Wednesday, June 6, 2012

Prophet Balaam Also Known As Priapus: John R. Salverda


John R. Salverda is here commenting on an article on Balaam that can be found (e.g.) at:
http://amaic-archaeology.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/is-there-any-evidence-to-prove.html

....


The character known from the Scriptures as Balaam, almost certainly had a real existence. Evidence for his historicity comes not only from the finds at Deir Alla, but there are other sources that testify to this, rather widely known, seer. In Thrace and Asia Minor he was known as “Priapus.” The Greeks have a “myth” about him arguing with his mule that goes as follows;

Dionysus had a favorite mule who had carried him faithfully throughout his life, however, for some reason the creature had lapsed into madness and was acting crazy. So, Dionysus decided to take him to the oracle at Dodana seeking some advice about a cure. He also took Priapus as a traveling companion. Along the way, no doubt in an attempt to get the cause of the mule's strange behavior from the creature's own point of view, the god granted his donkey the ability to talk. However, Priapus immediately fell into an argument with the mule, apparently over who had the greatest sexual prowess. Well, as the donkey was winning the argument, Priapus became uncontrollably angry and began beating the miserable creature with a stick again and again until the poor animal was dead. (Hyginus, in his "Poetica Astronomica" II, 23; see also his, "Fabulae," 160) Some say that it was this talking mule, who was set by Dionysus amongst the stars as one of the Asseli, in the constellation of the Presipae (the manger), that appears within the Zodiacal sign of Cancer.

Practically every part of this Greek myth has it's counterpart in the Scriptural story of Balaam's ass. As it is Priapus who has an argument with, and beats the talking mule with a stick, it must be he who is to be identified with Balaam, who likewise complains that his ass had "mocked" him. Dionysus is to be identified with Baal-Peor, (the calf god) whom Balaam taught (to which the term “the teaching of Balaam” refers). The reference to sexuality has its’ Scriptural counterpart in the Dionysian licentiousness that was supposed to accompany the rites of Baal-Peor.

Similarly, Priapus was known for attempting to “dishonor” Hestia, the virgin goddess (the Virgin Israel?) and he would have succeeded but for the timely loud braying of the ass he rode in on which woke Hestia up (Ovid Fasti 6.319).

King Midas (from central Asia Minor) had asses ears bestowed upon him by Apollo (Apollo-Pieria?), perhaps because he had harkened unto the teachings of Balaam.

Balaam was so well known in Asia Minor that hundreds of years later in the days of St. John the revelator, and hundreds of miles away in the city of Pergamos (Western Asia Minor), people were still clinging to his teachings (Revelations 2:14).

So much for the people of Thrace an Asia Minor and their version of Balaam, “Priapus.” In Greece proper they had their own version of Balaam, an even more popular character, whom they called “Melampus.” At least three Greek settlements had their own versions of the Balaam story that they had brought with them and transferred to their Greek colonies.

Melampus was a widely known prophet who could understand the speech of animals. In each local version of the Melampus story, the native King would hire him after difficult negotiations (just as in the Scriptural rendition of Balaam‘s tale), to lift a curse. This he would do by teaching the “proper” observance of the rites of Dionysus (the calf god). This is the essence of his story told at Orchomenus, about the daughters of King Minyas, at Argos, about the daughters of King Proetus, and also the story of King “Phylacus.”

Take note of the name “Phylacus” in comparison to the name of King Balak, (Balaam and Balak = Melampus and Phylacus) After an extremely difficult negotiations period, Phylacus hired Melampus to lift a curse of sexual infertility. In this story Melampus understands the speech of animals and injures his foot/leg.

All straight from the Scriptural story of Balaam and from a distant source that actually predates the final editing (by Ezra and Nehemiah) of the Old Testament. Once again the Greek myths, (written, as I believe, by uprooted Israelites) can help to verify the scriptures.

-John R. Salverda



....


Great stuff, John, I love it. Can I put up those comments?

If you are short of time, why not take some of the most impressive pieces and make short articles of these, rather than - at this stage - attempting to write a compendium.

Just a thought.

Damien M.


Dear Damien,

Here's one you can post;


Here is a very impressive connection between the Greeks and the Hebrews for you; The ancient “Hebrews” (Kabeiroi?) employed a group of loudly singing, warrior priests, to guard and carry the “Ark of God” (the cradle of Zeus?). These were called the “Korahites” (Kouretes), or “Korah’s sons” (“Korah bene,” Korybantes?). “… the Korahites, stood up to praise the LORD God of Israel with an exceedingly loud voice.” (2Ch 20:19).


During the wandering of the Jews, Korah and 250 of his followers were destroyed for rebelling against Moses. One such rebellion was the golden calf incident. The sons of Korah were preserved however and given their special responsibilities. They carried and guarded the Ark, not only singing loudly but also clashing cymbals and blowing trumpets. They were a group of warrior priests especially noted for their use of the sling and the bow.


The myths of the Kouretes are easily derived from the story of the Korahites, notably the wandering of Io by Apollodorus (Apollod. 2.1.3). He says that in the course of Io’s (the Jew‘s) wanderings, Hera had the Kouretes carry off Epaphus (the Egyptian calf god Apis) from Egypt to Syria, for which Zeus destroyed them.


They guarded/carried, not only the babes Zeus and Epaphus but also Dionysus/Zagreus calf gods all.


Of course, this identification brings up a very disturbing notion, namely that the Ark of the Covenant and the statue of the golden calf were closely related spiritual cult objects, even taken for each other. Consider this; King David dancing naked in front of the Ark and in the company of other “worthless fellows” exposing themselves to the slave girls, (2 Samuel 6) was a phallic procession; the likes of which one would expect when Dionysus was taken to Thebes and Cadmus danced as in Euripides and his “Bacchae” (I shall identify these two incidents in an up coming article about Cadmus and David).


Everywhere the “Phoenicians” (residents of the land of Israel) went, they took with them the tradition of the Kouretes. Crete (Europa), Rhodes and Samothrace (Cadmus), Carthage (Dido), and Phrygia were largely populated with people from the land of Israel, and were noted for the “mystery” religion of these same noisy, dancing, warriors.


Don’t take my word for it, do the research for yourself. Let me help you;


The Kouretes From Greek Mythology


The Korybantes (Ancient Greek:


Κορύβαντες) were the crested dancers who worshipped the Phrygian goddess Cybele with drumming and dancing. They are also called the Kurbantes in Phrygia, and Corybants in an older English transcription. The Kuretes were the nine dancers who venerate Rhea, the Cretan counterpart of Cybele, Mother of the Gods. A fragment from Strabo, book vii,[1] gives a sense of the roughly analogous character of these male confraternities, and the confusion rampant among those not initiated:


Many assert that the gods worshipped in Samothrace as well as the Kurbantes and the Korybantes and in like manner the Kouretes and the Idaean Daktyls are the same as the Kabeiroi, but as to the Kabeiroi they are unable to tell who they are"


These male dancers in armor, kept time to a drum and the rhythmic stamping of their feet. Dance, according to Greek thought, was one of the civilizing activities, like wine-making or music. The dance in armor (the "Pyrrhic dance" or Pyrriche [


Πυρρίχη]) was a male coming-of-age initiation ritual linked to a warrior victory celebration. Both Jane Ellen Harrison and the French classicist Henri Jeanmaire[3] have shown that both the Kouretes (Κουρῆτες) and Cretan Zeus (called "the greatest kouros (κοῦρος)" in the Cretan hymn found in an inscription at Palaikastro)[4] were intimately connected with the transition of young men into manhood in Cretan cities.


The Phrygian Korybantes were often confused by Greeks with other ecstatic male confraternities, such as the Idaean Dactyls or the Cretan Kouretes, spirit-youths (kouroi) who acted as guardians of the infant Zeus. In Hesiod's telling of Zeus's birth,[5] when Great Gaia came to Crete and hid the child Zeus in a "steep cave", beneath the secret places of the earth, on Mount Aigaion with its thick forests; there the Cretan Kouretes' ritual clashing spears and shields were interpreted by Hellenes as intended to drown out the infant god's cries, and prevent his discovery by his cannibal father Cronus. "This myth is Greek interpretation of mystifying Minoan ritual in an attempt to reconcile their Father Zeus with the Divine Child of Crete; the ritual itself we may never recover with clarity, but it is not impossible that a connection exists between the Kouretes' weapons at the cave and the dedicated weapons at Arkalochori", Emily Vermeule observed.[6] Among the offering recovered from the cave, the most spectacular are decorated bronze shields with patterns that draw upon north Syrian originals and a bronze gong on which a god and his attendants are shown in a distinctly Near Eastern style.[7]


Kouretes also presided over the infancy of Dionysus, another god who was born as a babe, and of Zagreus, a Cretan child of Zeus, or child-doublet of Zeus. The wild ecstasy of their cult can be compared to the female Maenads who followed Dionysus.


Homer referred to select young men as kouretes, when Agamemnon instructs Odysseus to pick out kouretes, the bravest among the Achaeans" to bear gifts to Achilles.[9] The Greeks preserved a tradition down to Strabo's day, that the Kuretes of Aetolia and Acharnania in mainland Greece had been imported from Crete.[10]


Pasted from


 


(Apollod. 2.1.3) Hera next sent a gadfly to infest the cow,8 and the animal came first to what is called after her the Ionian gulf. Then she journeyed through Illyria and having traversed Mount Haemus she crossed what was then called the Thracian Straits but is now called after her the Bosphorus.9 And having gone away to Scythia and the Cimmerian land she wandered over great tracts of land and swam wide stretches of sea both in Europe and Asia until at last she came to Egypt, where she recovered her original form and gave birth to a son Epaphus beside the river Nile.10 Him Hera besought the Curetes to make away with, and make away with him they did. When Zeus learned of it, he slew the Curetes; but Io set out in search of the child. She roamed all over Syria, because there it was revealed to her that the wife of the king of Byblus was nursing her son;11


 


Pasted from


The Korahites From Hebrew Theology


The record speaks with some emphasis of a line of Korahites doorkeepers.


In the latest Old Testament times one Mattithiah, "the first-born of Shallum the Korahite," held "the office of trust over the things that were baked in pans" (1 Chronicles 9:31). Shallum was "the son of Kore, the son of Ebiasaph, the son of Korah." In this expression 15 or more generations are omitted between Ebiasaph and Kore, and perhaps as many between Kore and Shallum. The record proceeds to supply some of the omitted names between Kore and Shallum. The representative of the line in David's time was "Zechariah the son of Meshelemiah" (1 Chronicles 9:21). In all periods the Korahites were "keepers of the thresholds of the tent." Back in the time of "Phinehas the son of Eleazar," "their fathers had been over the camp of Yahweh" (1 Chronicles 9:19,20). Zechariah was, in his time, "porter of the door of the tent of meeting" (1 Chronicles 9:21), and Shallum was still the chief of the porters (1 Chronicles 9:17). The record for David's time supports and supplements this. It says that the doorkeepers, according to the arrangements made by David, included a Korahites contingent, its leading men being Meshelemiah and his son Zechariah (1 Chronicles 26:1,2,9,14), and that Meshelemiah was "the son of Kore, of the sons of Asaph." Adopting the common conjecture that Asaph is here a variant for Ebiasaph, we have here the same abridgment of the genealogical list as in 1Ch 9.


In 1 Chronicles 12:6 we have an account of 5 men who are designated as "the Korahites," who joined David when he was at Ziklag--Elkanah, Isshiah, Azarel, Joezer, Jashobeam. They are described as expert warriors, especially with the bow and sling...


More interesting, however, than the fighting Korahites who claimed succession from Moses to Nehemiah, are the. "sons of Korah" who were somehow connected with the service of song. One of the genealogies is introduced by the statement:


"These are they whom David set over the service of song in the house of Yahweh, after that the ark had rest. And they ministered with song before the tabernacle of the tent of meeting, until Solomon had built the house of Yahweh in Jerus" (1 Chronicles 6:31,32). ... In this way we are introduced to David's 3 great leaders in choral and orchestral music. Among them Heman the Korahite has at first the place of primacy, though Asaph, later, comes to the front. The events just referred to are mentioned again, more in detail, in the account of David's bringing the ark to Jerusalem.


Pasted from


According to Chronicles 9 and 26 and elsewhere in the writings of the Korahites were simply doorkeepers and guardians of the temple Possibly the late priestly story in Numbers 16 regarding the rebellion of Korahites and of the signal judgment that overtook them is the late traditional record of a rebellion of this guild of temple singers against the priests These were designated in post exilic days as the sons of Aaron that is the guild of priests that guarded the ark Hebrew ark In II Chronicles 20 however the Chronicler speaks of the Korahites singers but he assigns their activity to an early period in Israel's history thus confirming the conclusions already drawn In the days of the Levites of the sons of the Kohathites and of the sons of the Korahites stood to praise Jehovah the God of Israel with an exceedingly loud voice


Pasted from


 


Not only did the ground open and swallow all the men that pertained to Korah and their goods "alive," a fire came from God and "consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense" along with Korah (Numbers 6:32-35).


One of their family's duties was to carry the ark of the covenant.(Deuteronomy 10:8; I Chronicles 15:15)


Pasted from http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_smile-06/



-John R. Salverda



Dear John

....
I find it satisfying whenever you give a convincing Greek context to a biblical story,such as Balaam, and then a name like Phylac(us) - which one would not instinctively associate with Balak - becomes credible, makes sense. Sometimes, however, I do not see, 'feel', the connection (which does not necessarily mean that you are wrong, of course).

In the case of David, I would be more inclined to believe that an innocent display of religious exuberance, which became unwittingly exhibitionist, would have later been taken as full-on eroticism and orgiastic by the pagans.

There is no suggestion that Yahwistic religion involved phallic ritual.

Some thoughts

Damien.
 
 
Dear Damien,

Yes, but the religion of Baal-Peor was certainly orgiastic, and it was a direct competitor for the hearts of the Israelites (nomads who had to become city dwelling farmers and perhaps were looking for a "fertility" religion to help with their transition). The story of Zimri and Cozbi is an obvious allusion to the ritual of "sacred marriage," a well attested to rite that was used all over the Mediterranean in Egypt and in Babylon. David was no saint, and perhaps Michal was correct in her accusations (certainly there was no "sacred marriage" ritual, or fertility, in their house for the rest of her life).



Please consider the following quote from Herodotus with David as Cadmus and Balaam as Melampus;


"48. … the feast of Dionysus is celebrated by the Egyptians in the same way as by the Hellenes in almost all things except choral dances, but instead of the phallus they have invented another contrivance, namely figures of about a cubit in height worked by strings, which women carry about the villages, with the privy member made to move and not much less in size than the rest of the body: and a flute goes before and they follow singing the praises of Dionysus. As to the reason why the figure has this member larger than is natural and moves it, though it moves no other part of the body, about this there is a sacred story told. 49. Now I think that Melampus the son of Amythaon was not without knowledge of these rites of sacrifice, but was acquainted with them: for Melampus is he who first set forth to the Hellenes the name of Dionysus and the manner of sacrifice and the procession of the phallus. Strictly speaking indeed, he when he made it known did not take in the whole, but those wise men who came after him made it known more at large. Melampus then is he who taught of the phallus which is carried in procession for Dionysus, and from him the Hellenes learnt to do that which they do. I say then that Melampus being a man of ability contrived for himself an art of divination, and having learnt from Egypt he taught the Hellenes many things, and among them those that concern Dionysus, making changes in some few points of them: for I shall not say that that which is done in worship of the god in Egypt came accidentally to be the same with that which is done among the Hellenes, for then these rites would have been in character with the Hellenic worship and not lately brought in; nor certainly shall I say that the Egyptians took from the Hellenes either this or any other customary observance: but I think it most probable that Melampus learnt the matters concerning Dionysus from Cadmus the Tyrian and from those who came with him from Phoenicia to the land which we now call Boeotia." (Herod. 2,48,49)


As always, I greatly appreciate your thoughts, -John
 

Dear John
 
Certainly "David was no saint", as you say. The Uriah situation was appalling of course.
Though David probably became a saint in the end, a 'man after God's own heart'. Who can boast that?
There is no suggestion in the Scriptures - which we know do not hide the faults of kings - that David's Ark of the Covenant gyrations were in any way offensive to God or constituted any elements of apostasy.
 
Damien.  

Monday, June 4, 2012

On the Tudors and the Prophet Ezechiel





John Salverda re Tudor post of Tues May 29



....


I guess I just don’t buy it. “Tudor” was the real last name of these monarchs. Certainly it was “used” as such. It is known that Henry VII (Henry Tudor) went to extreme measures to “brand” the Tudor name (See; http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/mar/02/tudors-henry-vii-wars-roses?INTCMP=SRCH) The so called “Tudor Rose” was designed at the beginning of the Dynasty and was used as a emblem throughout (you can see it all over in the contemporary statuary and paintings). What is the point of this article? Surely the Dynasty itself was not a myth. Does the author intend to say that the “historic” stories of the period are mythic, or simply that the use of the term “Tudor,” during the Tudor Dynasty, is a myth? Sorry Dr. Davies but just because you can’t find any contemporary references to the name Tudor, is no evidence that it was unused at the time. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as they say. In this case I think that it is best to trust common sense on the matter. I on 'Tudor era' is misleading myth, says Oxford historian

....


Exchange re Tudors and Prophet Ezechiel




Dear John




I hope that your comment on the Tudors might get a discussion going.

The name Aeschylus ('Father of Tragedy') has struck me as a Greek version of Ezechiel (Eschyl = Ezchil).
And apparently a writer named Herder has actually referred to Ezechiel as an 'Aeschylus':
....
Whedon - Commentary on Ezekiel-Daniel
www.westbrookewesleyan.org/wesleyan-docs/.../WHD_CO08.PDFYou ....
....
by DD Whedon - 2002 .... "Herder has called him the AEschylus and Shakespeare of the Hebrews, while Schiller wished to study Hebrew chiefly because he longed to read Ezekiel in his ...".

Any ideas there?

Regards
Damien Mackey.





Dear Damien,



I too hope to loosen up your audience to the idea of a discussion, they think that they have nothing to add, but they could be wrong about that. Sometimes even what a person believes is a trifling remark can spark a significant idea in another. The process of “discussion” can be a very important one.

Now, as to the equation of the names “Ezekiel” and “Aeschylus.” In my opinion they are almost certainly transliterations of the same name. The Hebrew prophet Ezekiel lived only about one hundred years before the Greek playwright Aeschylus (conventionally speaking); and the Greek culture and people were heavily influenced and populated by Israelites, in my view.

As to the idea that they might be one and the same person; I would still need to be convinced of that. (I actually feel more certain about Homer = Omri, and Hesiod = Isaiah because of the supposed chronology) I am sorry to say that I couldn’t take into account the support articles that you sent me because they were in PDF format (I have declined to download Adobe for lack of disc space).

Never- the-less I do have some ideas that do tend to support the notion. Aeschylus seems to have had an intimate knowledge of Hebrew theology, for instance, he wrote “Prometheus Bound” Wherein he seems to be familiar with the Exodus wanderings, the Law Covenant, and the idea of the Messiah. With only but a small fraction of what he wrote available to us today, (he wrote about an hundred plays but we only less than ten have survived,) it is a bit difficult to tell what he may have been preaching to those ancient Greeks.

So far as I know he was the first Greek mythographer to link “the wanderings of Io” (the Jew), with Prometheus, the creator of man who was “bound” to his mountain (God bound by contract/covenant to Sinai). Aeschylus has Io, driven by a divinely ordained plague (gadfly) wander to the mountain of Prometheus, where he tells her that he will be freed from his “bindings” (covenant) by a descendant (the Messiah, by whom he means Heracles) of hers, thirteen generations hence. Re-read my article on Io (at http://westerncivilisationamaic.blogspot.com/2012/01/more-on-moses-as-hermes.html ) surely Aeschylus was relating traditions that he was fully familiar with.

I hope that this is of some help to you in your researches, but I must say, that Ezekiel seems to be more focused upon the future return of the tribes of Israel to join with Judah (Eze. 37:15). He does speak of the Exodus (Chapter 20) but not in the terms of God being “bound” to the covenant, to him the people were bound, but broke the covenant. He mentions David (thirteen generations from Abraham) in Messianic terms four times, but usually as a future Messiah who rules over the “re-gathered” Israel. He speaks of a future "peace covenant" without mentioning the dissolution of the old covenant at Sinai.

....

Sunday, June 3, 2012

Aesop Undoubtedly Oriental in Origin





Ahiqar or Ahikar was an Assyrian sage known in the ancient Near East for his outstanding wisdom.
The Story of Ahikar, also known as the Words of Ahikar, has been found in an Aramaic papyrus of 500 B.C. among the ruins of Elephantine. The narrative of the initial part of the story is expanded greatly by the presence of a large number of wise sayings and proverbs that Ahikar is portrayed as speaking to his nephew. It is suspected by most scholars that these sayings and proverbs were originally a separate document, as they do not mention Ahikar. Some of the sayings are similar to parts of the Biblical Book of Proverbs, others to the deuterocanonical Wisdom of Sirach, and others still to Babylonian and Persian proverbs. The collection of sayings is in essence a selection from those common in the Middle East at the time.
Achiacharus is the name occurring in the Book of Tobit as that of a nephew of Tobit (Tobias) and an official at the court of Esarhaddon at Nineveh. There are references in Romanian, Slavonic, Armenian, Arabic and Syriac literature to a legend, of which the hero is Ahikar for Armenian (ԽիկարXikar), Arabic and Syriac. It was pointed out by scholar George Hoffmann in 1880 that this Ahikar and the Achiacharus of Tobit are identical. It has been contended that there are traces of the legend even in the New Testament, and there is a striking similarity between it and the Life of Aesop by Maximus Planudes (ch. xxiii-xxxii). An eastern sage Achaicarus is mentioned by Strabo. It would seem, therefore, that the legend was undoubtedly oriental in origin, though the relationship of the various versions can scarcely be recovered.

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

'Tudor era' is misleading myth, says Oxford historian




By Sean Coughlan


BBC News education correspondent

Costume dramas have often depicted the Tudors: How the BBC represented Henry VII in the 1970s Continue reading the main story

Related Stories

In pictures: The Tudors costumes

Why is Tudor fiction so popular? Listen

Summer dangerous time for Tudors

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.



There are also suggestions the name was downplayed by Tudor royals because of its associations with Wales.



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".



Henry VII was the first of the line of Tudor monarchs 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.



Continue reading the main story



Start Quote

The word 'Tudor' is used obsessively by historians. But it was almost unknown at the time.”

End Quote

Dr Cliff Davies



University of Oxford

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."



More on This Story

Related StoriesIn pictures: The Tudors costumes 19 JANUARY 2011, ARTS AND CULTURE

Why is Tudor fiction so popular? 10 MAY 2012, TODAY

Summer dangerous time for Tudors 03 APRIL 2012, EDUCATION & FAMILY

Related Internet linksOxford University

Around the BBCBBC History: The Tudors The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites



....

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Rebuilding the Christian Civilization






Categories:Church Teaching, Defending the Faith, Evangelization



Is it too late to reverse our "culture of death"? Pope John Paul II didn't think so. That is why he devised a grand strategy called the New Evangelization with the ultimate goal of building a "civilization of love". Dr. Scott Hahn, lay theologian, presents the biblical blueprint for the Holy Father's building project, along with practical steps we can use to implement this plan in our own homes.


This is a call to arms for Catholics! Dr. Hahn challenges us to turn the tide in the battle for our Church and our families.



Kelly - Gainesville, FL


Dr. Hahn's talk was a real eye opener that points out the urgent need for a new evangelization!

Bob - Syracuse, NY



....

Taken from: http://www.lighthousecatholicmedia.org/store/speaker/dr_scott_hahn

Sunday, May 6, 2012

Salmoneus as Judah




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



by John R. Salverda



Brit-Am Background:

John R. Salverda shows parallels between the Greek hero known as Salmoneus and Judah the Patriarch, forefather of the Jews. This association may perhaps be paralleled by the confusion of Josephus ("Against Apion" 1.173) between the Solymi (a Phoenician-speaking people once found in Lycia in what is now southern Turkey) with inhabitants of Jerusalem. Homer placed the Phaeacians near the Solymi and there may indeed be grounds to identify the Phaeacians with inhabitants of Britain.



Salmoneus as Judah



Having practically exhausted the evidences for associating the Sisyphus cycle of Greek mythology with the Joseph cycle from the Hebrew Scriptures, we are still left with the character called Salmoneus.



1. The enmity between the House of Joseph and the House of Judah is comparable to that between Sisyphus and Salmoneus. Sisyphus keeps trying to establish his stone upon the archetypical mountain, while Salmoneus had appropriated the worship of god to his altars exclusively.



The story of Salmoneus seems to be based, however loosely, upon the history of the House of Judah with its holy city at Jerusalem, which was referred to once upon a time as, 'Salem,' and made the capitol because its great Temple was founded there by its famous King Solomon. At the beginning of Judean history, is the story of Judah and Tamar. Here we have a tale that has perplexed Biblical scholars for centuries not so much for what it contains, but rather for where it is located. Right smack in the middle of the Joseph cycle, just as he is being sold to Potiphar at the end of chapter 37, comes chapter 38 which contains the entire story of Judah and Tamar with no mention of Joseph throughout, and then, at the start of chapter 39, the narrative returns to the story of Joseph once again right where it left off, at the selling of Joseph to Potiphar, the continuity of the Joseph cycle being completely interrupted. This, apparent artificial, location of the Judah story we are told, in what seems more like a stretch than an explanation, is positioned to contrast the steadfast virtue of Joseph against the incestuous unrighteousness of Judah. Regardless of the Judah episode's placement, studying the Sisyphus cycle of Greek mythology as it relates to the Joseph cycle in the Scriptures, testifies in favor of believing, at least, that the Judah story was already a part of the Joseph cycle, even before the Joseph cycle was included in the book of Genesis. This is evident because, the myth of Sisyphus, ostensibly a collection of the Joseph stories that was current before its inclusion in the Genesis narrative, already contains its own version of the birth of Tamar's twins, as the story of Tyro's twins.



Before we get on with the comparison of these two stories let us first compare the names of the two mothers. The name "Tyro," we are informed by Robert Graves, author of, "The Greek Myths," was the name of "...the Goddess-mother of the Tyrians..." this was, no doubt, merely a worn down version of the more well known form of the name for the mother goddess of the Canaanites, "Ashterah," omitting the prefix, "Ash-" as perfunctory. Now, as is well known, the Greeks referred to the Canaanites as Phoenicians, a name that derives from the Greek name "Phoenix" which means, in their language, "palm tree," however, in Hebrew the word for "palm tree" is "Tamar." Thus, both women can be said to have names that associate them with the Phoenicians. Incidentally, the mother-in-law of Tamar, the wife of Judah, known only as, "the daughter of Shua" in the Scriptures, is identified as a Canaanitess, while the wicked step mother of Tyro, whom the Greeks called Sidero is thought to be the eponym of Sidon the original settlement of the Canaanites. Because, unlike the name Tyro, the name "Sidero" has retained its prefix, it is even more plausibly derived from the name of the widely known Canaanite goddess Ashterah. (those who doubt the original identification between the two names Sidero and Ashterah should consider the two comparable English terms sidereal and astro-.)



Let us now continue with the comparison of the two stories, of course, anyone who studies the two accounts will find many differences between them, no doubt the differences are as important, if not more important, than are the similarities, which are also many and are quite comparable. Both the stories of Tamar and Tyro begin with the killing of two brothers. In each case the pair of brothers die as a prerequisite to explain two things, why the respective women had no children, and why they were sent away to the place where each would eventually become pregnant with, each their own, set of twins. The two brothers who die in the tale of Tyro were her own children, (by Sisyphus) while those in the story of Tamar were her two husbands and represented her chance to have children. Tamar was sent away to live with her father, while Tyro was banished from Thessaly along with her father. Tamar's father-in-law Judah became a widower, while Tyro's father Salmoneus became a widower. Each woman, in the land of their exile, desiring to become pregnant, made a plan that involved waiting at a place where they each expected their intended to pass, Tyro on the riverbank at the confluence of two rivers, the Enipeus and the Alphieus, while Tamar waited on the roadside where the road to Enaim branched off of the road to Timnah. In each case, the sex act itself was intentionally deceptive, because one of the partners wore a disguise so as not to be recognized. Of course, as we have said, twin boys were born, in each case, as a result of the deception. Furthermore, the paternity of each pair of twins came into question, Salmoneus, Tyro's father, doubted the fatherhood of her twins, while Judah, Tamar's father-in-law, also had to be convinced in regard to her pregnancy. In each story, before the respective twins were born, the true father was revealed and he gave a little speech to the respective women, the intent of which was to justify, each their own, pregnancies and to legitimize the eventual progeny of it. Another weird coincidence, is the fact that both tales include a report, so saying that the first born was marked at birth, and got a colorful name as a result, the Scriptural "Zerah" was named after the "scarlet" ribbon that was tied around his wrist to mark his preeminence, while the mythical firstborn "Pelias," was named for the "black and blue" mark that he received when a horse stepped on his face at his birth. As it turned out, with each set of twins, both children grew up to be the founders of illustrious houses among the Aeolians and the Judeans respectively. Well, so much for the part of the myth of Salmoneus which has to do, however little, with Sisyphus, we shall now continue with the rest of the saga of Salmoneus.



Besides having an echo of the earliest history about the nation of Judah, these Greeks seem to have a few more details to add, such as the name 'Salmoneus' itself, which is an obvious Greek version of the name of that most illustrious of Judean rulers King Solomon. With this realization, an evolution of the myth of Salmoneus can be surmised to have occurred in three steps; firstly, the story about the birth of the Judean twins, Perez and Zerah, whose story, as we have said, precipitated the birth myth of the Greek twins Neleus and Pelias; secondly, the addition of the city of 'Salem' and the founding of the Temple by 'Solomon,' is ostensibly what lead to the use of the name 'Salmoneus' as well as the notion that he founded a city called 'Salmonia,' and appropriated the worship of Zeus to his altar; and thirdly, in the end of the myths about Salmoneus, we are told of the divine destruction of Salmoneus and his city, Salmonia. This third point would appear to have been too late to have been included in Greek mythology however, as the famous mythographer, H. J. Rose has pointed out, "It is noteworthy that Homer knows nothing of any evil reputation of Salmoneus, of whom indeed he speaks respectfully.' ('A Handbook of Greek Mythology,' p.83). The Homeric writings are much earlier than the rest of Greek mythologies and it was probably not until the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC., that an evil reputation became attached to the character of Salmoneus. The destruction of Jerusalem was looked upon by some, including the Greeks apparently, to have been an act of punishment upon the city, brought about by God Himself, this no doubt, gave rise to the parallel Greek myth about the destruction of Salmonia.



-John R. Salverda





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

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



Thursday, April 12, 2012

Distancing Oneself from Velikovsky






In answer to a reader's comment on Velikovsky:




.... I think [Velikovsky] is appreciated because he thought of the idea of re-jigging the Egyptian chronology but seems to be rather crazy overall. Sounds as though these fellows are wise to distance themselves from him. ....




I wrote:



Distancing Oneself

from Velikovsky



by
 Damien F. Mackey



--------------------------------------------------------------------



…. the point of this little article is that revisionists, even if now they have adopted quite a different system, owe their beginning to Immanuel Velikovsky. For whatever reason, God allowed him, and him only, a man who may not even have believed in God, to be the one to determine that 18th dynasty Egyptian history needed to be brought down the time scale by a multiplicity of centuries.



--------------------------------------------------------------------





Let us get one thing very clear. The revision of ancient history as pursued by groups such as the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (UK) and Catastrophism and Ancient History (Los Angeles, CA), and now by many other individuals and groups using various forms of social media, would never have seen the light of day but for the efforts of Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky, a Russian Jew. Even Dr. Courville’s worthy early effort, The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, I & II (Loma Linda Ca, 1971), though largely an original contribution, based itself on Velikovsky’s important 500-year shift of the 18th Egyptian dynasty to the time of the kingdom of Israel (Saul, David and Solomon).



Here I am interested only in Velikovsky’s historical revision, not his scientific interpretations, which involve some dramatic planetary catastrophism supposedly affecting the biblical Exodus and the destruction of Sennacherib’s Assyrian army of 185,000. These, which I do not personally favour, make for some terrific reading, nevertheless, and would be exciting movie viewing.



Whilst some still follow Velikovsky slavishly, both his history and his science, it was the UK branch, including some very talented individuals, who, as early as the late 70’s, tended to watch critically his historical outputs, finally rebelling outright - as well they should, I think - when confronted with his location of the 19th Egyptian (Ramesside) dynasty: Ramses II and His Time and Peoples of the Sea.



But it needs to be noted that, until that time, the UK revisionists were ‘Velikovskian’ in their acceptance of the important 500-year downward shift of Egyptian history, with the talented ‘Glasgow School’ slightly modifying Velikovsky (as we shall read) and bringing the revision to something of a peak. From that happy moment in time it has generally been a free-fall down the mountain.



So the point of this little article is that revisionists, even if now they have adopted quite a different system, owe their beginning to Immanuel Velikovsky. For whatever reason, God allowed him, and him only, a man who may not even have believed in God, to be the one to determine that 18th dynasty Egyptian history needed to be brought down the time scale by a multiplicity of centuries.



But the UK (in particular) revisionists, aware that Velikovsky was regarded with contempt by the conventional scholars, whose system they themselves were completely undermining - though perhaps also seeking some academic respectability - and aware that Velikovsky’s latter phase revision, e.g. the 19th dynasty of Egypt, was archaeologically untenable (though loyal Velikovskians have clung to it), sought to distance themselves from Velikovsky completely, they hardly at all, or at least very scarcely, even mentioning him in their later books and publications. And when they did mention him, they laughed him off as a “wayward polymath”, or “maverick”. Now, whilst these epithets can be appropriate in the right context, they are mean and miserable when revisionists fail to admit their owing a debt to Velikovsky.



The most arrogant example of this, which is not only unjust to Velikovsky but which demeans all those others who have put a lot of effort into a revision of ancient history - as well as the writings of ‘Creationists’ - was this piece in the flyleaf introducing David Rohl’s The Lost Testament (Century, 2002) as if the revision recognizing the over-extension of chronology by modern researchers had begun with him in 1995 (forgetting Velikovsky’s beginnings in the 1940’s):



The earliest part of the bible is recognised as the foundation-stone of three great religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – yet over the last century archaeologists and historians have signally failed to find any evidence to confirm the events described in the ‘book of books’. As a consequence, many scholars took the view that the Old Testament was little more than a work or fiction. The testimony of biblical history had, in effect, been lost.



Then, in 1995, this scholarly skepticism over the historicity of the Bible was suddenly challenged when Egyptologist and historian, David Rohl, burst onto the scene with a new theory. He suggested that modern researchers had constructed an artificially long chronology for the ancient world - a false time-line which had dislocated the Old Testament events from their real historical setting. The alternative ‘New Chronology’ - first published in A Test of Time: The Bible From Myth to History - created a world-wide sensation and was fiercely resisted by the more conservative elements within academia. Seven years on, however, the chronological reconstruction has developed apace and numerous new discoveries have been made.



Now, in his new book, The Lost Testament, David Rohl reveals the entire story of the Children of Yahweh - set in its true historical context. An astounding number of references in the literature of neighbouring civilizations are shown to synchronise with the Old Testament accounts, confirming events which had previously been dismissed as mythical. In addition, this contemporary literature - combined with the archaeological record - reveals new information and new stories about personalities such as Enoch, Noah, Nimrod, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Sau1, David and Solomon.



The Bible has at last been recovered from the ruins of the ancient past as the ‘when’, ‘where’ and ‘who’ are explained - throwing unforeseen and fascinating new light on the world's most treasured book.



[End of quote]





Rohl was one of those more talented and qualified UK revisionists, along with Dr. John Bimson and Peter James, the latter two being an integral part of the ‘Glasgow School’ which included Martin Sieff. Rohl is a brilliant presenter and good writer and his books are sumptuously and colourfully presented. And I strongly recommend his account of Nimrod in Chapter Four of The Lost Testament. And I also recommend, for its work of exposing the conventional chronology and archaeology, but not for its rebuilding efforts, Peter James’s (et al.) Centuries of Darkness, which has become something of a classic. But I personally believe that the so-called ‘New Chronology’ of Rohl, somewhat similar to James’s, which has come to dominate the revision, lying halfway between convention and Velikovsky, fails at virtually every point despite the optimistic advertisements. It is far inferior to Courville’s and Sieff’s respective revisions, with Sieff tending to persevere with the promising ‘Glasgow’ line, but with modifications of his own.



Sieff, in fact, adopted the perfect approach to Velikovsky, by building upon his solid foundations, but also, in the best ‘Glasgow’ fashion, modifying where there were problems, and rejecting outright Velikovsky’s glaring mistakes. He even wrote by far the best account of the psychology of Velikovsky (who was a psychiatrist), the fascinating “Velikovsky and His Heroes” (SIS Review, vol. v, no. 4, 1980/81, pp. 112-120).



I, in my 1993 university thesis,




A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background








once again paid my dues to this amazing and enigmatic scholar, Velikovsky, right at the beginning in my Preface (but in many other places as well).




‘You are the glory of Jerusalem!



You are the great pride of Israel!



You are the highest honour of our race!’



(Judith 15:9)



Preface




This thesis, as it stands, would most definitely never have seen the light of day had it not been for my having come across, in the early 1980’s, the revised historical systems of Drs. Immanuel Velikovsky and Donovan Courville (published between the early 1950’s to 1970’s), with their proposed radical lowering of the important 18th Egyptian dynasty by 500 years on the time scale, and their subsequent stratigraphical realignments. After that, the work was continued in the U.S. and Canada with some genuine developments, and certain necessary modifications, by the contributors to Pensée, founded by David Talbott - a journal important for, amongst other things, its scholarly treatment of Sothic dating, including specialized pieces by Velikovsky - and Kronos, edited by Professor Lewis M. Greenberg, and spanning thirteen years (1975-1988), with its highly important contributions towards bringing art history into a proper perspective. The Associate Editor of Kronos, Ev Cochrane, would go on (since 1988) to publish the important journal Aeon, still functioning today, with its relevant publications in history, comparative mythology, and archaeoastronomy; whilst Dwardu Cardona, the founder of the Canadian Society for Interdisciplinary Studies, would become Aeon’s senior editor. The Los Angeles based journal of the later 1970’s and early 1980’s, Catastrophism & Ancient History, edited by Marvin Luckerman, featured some useful and wide-ranging contributions - particularly of an historical nature - from both the U.S. and the U.K.



In the U.K, the Velikovskian-based (initially, at least) revision was championed especially by the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies, particularly by what became known as the ‘Glasgow School’, in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, some of whose modifications of Velikovsky I think have been highly impressive.



There have also arisen, in the more recent decades, certain fine individual contributions of a multidisciplinary (or transdisciplinary) nature from members of some of the abovementioned journals and/or schools, who may have decided to branch out on their own and develop their idiosyncratic systems of revision.



Overall, I have endeavoured to take into account what I consider to be the best and most historically plausible contributions of this growing body of scholarship, always with due acknowledgement, and to synthesise these, as far as possible, into a coherent whole: historical, stratigraphical (including art history) and archaeo-astronomical.



Apart from the absolute chronological factor of the Velikovskian (taken up by Courville) downward shift in time of 500 years, as referred to above, there is another more specific aspect of Velikovsky’s revision upon which I shall be most heavily dependent throughout chiefly VOLUME ONE of this thesis, A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background. I refer to Velikovsky’s identification - one formerly approved and supported by competent revisionists from the ‘Glasgow School’ - of two successive ‘Amorite’ kings in the el-Amarna correspondence (conventionally dated to the C14th BC) with successive ‘Syrian’ (biblical) kings of the C9th BC: namely, Velikovsky’s identification of el-Amarna’s Abdi-ashirta and Aziru, with, respectively, Ben-Hadad [I] and Hazael.

….







[End of quote]



The bottom line?

Out of a sense of justice - give credit where credit is due.





Easter 2012 (“He is risen!”)