first example. ….
[End of quote]
Revisionist historians are well aware of the so-called “Dark Ages” period (c. 1200-700 BC) that has been artificially imposed upon, say, ancient Hittite and Greek history, and well exposed by Peter James et al. in Centuries of Darkness. In the same year that this book was first published, in 1991, German historian Heribert Illig wrote his “Phantom Time Hypothesis”. Just as Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky had pioneered a revision of BC history, so have these German writers, Illig and Niemitz, done the same for AD history.
And I believe that both efforts were necessary, though I am far from accepting, in either case (the BC or the AD revision), all of the details of these pioneering works. And this last comment leads me to mention another enthusiastic reviser of ancient history, Emmet Scott, who has now also become vitally interested and well-informed about the AD revision. I neither accept all of Scott’s efforts in BC or AD, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading his helpful A Guide to the Phantom Dark Age, at: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=lIpYAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=emmet+s
For an English speaker, such as I, it is easier reading than the above-mentioned German efforts, and Emmet manages to fill in some areas that they may have left untouched. I thoroughly recommend the reading of this book, though with those reservations to be kept in mind.
Nineveh
But, getting back to Nineveh, it figures again in the biography of the prophet Mohammed, whose period of floruit, from his first supposed revelation until his death (610-632 AD), is practically identical to that conventionally assigned to emperor Heraclius (610 to 641 AD).
Strangely, then, we are finding that the ancient city of Nineveh, destroyed in the late C7th BC, and not uncovered again until the mid-C19th AD - a period of approximately two and a half millennia, according to conventional estimates - experienced an eerie phase of ‘resurgence’ in the C7th AD, roughly halfway between these two cut-off points.
This is clearly a pseudo-history.
Again, Mohammed supposedly was contemporaneous with a Jew, one Nehemiah, who is like the BC biblical governor of that name strangely resuscitated in ‘another Persian era’.
It all makes us have to worry, then, about Heraclius himself.
We read in a review of Walter E. Kaegi’s Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium (Cambridge University Press), that this Byzantine emperor was a ‘most strange and incoherent figure’ http://www.historytoday.com/charles-freeman/heraclius-emperor-byzantium
Heraclius still appears to be one of the strangest and most incoherent figures that history has recorded. His reign is still considered as alternations of wondrous actions and inaction. It is this inadequate conclusion from a biography of 1905 that Professor Kaegi seeks to confront in this full and detailed life of the Byzantine emperor, Heraclius. It is a major challenge. The sources for Heraclius’ life are diverse and discordant and remain virtually silent on his personality. He offended as many as he impressed and his defeats were every bit as spectacular as his victories. ….
[End of quote]
The intrigue continues.
The advent of Heraclius upon the ‘historical’ scene coincided perfectly with that of Illig’s “phantom time”, as Scott has well observed:
It was Heraclius, of course, who first came into military conflict with the Arabs, and it was in his reign that Constantinople lost Jerusalem to the Arabs, and it was in his reign that Constantinople lost Jerusalem to the Persians, in 614, a date which, according to Heribert Illig, marks the commencement of the phantom time.
….
The importance of Heraclius' reign as a historical watershed was recognized by Gibbon two hundred years ago. In Chapter 48 of the Decline and Fall he wrote:
“From the time of Heraclius, the Byzantine theatre is contracted and darkened: the line of empire, which had been defined by the laws of Justinian and the arms of Belisarius, recedes on all sides from our view; the Roman name, the proper subject of our inquiries, is reduced to a narrow corner of Europe, to the lonely suburbs of Constantinople”.
Darkened and contracted indeed. Gibbon relied only upon written history, but that picture of contraction and darkening has been fully confirmed by archeology, which, in the past half century, has been unable to cast any fresh light upon the next three centuries of Byzantine history. On the contrary, excavators have been astonished by almost the complete absence of almost all signs of life during the latter seventh, eighth, ninth, and early tenth centuries.
The same darkness manifests itself in the West.
[End of quote]
See also my article:
Something almost miraculous about our emperor Heraclius
https://www.academia.edu/108372158/Something_almost_miraculous_about_our_emperor_Heraclius?uc-sb-sw=64584975
We may need to do some unlearning
“Unlearning the Dark Ages” is the title of this review of another book by Emmet Scott, Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy. Once again, whilst I accept the basic thrust of this, I would not necessarily espouse every single idea presented here:
https://didactsreach.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/unlearning-dark-ages.html
Unlearning the Dark Ages
The best thing about reading iconoclastic, revisionist historians is that, in the process of reading and understanding their works and their ideas, you learn just how badly your schooling has let you down.
Such was certainly the case when I read the truth about the Great Depression through the work of Amity Shlaes and her outstanding The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression. Such was true of Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism, which proved to be a thorough demolition job of the "standard" understanding of the (minimal) differences between fascism and communism. Such was the result of reading Thomas DiLorenzo's The Real Lincoln.
And now, to that distinguished list, I must add a new book: Emmett Scott's superb precis analysis of one of the most controversial theories in the field of classical and post-Roman history, Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy.
The book looks at the groundbreaking work and analysis of French historian Henri Pirenne, who came up with what was at the time the most radical rethinking of the history of the Dark Ages ever proposed. And to understand just why his proposal was so strange and so difficult for mainstream historians to digest, we need to briefly look at the "accepted" view of the way that the Dark Ages came about, how they led to the Middle Ages, and finally how the Renaissance came about.
The "Received Wisdom"
If your schooling was anything like mine, you were taught that the period following the fall of the Roman Empire, up until the advent of the Carolingian Age (i.e. the age of Charlemagne and his descendants) was a true "Dark Age", in which the wisdom, literacy, and artistic accomplishments of the Roman Empire decayed and disappeared as civilisation itself retreated and, at certain points, was in danger of dying out completely. You were taught that the 6th through to the 9th centuries were a time of backwardness and decay, and that during this time the great cities of antiquity withered and died as the empire that the Romans had spent centuries to build up, crumbled into dust in the West and was tenuously guarded in the East by Byzantium.
You were taught that the Church became an instrument of terror and repression, suppressing knowledge and condemning those who pursued forbidden topics as witches and heretics.
You were even perhaps taught that the Islamic world flourished into a true Golden Age as Europe retreated into backwardness and squalor. You were told that it was the Islamic world's preservation of ancient Greek and Latin texts that saved European civilisation; when Arabic and Persian scholars took those same books, translated centuries earlier into Arabic, back to Europe to be translated right back into European languages, the resulting transfer of knowledge kicked off the great rebirth of the Renaissance and eventually culminated in the Enlightenment.
All told, you were taught to think that the period from about 550AD (or thereabouts) to very roughly 850AD or 900AD was a three-century-long period of barbarism and backwardness so terrible that it very nearly destroyed what was left of Europe.
An Easily Believed Yarn
Obviously, I am skipping over certain key details here, but that is very broadly the historical consensus that existed before Henri Pirenne walked onto the scene.
Both Edward Gibbon and J.B. Bury, perhaps the greatest historians the world has seen since Herodotus and Plutarch, argued convincingly, based on the evidence available to them at the time, that the disappearance of Roman civilisation from Western Europe resulted in a truly terrible Dark Age, and that it was Islam that saved the West.
And that meme has persisted down to the present day, to the point where it is taught as near-Gospel in high schools and universities the world over.
There is just one problem with the entire theory: it is complete and arrant nonsense.
So said Henri Pirenne, who attacked the consensus understanding of the history of the period on every front. Drawing on the most up-to-date archaeological discoveries made up to that point, and looking carefully at geological, climatological, and contemporary source data, his conclusions were starkly at odds with the prevailing wisdom:
• Contrary to popular belief, the barbarians who settled the territories once occupied by Roman legions rapidly became Christians and Romanised all on their own, and quickly re-established a civilisation that was in many ways even more advanced than the one it had replaced;
• Trade between Europe, Britain, North Africa, and the Eastern Roman Empire flourished between 476AD and 650AD, creating massive prosperity and economic growth;
• The population of Europe did NOT shrink gradually but in fact entered a boom period, which abruptly cut off when the true Dark Age descended upon Europe;
• Most crucially, the specific reason why a Dark Age hit Europe was Islam itself
That last conclusion is by far the most unsettling. Henri Pirenne did not deny that a Dark Age did indeed descend across Europe; what he contested was the specific dates which were accorded to the period. And his analysis showed that the true Dark Ages corresponded virtually perfectly with the first great wave of Islamic expansion.
A Controversy Revisited
As can be imagined, such a radical revision of accepted historical narrative was a huge shock to most of Pirenne's contemporaries. In his analysis of and expansion upon Pirenne's work, Emmett Scott notes that even today, most historians find Pirenne's conclusions so difficult to swallow that they force themselves through all sorts of contortions of logic, evidence, and fact to avoid the extremely uncomfortable realities that those ideas would lead to.
Yet the evidence itself is beyond dispute. And Mr. Scott presents that evidence in a book that is a true pleasure to read.
He starts with the decline and fall of the Roman Empire itself, and carries on with his analysis all the way through to the latter 11th Century, when the Middle Ages were well and truly established. And his analysis, presented calmly, clearly, and in considerable yet fascinating detail, is extraordinary.
The history in this book reads like a detective story- and what a fascinating story it is. His tale is the forgotten history of a Europe that we are only now beginning to see and understand.
As Mr. Scott points out, the fall of the Roman Empire was not in fact quite the rupture that we are taught it was in school. It was actually basically a simple transition; the last Roman emperor simply stepped off the throne and handed the crown to the Germanic chieftain Odoacer.
At that point in time, the population of the Roman Empire had indeed been in long-term decline; the stock of "ethnic Romans" had dwindled significantly, hence the reason why barbarian Germanic and Gothic tribes were allowed to settle within Roman territories in exchange for their service to the Empire. And that downward trend in population did continue into the early 6th Century.
But then something remarkable happened. The "barbarians" began to civilise. And they did so at a truly astonishing pace.
The Visigothic kingdoms of Spain emerged into a true Golden Age. In Gaul, the Merovingians consolidated and united the Gaulish tribes into a true nation and began building upon the centuries of accumulated wisdom of the Romans and the Greeks. England, a frontier outpost long abandoned by the Romans at that point, rebuilt a true Christian civilisation; Caledonia (Scotland) and Hibernia (Ireland), dreary and miserable islands that they were, also began to experience rapid social, technological, and spiritual progress, thanks in no small part to the introduction and rapid uptake of the Christian faith to those benighted lands.
From Spain in the west to Carthage in the south to Byzantium in the East, a true Mediterranean civilisation began to take shape.
The existence of expensive and expertly crafted African Red Slip pottery was proven well into the 7th Century in the northern reaches of former Roman territories, including Britain. In the East, the Byzantines held the line against the Persians, but were strong and flourishing in their own right.
Mr. Scott presents a true mountain of evidence showing that there was no Dark Age in Europe, right up to the middle of the 7th Century. In its place was an advanced culture in which art, science, and literature flourished at a rate not since since the days of the Rome of Marcus Aurelius. Not even the great plague of the Emperor Justinian's time, in the mid-6th Century, could put a stop to Europe's rapid pace of development.
Within and through it all, the Holy Church spearheaded the revival and revolution. The Benedictine order of monks proved instrumental in preserving, recording, and building upon the knowledge of the ancients. As Mr. Scott points out, there is no other group in all of human history that has done more to advance the knowledge and happiness of our species, and there is no institution in history that has ever done more for Mankind than the Church of Christ.
And then, suddenly, it all went horribly wrong.
Rupture
From the second half of the 7th Century, the evidence tells us that something happened which irrevocably changed Europe's fate. The advances of the previous two hundred years came to a screeching halt. Thriving metropolises were wiped out almost overnight, never to be resettled. Population growth crashed; trade across the Mediterranean collapsed; the fortunes of the Byzantines lurched from disaster to catastrophe with almost monotonous regularity for the better part of three hundred years.
And so the situation remained, until the Carolingian Age was well and truly established, and mediaeval Europe came into existence.
We know what the Middle Ages were like- or at least, we think we do. In reality, what we were taught in school about the Middle Ages is also basically wrong- in reality, the Middle Ages saw the advent of another advanced civilisation which was brought to its knees by the Plague. But that is not the era with which Pirenne or Scott concerned themselves. They were interested in the reason why an age of progress and expansion collapsed so quickly.
The answer can be summed up in one word: Islam.
The archaeological and historical evidence that Mr. Scott presents shows beyond a doubt that the extremely sudden reversal in Europe's fortunes coincides perfectly with the beginnings of the first wave of Islamic expansion, following the "prophet" Mohammed's establishment of a power base in Medina as a warlord.
In the latter quarter of the book, Mr. Scott presents a powerful analysis of the Islamic doctrine of war and shows that the canonical origin story of Islam, already highly suspect, is basically garbage. He further points out that the reason why the Arabs were able to expand so rapidly is not because of any great military skill on their part; the Arabs, a nomadic and squabbling people, were hugely outnumbered and outclassed in every way by the Byzantine Empire. Instead, it is far more likely that they made an alliance with the Sassanid Persians, and that the early victories of "Arab" Islam were in fact backed and financed by the vast wealth and power of the Persian empire in the East.
And anyone who knows anything about Islamic doctrines regarding warfare, piracy, the taking of slaves, and the division of the world into dar al-Harb and dar al-Islam will know that Mr. Scott is talking perfect sense when he points out that it was the rapid expansion of Islam that caused Mediterranean commerce and prosperity to come to a crashing halt almost overnight.
A Myth Debunked
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of Mr. Scott's work is his analysis of the much-ballyhoed "Islamic golden age". This is another standard trope that we are all taught in school. We are taught to believe the politically correct lie that Islam was an enlightened religion of peace, which fostered scientific advancement, mathematics, medicine, physics, optics, and literature at a pace never seen in the West.
This is almost all complete BS.
In reality, whatever advances that the Islamic world made during the Dark Ages, which it created, were due to the works of far greater philosophers and authors from the Roman and Byzantine eras. In fact, the greatest findings attributed to "Arab" mathematicians and philosophers were actually Persian in origin. Indeed, the great advances in mathematics, such as the "Arabic" numbering system and the "Arabic" concept of zero and the "Arabic" method of algebra, are all Indian and Greek discoveries given a fresh coat of paint by Persian philosophers.
The true face of the Arabic Islamic empire of the time was in fact remarkably similar to what we see happening with ISIS today. It was backward, intolerant, abusive of Jews and Christians alike, utterly ruthless in dealing with pagans, violent, intolerant, and totally incapable of responsible governance over the territories that it conquered- which were once the wealthiest and most advanced creations of the children of the Roman Empire.
There is far, far more to this remarkable book than I can possibly do justice to here. But I cannot recommend it highly enough to anyone interested in the history of Islam's interactions with the West. It is a scholarly work of the first order that is as readable as any best-selling thriller, and as thought-provoking as anything that Thomas DiLorenzo has ever written. It will make you sit up and think; it will shock and amaze you; and you will very likely walk away from it with your entire understanding of the post-Roman era of history turned upside-down.
Biblically, Heraclius has been compared with such luminaries as Noah, Moses, David, Solomon, Daniel, and even with Jesus Christ.
And no wonder in the case of David! For we read in Steven H. Wander’s article for JSTOR, “The Cyprus Plates and the “Chronicle” of Fredegar” (pp. 345-346):
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1291381.pdf
…. there is one episode from the military career of Heraclius that bears a striking similarity to the story of David and Goliath.
Byzantine chroniclers record that during his campaign against the Emperor Chosroes in 627, Heraclius fought the Persian general Razatis in single combat, beheading his opponent like the Israelite hero.6 George of Pisidia, the court poet, may have even connected this contemporary event with the life of David. In his epic panegyrics on Heraclius' Persian wars, he compared the Emperor to such Old Testament figures as Noah, Moses, and Daniel; unfortunately the verses of his Heraclias that, in all likelihood, dealt in detail with the combat are lost.6
[End of quote]
That fateful year 627 AD again, the year also of the supposed Battle of Nineveh said to have been fought and won by Heraclius!
According to Shaun Tougher, The Reign of Leo VI (886-912): Politics and People: “Heraclius … appears to have been intent on establishing himself as a new David …”.
Likewise, in the case of Charlemagne, as I noted in my article:
Solomon and Charlemagne. Part One: Life of Charlemagne
(6) Solomon and Charlemagne. Part One: Life of Charlemagne | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
…. Charlemagne has indeed been likened to King Solomon of old, e.g. by H. Daniel-Rops (The Church in the Dark Ages, p. 395), who calls him a “witness of God, after the style of Solomon …”, and he has been spoken of in terms of the ancient kings of Israel; whilst Charlemagne’s father, Pepin the Short, was hailed as “the new king David'.
[End of quote]
So it appears that Heraclius may have some strong competition from the West in his ‘aspiring’ to be either the new King David or the new King Solomon!
Kaegi continues:
He and his writers sought to associate his name with famous names from antiquity: Alexander, Scipio and Constantine I, and with the Biblical Moses and David. Yet he will have to compete with a new name: Muhammad.
Mackey’s comment: He is up there with Scipio and Hannibal (another most dubious ‘historical’ character as well).
Thus we read at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclius
“Edward Gibbon in his work The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire wrote:
Of the characters conspicuous in history, that of Heraclius is one of the most extraordinary and inconsistent. In the first and last years of a long reign, the emperor appears to be the slave of sloth, of pleasure, or of superstition, the careless and impotent spectator of the public calamities. But the languid mists of the morning and evening are separated by the brightness of the meridian sun; the Arcadius of the palace arose the Caesar of the camp; and the honor of Rome and Heraclius was gloriously retrieved by the exploits and trophies of six adventurous campaigns. [...] Since the days of Scipio and Hannibal, no bolder enterprise has been attempted than that which Heraclius achieved for the deliverance of the empire.[52]
[End of quote]
As for “Muhammad” (Mohammed), we have found him out to be a massive biblical composite.
Given all the biblico-historical baggage with which emperor Heraclius has been fitted down through the centuries, it is little wonder then that, according to Kaegi:
No preceding or subsequent Byzantine emperor saw so much: the Araxes, the Khabur, Tigris, the Euphrates, and the Sea of Galilee (Lake Tiberias).
….
Heraclius was controversial while living and is controversial today. ….
Mackey’s comment: That last is putting it mildly.
But how can one such as Kaegi possibly (and all credit to him for trying) write a biography of Heraclius when, according to Kaegi’s own testimony:
Lacunae exist in our knowledge of Heraclius. First of all there are doubts about basic chronology, sometimes due to conflicting reports in the sources, at other times due to omissions of information about certain of his activities. Heraclius and his advisers left no diaries, memoirs, or personal letters. There are no archives of original documents. It is impossible to know biographical details about him that might be standard for nineteenth- and twentieth-century figures. The chronology is inexact for some important events.
Mackey’s comment: Phew! Yet, despite that horrific sequence of negatives:
… it is not the worst-documented period of the Byzantine Empire, for there is more documentation than for some other reigns of the seventh century, and for many of those of the fifth century.
Mackey’s comment: God help us!
Kaegi again:
Mysteries abound. The ultimate goals of Heraclius remain obscure. What did Heraclius really want? ....
I don’t think that we shall ever know.
Mohammed and Nineveh
Nineveh, which was destroyed by the Medes in c. 612 BC, and not re-discovered until the C19th AD – “Before that, Nineveh, unlike the clearly visible remains of other well-known sites such as Palmyra, Persepolis, and Thebes, was invisible, hidden beneath unexplored mounds” - strangely figures in the biography of the Prophet Mohammed of, allegedly, the C7th AD.
The true story of the ancient city of Nineveh goes something like, as according to this article:
http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/june-2011/article/saving-ancient-nineveh
Saving Ancient Nineveh
By Dan McLerran Mon, Aug 22, 2011
For a time, about 2,700 years ago, the ancient city of Nineveh ruled the Middle East. Today, it is among the world's most endangered archaeological sites, in need of an urgent rescue plan.
After 2,700 years, the walls and gates of ancient Nineveh can still be seen near the banks of the Tigris river just opposite the modern city of Mosul in Iraq. In ancient times, it was the capital of the great Assyrian empire, a city of more than 100,000 people, and it was a subject of a supreme being's attention throughout the books of the Old and New Testaments in the biblical account. "Now the word of the Lord came unto Jonah the son of Ammittai, saying, Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness is come up before me."[1] The prophet Jonah's efforts there were rewarded. Nineveh, at least for a time, was saved from destruction. But the city of Nineveh today will require a different kind of saving. There are comparatively few people living there now. It features mostly ruins. Even the ruins, however, will disappear unless, according to the Global Heritage Network's early warning system, urgent steps are taken to arrest the elements that endanger it and to restore and protect what is left.
Not an easy thing to do these days in a war-torn country. War has distracted and preoccupied the energies of a people who otherwise could be identifying and procuring the necessary resources needed to save and protect the city.
But long before war, it has been plagued by looting and vandalism. Artifacts have appeared on international markets for sale, reliefs have been marred by vandalism, and chamber floors have seen holes dug into them by looters hoping to find anything that will yield cash for their needs. The expanding suburbs of adjacent Mosul, too, threaten it with encroachment, with sewer and water lines having already been dug and new settlements already established within the area once occupied by the ancient city.
Even without looting, vandalism and suburban encroachment, however, Nineveh will crumble and succumb to the natural elements. Reports the Global Heritage Fund (GHF)*, a non-profit organization that specializes in saving and restoring archaeological sites, "without proper roofing for protection, Nineveh’s ancient walls and reliefs are becoming more and more damaged by natural elements every day. Exploration of the city is an important objective at this time, but preservation measures would go a long way as well".[2]
Historically, the site of ancient Nineveh, which consists of two large mounds, Kouyunjik and Nabī Yūnus ("Prophet Jonah"), has been the subject of numerous excavations and exploratory expeditions since the mid-19th century. Beginning with French Consul General at Mosul, Paul-Émile Botta in 1842, and most notably through the excavations of famous British archaeologist Austen Henry Layard …. and many others thereafter, the remains of Nineveh became one of the sensational archaeological revelations of modern times.
Before that, Nineveh, unlike the clearly visible remains of other well-known sites such as Palmyra, Persepolis, and Thebes, was invisible, hidden beneath unexplored mounds. Even historical knowledge of the Assyrian Empire and its capital city was sparse in the beginning, changed primarily by the great archaeological discoveries that followed Botta's initial attempts. One palace after another was discovered, including the lost palace of Sennacherib with its 71 rooms and enormous bas-reliefs, the palace and library of Ashurbanipal, which included 22,000 cuneiform tablets. Fragments of prisms were discovered, recording the annals of Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and Ashurbanipal, including one almost complete prism of Esarhaddon. Massive gates and mudbrick ramparts and walls were unearthed. The walls encompassed an area within a 12-kilometer circumference. Many unburied skeletons were found, evidencing violent deaths and attesting to the final battle and siege of Nineveh that destroyed the city and soon brought an end to the Assyrian Empire.
[End of quote]
Yet we have found in the course of this series, and in related “Heraclius and the Battle of Nineveh” articles (Heraclius supposedly having been a contemporary of Mohammed’s), that it is as if Mohammed had lived during the time of the powerful C8th BC neo-Assyrian kings. This would be in favour of my view that much of the life of the Prophet Mohammed was based on Tobias, son of Tobit, which family did actually live in ancient Nineveh:
The prophet Jonah, who had predicted the actual destruction of ancient Nineveh, and who was contemporaneously known to Tobit and Tobias (Tobit 14:4; cf. 14:8): ‘Go to Media, my son, for I fully believe what Jonah the prophet said about Nineveh, that it will be overthrown’, is incongruous as the “brother” of Mohammed, as the latter is supposed to have said of Jonah when speaking to a Christian slave supposedly from the town of Nineveh.
To make matters even worse, the Qur’an has those converted by Jonah as being Jonah’s own people:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/jonah.html
The Quran and the Islamic traditions agree on Jonah being sent to Nineveh:
If only there had been a single township (among those We warned), which believed - so its faith should have profited it,- except the People of Jonah?
When they believed, We removed from them the Chastisement of Ignominy in the life of the present, and permitted them to enjoy (their life) for a while. S. 10:98
And remember Zunnün, when he departed in wrath: He imagined that We had no power over him! But he cried through the depths of darkness, "There is no god but Thou: glory to Thee: I was indeed wrong!" So We listened to him: and delivered him from distress: and thus do We deliver those who have faith. S. 21:87-88
So also was Jonah among those sent (by Us). When he ran away (like a slave from captivity) to the ship (fully) laden, He (agreed to) cast lots, and he was of the rebutted: Then the big Fish did swallow him, and he had done acts worthy of blame. Had it not been that he (repented and) glorified Allah, He would certainly have remained inside the Fish till the Day of Resurrection. But We cast him forth on the naked shore in a state of sickness, And We caused to grow, over him, a spreading plant of the gourd kind. And We sent him (on a mission) to a hundred thousand (men) or more. And they believed; so We permitted them to enjoy (their life) for a while. S. 37:139-148
Here is Ibn Kathir on S. 10:98:
"... The point is that between Musa and Yunus, there was no nation in its entirety that believed except the people of Yunus, the people of Naynawa (Nineveh). And they only believed because they feared that the torment from which their Messenger warned them, might strike them. They actually witnessed its signs. So they cried to Allah and asked for help. They engaged in humility in invoking Him. They brought their children and cattle and asked Allah to lift the torment from which their Prophet had warned them. As a result, Allah sent down His mercy and removed the scourge from them and gave them respite.
... In interpreting this Ayah, Qatadah said: ‘No town has denied the truth and then believed when they saw the scourge, and then their belief benefited them, with the exception of the people of Yunus. When they lost their prophet and they thought that the scourge was close upon them, Allah sent through their hearts the desire to repent. So they wore woolen fabrics and they separated each animal from its offspring. They then cried out to Allah for forty nights. When Allah saw the truth in their hearts and that they were sincere in their repentance and regrets, He removed the scourge from them.’ Qatadah said: ‘It is mentioned that the people of Yunus were in Naynawa, the land of Mosul.’ This was also reported from Ibn Mas'ud, Mujahid, Sai'd bin Jubayr and others from the Salaf." ….
Abu Lahab and his wife
Further possible confirmation that the Prophet Mohammed,
a non-historical character, is a biblical composite.
The biography of the Prophet Mohammed has borrowed so many of its bits and pieces from the Bible (Old and New Testaments) that it is no wonder that Mohammed has been portrayed as a most remarkable kind of man (verging on a superman), having such a breathtaking career.
The real miracle is that scholars down through the ages have been able to compile a coherent life of the man. The downside of it is - apart from religious implications - that it is historically a complete shambles. Better to view the whole thing as a marvellous work of fiction. Now, a Turkish writer, Ercan Celik, believes that he has traced the so-called “uncle” of Mohammed, to the biblical king Omri of Israel:
https://iqsaweb.wordpress.com/2015/05/26/celik_abu-lahab-jezebel/
Who were Abu Lahab and His Wife? A View from the Hebrew Bible
by Ercan Celik*
In The Qur’an and Its Biblical Subtext, G. S. Reynolds observes that
…scholars of the Qur’an accept the basic premise of the medieval Islamic sources that the Qur’an is to be explained in light of the life of the Prophet Muhammad…
However, he proposes that critical Qur’anic scholarship not depend on prophetic biography (sīrah) or traditional Qur’anic exegesis (tafsīr), but rather,
… the Qur’an should be appreciated in light of its conversation with earlier literature, in particular Biblical literature…This argument necessarily involves an examination of both the relationship of Muslim exegetical literature to the Qur’an and the relationship of the Qur’an to Biblical literature.
Sūrat al-Masad (Q 111) offers a valuable example for how a Biblical perspective can augment our understanding of the Qur’anic text. The text of the sūrah names its main character Abu Lahab, and mentions that he has a wife, but does not provide any further identifying information. Only extra-Qur’anic literature can give us more details about who he was. In this blog post, I compare how he may be identified through the Islamic literary sources and through the Hebrew Bible.
Abu Lahab In Islamic Literature
….
Abu Lahab, meaning “the father of flame,” is identified as the uncle of the prophet Muhammad, ʿAbd al-ʿUzza ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib, nicknamed Abu Lahab on account of his reddish complexion. He is said to have been a rich and proud man, and he and his wife Umm Jamil, sister of Abu Sufyan, are depicted as fierce enemies of Muhammad and the early Muslim community.
There are many anecdotes in the Islamic literary sources about their verbal and physical attacks on the prophet. Some Qur’an commentators say that Umm Jamil used to litter Muhammad’s path with harmful thorns of twisted palm leaf fibres, and that this is the historical context for the final verse of Sūrat al-Masad: “Will have upon her neck a halter of palm-fibre” (Q 111:5).
Abu’l-Ahab in Biblical Literature
In searching the Hebrew Bible for a wicked man whose name resembles Abu Lahab, one finds Ahab (Hebrew: אַחְאָב), the seventh kings of ancient Israel (r. ca. 885-874 BCE), son of King Omri and husband of Jezebel of Sidon. We could read “Abu Lahab” alternatively, and without substantial change, as “Abu’l-Ahab,” father of Ahab. According to the Hebrew Bible, the father of Ahab is Omri, who is described in 1 Kings 16:25 as having acted “more wickedly than all who were before him.” His son Ahab, in his own time, “married Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians, and went to serve Baal and worshiped him . . . Thus Ahab did more to provoke the Lord God of Israel than all the kings of Israel who were before him” (1 Kings 16:31-33).
….
As for Jezebel, it is said that she ordered the killing of prophets (1 Kings 18:4). The prophet Elijah escaped her persecution and with God’s command confronted Ahab with a challenge to the priests of Baal: “You call on the name of your god and I will call on the name of the Lord; the god who answers by fire is indeed God” (18:24). The supporters of Baal called upon their god to send fire to consume their sacrifice, but nothing happened. When Elijah called upon the name of the Lord, fire came down from heaven immediately and consumed their offering.
Eventually Ahab in killed in battle, and when Elisha, successor to the prophet Elijah, anoints Jehu king of Israel, the latter had the house of Ahab killed. Jezebel was captured by her enemies, thrown out of a window, trampled by a horse, and her flesh eaten by dogs.
A Comparison of the Qur’anic and Biblical Characters
There are some significant parallels between the qur’anic character of Abu Lahab and the biblical character of Abu’l-Ahab. To illustrate these, let us evaluate Sūrat al-Masad in light of the biblical account:
May the hands of Abu Lahab [Abu’l-Ahab] be ruined and ruined is he. The biblical story of Ahab fits well with this verse, in both linguistic and narrative/thematic terms. The father is invoked for ruin. Omri was the first person to introduce the worship of Baal in Israel, for which his progeny are to be ruined. In Qur’anic Arabic terminology, hands (here, yadā) are symbolic of power and of progeny. The fate of Omri’s progeny is pronounced not so much in the tafsir literature as in the biblical texts.
His wealth will not avail him or that which he gained. The Ahab of the Bible seems to have had greater wealth than the Abu Lahab of Islamic tradition; his great wealth failed to prevent his demise by God’s command.
He will [enter to] burn in a Fire of [blazing] flame. Hellfire is an eschatalogical concept associated with unbelief, especially with the sort of idolatry instituted by Omri and Ahab.
And his wife [as well]—the carrier of firewood. The feature of firewood (ḥaṭab) is key. The challenge at Mount Carmel consisted of sacrificing bulls on firewood in order. We can imagine Jezebel supporting the Baalist priests by collecting the best woods to burn the sacrifice easily. The image of Jezebel carrying firewood makes more sense of this verse than that of Umm Jamil dumping thorns.
Around her neck is a rope of [twisted] fiber. Traditional exegetes struggle to explain the meaning of the rope of palm-fiber (masad). It may be better understood in light of the Jezebel story. The term masad appears to be a hapax legomenon in the Qur’an that might have a Hebrew root and be related to Jezebel’s violent death. This term begs for further examination along these lines.
See also my article on this:
Abu Lahab, Lab'ayu, Ahab
(7) Abu Lahab, Lab'ayu, Ahab | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Mohammed from Birth to Marriage
The ‘life’ of Mohammed will be shown to consist of, to a large extent,
a string of biblical episodes (relating to, for instance, Moses; David;
Job/Tobias; Jeremiah; Jesus Christ), but altered and/or greatly embellished,
and re-cast into an Arabian context. This has been achieved with the greatest
of skill, conflating all of these disparate sources, and re-arranging them
into a thrilling epic of literary magnificence.
THE NEO-ASSYRIAN FACTOR
Whilst it is not to be commonly expected for ancient Assyria to be discussed in the context of the Prophet Mohammed, given that the Assyrian empire had dissolved in the C7th BC, and here is Mohammed supposedly in the C7th AD, I have found compelling reason to raise this issue.
Why?
Because an event that is said to have taken place in the very year that the Prophet Mohammed was born, c. 570 AD, the invasion of Mecca by ‘Abraha[s] of the kingdom of Axum [Aksum], has all the earmarks, I thought, of the disastrous campaign of Sennacherib of Assyria against Israel.
Not 570 AD, but closer to 700 BC!
Lacking to this Qur’anic account is the [Book of] Judith element that (I have argued in various places) was the catalyst for the defeat of the Assyrian army.
But that feminine detail is picked up, I believe, in the story of the supposedly AD heroine, Gudit (possibly Jewish), who routed the Axumites.
Hence read: Gudit = Judith; and Axum can substitute for Assyria:
Judith the Simeonite and Judith the Semienite
https://www.academia.edu/24416713/Judith_the_Simeonite_and_Judith_the_Semienite
If that famous biblical incident involving neo-Assyria is some sort of chronological marker for the very beginning of those “biblical episodes” pertaining to Mohammed (as mentioned above), then the era of king Sennacherib of Assyria must be our (revised) starting point.
And, indeed, it is there that we find one who displays some striking resemblances to Mohammed: he is Tobias, the son of Tobit, who was born at this time, and whom I have identified with the prophet Job:
Prophet Job not an enlightened Gentile
(7) Prophet Job not an enlightened Gentile | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
His father Tobit tells us about this arduous time for his family, continuing on into the reign of Sennacherib’s successor, Esarhaddon (Tobit 1:18-22):
I [Tobit] also buried any whom King Sennacherib put to death when he came fleeing from Judea in those days of judgment that the king of heaven executed upon him because of his blasphemies. For in his anger he put to death many Israelites; but I would secretly remove the bodies and bury them. So when Sennacherib looked for them he could not find them.
Then one of the Ninevites went and informed the king about me, that I was burying them; so I hid myself. But when I realized that the king knew about me and that I was being searched for to be put to death, I was afraid and ran away.
Then all my property was confiscated; nothing was left to me that was not taken into the royal treasury except my wife Anna and my son Tobias.
But not forty days passed before two of Sennacherib’s sons killed him, and they fled to the mountains of Ararat, and his son Esarhaddon reigned after him. He appointed Ahikar, the son of my brother Hanael over all the accounts of his kingdom, and he had authority over the entire administration. Ahikar interceded for me, and I returned to Nineveh. Now Ahikar was chief cupbearer, keeper of the signet, and in charge of administration of the accounts under King Sennacherib of Assyria; so Esarhaddon reappointed him. He was my nephew and so a close relative.
Ahikar and Luqman
More needs to be said about the immensely important Ahikar, too, because his wisdom - for much of which he would have been indebted to his uncle Tobit - has been drawn upon in the Qur’an:
http://archive.org/stream/TheStoryOfAhikar/Ahikar_djvu.txt
….
ON THE USE OF THE LEGEND OF AHIKAR
IN THE KORAN AND ELSEWHERE.
We pass on, in the next place, to point out that the legend of Ahikar was known to Mohammed, and that he has used it in a certain Sura of the Koran.
There is nothing a priori improbable in this, for the Koran is full of Jewish Haggada and Christian legends, and where such sources are not expressly mentioned, they may often be detected by consulting the commentaries upon the Koran in obscure passages. For example, the story of Abimelech and the basket of figs, which appears in the Last Words of Baruch, is carried over into the Koran, as we have shown in our preface to the Apocryphon in question. It will be interesting if we can add another volume to Mohammed’s library, or to the library of the teacher from whom he derived so many of his legends.
The 31st Sura of the Koran is entitled Lokman (Luqman) and it contains the following account of a sage of that name.
* We heretofore bestowed wisdom on Lokman and commanded him, saying, Be thou thankful unto God: for whoever is thankful, shall be thankful to the advantage of his own soul: and if any shall be unthankful, verily God is self-sufficient and worthy to be praised. And remember when Lokman said unto his son, as he admonished him.
….
O my son, Give not a partner unto God, for polytheism is a great impiety.
♦ ♦♦♦♦♦
O my son, verily every matter, whether good or bad, though it be of the weight of a grain of mustard-seed, and be hidden in a rock, or in the heavens, God will bring the same to light: for God is clear-sighted and knowing.
O my son, be constant at prayer, and command that which is just, and forbid that which is evil, and be patient under the afflictions that shall befall thee: for this is a duty absolutely incumbent upon all men.
♦ ♦♦#♦♦
And be moderate in thy pace, and lower thy voice, for the most ungrateful of all voices surely is the voice of asses.’
♦ ♦♦#♦♦
Now concerning this Lokman, the commentators and the critics have diligently thrown their brains about.
The former have disputed whether Lokman was an inspired prophet or merely a philosopher and have decided against his inspiration: and they have given him a noble lineage, some saying that he was sister’s son to Job, and others that he was nephew to Abraham, and lived until the time of Jonah.
Others have said that he was an African: slave. It will not escape the reader’s notice that the term sister’s son to Job, to which should be added nephew of Abraham, is the proper equivalent of the ἐξάδελφος by which Nadan and Ahikar are described in the Tobit legends.
Job, moreover, is singularly like Tobit.
A few comments are due here. Concerning the last statement “Job … is singularly like Tobit”, that is because, I believe, that Job was Tobias, the very son of Tobit.
Most interesting, too, that “Lokman … was a sister’s son to Job”.
Now, returning ‘Ahikar in the Koran’:
That [Lokman] lived till the time of Jonah reminds one of the destruction of Nineveh as
described in the book of Tobit, in accordance with Jonah’s prophecy. Finally the African slave is singularly like Aesop … who is a black man and a slave in the Aesop legends. From all of which it appears as if the Arabic Commentators were identifying Lokman with Ahikar on the one hand and with Aesop on the other; i.e. with two characters whom we have already shown to be identical.
The identification with Aesop is confirmed by the fact that many of the fables ascribed to Aesop in the west are referred to Lokman in the east: thus Sale says: —
‘The Commentators mention several quick repartees of Luqman which agree so well with what Maximus Planudes has written of Aesop, that from thence and from the fables attributed to Luqman by the Orientals, the latter has been generally thought to be no other than the Aesop of the Greeks.
However that may be (for I think the matter may bear a dispute) I am of opinion that Planudes borrowed a great part of his life of Aesop from the traditions he met with in the east concerning Luqman, concluding them to have been the same person, etc. …’. *
These remarks of Sale are confirmed by our observation that the Aesop story is largely a modification of the Ahikar legend, taken with the suggestion which we derive from the Mohammedan commentators, who seem to connect Lokman with Tobit on the one hand and with Aesop on the other. ….
Comment: In all of this we find ourselves firmly grounded in the neo-Assyria era of the C8th BC.
The article now focusses upon the relevant Qur’anic text:
Now let us turn to the Sura of the Koran which bears the name Lokman, and examine it internally: we remark (i) that he bears the name of sage, precisely as Ahikar does: (ii) that he is a teacher of ethics to his son, using Ahikar’s formula ‘ ya bani ‘ in teaching him: (iii) although at first sight the matter quoted by Mohammed does not appear to be taken from Ahikar, there are curious traces of dependence. We may especially compare the following from Ahikar: ‘O my son, bend thy head low and soften thy voice and be courteous and walk in the straight path and be not foolish And raise not thy voice when thou laughest, for were it by a loud voice that a house was built, the ass would build many houses every day.’
Clearly Mohammed has been using Ahikar, and apparently from memory, unless we like to assume that the passage in the Koran is the primitive form for Ahikar, rather than the very forcible figure in our published texts. Mohammed has also mixed up Ahikar’s teaching with his own, for some of the sentences which he attributes to Lokman appear elsewhere in the Koran. But this does not disturb the argument. From all sides tradition advises us to equate Lokman with Aesop and Ahikar, and the Koran confirms the equation. The real difficulty is to determine the derivation of the names of Lokman and Aesop from Ahikar ….
Some of the Moslem traditions referred to above may be found in Al Masudi c. 4 : ‘ There was in the country of Ailah and Midian a sage named Lokman, who was the son of Auka, the son of Mezid, the son of Sar. ….
Comment: The mention of “Midian” in association with Lokman is also most significant in my context, because as I have argued in:
A Common Sense Geography of the Book of Tobit
https://www.academia.edu/8675202/A_Common_Sense_Geography_of_the_Book_of_Tobit
it was from Midian (wrongly given as “Media”) that the Naphtalian clan of Tobit and some of his relatives hailed.
Continuing with the article:
Another curious point in connexion with the Moslem traditions is the discussion whether Loqman was or was not a prophet.
This discussion cannot have been borrowed from a Greek source, for the idea which is involved in the debate is a Semitic idea.
But it is a discussion which was almost certain to arise, whether Lokman of whom Mohammed writes so approvingly had any special … as a prophet, because Mohammed is the seal of the prophets.
And it seems from what Sale says on the subject, that the Moslem doctors decided the question in the negative; Lokman * received from God wisdom and eloquence in a high degree, which some pretend were given him in a vision, on his making choice of wisdom preferably to the gift of prophecy, either of which was offered him.’ Thus the Moslem verdict was that Lokman was a sage and not a prophet.
On the other hand it should be noticed that there are reasons for believing that he was regarded in some circles and probably from the earliest times as a prophet. The fact of his teaching in aphorisms is of no weight against this classification: for the Hebrew Bible has two striking instances of exactly similar character, in both of which the sage appears as prophet. Thus Prov. XXX. begins :
* The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, even the prophecy*
and Prov. xxxi begins :
*The words of king Lemuel, the prophecy that his mother taught him.’
Both of these collections appear to be taken from popular tales*, and they are strikingly like to the sentences of Ahikar.
….
At the conclusion of the Syntipas legends, when the young man is solving all the hard ethical problems that his father proposes to him, we again find a trace of Ahikar, for he speaks of the ‘ insatiate eye which as long as it sees wealth is so ardent after it that he regards not God, until in death the earth covers his eyes.’ And amongst the sayings of Ahikar we find one to the effect that * the eye of man is as a fountain, and it will never be satisfied with wealth until it is filled with dust.’ Dr Dillon points out that this is one of the famous sayings of Mohammed, and if that be so, we have one more loan from Ahikar in the Koran.
Cf Sura 102, ‘The emulous desire of multiplying [riches and children] employeth you, until ye visit the graves.’ ….
[End of quotes]
Mecca, Nineveh
Earlier, “Mecca”, which archaeologically could not have any bearing upon Abraham, I re-cast as “Jerusalem; the name Mecca having been derived, it was suggested, from the Arabic Muqa (Mecca) in Bayt al-Muqaddas …”.
And the Ka’aba (meaning “Cube”) was identified as the “Holy of Holies”, the most sacred place in the Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem.
Thus it is not entirely surprising to find the “Meccans” having their own Levite-like custodians of the holy place:
http://sheikyermami.com/2014/01/global-warming-is-a-fraud-the-mohammedan-winter-is-here-to-stay/
“Mohammed … was descended from the noble but impoverished family of Hashim, of the priestly tribe of Koreish, who were the chiefs and keepers of the national sanctuary of the Kaaba”.
Even the name, Hashim, looks like the Hebrew, Ha Shem (“The Name”, it being a term for God).
We also learned previously that Mohammed had encountered a young man from Nineveh – quite an anomaly. And the pair discussed the prophet Jonah whom Mohammed called his “brother”.
Tobit, for his part, well knew of the prophet Jonah, having warned his son, Tobias (14:4): “Go into Media [sic], my son, for I surely believe those things which Jonah the prophet spoke about Nineveh, that it shall be overthrown”.
I would re-set the childhood of Mohammed, therefore, to the reign of king Sennacherib of Assyria, and have Tobias/Job as a major biblical matrix for it. Tobias’s/Job’s long life in fact, which extends - according to my revision - from Sennacherib to beyond the Fall of Nineveh, will suffice to encompass “biblical episodes” attached to Mohammed from his birth to his marriage to Khadijah bint Khuwaylid.
My primary source here, serving as a biography of Mohammed, will be
Yahiya Emerick’s Muhammad (Critical Lives), Alpha, 2002:
Birth of Mohammed
Given as c. 570 AD, the “Year of the Elephant”. But revised here to the reign of Sennacherib. Mohammed’s parents are traditionally given as ‘Abdullah and Aminah, or Amna.
Now, this information is what really confirms me in my view that Tobias is a major influence in the biography of Mohammed, because the names of Tobias’s parents boil down to very much the same as those of Mohammed. Tobit is a Greek version of the name ‘Obad-iah, the Hebrew yod having been replaced by a ‘T’.
And ‘Obadiah, or ‘Abdiel, is, in Arabic ‘Abdullah, the name of Mohammed’s father.
And Amna is as close a name as one could get to Anna, the wife of Tobit (as we read above).
Tobias (my Job) is the biblico-historical foundation for the young Mohammed!
In articles of mine such as:
Similarities to The Odyssey of the Books of Job and Tobit
https://www.academia.edu/8914220/Similarities_to_The_Odyssey_of_the_Books_of_Job_and_Tobit
I have drawn many parallels between the Hebrew and Greek tales, showing how Odysseus and his son, Telemachus, can sometimes resemble, respectively, Tobit and his son, Tobias; the goddess Athena can sometimes assume the part played by the angel, Raphael {In the ‘life’ of Mohammed, we are going to find one “Maysara” performing a service akin to that of the angel Raphael in the Book of Tobit}; the cruel Poseidon is the demon, Asmodeus; there are the many suitors, as with Penelope, with Sarah; and then there is the common factor of the dog, given the name of “Argos” in The Odyssey.
These extremely popular and much copied books of Tobit and Job have also influenced Mesopotamian literature.
Egypt - according to the Testament of Job, the prophet Job had been a “king of Egypt”.
We are finding the Prophet Mohammed to have been no more real a person (though less obviously mythical) than was Odysseus, or Telemachus.
Now, as explained in my “Odyssey” article, it can happen that events associated with the biblical original, for example, the father, can be, in the mythological version, attributed to someone else, say, the son. And we now find that to be the very case in the biography of Mohammed. For, whereas Mohammed is thought to have been orphaned and to have been raised by his grandfather and uncle, in the Book of Tobit the father was orphaned (Tobit 1:8): “I [Tobit] would bring it and give it to them in the third year, and we would eat it according to the ordinance decreed concerning it in the law of Moses and according to the instructions of Deborah, the mother of my father Tobiel, for my father had died and left me an orphan”. {“Deborah” here may be a distant ancestor, possibly even the famous Deborah of the Book of Judges, given her close association with the tribe of Naphtali (e.g., Judges 4:10; 5:18), Tobit’s tribe (Tobit 1:1)}.
Now poor ‘Abdullah, the father of Mohammed, in an episode that harkens back to the era of the Judges, to Jephthah’s terrible vow (Judges 11:30): ‘… whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering’, was elected by his father, ‘Abdel Muttalib, as the one of his ten sons to be sacrificed to God in thanksgiving.
Ultimately ‘Abdullah was spared that grim fate, due to an encounter between ‘Abdel Muttalib and the shamaness, Shiya - Emerick tells about this Shiya on p. 19.
Here we may have a reminiscence of king Saul of Israel’s clandestine visit to the witch of Endor (I Samuel 28:7).
Indeed, a further facet of the Jephthah story will recur again, later, in the quite different context of who will have the honour of placing the fabled Black Stone of the Ka’aba back on the eastern wall after repairs. (This whole wall building episode is like that of Nehemiah). Emerick recounts it on p. 48. Abu Umayyah will advise the assembled crowd to wait for the next person who will come through a nearby gate in the courtyard of the Ka’aba.
That person was, as fate would have it, Mohammed himself.
The situation of Mohammed, born into a Qureish environment of universal idol worship, and with the Jews as a separate entity, is very much the situation of Tobit and his little family, whose the tribe of Naphtali (separate from the Jews) had completely apostatised (Tobit 1:4): ‘When I was in my own country, in the land of Israel, while I was still a young man, the whole tribe of my ancestor Naphtali deserted the house of David and Jerusalem’.
Again, ‘Abdullah’s involvement in caravan trading into Syria is entirely compatible with what Tobit tells us about himself in 1:12-14: ‘Because I was mindful of God with all my heart, the Most High gave me favor and good standing with Shalmaneser, and I used to buy everything he needed. Until his death I used to go into Media, and buy for him there’ – compatible especially given my identification (in my “Geography of Tobit”) of “Media” as Midian, including Bashan, “a part of the province of Damascus”:
As with Tobit’s genealogy, with the repetition of names of the same root (Tobit 1:1): ‘I am Tobit and this is the story of my life. My father was Tobiel …’, so was the case with Mohammed’s grandfather, ‘Abdel Muttalib, and his son, Abu Talib.
The account of the pregnancy of Mohammed’s mother is predictably extraordinary, and one might be inclined to think of, for example, the pregnancy of Elizabeth with John the Baptist, and of the Virgin Mary with Jesus. If so, it would be only one of many borrowings from the Gospels, in this case Luke’s. Emerick tells of it (pp. 21-22):
About two months after her husband left [having joined a caravan trade to Syria], Aminah called her servant … “I’ve had a strange dream! I saw lights coming from my womb, lighting up the mountains, the hills, and the valleys all around Mecca”. Her servant then predicted: “You will give birth to a blessed child who will bring goodness”.
In Luke 1:11-17, we read about the miraculous encounter of the Baptist’s father, Zechariah, the Aaronite priest, with an angel who will be identified in v. 19 as “Gabriel”:
Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear. But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John. He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born. He will bring back many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God. And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”
Common to the ‘life’ of Mohammed here are the visitation by the angel Gabriel (who also figures in the Book of Daniel); the avoidance of alcohol; and the exaltation of the child.
Further on in Luke’s Gospel it will be the Virgin Mary whom the angel Gabriel will address (Luke 1:30-32): ‘You [Mary] have found favor with God. You will become pregnant, give birth to a son … He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High’.
Luke 1:28 is sometimes translated as [Mary’s being] “Highly Favoured”.
Now, according to Emerick (p. 29):
“Highly Praised is the translation of the Arabic name Muhammad, which was an unusual name in Arabia at that time”. This name was given to the child by his grandfather, who had, in the ancient Israelite fashion of going around Jericho “seven times” (Joshua 6:15), walked with the new born baby “seven times around the Ka‘bah”. It was then that ‘Abdel Muttalib named the child, connecting him with an ancient House - as with the angel Gabriel’s (Luke 1:32-33): ‘The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end’. The joyful ‘Abdel Muttalib exclaimed: “Blessed child, I shall call you Highly Praised. The birth of this child coincided with the glory and triumph of the Ancient House, blessed be he?”
As in the story of Moses (Exodus 2:7-9), a wet nurse is provided for the child. “Aminah, frail from her depression and weakened by the arduous childbirth, engaged a wet nurse in the city …”. And also as with Moses (v. 10), “Muhammad would be raised by a foster mother …”.
Whereas both Moses and Jesus had to be saved from the wrath of a monarch, the situation baby Mohammed was faced with was (p. 30): “An epidemic … going around the city …”. When it was safe to return, after some years had elapsed, exactly as with the young Jesus (Matthew 2:19-21), Mohammed came home.
Youth of Mohammed
When the aged ‘Abdel Muttalib died, Mohammed was taken in by his uncle, Abu Talib, who, more than Mohammed’s short-lived father, ‘Abdullah (despite the common name), represents Tobit and his wise and kindly mentoring of the young Tobias. Emerick (p. 33): “Abu Talib took Muhammad in and treated him with great affection. Although Abu Talib was poor, he and his wife …”. Cf. Tobit 4:21: ‘We’re poor now, but don’t worry. If you obey God and avoid sin, he will be pleased with you and make you prosperous’.
In a famous story, an old priest, in the fashion of Samuel choosing to anoint the young David from amongst the sons of Jesse, will pick out the 12-year old Mohammed amongst many. Emerick tells of it (pp. 34-35):
Around the year 582, Abu Talib decided to join the great caravan going to Syria in order to boost his finances. …. After a couple of weeks of long, hard travel, the caravan and its attendants decided to make camp in a region called Bostra, just short of Syria. Just ahead on the road was a small Christian monastery where a solitary monk by the name of Bahira lived. …. He sent an invitation to the men of the caravan to come to the monastery for a banquet, asking that everyone attend. When the merchants arrived, the priest looked them over and found nothing special about any of them. He asked if everyone from the caravan was present and was told that everyone was there except a small boy who was left behind to watch the animals. Bahira requested that he also be invited, so someone went to fetch young Muhammad.
Compare (the strikingly similar) I Samuel 16:10-11:
Jesse had seven of his sons pass before Samuel, but Samuel said to him, “The LORD has not chosen these.” So he asked Jesse, “Are these all the sons you have?”
“There is still the youngest,” Jesse answered. “He is tending the sheep.”
Samuel said, “Send for him; we will not sit down until he arrives.”
Like David, too, Mohammed (later) tended sheep (Emerick, p. 40): “Muhammad’s humble occupation as a shepherd impressed upon him the value of hard, honest work”.
But there is also a recorded incident in the otherwise unknown boyhood of Jesus (the Good Shepherd) at the age of twelve – and it, too, involves travellers (Luke 2:41-42): “Every year Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem for the Festival of the Passover. When he was twelve years old, they went up to the festival, according to the custom.”
Emerick continues with the story of Bahira, with the boy Mohammed now present (p. 35): “After Muhammad joined the gathering, Bahira watched the boy carefully and noted his physical features and behaviour. He seemed to have an otherworldy look in his eyes, a strength in his bearing”.
David also had fine eyes and a good appearance (I Samuel 16:12): “Now [David] was ruddy and had beautiful eyes and was handsome”.
On pp. 56-57 Emerick, still in connection with the Bahira story which is here accepted as being quite “historically tenable”, will make this notable admission:
A fair amount of literature exists on the portents and signs prior to the rise of Muhammad as a religious leader. These writings may be based more on retrospective idealism than proven facts. One can logically assume that Muhammad had no knowledge of his future significance and that premonitions and recognition of his greatness by his contemporaries were greatly exaggerated. Beyond the episode with the monk Bahira when he was twelve, which was related not only by Abu Talib but also by several of his associates and thus gains more credibility, little except the predictions of a man named Waraqah seem historically tenable. The abruptness and unexpectedness of Muhammad’s rise may be simply inexplicable.
[End of quote]
Why I think that it might be very important for Islam to defend the veracity of the Bahira incident is because he is the one who would proclaim Mohammed as “the last prophet” in God’s great scheme of things. Thus Emerick (p. 35):
…. Muhammad boldly told the monk that he hated the idols. This statement impressed the aged Christian further. Then he asked for the boy to lift his shirt, and the monk found a birthmark on his back, just between the shoulder blades. Bahira looked at the spot, which was about the size of a small egg, and declared, “Now I am most certain that this is the last prophet for whom the Jews and Christians [sic] await …”.
It is interesting that both Bahira and the Waraqah referred to above, seemingly lone individuals, non-Jews, but monotheists, are either Christian (Bahira) or, like Waraqah (Emerick, p. 31): “… [an] unaffiliated monotheist who also had some knowledge of Christianity”.
Marriage of Mohammed
The golden thread in the ‘life’ of Mohammed of the Book of Tobit (combined with Job) continues on, I believe, into the account of his marriage to the widowed beauty, Khadijah, also given as ‘Siti Khadijah’:
http://kelantan.attractionsinmalaysia.com/SitiKhadijahMarket
“Siti Khadijah Market (Pasar besar Siti Khadijah), as its name implies, is a local wet market. Its name after Prophet Muhammad’s wife, [who] is known for her entrepreneurial skill, as this market is mostly run by women”. In the Testament of Job the prophet’s wife is similarly called “Sitis”:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/jul/26/judaism-job-philosoph
“Job’s first wife is Sitidos (Sitis). Her name may have the same root as the word Satan in Hebrew or Sotah (unfaithful wife). She is a princess and Job a tribal leader”.
She is, I have argued, the same as the wife of Tobias, Sarah, meaning “princess”, “lady”.
Sarah was apparently, then, just like Khadijah, a woman of high status. She was likewise beautiful and full of quality, as described by the angel Raphael (Tobit 5:12): “She is sensible, brave, and very beautiful; and her father is a good man”. Just as with Khadijah, whose former husbands had died (Emerick, p. 41): “… Khadijah … married not once but twice …. Each husband died in turn, leaving her with a huge personal fortune”, likewise (though rather more spectacularly) Sarah (Tobit 3:8): “Sarah had been married seven times, but the evil demon, Asmodeus, killed each husband before the marriage could be consummated”.
The poor and rather insignificant Muhammad got his big break in life when that lowly life of his would - like with the young Tobias - converge with that of his future wife. And it similarly involved a journey to Syria for business purposes. When (as Emerick tells, p. 42): “In about the year 595, Khadijah announced that she would hire a local man to lead a particularly important caravan to go to Syria”, Abu Talib suggested to Muhammad that he should apply. “Abu Talib, always on the lookout for opportunities for his own or any family member’s advancement, suggested to his nephew Muhammad that he try to get a job with Khadijah’s caravan”.
The part played by Abu Talib in this situation reminds one of Tobit, who instructed his son (Tobit 4:20-21): ‘Tobias, I want you to know that I once left a large sum of money with Gabrias' son, Gabael, at Rages in Media. We're poor now, but don't worry. If you obey God and avoid sin, he will be pleased with you and make you prosperous’. In my “Geography of Tobit” I have proposed that “Rages” here equates geographically with the city of Damascus. Tobias was now a young man of marriageable age, and Muhammad was “twenty-five years old and still living with his uncle …” (Emerick, p. 42). Muhammad, similarly as with Tobit, “saw this caravan as an excellent opportunity to earn money …”.
“Abu Talib confidently told his nephew that he could get him double the salary of the man already hired … two camels”. And he duly informed Khadijah of it, “… we won’t accept less than four”.
Tobias, on the other hand, wants to give the disguised angel, who had guided him on the way, not “double the salary”, but “half of everything we brought back with us” (Tobit 12:2). And whilst that “two camels” can be found also in Tobit 9:1-2: “Then Tobias called Raphael and said to him: “Brother Azariah, take along with you four servants and two camels and travel to Rages”,” we see from this text that those “four servants” have been ‘reincarnated’ in the Islamic version as “four [camels]”.
Khadijah here refers to Muhammad as “a close relative”. We find the identical description in Tobit 6:10-11, where the angel tells Tobias: ‘Tonight we will stay at the home of your relative Raguel. He has only one child, a daughter named Sarah, and since you are her closest relative, you have the right to marry her’.
Just as Tobit had looked out for a suitable travelling companion for his son, and had found in the angel-disguised-as-Azariah a good character (Tobit 5:13): ‘… you are from a good family and a relative at that! …. Your relatives are fine people, and you come from good stock. Have a safe journey’, so, in Maysara - whose name is phonetically compatible with Azariah - does Abu Talib perceive a good character and worthy travelling companion (Emerick, p. 43): “Abu Talib knew of Maysara’s good character and encouraged his presence on the journey”.
Khadijah, who “was known for rejecting all suitors” (p. 44), though for reasons less dramatic than in the case of Sarah’s loss of all suitors, now married the younger Muhammad, whose fortunes had just increased exponentially (p. 45): “not only was he suddenly getting married, his fortunes were also taking a dramatic turn for the better”.
So had the angel informed Tobias about Sarah (6:11): “… you have the right to marry her. You also have the right to inherit all her father's property”.
“Muhammad and Khadijah would have six children together, two boys and four girls”. Tragically, the life of the sons would be cut off early, just as with Tobias/Job.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7888615205986009768.post-19728776450628374982024-02-09T20:17:00.000-08:002024-02-09T20:17:38.403-08:00 Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKi2dRywEq2SRZKjk6tLelxzcYFZ7NOyu97Pguk11R5TwJLyZeunNKLa1x-gqxWGI7yyYZ0ncAUch4ydL2eGkoCIyOM_HOcnszIRwzWfDwQ7_mHI2KiPAEXeZpuL2O2sTJ0xyTTYnl99_wE5EOtlPISNdbKNb02PD-857EkdWZ-R_35CIYnw5_XerP0js/s320/images.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="158" data-original-width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKi2dRywEq2SRZKjk6tLelxzcYFZ7NOyu97Pguk11R5TwJLyZeunNKLa1x-gqxWGI7yyYZ0ncAUch4ydL2eGkoCIyOM_HOcnszIRwzWfDwQ7_mHI2KiPAEXeZpuL2O2sTJ0xyTTYnl99_wE5EOtlPISNdbKNb02PD-857EkdWZ-R_35CIYnw5_XerP0js/s600/images.jpg"/></a></div>
by
Damien F. Mackey
In the history of Islam, the history of philosophy and science, we encounter
a handful of polymaths of the Golden Age (c. 800-1300 AD), who, I believe,
are simply based upon a greatly embellished and legend-enhanced Ahikar.
“Ahikar the son of my brother Anael, was appointed chancellor of the
exchequer for the kingdom and given the main ordering of affairs”.
Tobit 1:21
Ahikar’s contemporary the heroine Judith, whom Ahikar (as Achior) met shortly after she and her maid had carried the head of “Holofernes” in a basket back to “Bethulia”, has likewise been projected into a supposed AD time, c. 900 AD, as Gudit (or Judith):
Judith the Simeonite and Judith the Semienite
(6) Judith the Simeonite and Judith the Semienite | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
How does this happen?
And, what a story Ahikar (or Ahiqar) has to tell.
He (as Achior) had been left for dead by “Holofernes” for having dared to suggest that an Israel with the aid of the Lord would be irresistible. So “Holofernes” had him tied up within close proximity of Judith’s town of “Bethulia” (Shechem), there to die with the people whom he had just verbally defended. Achior was taken in by the Bethulians, whose leader at the time was the Simeonite Uzziah, the great Isaiah.
Then, after Judith with her maid had returned triumphantly from the Assyrian camp, she asked to see Achior (Judith 14:6-7):
So they summoned Achior from the house of Uzziah. When he came and saw the head of Holofernes in the hand of one of the men in the assembly of the people, he fell down on his face in a faint. When they raised him up he threw himself at Judith’s feet and did obeisance to her and said, ‘Blessed are you in every tent of Judah! In every nation those who hear your name will be alarmed. Now tell me what you have done during these days’.
This famous Israelite pair, Judith and Ahikar, who appear in the Catholic Bible for the era of c. 700 (conventional dating), have been recklessly projected into a c. 900 AD, and later, time – a shocking time warp of more than a millennium and a half!
How does this happen? (See also latter part of this article)
Seleucids/Ptolemies divinised ancient heroes
The Ptolemies re-presented some famous characters of Egyptian history as ‘saints’.
Ancient notables of Egyptian history, such as Imhotep and Amenhotep son of Hapu, became, in the hands of the later Ptolemies, thaumaturgists and quasi-divine. Thus Dietrich Wildung wrote of this pair as ‘becoming gods’ (Imhotep und Amenhotep. Gottwerdung im alten Ägypten, Münchner Ägyptologische Studien, 36, 1977).
The Seleucids did the same with - to give one example - the legendary King Solomon, who became, in their hands, the great temple building Sumerian notable, Gudea:
Prince of Lagash
(6) Prince of Lagash | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
The Seleucids greatly embellished the talents of these, admittedly already striking, ancient celebrities.
And I suspect that the same must have been done with Ahikar (Achior), already a great person in his own right, to whom has artificially been added encyclopaedic wisdom and magical skills as one might read of in a fantastic Arabian nights legend.
Hence we now find, as I have often quoted:
“The story of Ahikar is one of the most phenomenal in the ancient world in that it has become part of many different literatures and has been preserved in several
different languages: Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Greek, Slavonic, and Old Turkish.
The most ancient recension is the Aramaic, found amongst the famous 5th-cent.
BC papyri that were discovered … on Elephantine Island in the Nile. The story
worked its way into the Arabian nights and the Koran; it influenced Aesop,
the Church Fathers as well as Greek philosophers, and the OT itself”.
Of particular interest for this study is the influence of Ahikar upon the Koran (Qur'an).
Indeed, the sage Koranic character, Luqman (Lokman), is thought by some to have been taken from Ahikar himself:
Ahiqar and Aesop. Part Two: Ahiqar, Aesop and Lokman
(13) Ahiqar and Aesop. Part Two: Ahiqar, Aesop and Lokman | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
1. The real Ahikar
(a) Kingdom of Assyria
The young Ahikar (Achior) had a stellar career in the kingdom of Assyro-Babylonia, somewhat akin to that of the prophet Daniel.
According to his uncle, Tobit (1:22): “… when Sennacherib was emperor of Assyria, Ahikar had been wine steward, treasurer, and accountant, and had been in charge of the official seal”.
When the Assyrians first successfully invaded Jerusalem, Ahikar, the Rabshakeh, was King Sennacherib’s mouthpiece, he being eloquent and, apparently, multi-lingual.
When King Hezekiah’s envoys implored him to speak in Aramaïc rather than Hebrew, before the walls of Jerusalem, the Rabshakeh (“field commander”) refused to comply (Isaiah 36:11-21):
Then Eliakim, Shebna and Joah said to the field commander, ‘Please speak to your servants in Aramaic, since we understand it. Don’t speak to us in Hebrew in the hearing of the people on the wall’.
But the commander replied, ‘Was it only to your master and you that my master sent me to say these things, and not to the people sitting on the wall—who, like you, will have to eat their own excrement and drink their own urine?’
Then the commander stood and called out in Hebrew, ‘Hear the words of the great king, the king of Assyria! This is what the king says: Do not let Hezekiah deceive you. He cannot deliver you! Do not let Hezekiah persuade you to trust in the LORD when he says, ‘The LORD will surely deliver us; this city will not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria.’
‘Do not listen to Hezekiah. This is what the king of Assyria says: Make peace with me and come out to me. Then each of you will eat fruit from your own vine and fig tree and drink water from your own cistern, until I come and take you to a land like your own—a land of grain and new wine, a land of bread and vineyards.
‘Do not let Hezekiah mislead you when he says, ‘The LORD will deliver us’. Have the gods of any nations ever delivered their lands from the hand of the king of Assyria? Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad? Where are the gods of Sepharvaim? Have they rescued Samaria from my hand? Who of all the gods of these countries have been able to save their lands from me? How then can the LORD deliver Jerusalem from my hand?’
But the people remained silent and said nothing in reply, because the king had commanded, “Do not answer him”.
There is nothing to suggest from any of this, so far, that Ahikar was anything more than a competent military commander and loyal servant of the Great King of Assyria.
But, in the Book of Tobit, we learn that Ahikar was the mentor of Nadin (or Nadab) - and his “uncle” (presumably through marriage) - who was Sennacherib’s oldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, and who was to become the ill-fated “Holofernes” of the Judith drama.
We also learn that Ahikar was kind, he having looked after Tobit during his blindness, before being commissioned to govern the land of Elam (Elymaïs) (Tobit 2:10):
I went to physicians to be healed, but the more they treated me with ointments the more my vision was obscured by the white films, until I became completely blind. For four years I remained unable to see. All my kindred were sorry for me, and Ahikar took care of me for two years before he went to Elymais.
Ahikar and Nadin were present at the wedding of Tobias (Tobiah) and Sarah after the elderly Tobit had been miraculously cured of his blindness by the angel Raphael.
These were no ordinary times (Tobit 11:17-18):
That day there was joy for all the Jews who lived in Nineveh.
Ahiqar and his nephew Nadin were also on hand to rejoice with Tobit. Tobiah’s wedding feast was celebrated with joy for seven days, and many gifts were given to him.
Ahikar will also intervene with king Esarhaddon, enabling for Tobit to return home after his desperate flight from the now-deceased Sennacherib (Tobit 1:21-22):
But not forty days passed before two of Sennacherib’s sons killed him, and they fled to the mountains of Ararat, and his son Esar-haddon reigned after him. He appointed Ahikar, the son of my brother Hanael over all the accounts of his kingdom, and he had authority over the entire administration. Ahikar interceded for me, and I returned to Nineveh. Now Ahikar was chief cupbearer, keeper of the signet, and in charge of administration of the accounts under King Sennacherib of Assyria; so Esar-haddon reappointed him. He was my nephew and so a close relative.
From the Judith drama we learn that Ahikar, or Achior, was now leader of a foreign contingent in the Assyrian army, wrongly called “Ammonite”, but should read Elamite.
This mistake is one of the main reasons why the Book of Judith has not been accepted into the Jewish canon (Deuteronomy 23:3): “No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, not even in the tenth generation”.
For, as we read in Judith 14:10: “When Achior saw all that the God of Israel had done, he believed firmly in God. So he was circumcised and joined the house of Israel, remaining so to this day”.
Presumably Achior was, like most of his tribe in those days, neglectful of Yahwism.
As Tobit recounts it (1:4-6):
When I lived as a young man in my own country, in the land of Israel, the entire tribe of my ancestor Naphtali broke away from the house of David, my ancestor, and from Jerusalem, the city that had been singled out of all Israel’s tribes that all Israel might offer sacrifice there. It was the place where the Temple, God’s dwelling, had been built and consecrated for all generations to come. All my kindred, as well as the house of Naphtali, my ancestor, used to offer sacrifice on every hilltop in Galilee to the calf that Jeroboam, king of Israel, had made in Dan.
But I alone used to go often to Jerusalem for the festivals, as was prescribed for all Israel by longstanding decree.
A dying Tobit will praise Ahikar to his son Tobias for Ahikar’s “almsgiving”, contrasting his nephew with the treacherous Nadin/Nadab (Tobit 14:10-11):
‘See, my son, what Nadab did to Ahikar, who had reared him. Was he not, while still alive, brought down into the earth? For God repaid him to his face for this shameful treatment. Ahikar came out into the light, but Nadab went into the eternal darkness because he tried to kill Ahikar. Because he gave alms, he escaped the fatal trap that Nadab had set for him, but Nadab fell into it himself and was destroyed. So now, my children, see what almsgiving accomplishes and what injustice does—it brings death!’
Ahikar/Achior also appears as “Arioch” in a gloss in the Book of Judith (1:6): “… King Arioch of Elam”. The glossator had obviously failed to realise that this was Tobit’s “Ahikar [who] … went to Elymaïs [Elam]”.
Now, before we proceed to consider the fantastically embellished Arabian nights version of Ahikar, we need to add yet an extra dimension to the real person.
This will have huge ramifications for the Golden Age of Islam – my focus there being on the intellectual aspect of that so-called Golden Age.
(b) Kingdom of Chaldea (Babylonia)
The lives of the Tobiads (Tobit, Tobias, Ahikar) passed through the tumultuous reign of Sennacherib and on into the far more benign (for the Tobiads) reign of Esarhaddon.
Now, Esarhaddon, called a “son” of Sennacherib in Tobit 1:21, was not Sennacherib’s actual biological son, nor was he an Assyrian. Esarhaddon was a Chaldean, whose reign marks the beginning of the Chaldean dynasty.
Esarhaddon was none other than Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’:
Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar
(12) Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
That makes it quite possible that Ahikar (Arioch) was the “Arioch” of Daniel 2:24-25, a high official of King Nebuchadnezzar.
But far more importantly for this study is my identification of a sage official of Nebuchednezzar due to my folding, in my university thesis (2007), of Nebuchednezzar so-called I (c. 1100 BC, conventional dating) with II (c. 600 BC, conventional dating).
The famous official, Esagil-kinni-ubba, will become vital for explaining the intellectual Golden Age of Islam.
This is what I wrote about Esagil-kinni-ubba (of various spellings) in my thesis:
A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf
I believed that I may have found - over and above some very compelling Babylonian-Elamite parallels - a connection between a ‘Middle’ kingdom vizier of great wisdom and a similarly celebrated ‘Neo’ kingdom sage.
I wrote about this as follows, then wrongly suspecting that Nebuchednezzar so-called I was the same ruler as my composite king Sargon II-Sennacherib (Volume One, pp. 185-187):
A Legendary Vizier (Ummânu)
Perhaps a further indication of a need for merging the C12th BC king of Babylon, Nebuchednezzar I, with the C8th BC king of Assyria, Sargon II/ Sennacherib, is that one finds during the reign of ‘each’ a vizier of such fame that he was to be remembered for centuries to come. It is now reasonable to assume that this is one and the same vizier.
I refer, in the case of Nebuchednezzar I, to the following celebrated vizier: … “The name Esagil-kini-ubba, ummânu or “royal secretary” during the reign of Nebuchednezzar I, was preserved in Babylonian memory for almost one thousand years – as late as the year 147 of the Seleucid Era (= 165 B.C.) …”.
Even better known is Ahikar (var. Akhiqar), of Sennacherib’s reign, regarding whose immense popularity we read: ….
The story of Ahikar is one of the most phenomenal in the ancient world in that it has become part of many different literatures and has been preserved in several different languages: Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Greek, Slavonic, and Old Turkish. The most ancient recension is the Aramaic, found amongst the famous 5th-cent. BC papyri that were discovered … on Elephantine Island in the Nile. The story worked its way into the Arabian nights and the Koran; it influenced Aesop, the Church Fathers as well as Greek philosophers, and the OT itself.
According to the first chapter of [the Book of Tobit]: “Ahikar had been chief cupbearer, keeper of the signet, administrator and treasurer under Sennacherib” and he was kept in office after Sennacherib’s death. At some point in time Ahikar seems to have been promoted to Ummânu, or Vizier, second in power in the mighty kingdom of Assyria, “Chancellor of the Exchequer for the kingdom and given the main ordering of affairs” (1:21, 22). Ahikar was Chief Cupbearer, or Rabshakeh … during Sennacherib’s Third Campaign when Jerusalem was besieged (2 Kings 18:17; Isaiah 36:2). His title (Assyrian rab-šakê) means, literally, ‘the great man’. It was a military title, marking its bearer amongst the greatest of all the officers. Tobit tells us that Ahikar (also given in the Vulgate version of [the Book of Tobit] as Achior) was the son of his brother Anael (1:21).
Ahikar was therefore Tobit’s nephew, of the tribe of Naphtali, taken into captivity by ‘Shalmaneser’.
This Ahikar/Achior was - as I shall be arguing in VOLUME TWO (cf. pp. 8, 46-47) - the same as the important Achior of [the Book of Judith].
Kraeling, whilst incorrectly I believe suggesting that: ….
“There does not appear to be any demonstrable connection between this Achior [of the Book of Judith] and the Ahikar of the [legendary] Aramaic Story”, confirms however that the name Achior can be the same as Ahikar ….
….
I had suggested above that Adad-apla-iddina, ruler of Babylon at the time of Tiglathpileser I, may have been the same person as Merodach-baladan I/II.
I may now be able to strengthen this link to some degree through the agency of the vizier just discussed. For, according to Brinkman: …. “… Esagil-kini-ubba served as ummânu … under Adad-aplaiddina…”.
[End of quote]
One further matter of importance regarding “The real Ahikar” is that his Assyrian name was Aba-enlil-dari “whom the Aramaeans call Ahu-uqar [Ahiqar]”:
http://www.melammu-project.eu/database/gen_html/a0000639.html
This name will also become important in the context of the Islamic Golden Age.
2. The fantasy Ahikar
We read of the “Ahiqar story”, “of great popularity”, at:
http://www.melammu-project.eu/database/gen_html/a0000639.html
The story of Ahiqar is set into the court of seventh century Assyrian kings Sennacherib and Esarhaddon. The hero has the Akkadian name Ahī-(w)aqar “My brother is dear”, but it is not clear if the story has any historical foundation. The latest entry in a Seleucid list of Seven Sages says: “In the days of Esarhaddon the sage was Aba-enlil-dari, whom the Aramaeans call Ahu-uqar” which at least indicates that the story of Ahiqar was well known in the Seleucid Babylonia.
The oldest form of the story of Ahiqar itself is available in the Old Aramaic fragments from the end of the fifth century BCE and were discovered in the ruins of Elephantine in Egypt. The story of Ahiqar was incorporated into Greek legendary life of Aeseop - the adventures and maxims of the Assyrian sage were transferred to his Greek counterpart.
The Syriac Ahiqar book is of non-Christian character and belongs to the oldest period of Syriac literature, to the first two centuries CE. Later versions in Armanian, Arabic, and Old Church Slavonic are all closely related to the Syriac version. From the Armenian the story of Ahiqar was translated into Kipchak-Turkish and into another Turkic language, while the Romanian translation is related to the Church Slavonic text. A selection of the precepts of Ahiqar, but not his story, was included in an Arabic Christian anthology which was later translated into Ethiopic. There is another Ethiopic version which is shorter and also clearly translated into Arabic. There are references to Ahiqar in Tobit and also other quotations from his maxims in various other books of the Bible, especially in the book of Sirach. Also a set of the Middle Persian (Pahlavi) didactic books which were associated with the name Ādurbād, a historical person of the fourth century CE Zoroastrianism, reveal strong affinities with the Akkadian-Aramaic story of Ahiqar. The Admonitions of Ādurbād contains many parallels to the Ahiqar maxims in several languages. Given the great popularity of the Ahiqar story in the first centuries of the Christian era and the long symbiosis of Iranian and Aramaic civilisation, there is certainly nothing wrong with the assumption that Persian authors of the Sasanian period may have been familiar with it.
[End of quote]
From a sober military governor and administrator of the highest level for the kingdoms of Assyria and Babylonia, a wise and kindly man who practised almsgiving, Ahikar will be transformed through later legend into a sage of enyclopaedic knowledge - an ancient Leonardo da Vinci, so to speak - especially as we trace him below through his ‘Islamic’ guises.
Ahikar transformed
Here is the fantastic Story of Ahikar: https://sacred-texts.com/bib/fbe/fbe259.htm
Ahikar, Grand Vizier of Assyria, has 60 wives but is fated to have no son. Therefore he adopts his nephew. He crams him full of wisdom and knowledge more than of bread and water.
THE story of Haiqâr [Ahiqar] the Wise, Vizier of Sennacherib the King, and of Nadan, sister's son to Haiqâr the Sage.
2 There was a Vizier in the days of King Sennacherib, son of Sarhadum [Esarhaddon?], King of Assyria and Nineveh, a wise man named Haiqâr, and he was Vizier of the king Sennacherib.
3 He had a fine, fortune and much goods, and he was skilful, wise, a philosopher, in knowledge, in opinion and in government, and he had married sixty women, and had built a castle for each of them.
4 But with it all he had no child by any. of these women, who might be his heir.
5 And he was very sad on account of this, and one day he assembled the astrologers and the learned men and the wizards and explained to them his condition and the matter of his barrenness.
6 And they said to him, 'Go, sacrifice to the gods and beseech them that perchance they may provide thee with a boy.'
7 And he did as they told him and offered sacrifices to the idols, and besought them and implored them with request, and entreaty.
8 And they answered him not one word. And he went away sorrowful and dejected, departing with a pain at his heart.
9 And he returned, and implored the Most High God, and believed, beseeching Him with a burning in his heart, saying, 'O Most High God, O Creator of the Heavens and of the earth, O Creator of all created things!
10 I beseech Thee to give me a boy, that I may be consoled by him that he may be present at my heath, that he may close my eyes, and that he may bury me.'
11 Then there came to him a voice saying, 'Inasmuch as thou hast relied first of all on graven images, and hast offered sacrifices to them, for this reason thou shalt remain childless thy life long.
12 But take Nadan thy sister's son, and make him thy child and teach him thy learning and thy good breeding, and at thy death he shall bury thee.'
13 Thereupon he took Nadan his sister's son, who was a little suckling. And he handed him over to eight wet-nurses, that they might suckle him and bring him up.
14 And they brought him up with good food and gentle training and silken clothing, and purple and crimson. And he was seated upon couches of silk.
15 And when Nadan grew big and walked, shooting up like a tall cedar, he taught him good manners and writing and science and philosophy.
16 And after many days King Sennacherib looked at Haiqâr and saw that he had grown very old, and moreover he said to him.
17 'O my honoured friend, the skilful, the trusty, the wise, the governor, my secretary, my vizier, my Chancellor and director; verily thou art grown very old and weighted with years; and thy departure from this world must be near.
18 Tell me who shall have a place in my service after thee.' And Haiqâr said to him, 'O my lord, may thy head live for ever! There is Nadan my sister's son, I have made him my child.
19 And I have brought him up and taught him my wisdom and my knowledge.'
20 And the king said to him, 'O Haiqâr! bring him to my presence, that I may see him, and if I find him suitable, put him in thy place; and thou shalt go thy way, to take a rest and to live the remainder of thy life in sweet repose.'
21 Then Haiqâr went and presented Nadan his sister's son. And he did homage and wished him power and honour.
22 And he looked at him and admired him and rejoiced in him
and said to Haiqâr: 'Is this thy son, O Haiqâr? I pray that God may preserve him. And as thou hast served me and my father Sarhadum so may this boy of thine serve me and fulfil my undertakings, my needs, and my business, so that I may honour him and make him powerful for thy sake.'
23 And Haiqâr did obeisance to the king and said to him, 'May thy head live, O my lord the king, for ever! I seek from thee that thou mayst be patient with my boy Nadan and forgive his mistakes that he may serve thee as it is fitting.'
24 Then the king swore to him that he would make him the greatest of his favourites, and the most powerful of his friends, and that he should be with him in all honour and respect. And he kissed his hands and bade him farewell.
25 And he took Nadan. his sister's son with him and seated him in a parlour and set about teaching him night and day till he had crammed him with wisdom and knowledge more than with bread and water.
[End of quote]
There follows a list of maxims, some of which are straight out of Tobit 4.
We read more about the Story of Ahikar from professor Susan Niditch at:
https://www.thetorah.com/article/joseph-interprets-pharaohs-dreams-an-israelite-type-922-folktale
….
In brief, the story tells about an Assyrian [sic] wise man named Ahiqar, who served at the courts of Sennacherib and his son Esarhaddon. As Ahiqar has no son, he adopts his nephew Nadan and treats him as his own son, and asks Esarhaddon to accept Nadan as his counselor upon Ahiqar’s retirement.
Nadan, however, deals treacherously with his uncle, accusing him of disloyalty to the king.
Esarhaddon orders an officer by the name of Nabu-šuma-iškun to find Ahiqar and execute him, but as Ahiqar had once saved Nabu-šuma-iškun’s life in the past, he asks for reciprocity in return.
Nabu-šuma-iškun agrees, kills one of his own slaves to fake Ahiqar’s death, and hides Ahiqar in a makeshift prison, where he lives as a castaway or outcast. ….
News of the great wise man Ahiqar’s “death” reaches the ears of the Pharaoh of Egypt, who sees an opportunity to hurt his Assyrian rival. The Pharaoh challenges Esarhaddon with a riddle-like trial or wager: Egypt would like to build a castle in the air. If Esarhaddon can send him someone who knows how to do this, Egypt will pay three years of taxes to Assyria, but if Assyria cannot send Egypt someone with this knowhow, Assyria must pay three years’ taxes to Egypt.
The story continues in a classic Type 922 fashion: Esarhaddon is furious with Nadan, since he cannot solve the riddle, and bemoans his rash decision to have Ahiqar executed. Nabu-šuma-iškun hears this, and, in a manner reminiscent of the cupbearer in the Joseph story, tells the king that he can produce Ahiqar, who will certainly know the answer. Ahiqar appears before Esarhaddon, and the king sends him to Egypt.
After a long session of answering riddles, Pharaoh tells Ahiqar to build the castle in the air. Ahiqar sends two boys up on eagles, who call down to the Egyptians that they should hand them some bricks and they will start building. Pharaoh says it is impossible to get bricks to people all the way up in the sky, to which Ahiqar replies that if he can’t even get the bricks to his builders, how are they supposed to build the castle. The story ends with Pharaoh paying the tribute to Assyria, Esarhaddon reinstating Ahiqar as advisor, and Nadan dying a cruel death. ….
In the history of Islam, the history of philosophy and science,
we encounter a handful of polymaths of the Golden Age (c. 800-1300 AD),
who, I believe, are simply based upon a greatly embellished
and legend-enhanced Ahikar.
As we read previously, Ahikar has been transformed by legend and embellishment from being a sober military governor and administrator of the highest level for the kingdoms of Assyria and Babylonia, a wise and kindly man who practised almsgiving, into a sage of enyclopaedic knowledge - an ancient Leonardo da Vinci, so to speak - and a wonder worker.
Islamic Golden Age polymaths
In the history of Islam, the history of philosophy and science, we encounter a handful of polymaths of the Golden Age (c. 800-1300 AD), who, I believe, are simply based upon a greatly embellished and legend-enhanced Ahikar.
In the same sort of fashion has Ahikar’s c. 700 BC contemporary, the Simeonite Judith, been chronologically projected forward so as to become a supposed Ethiopian queen of c. 900 AD, Gudit (or Judith).
The handful of presumed Islamic scholars of the Golden Age to whom I refer are the polymathic Al-Kindi (c. 800); Al-Razi (c. 850); Al-Farabi (c. 900); Avicenna (c. 1000); Averroes (c. 1150); and Ibn Khaldun c. 1300).
In these famous names is largely encompassed Islamic philosophy, science, astronomy, cosmology, history, demography, medicine and music for the Golden Age.
Now, I find in four of these six names elements of Ahikar’s Assyro-Babylonian names: Esagil-kinni-ubba and Aba-enlil-dari. Thus:
AL-KINDI – ESAGIL-KINNI;
AL-FARABI – ENLIL-DAR-AB(I);
AVICENNA – UBB-KINNI(A);
AVERROES – ABA-(D)AR(I)
This becomes a huge extension of the already over-stretched Ahikar of legend and pseudo-history, including his influence upon the Koran.
If I am correct in identifying Ahikar with at least four of these famed six intellectuals of the so-called Islamic Golden Age, then this will have enormous ramifications for the history of philosophy and science, and, indeed, for the authenticity of Islam.
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7888615205986009768.post-86505630688105182332024-02-08T20:32:00.000-08:002024-02-08T20:32:51.179-08:00 Robert Spencer challenges the suggestion of Arabic Conquests<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiT-maJZwjixbQt_pUgZC1hwwv-p8jNepWmctJ2mRaShYz0yVfUIumyw9UBzjL1_97tX8cBI-unBFZhM7aVsxyG58XJOj6geVzWPC_M9M4JYX8pZMnjFtRkXuKoNX1AhzmK3wiCiYwifSWLzjBtRigmeBWb8tyQrv58J0s4beTc-Ps1mBsZZnqBCcV8D-w/s400/main-qimg-db446edf73ae25f7914a11194f65f542-lq.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="244" data-original-width="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiT-maJZwjixbQt_pUgZC1hwwv-p8jNepWmctJ2mRaShYz0yVfUIumyw9UBzjL1_97tX8cBI-unBFZhM7aVsxyG58XJOj6geVzWPC_M9M4JYX8pZMnjFtRkXuKoNX1AhzmK3wiCiYwifSWLzjBtRigmeBWb8tyQrv58J0s4beTc-Ps1mBsZZnqBCcV8D-w/s600/main-qimg-db446edf73ae25f7914a11194f65f542-lq.jpg"/></a></div>
“In Did Muhammad Exist? Spencer argues that the whole myth of Muhammad, as a separate person from Jesus, was invented by Arab propagandists between 700 and 730 in order to unify and justify the massive Arab Empire that then existed”.
We read this at:
https://www.thearchaeologist.org/blog/did-the-arab-conquests-really-happen-an-alternative-view-on-falsified-history
Did The Arab Conquests Really Happen? An Alternative View On Falsified History
October 6, 2022
by Emmet Scott
In his recently published Did Muhammad Exist? Robert Spencer, quoting some of the most eminent contemporary Middle Eastern scholars and archaeologists, presented a wide variety of evidence suggesting that no Arabian prophet named Muhammad ever existed. He showed for example that the first Arab coins to mention Muhammad, from the time of the Ummayad Caliph Mu'awiya (d. 680), display the figure of a man holding a cross. Since muhammad means “honored one” or “chosen one” in the Syriac and Arabic languages, it is highly likely that the “Muhammad” shown on these coins was none other than Jesus. This is made all the more likely by other evidence, presented by linguists such as Christoph Luxenberg and Günter Lüling, suggesting that the Qur'an began its existence as a Christian devotional text and that it was originally written in the Syriac rather than the Arabic language. The mistranslation of the book into Arabic resulted, said Luxenberg, in almost one third of the Qur'an making no sense whatsoever and the appearance of such strange teachings as the promise of 72 virgins to Muslims who enter heaven, instead of 72 grapes, as it would read in Syriac.
The evidence of coins, combined with the linguistic clues in the Qur'an, completely undermine the whole of early Islamic historiography, and suggest very strongly that the life of Muhammad, as presented in Islamic tradition, is a complete fiction.
It is no secret of course that the Qur'an is profoundly biblical, and this has only emphasized its Christian origins. Günter Lüling has postulated that it was originally a lectionary of the Ebionites or Nazarites, a Judaizing sect which was declared heretical at the Council of Nicea in 325 and thereafter disappeared from history. Most of its adherents are believed to have migrated into Arabia, and there is no question that Ebionitism was the main, or perhaps the only, Christian group with a wide following in Arabia during the fourth to sixth centuries. Indeed its influence in the Arabian Peninsula during these centuries was profound. The Ebionites accepted Jesus as the Messiah but rejected the notion that he was the son of God. They regarded Jesus as a faithful Jew and follower of the Mosaic Law, and they themselves practised circumcision, as well as the various other rules and regulations stipulated in that Law. Aside from accepting Jesus as a prophet, however, this Arab Christianity had almost nothing in common with the Christianity espoused in Constantinople, Antioch, or Alexandria; though it had very much in common with what later became known as Islam.
Indeed, we would perhaps be justified in describing this Arab Christianity as “proto-Islam,” and it would appear that the first “Islam” to appear archaeologically, as evinced in the monuments of Mu'awiya, was precisely this Arab version of Christianity.
Muslim coins with Christian cross and the name Mohammed
As Spencer notes, there is no mention of Muhammad, the Qur'an, or even Islam, until around 700 or shortly thereafter. In Did Muhammad Exist? Spencer argues that the whole myth of Muhammad, as a separate person from Jesus, was invented by Arab propagandists between 700 and 730 in order to unify and justify the massive Arab Empire that then existed.
….
The earliest Islam, as revealed by archaeology, is in fact profoundly Persian; and indeed the first trace of Islam recovered in excavation are coins of Sassanian Persian design bearing the image either of Chosroes II (d. 628) or of his grandson Yazdegerd III (d. 651). On one side we find the portrait of the king, on the reverse the picture of a Zoroastrian Fire Temple. The only thing that marks these out as Islamic is the legend besm Allah (in the name of God), written in the Syriac script, beside the Fire Temple. (The Arabic script did not then exist). According to the Encyclopdaedia Iranica:
“These coins usually have a portrait of a Sasanian emperor with an honorific inscription and various ornaments. To the right of the portrait is a ruler’s or governor’s name written in Pahlavi script. On the reverse there is a Zoroastrian fire altar with attendants on either side. At the far left is the year of issue expressed in words, and at the right is the place of minting. In all these features, the Arab-Sasanian coinages are similar to Sasanian silver drahms. The major difference between the two series is the presence of some additional Arabic inscription on most coins issued under Muslim authority, but some coins with no Arabic can still be attributed to the Islamic period. The Arab-Sasanian coinages are not imitations, since they were surely designed and manufactured by the same people as the late Sasanian issues, illustrating the continuity of administration and economic life in the early years of Muslim rule in Iran.” (“Arab-Sasanian Coins,” Encyclopdaedia Iranica, at www.iranica.com/articles/arab-sasanian-coins)
ARAB–SASANIAN COINAGE
Note the remark: “The Arab-Sasanian coinages are not imitations,” but were “designed and manufactured by the same people as the late Sasanian issues.” We note also that the date provided on these artefacts is written in Persian script, and it would appear that those who minted the coins, native Persians, did not understand Arabic.
….
It was only when Yazdegerd died (A.D. 651) [in the time of the Ummayad Caliph Mu'awiya] that some mark of Arab authority was added to the coinage.” (Ibid.) Even more puzzling is the fact that the most common coins during the first decades of Islamic rule were those of Yazdegerd's predecessor Chosroes II, and many of these too bear the Arabic inscription (written however, as we saw, in the Syriac script) besm Allah. …. why continue to issue money in the name of a previous Sassanian king (Chosroes II), one who, supposedly, had died ten years earlier? This surely stretches credulity. ….
AMAIChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14460852293132739396noreply@blogger.com0