Friday, August 30, 2013

Quantum Physics and the Shroud of Turin

 
Although the author demonstrates how science and reason can get us to the threshold of understanding great religious events and realities, he shows that a leap of faith is still required to take us all the way to God.

 
 

Although the author demonstrates how science and reason can get us to the threshold of understanding great religious events and realities, he shows that a leap of faith is still required to take us all the way to God.

Although the author demonstrates how science and reason can get us to the threshold of understanding great religious events and realities, he shows that a leap of faith is still required to take us all the way to God.

NASHVILLE, TN (Catholic Online) - Millions of Christians around the world believe the Shroud of Turin to be the actual linen burial cloth that wrapped the broken and battered body of the historical Jesus of Nazareth after His crucifixion, a hypothesis that has been extensively investigated by both scientific and religious experts.

Does the Shroud of Turin, on display in Turin, Italy's cathedral right now, offer scientific evidence of the Resurrection? Can an interpretation of the Resurrection through cutting edge physics research correspond with a traditional Christian understanding? Is the Shroud, therefore, somehow a portal to another dimension, heaven perhaps?

The Shroud Codex, by Jerome Corsi, Ph. D. suggests so. Corsi, inspired and informed by his lifelong interest in the Shroud of Turin, draws scientific speculation on advances in quantum physics and intrigues in religious mysticism - namely stigmata, relics, and near-death experiences - together, until they meet in the Shroud of Turin in a literary fiction Venn approach.

A brilliant quantum physicist leaves science on a religious quest and enters the Catholic priesthood. After a near death experience leaves him with the belief he has a cosmic role to play in history for both science and religion, he begins displaying stigmata that mimic exactly the bloody image left on the herringbone linen weave of the Shroud of Turin.

Atheists and believers in both the scientific and religious communities investigate the reality of the physicist-turned-priest's claims. Is he traveling through time by way of multiple dimensions to literally experience aspects of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, as he claims his stigmata, cutting edge physics, and the Shroud reveal? Or do his stigmata testify, rather, to severe psychiatric disturbance?

As a sharer in Corsi's interest in both the Shroud of Turin and quantum mechanics, I was particularly interested in how he would bring his scientific and religious themes together through them, and what new information I might discover about the Shroud and particle physics through the story. The images of the Shroud, information on the scientific investigations done on it in the 70's and since, and the arguments for and against authenticity were significantly explored in the book, at least they were to my satisfaction as a reader.

I was disappointed in the treatment offered on quantum mechanics as a scientific explanation for the soul's survival into an afterlife and the Resurrection of Christ, the protagonist's stigmata and related experiences, and the probabilities of our living in a multi-dimensional universe.

The scant discussion left me wondering if Corsi really understood what he and quantum physics seem to suggest about them, or if he was worried his audience would not understand such seemingly convoluted "realities" if he delved too far into them. Either way, I was left wanting more information from that angle, but the author provided extra resources in the back of the book that I will happily explore.

I was also somewhat disappointed in the author's fiction writing style, but as his professional brilliance, background, and success lie more in political nonfiction, that does not really surprise me. Corsi is a Harvard educated political scientist and the author several #1 New York Times bestsellers, including The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality.

Non-fiction writers often have difficulty writing fiction, and this story suffered from some of the typical pitfalls. I found the whole situation with Anne Cassidy, the contemporary Mary figure, forced and improbable, as well as other, less significant aspects of the story somewhat flat and unbelievable.

However, the book's pace was brisk, the themes were thought-provoking, I learned quite a bit about the Shroud of Turin through reading The Shroud Codex, and the author's knowledge, interest and love for the Shroud were evident in the story. Together, these were enough to make me pleased I read it.

If his intention was to explore how faith and science can be mutually supportive, I believe Corsi succeeded. Although the author demonstrates that science and reason can get us to the threshold of understanding great religious events and realities like Creation, Resurrection, afterlife, stigmata and the like, he preserves the mystery and necessity of faith by showing that they can never take us all the way to God, who is immaterial and waits to encounter us in extraordinary ways that will always require a leap of faith.

-----

Sonja Corbitt is a Catholic speaker, Scripture teacher and study author and a contributing author for Catholic Online. This review first appeared on CatholicExchange.com and is used with permission. She is available to speak on the New Feminism, current events and your preferred theme. Visit her at www.pursuingthesummit.com for information and sample videos, or www.pursuingthesummit
 
....
 
Taken from: http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=36284

Thursday, August 29, 2013

The Shroud Codex: "stunning mystery of science and faith".




'The Shroud Codex' is a revelation

Exclusive: David Kupelian addresses stunning intersection of faith, science in new book


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2010/04/142581/#yvJbrDEHF7mXh3lj.99


Jerome Corsi’s “The Shroud Codex”
There’s just one problem with Dan Brown’s mega-blockbusters “Angels and Demons” and especially “The Da Vinci Code.” Though they’re entertaining, superbly crafted stories, underneath it all there’s always this not-so-subtle intent to inject doubt into believers and nudge them toward the soulless, cynical sophistication of modernity.
Now here comes No. 1 New York Times best-selling author Jerome Corsi with a novel – his first fiction effort – that combines the Vatican, particle physics, atheism, the Shroud of Turin, what appear to be dramatic supernatural events and much more, all into a stunning mystery of science and faith.
....
But the difference is that Corsi is taking the reader in the opposite direction than Dan Brown – toward faith, rather than away from it.
Dan Brown invents fictional historical events, like Jesus marrying Mary Magdalene, to provide the scandalous sizzle in his books. In “The Shroud Codex,” however, truth proves once again to be even stranger, more mysterious and more exhilarating than fiction. The Shroud of Turin is one of the most fascinating objects in the entire world and all of history, with some of the most recent and compelling science suggesting it could be – are you ready for this? – a virtual photographic representation of the moment of Jesus Christ’s resurrection.
Try topping that, writers, with some lame fictional plot theme.
Moreover, the plotline of “The Shroud Codex” centers around one of my very favorite premises – that despite the bombast of atheist provocateurs like Richard Dawkins, there is no actual conflict between real spirituality and real science. Both by definition are committed to objective truth. Indeed, the modern schism between faith and science is a historical anomaly. For centuries the world’s greatest scientists, from Copernicus to Galileo to Newton to Pasteur, regarded their scientific explorations as faith-enhancing proof of God’s creative genius.

I was frankly surprised at how good “The Shroud Codex” was. Don’t get me wrong. Jerome Corsi is one of the brainiest people I know, and being the author of two No. 1 best-sellers he obviously can write. But fiction? Every other title he’s written – “The Obama Nation,” “Unfit for Command” (with John O’Neill) and “America for Sale” among them – has been political nonfiction.
But sometimes a well-crafted story, rather than a linear nonfiction treatment, proves most effective at communicating deep things, at penetrating the inner regions of the reader’s mind and provoking serious reflection.
Even Jesus Christ himself saw fit to convey deep truths to people through made-up stories we call parables. No doubt, if there had been a better, more effective way to communicate such vital things to the masses, he would have done so.
One of my literary heroes, C.S. Lewis, long an atheist, came to believe in God and later in Christ because, as a master storyteller himself, he realized, with the help of literary colleagues J.R.R. Tolkien and Hugo Dyson, that God was using a story – in this case a wonderful, transcendent and true story – of Christ and his sacrifice to communicate His ultimate message of love and redemption to the human race.
True, Jerry Corsi is a far cry from God and Jesus, but it turns out he’s still a pretty darn good storyteller, and “The Shroud Codex” is a heck of a story.
Read this book. It will enhance your faith. Like Corsi, I have long been fascinated by the Shroud and believe it to be the actual burial cloth of Jesus Christ. The science of the Shroud – and the fact that even today, modern science cannot duplicate that ancient piece of linen cloth with the haunting and exquisitely detailed, blood-stained image of a crucified man – is truly amazing, and Corsi has captured it and presented it here with great dramatic flair. However, the science of the Shroud in this novel is not fiction, but the mind-boggling reality of a transcendent mystery no one can explain, and many are afraid to try.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2010/04/142581/#yvJbrDEHF7mXh3lj.99

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Jephthah's Daughter and Iphigeneia





Quote:
Originally Posted by DCMorrison
Hi everyone. One of today's readings for Mass contained the tragic story of Jephthah's Daughter (Judges 11:29-39a). Essentially, Jephthah makes a vow to God that if God gives him victory over the Ammonites (something which presumbably God wants anyway) he will sacrifice the first person who comes out from his house to greet him on his return. Sacrifice meaning "burnt offering" with the person being burnt.

Now, I am intrigued as to how the Church understands this passage, especially in the light of the passage where God actually appears to call on Abram for human sacrifice but then relents - and which leaves the impression that God did not accept human sacrifice in part to make the distinction between Himself and the idols worshipped widely (Baal, Molech and the like). Is it merely a case of the near-east prejudice that sacrificing a daughter would be somehow acceptable but sacrificing a son would not be? How does the Church understand this apparent contradiction between Isaac and Jephthah's Daughter (who is not even named)?


## I have a theory about this

The plot is similar to some other stories. For example, in Greek mythology, Agamenon, the leader of the army against Troy, has to sacrifice his daughter Iphigeneia before the fleet can set sail. When he does so, Iphigeneia is snatched away & a doe replaces her; she herself has been taken to Tauris, among the savage Thracians, were she becomes a priestess of Artemis, the goddess whom Agamemnon (or a member of his family) offended, thereby causing Artemis to stop the fleet sailing. (In the end, although Agamemnon is murdered by his wife and her lover, his son and another daughter are re-united.)

In both stories:
  • the father sets out to go to war
  • he does something to set a god in motion: by a vow, or by offending the god
  • he loses his daughter
  • she is taken away fron everyday civilised life...
  • and is given over to the god

Isaac, like Iphigeneia, is replaced by an animal.

Genesis has quite few stories in it which are like Biblical stories outside it and which have points of contact with various non-Biblical tales.

Suggestion: the Biblical accounts are using the same sorts of motifs as the non-Biblical tales which resemble them.

Mesha king of Moab sacrificed his son to Chemosh, the national god of Moab, to gain victory over Israel - according to his account, on the "Mesha Stela", with success. A son was the most valuable possible sacrifice, because he was the person who would perpetuate the family name, and, if an eldest son, the identity of the nation. The king personified the nation in the ANE, so to kill the male heir was a pretty desperate step: and so, a good way of ensuring Divine favour - because one can hardly give a god more than one's own son. Conversely, as Greek legends and the OT show, giving an inferior offering was a gross insult, which was sure to bring severe punishment: gods tended to be rather touchy on this point.

A less deadly way of serving a god is to give one's offspring to the life-long service of a god - the gift of Samuel to the service of God at Shiloh is an OT example of this. The Iphigeneia story is another, outside the Bible. That's what an "oblate" is - someone "offered" to the service of God. ##
....


Taken from: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=70068

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

"The battle of Thermopylae ... has become some sort of foundation myth of Western civilization".

 







Thermopylae:
the Metamorphoses of a Myth



The battle of Thermopylae and the war between Greece and Persia have an almost mythological status in western civilization. However, there are some nasty aspects to this popularity. A discussion of

  • Frank Miller, 300 (1998; comic book)
  • Zack Snyder, 300 (2006; movie)
  • Tom Holland, Persian Fire (2005; history book)

Conclusion:
The works discussed have shown that the study of ancient history in the twenty-first century has two serious defects: historians are still suffering from their nineteenth-century blindness towards the Near East, and know less about theory and method than they used to do in the early 1900's.


A well-known story

The story is well-known. In 480 BCE, the Persian king Xerxes tried to conquer Greece with an army that was so large that it needed an equally large fleet to bring sufficient supplies. After three hundred Spartan hoplites and their allies, who offered resistance at Thermopylae, had been defeated, the Persians could proceed to Athens, the largest town in Greece. They were still looting the city, when their navy was defeated at Salamis, and although the Persians still had naval superiority, Xerxes decided not to take unnecessary risks, and retreated. The ruins of Athens testified that he had achieved his main goal.

The naval battle had not been decisive, and no one knows why Xerxes did not return. In 1992, Pierre Briant, the greatest iranologist of our age, has suggested that a rebellion in Babylonia demanded the great king's attention.[1] There is indeed some evidence for this theory, but it has recently been shown that at least the cuneiform sources do not support it sufficiently.[2] Whatever the explanation, the key fact is that only a small Persian army was left behind to guard the king's conquests. In 479, it was defeated at Plataea, and in 475, the last Persian stronghold in Europe, Eïon, was captured by the Athenian commander Cimon. The Greco-Persian war was over.

The battle of Thermopylae is just an incident in this great war, but over the centuries, it has become some sort of foundation myth of Western civilization. Novels were devoted to it, like William Golding's The Hot Gate and Steven Pressfield's Gates of Fire. In 2005, historian Tom Holland accepted this myth in his Persian Fire; and Frank Miller's award-winning comic book 300 is now a major movie.

The reason for this continuing interest in the Greco-Persian war and the battle of Thermopylae is easy to find: the brilliant account by Herodotus of Halicarnassus (c.480-c.425), included in the seventh book of his Histories, one of the most entertaining and accessible texts from Antiquity. Unfortunately, the great care with which he separates facts from opinion has not always inspired later historians, and it is not exaggerated to say that "Thermopylae" is rapidly becoming political propaganda. And that is to be regretted, because novels, comic books, and movies are -more than scholarly research, which reaches not many people- the way people conceptualize the past.


Self-sacrifice


First: the story by Herodotus, who is sometimes "father of history" but might as well be called the "father of investigative journalism". He always presents both sides of a story, offers variant explanations, and seeks to separate facts from opinion. In his account of the battle of Thermopylae, he makes it clear that he knew more than one story about the treason that enabled the Persians to circumvene the Greek positions (7.213-214). A bit later, when he has reached the moment on which the Greeks discover that they will be surrounded, Herodotus states what he believes is the last thing he knows for certain: that the Greek army desintegrated (7.219). He does not know what happened after this moment, because none of the Spartan soldiers who remained at Thermopylae survived. Therefore, he introduces the sequel with gnomê, the word he often uses to introduce his own ideas (7.220).

His hypothesis, and the beginning of the myth, is that Leonidas knew an oracle that offered him a choice: either he had to die, or his town would be destroyed. This may be a correct hypothesis. A modern one is that the Greeks were retreating and that the Spartans were cut off before the could leave the trap. This may also be correct. We simply do not know. The historian Hignett has called Thermopylae "an unsolved riddle", and that's about everything we can say about it.


Fighting for freedom


This general ignorance has not dissuaded the American artist Frank Miller to use Herodotus' hypothesis as basis of his classical comic book 300. He has successfully created a visual language to render Herodotus' literary arsenal. For example, the Greek researcher inserts in his story an element from Homer's Iliad: the Spartans fought for the possession of Leonidas' dead body. This must be fiction (who could have told Herodotus?) but any Greek would have recognized the suggestion that the Spartans fought like the heroes of yore. Miller could not use this trick, so he presents his Spartans as fighting almost naked, because we all know from our movies that action heroes become invulnerable once the put off their shirt (e.g., Rambo, Die Hard).

So far, so good. Miller runs into trouble when he offers an interpretation of the story. The Spartans, he says, sacrificed themselves for the freedom of Greece. And not only for Greek liberty: the Spartans were "the world's one hope for reason and justice", and the Persians were living "in a sea of mysticism and tyranny". Although Thermopylae was a defeat, it showed the world what free men are capable of, inspired the other Greeks, and therefore saved Greek culture and all of western civilization.

Miller's reading of Thermopylae and the Greco-Persian wars is not unique. It can also be found in Persian Fire, a book by the British historian Tom Holland, published in 2006. It is a good read, if you can ignore exuberant lines like "As the storm clouds of seeming Persian invincibility loomed ever darker over Ionia, so strange shadows from the past returned to haunt Athens, too". In his introduction, Holland states that democracy, rationalism, and the philosophy of Plato would not have existed if the Persians had not been expelled from Europe. The book is completely different from Miller's comic book, but in one respect they are similar: Herodotus' story about self-sacrifice has become the foundation myth of western civilization.


Rationalisms


Holland and Miller are not the first to make this claim. Holland refers to nineteenth-century philosophers like Hegel and Mill, and he could have added the famous art historian J.J. Winckelmann (1717-1768) as well. The general idea is that the Greeks were a special nation that possessed qualities (like rationality and a passion for liberty) that the nations of the ancient Near East were lacking. Of course quoting non-specialists is not the best way to argue a thesis, but the authors referred to by Holland are not the only ones. He could also have quoted a serious historian like Eduard Meyer (1855-1930), who in 1901 maintained that the Greco-Persian war marked the birth of western civilization, defined by rationalism, freedom, and democracy.[3]

But one has to be careful when one accepts judgments that were offered more than a century ago. Meyer's arguments were analyzed in a famous theoretical discussion with Max Weber (1864-1920), who is best known as one of the founders of the social sciences, but started his career as a historian and was a pupil of Theodor Mommsen. Weber's question was simple: how did Meyer know that a Persian victory would have obstruct the rise of freedom, democracy, and rationalism? Weber could easily prove[4] that Meyer's reasoning was counterfactual: he explains the significance of an event by pointing at what would have happend if it had not taken place. And counterfactual explanations are rarely accurate.

Take, for instance, these considerations. In 493, a mere thirteen years before Xerxes invaded Greece, his general Mardonius (one of Xerxes' main advisers) had accepted democracy as system of government of the Greek towns in the Persian empire. And how hostile were the Persians towards mysticism? The research program of the Chaldaeans in Persian Babylonia had a purely scientific method. In Xerxes' eastern capital Taxila, Panini wrote the world's first scientific book of grammar. And in Judah, the book of Job was written, in which God and man discuss the nature of good and evil. These are not the products of the presumed "sea of mysticism and tyranny". For any example Meyer and Holland mention, one might offer a counter-example.

Offering examples and counter-examples is not the best way to proceed. What is necessary is a grand theory that enables us to compare the relative weight of Greek and Persian rationalisms. A possible candidate is Richard Dawkins' recent theory about cultural memes, which may also help us find a way to make meaningful judgments about the importance of Greco-Roman culture, compared to other cultures, as "root" of western civilization. One might, for example, want to weigh the influence of the Greek inheritance and other influences.

As far as I know, no ancient historian has ever attempted this, and it is easy to see why: no one wants to cast doubt on the European foundation myth. Although, for the moment, the truth of the statement that "the project of reason started in Greece" can not be established, the statement is the recognized consensus and adds cement to western society.

....

Taken from: http://www.livius.org/opinion/opinion0003.html



For a completely different perspective on this, see our:


Can the Battle of Thermopylae be Re-fitted into the Judith Drama?
 

Panthea and the Assyrian General, a Garbled Greek Version of Judith and Holofernes



 

THE STORY OF PANTHEA


[226] IN the preceding chapters of this work, we have followed mainly the authority of Herodotus, except, indeed, in the account of the visit of Cyrus to his grandfather in his childhood, which is taken from Xenophon. We shall, in this chapter, relate the story of Panthea, which is also one of Xenophon's tales. We give it as a specimen of the romantic narratives in which Xenophon's history abounds, and on account of the many illustrations of ancient manners and customs which it contains, leaving it for each reader to decide for himself what weight he will attach to its claims to be regarded as veritable history. We relate the story here in our own language, but as to the facts, we follow faithfully the course of Xenophon's narration.
Panthea was a Susian captive. She was taken, together with a great many other captives and much plunder, after one of the great battles which Cyrus fought with the Assyrians. [227] Her husband was an Assyrian general, though he himself was not captured at this time with his wife. The spoil which came into possession of the army on the occasion of the battle in which Panthea was taken was of great value. There were beautiful and costly suits of arms, rich tents made of splendid materials and highly ornamented, large sums of money, vessels of silver and gold, and slaves—some prized for their beauty, and others for certain accomplishments which were highly valued in those days. Cyrus appointed a sort of commission to divide this spoil. He pursued always a very generous policy on all these occasions, showing no desire to secure such treasures to himself, but distributing them with profuse liberality among his officers and soldiers.
The commissioners whom he appointed in this case divided the spoil among the various generals of the army, and among the different bodies of soldiery, with great impartiality. Among the prizes assigned to Cyrus were two singing women of great fame, and this Susian lady. Cyrus thanked the distributors for the share of booty which they had thus assigned to him, but said that if any of his friends wished for either of these captives, they could have [228] them. An officer asked for one of the singers. Cyrus gave her to him immediately, saying, "I consider myself more obliged to you for asking her, than you are to me for giving her to you." As for the Susian lady, Cyrus had not yet seen her, but he called one of his most intimate and confidential friends to him, and requested him to take her under his charge.
The name of this officer was Araspes. He was a Mede, and he had been Cyrus's particular friend and playmate when he was a boy, visiting his grandfather in Media. The reader will perhaps recollect that he is mentioned toward the close of our account of that visit, as the special favorite to whom Cyrus presented his robe or mantle when he took leave of his friends in returning to his native land.
Araspes, when he received this charge, asked Cyrus whether he had himself seen the lady. Cyrus replied that he had not. Araspes then proceeded to give an account of her. The name of her husband was Abradates, and he was the king of Susa, as they termed him. The reason why he was not taken prisoner at the same time with his wife was, that when the battle was fought and the Assyrian camp captured, he was absent, having gone away on an em- [229] bassage to another nation. This circumstance shows that Abradates, though called a king, could hardly have been a sovereign and independent prince, but rather a governor or viceroy—those words expressing to our minds more truly the station of such a sort of king as could be sent on an embassy.
Araspes went on to say that, at the time of their making the capture, he, with some others, went into Panthea's tent, where they found her and her attendant ladies sitting on the ground, with veils over their faces, patiently awaiting their doom. Notwithstanding the concealment produced by the attitudes and dress of these ladies, there was something about the air and figure of Panthea which showed at once that she was the queen. The leader of Araspes's party asked them all to rise. They did so, and then the superiority of Panthea was still more apparent than before. There was an extraordinary grace and beauty in her attitude and in all her motions. She stood in a dejected posture, and her countenance was sad, though inexpressibly lovely. She endeavored to appear calm and composed, though the tears had evidently been falling from her eyes.
The soldiers pitied her in her distress, and [230] the leader of the party attempted to console her, as Araspes said, by telling her that she had nothing to fear; that they were aware that her husband was a most worthy and excellent man; and although, by this capture, she was lost to him, she would have no cause to regret the event, for she would be reserved for a new husband not at all inferior to her former one either in person, in understanding, in rank, or in power.
These well-meant attempts at consolation did not appear to have the good effect desired. They only awakened Panthea's grief and suffering anew. The tears began to fall again faster than before. Her grief soon became more and more uncontrollable. She sobbed and cried aloud, and began to wring her hands and tear her mantle—the customary Oriental expression of inconsolable sorrow and despair. Araspes said that in these gesticulations her neck, and hands, and a part of her face appeared, and that she was the most beautiful woman that he had ever beheld. He wished Cyrus to see her.
Cyrus said, "No; he would not see her by any means." Araspes asked him why. He said that there would be danger that he should forget his duty to the army, and lose his interest in the great military enterprise in which he [231] was engaged, if he should allow himself to become captivated by the charms of such a lady, as he very probably would be if he were now to visit her. Araspes said in reply that Cyrus might at least see her; as to becoming captivated with her, and devoting himself to her to such a degree as to neglect his other duties, he could certainly control himself in respect to that danger. Cyrus said that it was not certain that he could so control himself; and then there followed a long discussion between Cyrus and Araspes, in which Araspes maintained that every man had the command of his own heart and affections, and that, with proper determination and energy, he could direct the channels in which they should run, and confine them within such limits and bounds as he pleased. Cyrus, on the other hand, maintained that human passions were stronger than the human will; that no one could rely on the strength of his resolutions to control the impulses of the heart once strongly excited, and that a man's only safety was in controlling the circumstances which tended to excite them. This was specially true, he said, in respect to the passion of love. The experience of mankind, he said, had shown that no strength of moral principle, no [232] firmness of purpose, no fixedness of resolution, no degree of suffering, no fear of shame, was sufficient to control, in the hearts of men, the impetuosity of the passion of love, when it was once fairly awakened. In a word, Araspes advocated, on the subject of love, a sort of new school philosophy, while that of Cyrus leaned very seriously toward the old.
In conclusion, Cyrus jocosely counseled Araspes to beware lest he should prove that love was stronger than the will by becoming himself enamored of the beautiful Susian queen. Araspes said that Cyrus need not fear; there was no danger. He must be a miserable wretch indeed, he said, who could not summon within him sufficient resolution and energy to control his own passions and desires. As for himself, he was sure that he was safe.
As usual with those who are self-confident and boastful, Araspes failed when the time of trial came. He took charge of the royal captive whom Cyrus committed to him with a very firm resolution to be faithful to his trust. He pitied the unhappy queen's misfortunes, and admired the heroic patience and gentleness of spirit with which she bore them. The beauty of her countenance, and her thousand personal [233] charms, which were all heightened by the expression of sadness and sorrow which they bore, touched his heart. It gave him pleasure to grant her every indulgence consistent with her condition of captivity, and to do every thing in his power to promote her welfare. She was very grateful for these favors, and the few brief words and looks of kindness with which she returned them repaid him for his efforts to please her a thousand-fold. He saw her, too, in her tent, in the presence of her maidens, at all times; and as she looked upon him as only her custodian and guard, and as, too, her mind was wholly occupied by the thoughts of her absent husband and her hopeless grief, her actions were entirely free and unconstrained in his presence. This made her only the more attractive; every attitude and movement seemed to possess, in Araspes's mind, an inexpressible charm. In a word, the result was what Cyrus had predicted. Araspes became wholly absorbed in the interest which was awakened in him by the charms of the beautiful captive. He made many resolutions, but they were of no avail. While he was away from her, he felt strong in his determination to yield to these feelings no more; but as soon as he came into her presence, all these res- [234] olutions melted wholly away, and he yielded his heart entirely to the control of emotions which, however vincible they might appear at a distance, were found, when the time of trial came, to possess a certain mysterious and magic power, which made it most delightful for the heart to yield before them in the contest, and utterly impossible to stand firm and resist. In a word, when seen at a distance, love appeared to him an enemy which he was ready to brave, and was sure that he could overcome; but when near, it transformed itself into the guise of a friend, and he accordingly threw down the arms with which he had intended to combat it, and gave himself up to it in a delirium of pleasure.
Things continued in this state for some time. The army advanced from post to post, and from encampment to encampment, taking the captives in their train. New cities were taken, new provinces overrun, and new plans for future conquests were formed. At last a case occurred in which Cyrus wished to send some one as a spy into a distant enemy's country. The circumstances were such that it was necessary that a person of considerable intelligence and rank should go, as Cyrus wished the messenger [235] whom he should send to make his way to the court of the sovereign, and become personally acquainted with the leading men of the state, and to examine the general resources of the kingdom. It was a very different case from that of an ordinary spy, who was to go into a neighboring camp merely to report the numbers and disposition of an organized army. Cyrus was uncertain whom he should send on such an embassy.
In the mean time, Araspes had ventured to express to Panthea his love for her. She was offended. In the first place, she was faithful to her husband, and did not wish to receive such addresses from any person. Then, besides, she considered Araspes, having been placed in charge of her by Cyrus, his master, only for the purpose of keeping her safely, as guilty of a betrayal of his trust in having dared to cherish and express sentiments of affection for her himself. She, however, forbore to reproach him, or to complain of him to Cyrus. She simply repelled the advances that he made, supposing that, if she did this with firmness and decision, Araspes would feel rebuked and would say no more. It did not, however, produce this effect. Araspes continued to importune her with de- [236] clarations of love, and at length she felt compelled to appeal to Cyrus.
Cyrus, instead of being incensed at what might have been considered a betrayal of trust on the part of Araspes, only laughed at the failure and fall in which all his favorite's promises and boastings had ended. He sent a messenger to Araspes to caution him in regard to his conduct, telling him that he ought to respect the feelings of such a woman as Panthea had proved herself to be. The messenger whom Cyrus sent was not content with delivering his message as Cyrus had dictated it. He made it much more stern and severe. In fact, he reproached the lover, in a very harsh and bitter manner, for indulging such a passion. He told him that he had betrayed a sacred trust reposed in him, and acted in a manner at once impious and unjust. Araspes was overwhelmed with remorse and anguish, and with fear of the consequences which might ensue, as men are when the time arrives for being called to account for transgressions which, while they were committing them, gave them little concern.
When Cyrus heard how much Araspes had been distressed by the message of reproof which he had received and by his fears of punishment, [237] he sent for him. Araspes came. Cyrus told him that he had no occasion to be alarmed. "I do not wonder," said he, "at the result which has happened. We all know how difficult it is to resist the influence which is exerted upon our minds by the charms of a beautiful woman, when we are thrown into circumstances of familiar intercourse with her. Whatever of wrong there has been ought to be considered as more my fault than yours. I was wrong in placing you in such circumstances of temptation, by giving you so beautiful a woman in charge."
Araspes was very much struck with the generosity of Cyrus, in thus endeavoring to soothe his anxiety and remorse, and taking upon himself the responsibility and the blame. He thanked Cyrus very earnestly for his kindness; but he said that, notwithstanding his sovereign's willingness to forgive him, he felt still oppressed with grief and concern, for the knowledge of his fault had been spread abroad in the army; his enemies were rejoicing over him, and were predicting his disgrace and ruin; and some persons had even advised him to make his escape, by absconding before any worse calamity should befall him.
[238] "If this is so," said Cyrus, "it puts it in your power to render me a very essential service." Cyrus then explained to Araspes the necessity that he was under of finding some confidential agent to go on a secret mission into the enemy's country, and the importance that the messenger should go under such circumstances as not to be suspected of being Cyrus's friend in disguise. "You can pretend to abscond," said he; "it will be immediately said that you fled for fear of my displeasure. I will pretend to send in pursuit of you. The news of your evasion will spread rapidly, and will be parried, doubtless, into the enemy's country; so that, when you arrive there, they will be prepared to welcome you as a deserter from my cause, and a refugee."
This plan was agreed upon, and Araspes prepared for his departure. Cyrus gave him his instructions, and they concerted together the information—fictitious, of course—which he was to communicate to the enemy in respect to Cyrus's situation and designs. When all was ready for his departure, Cyrus asked him how it was that he was so willing to separate himself thus from the beautiful Panthea. He said in reply, that when he was absent from Panthea, [239] he was capable of easily forming any determination, and of pursuing any line of conduct that his duty required, while yet, in her presence, he found his love for her, and the impetuous feelings to which it gave rise, wholly and absolutely uncontrollable.
As soon as Araspes was gone, Panthea, who supposed that he had really fled for fear of the indignation of the king, in consequence of his unfaithfulness to his trust, sent to Cyrus a message, expressing her regret at the unworthy conduct and the flight of Araspes, and saying that she could, and gladly would, if he consented, repair the loss which the desertion of Araspes occasioned by sending for her own husband. He was, she said, dissatisfied with the government under which he lived, having been cruelly and tyrannically treated by the prince. "If you will allow me to send for him," she added, "I am sure he will come and join your army; and I assure you that you will find him a much more faithful and devoted servant than Araspes has been."
Cyrus consented to this proposal, and Panthea sent for Abradates. Abradates came at the head of two thousand horse, which formed a very important addition to the forces under [240] Cyrus's command. The meeting between Panthea and her husband was joyful in the extreme. When Abradates learned from his wife how honorable and kind had been the treatment which Cyrus had rendered to her, he was overwhelmed with a sense of gratitude, and he declared that he would do the utmost in his power to requite the obligations he was under.
Abradates entered at once, with great ardor and zeal, into plans for making the force which he had brought as efficient as possible in the service of Cyrus. He observed that Cyrus was interested, at that time, in attempting to build and equip a corps of armed chariots, such as were often used in fields of battle in those days. This was a very expensive sort of force, corresponding, in that respect, with the artillery used in modern times. The carriages were heavy and strong, and were drawn generally by two horses. They had short, scythe-like blades of steel projecting from the axle-trees on each side, by which the ranks of the enemy were mowed down when the carriages were driven among them. The chariots were made to contain, besides the driver of the horses, one or more warriors, each armed in the completest manner. These warriors stood on the floor of the vehicle, [243] and fought with javelins and spears. The great plains which abound in the interior countries of Asia were very favorable for this species of warfare.

[Illustration]

THE WAR CHARIOT OF ABRADATES.

Abradates immediately fitted up for Cyrus a hundred such chariots at his own expense, and provided horses to draw them from his own troop. He made one chariot much larger than the rest, for himself, as he intended to take command of this corps of chariots in person. His own chariot was to be drawn by eight horses. His wife Panthea was very much interested in these preparations. She wished to do something herself toward the outfit. She accordingly furnished, from her own private treasures, a helmet, a corslet, and arm-pieces of gold. These articles formed a suit of armor sufficient to cover all that part of the body which would be exposed in standing in the chariot. She also provided breast-pieces and side-pieces of brass for the horses. The whole chariot, thus quipped, with its eight horses in their gay trappings and resplendent armor, and with Abradates standing within it, clothed in his panoply of gold, presented, as it drove, in the sight of the whole army, around the plain of the encampment, a most imposing spectacle. [244] It was a worthy leader, as the spectators thought, to head the formidable column of a hundred similar engines which were to follow in its train. If we imagine the havoc which a hundred scythe-armed carriages would produce when driven, with headlong fury, into dense masses of men, on a vast open plain, we shall have some idea of one item of the horrors of ancient war.
The full splendor of Abradates's equipments were not, however, displayed at first, for Panthea kept what she had done a secret for a time, intending to reserve her contribution for a parting present to her husband when the period should arrive for going into battle. She had accordingly taken the measure for her work by stealth, from the armor which Abradates was accustomed to wear, and had caused the artificers to make the golden pieces with the utmost secrecy. Besides the substantial defenses of gold which she provided, she added various other articles for ornament and decoration There was a purple robe, a crest for the helmet, which was of a violet color, plumes, and likewise bracelets for the wrists. Panthea kept all these things herself until the day arrived when her husband was going into battle for the first time with his train, and then, when [245] he went into his tent to prepare himself to ascend his chariot, she brought them to him.
Abradates was astonished when he saw them. He soon understood how they had been provided, and he exclaimed, with a heart full of surprise and pleasure, "And so, to provide me with this splendid armor and dress, you have been depriving yourself of all your finest and most beautiful ornaments!"
"No," said Panthea, "you are yourself my finest ornament, if you appear in other people's eyes as you do in mine, and I have not deprived myself of you."
The appearance which Abradates made in other people's eyes was certainly very splendid on this occasion. There were many spectators present to see him mount his chariot and drive away; but so great was their admiration of Panthea's affection and regard for her husband, and so much impressed were they with her beauty, that the great chariot, the resplendent horses, and the grand warrior with his armor of gold, which the magnificent equipage was intended to convey, were, all together, scarcely able to draw away the eyes of the spectators from her. She stood, for a while, by the side of the chariot, addressing her husband in an un- [246] der tone, reminding him of the obligations which they were under to Cyrus for his generous and noble treatment of her, and urging him, now that he was going to be put to the test, to redeem the promise which she had made in his name, that Cyrus would find him faithful, brave, and true.
The driver then closed the door by which Abradates had mounted, so that Panthea was separated from her husband, though she could still see him as he stood in his place. She gazed upon him with a countenance full of affection and solicitude. She kissed the margin of the chariot as it began to move away. She walked along after it as it went, as if, after all, she could not bear the separation. Abradates turned, and when he saw her coming on after the carriage, he said, waving his hand for a parting salutation, "Farewell, Panthea; go back now to your tent, and do not be anxious about me. Farewell." Panthea turned—her attendants came and took her away—the spectators all turned, too, to follow her with their eyes, and no one paid any regard to the chariot or to Abradates until she was gone.
On the field of battle, before the engagement commenced, Cyrus, in passing along the lines, [247] paused, when he came to the chariots of Abradates, to examine the arrangements which had been made for them, and to converse a moment with the chief. He saw that the chariots were drawn up in a part of the field where there was opposed to them a very formidable array of Egyptian soldiers. The Egyptians in this war were allies of the enemy. Abradates, leaving his chariot in the charge of his driver, descended and came to Cyrus, and remained in conversation with him for a few moments, to receive his last orders. Cyrus directed him to remain where he was, and not to attack the enemy until he received a certain signal. At length the two chieftains separated; Abradates returned to his chariot, and Cyrus moved on. Abradates then moved slowly along his lines, to encourage and animate his men; and to give them the last directions in respect to the charge which they were about to make on the enemy when the signal should be given. All eyes were turned to the magnificent spectacle which his equipage presented as it advanced toward them; the chariot, moving slowly along the line, the tall and highly-decorated form of its commander rising in the center of it, while the eight horses, animated by the sound of the trumpets, and by [248] the various excitements of the scene, stepped proudly, their brazen armor clanking as they came.
When, at length, the signal was given, Abradates, calling on the other chariots to follow, put his horses to their speed, and the whole line rushed impetuously on to the attack of the Egyptians. War horses, properly trained to their work, will fight with their hoofs with almost as much reckless determination as men will with spears. They rush madly on to encounter whatever opposition there may be before them, and strike down and leap over whatever comes in their way, as if they fully understood the nature of the work that their riders or drivers were wishing them to do. Cyrus, as he passed along from one part of the battle field to another, saw the horses of Abradates's line dashing thus impetuously into the thickest ranks of the enemy. The men, on every side, were beaten down by the horses' hoofs, or overturned by the wheels, or cut down by the scythes; and they who here and there escaped these dangers, became the aim of the soldiers who stood in the chariots, and were transfixed with their spears. The heavy wheels rolled and jolted mercilessly over the bodies of the [249] wounded and the fallen, while the scythes caught hold of and cut through every thing that came in their way—whether the shafts of javelins and spears, or the limbs and bodies of men—and tore every thing to pieces in their terrible career. As Cyrus rode rapidly by, he saw Abradates in the midst of this scene, driving on in his chariot, and shouting to his men in a phrensy of excitement and triumph.
The battle in which these events occurred was one of the greatest and most important which Cyrus fought. He gained the victory. His enemies were every where routed and driven from the field. When the contest was at length decided, the army desisted from the slaughter and encamped for the night. On the following day, the generals assembled at the tent of Cyrus to discuss the arrangements which were to be made in respect to the disposition of the captives and of the spoil, and to the future movements of the army. Abradates was not there. For a time, Cyrus, in the excitement and confusion of the scene did not observe his absence. At length he inquired for him. A soldier present told him that he had been killed from his chariot in the midst of the Egyptians, and that his wife was at that mo- [250] ment attending to the interment of the body, on the banks of a river which flowed near the field of battle. Cyrus, on hearing this, uttered a loud exclamation of astonishment and sorrow. He dropped the business in which he had been engaged with his council, mounted his horse, commanded attendants to follow him with every thing that could be necessary on such an occasion, and then, asking those who knew to lead the way, he drove off to find Panthea.
When he arrived at the spot, the dead body of Abradates was lying upon the ground, while Panthea sat by its side, holding the head in her lap, overwhelmed herself with unutterable sorrow. Cyrus leaped from his horse, knelt down by the side of the corpse, saying, at the same time, "Alas! thou brave and faithful soul, and art thou gone?"
At the same time, he took hold of the hand of Abradates; but, as he attempted to raise it, the arm came away from the body. It had been out off by an Egyptian sword. Cyrus was himself shocked at the spectacle, and Panthea's grief broke forth anew. She cried out with bitter anguish, replaced the arm in the position in which she had arranged it before, and told Cyrus that the rest of the body was in the [251] same condition. Whenever she attempted to speak, her sobs and tears almost prevented her utterance. She bitterly reproached herself for having been, perhaps, the cause of her husband's death, by urging him, as she had done, to fidelity and courage when he went into battle. "And now," she said, "he is dead, while I, who urged him forward into the danger, am still alive."
Cyrus said what he could to console Panthea's grief; but he found it utterly inconsolable. He gave directions for furnishing her with every thing which she could need, and promised her that he would make ample arrangements for providing for her in future. "You shall be treated," he said, "while you remain with me, in the most honorable manner; or, if you have any friends whom you wish to join, you shall be sent to them safely whenever you please."
Panthea thanked him for his kindness. She had a friend, she said, whom she wished to join, and she would let him know in due time who it was. In the mean time, she wished that Cyrus would leave her alone, for a while, with her servants, and her waiting-maid, and the dead body of her husband. Cyrus accordingly withdrew. As soon as he had gone, Panthea [252] sent away the servants also, retaining the waiting-maid alone. The waiting-maid began to be anxious and concerned at witnessing these mysterious arrangements, as if they portended some new calamity. She wondered what her mistress was going to do. Her doubts were dispelled by seeing Panthea produce a sword, which she had kept concealed hitherto beneath her robe. Her maid begged her, with much earnestness and many tears, not to destroy herself; but Panthea was immovable. She said she could not live any longer. She directed the maid to envelop her body, as soon as she was dead, in the same mantle with her husband, and to have them both deposited together in the same grave; and before her stupefied attendant could do any thing to save her, she sat down by the side of her husband's body, laid her head upon his breast, and in that position gave herself the fatal wound. In a few minutes she ceased to breathe.

Cyrus expressed his respect for the memory of Abradates and Panthea by erecting a lofty monument over their common grave.
 
....

Taken from: http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=abbott&book=cyrus&story=panthea

Monday, August 19, 2013

Can the Battle of Thermopylae be Re-fitted into the Judith Drama?

 
 
If "King Xerxes [Was] Clearly Based on King Sennacherib":
 
 
whose massive Assyrian army was defeated through the agency of the Simeonite heroine, Judith,
 
 
 
A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
 
Damien F. Mackey
 
 
and if Collins is right that the Spartans arose from the tribe of Simeon:
 
 
 
then the improbable 'Battle of Thermopylae' must be in actuality a vague (and obviously fictitious) recalling of the real life drama between the forces of Sennacherib and the northern (e.g. Simeonite) Israelites (Jews).  



But what about the female factor coupled with the beheading of an Alpha male?


She is Queen Tomyris, who has so often been paired with Judith in literature and painting, e.g.:
http://vidimus.org/issues/issue-45/books/

The subject was popular in the late Middle Ages when Jael’s triumph over Sisera, together with the Biblical story of Judith killing Holofernes (Book of Judith), and the ancient Greek story of the Massagetae queen, Tomyris killing the Persian emperor, Cyrus, were regarded as prefigurations of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s victory over the devil. The associations are depicted in a Flemish manuscript, Le Miroir de l’Humaine Salvation, made in 1455 for Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, now in the University of Glasgow.

and:

Dante's Purgatorio -- Canto XII (http://www.italianstudies.org/comedy/Purgatorio12.htm):

 ....

Shown were the sons of King Sennacherib
Felling him at prayers in the temple
And then leaving him there slain on the floor.
55 Shown was the downfall and the cruel killing
Tomyris enacted when she said to Cyrus,
"For blood you thirsted and with blood I sate you!"
Shown were the Assyrians in full rout,
After Holofernes had been murdered,
60 And also his remains amid the slaughter.

....



and (http://en.convdocs.org/docs/index-33608.html?page=15):

Judith or Tomyris of Scythia
Matteo di Giovanni belonged to the same generation of painters as Francesco di Giorgio and Neroccio, and his fame would have made him an obvious candidate in any attempt to show off the skills of all the leading artists of Siena (note 136). He, like Neroccio and Francesco, had contributed designs for the Duomo pavement Sibyls. Moreover, he had actually been Orioli’s master, providing another route for the younger painter’s cooption. It seems possible that he was involved at an early stage, but the cutting of the panel and the loss of most of the background with its narrative elements make it more difficult to estimate its place in the chronology of the series. Stylistically the painting seems to belong to the very end of Matteo’s career. The panel may have been cut partly because the lower part was in poor condition, as was probably the case with its neighbour, Artemisia, but it is just possible such a drastic reduction may also have been an attempt to convert the image of Tomyris into the more saleable Judith. The iconography of both is likely to be consistent: the figure brandishing her weapon and holding a severed head by the hair – the head in this case is noticeably undersized and must be to some extent emblematic.


In addition to the identifying inscription, the cutting has eliminated episodes which would have further defined the figure. The story of Judith is wellknown. The widowed Queen Tomyris, having defeated Cyrus, the invading Persian king, dipped his severed head in a wineskin of blood. The row of tents on the right implies a military encampment – a feature of both stories.
 
....
 

Friday, August 16, 2013

Jacob as the Egyptian god Ptah





A comment on our:
http://westerncivilisationamaic.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/lost-cultural-foundations-west.html?showComment=1376512072430

It is interesting that Imhotep should be associated with Joseph, for without realizing the association, I had already tentatively identified Ptah with Jacob. The Greeks recognized the Egyptian god Ptah as their "Hephaestus," he had a permanent limp as a result of contending with the chief god, Zeus (Genesis 32:24-32).
The name "Egypt" is supposed to be a Greek corruption (Aegyptus) of the phrase "Het-Ka-Ptah," or "House of the Spirit of Ptah." I have assumed that the name "Aegypt" (usually the "us" at the end of a Greek name is perfunctory) is based upon the name "Jacob." Perhaps there is some kind of consistancy between these two explainations of the origin of the name of Egypt, if Jacob is to be identified with Ptah.
The image of Ptah is a mummified man (Jacob was mummified. See Genesis 50:2), wearing what modern egyptologists havd called a 'Punt' beard (this term was developed for the beard because it resembles the style of beard that Puntites, whom the Egyptians regarded as their ancestors, also wore.). In Velikovsky's theory Punt is identified as Palestine.
Ptah is the main god of the city of Memphis, where the "Theology of Memphis" shows a remarkable affinity to the theogony of Genesis. The Greeks make Epaphus (Apis, the "calf god") the son of Io (whom I suppose to be a female personification of the nation of Israel, the "Jew" see; http://www.academia.edu/4065204/The_Hebrew_Origins_of_Argolian_Mythology ) to be the husband of Memphis (Apollod. ii. 1. § 4.). Therefore a deification of Jacob, as the "God of Jacob," would put Ptah, in regards to his city of Memphis, in the place of the Christian God in regards to his city Jerusalem. See how, in ancient Egypt, the "Bride" of the "calf of god" is Memphis; While we now-a-days have Jerusalem as the "Bride" of the "Lamb of God." (Revelations 21:9-10).
Thus I am not surprised to find that Imhotep was known as the "Son of Ptah," (Miriam Lichtheim, "Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings," p.106), just as Joseph was the son of Jacob.

-John R. Salverda

Hi, John

I, too, have heard of a possible connection between Jacob and Ptah - perhaps from you.

You raise some very interesting points here.

Jacob must have been someone great in the eyes of the Egyptians, because he actually blessed pharaoh (Genesis 47):

7 Then Joseph brought his father Jacob in and presented him before Pharaoh. After Jacob blessed [a] Pharaoh, 8 Pharaoh asked him, “How old are you?”
9 And Jacob said to Pharaoh, “The years of my pilgrimage are a hundred and thirty. My years have been few and difficult, and they do not equal the years of the pilgrimage of my fathers.” 10 Then Jacob blessed[b] Pharaoh and went out from his presence.

The only thing I cannot really see clearly is how the name 'Egypt' could arise from 'Jacob', though it is vaguely alike, (Y)egypt. Yacov.

Regards
Damien.

Thursday, August 15, 2013

Did Amenemope Plagiarise Proverbs of King Solomon?



Well, such is the opinion of writer Patrick Clarke who, in a revised chronology, locates Solomon some centuries before Amenemope:
 

Wisdom literature and the question of priority —Solomon's Proverbs or Amenemope's Instruction

JOURNAL OF CREATION

26(2) 2012

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Pythagoras as Joseph of Egypt

 
 

[For more on this, see Re-Orienting to Zion the History of Ancient Philosophy
http://westerncivilisationamaic.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/re-orienting-history-of-ancient.html]
 


Having proposed the connection between the patriarch Joseph as the wise Ptah-hotep, and as Thales 'the first philosopher', it is now a small step I believe to connect this sage also to the alleged 'first user of the word philosophy', Pythagoras, thought to have been born at Samos in c. 570 BC. As in the first part of the name Tha-les, so here again in the case of Pyth-agoras, has the Egyptian divine name Ptah been Grecised.

Also once again, as with Thales, do we have the problem of a lack of first-hand written evidence [W. Guthrie, "Pythagoras and Pythagoreanism", Ency. of Phil., Vol. 7, (Collier Macmillan, London, 1972), p. 39]: "The obstacles to an appraisal of classical Pythagoreanism are formidable. There exists no Pythagorean literature before Plato, and it was said that little had been written, owing to a rule of secrecy". These "obstacles" will be seen to be even more "formidable" when, in the Revelation section, I discuss 'Plato' and his era.

Consistently though, Pythagoras, like Thales, was much influenced by Egypt. I suggest in fact that the great Pythagorean contribution to mathematics (numbers, geometry, triangles) may also have been bound up with Egypt and with Imhotep's measuring and other activities as an architect.

Now consider the pattern of the life of Pythagoras and his descendants in relation to Joseph and the family of Israel (the Hebrews). Pythagoras, like Joseph,

(a)               left his home country and settled in a foreign land, founding a society with religious and political, as well as philosophical aims. Compare the Hebrews settling in the eastern Delta of Egypt (Genesis 46:33).

(b)               The society gained power there and considerably extended its influence. Compare this with the growth of Israel in Egypt, and its spreading all over the country (Exodus 1:9, 12). After Pythagoras' death,

(c)                a serious persecution took place. Likewise, about 65 years after Joseph's death, the "new king" of Exodus 1:8, became concerned about the amount of Hebrews in Egypt and resolved upon a cruel plan. Moses was born into this very era - the pyramid-building 4th dynasty era - at the approximate time that the founder-pharaoh Khufu (Greek Cheops)/Amenemes I had resolved to do something about the increase of Asiatics (including Hebrews) in Egypt. The Prophecies of Neferti, "All good things have passed away, the land being cast away through trouble by means of that food of the Asiatics who pervade the land" (www.touregypt.net/propheciesofneferti.htm). According to Josephus, Khufu was the oppressor of the Hebrews. Tyldesley, op. cit., p. 122.]. The pharaoh thus ordered for all the male Hebrew babies to be slain (Exodus 1:10, 15-16).

(d)               The (Pythagorean) survivors of the persecution scattered. This equates with the Exodus of Israel out of Egypt (Exodus 12)”.