A Huge Pain trying to find a history of Hugues de Payens

by Damien F. Mackey C12th AD or time of the Apostles? Acts 19:1-7 describes a group of twelve disciples met by St. Paul in Corinth who had not yet evolved from John to Jesus Christ (and the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete) as had the Apostles. Whilst there can be differing versions and variants of it, a typical account of the beginnings of the Knights Templar will go something like what we read here in this 2016 article: https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-important-events/secrets-knights-templar-knights-john-baptist-005088 Secrets of the Knights Templar: The Knights of John the Baptist Soon after the Knights Templar founded their order in the Holy Land in 1118 AD they assimilated into a very ancient gnostic tradition and lineage known as the Johannite Church, which had been founded by St. John the Baptist more than a thousand years previously. The ruling patriarch of this ancient tradition when the Templar Order first formed was Theoclete. The Johannites and St. John the Baptist Theoclete met the first Templar grandmaster, Hughes de Payens and then passed the mantle of his Johannite authority to him. Hughes de Payens thus became John #70 in a long line of gnostic Johannites (the “Johns”) that had begun with John the Baptist and included: Jesus, John the Apostle, and Mary Magdalene. John was not just a name, but also an honorific title meaning “He of Gnostic Power and Wisdom.” It is related to the Sanskrit Jnana (pronounced Yana), meaning “Gnosis.” …. [End of quote] This, the “Johns”, reminds me of an English taxi driver whom I encountered at the time of my arrival in Sydney (Australia) - from Hobart via the US, Canada and Britain - in the late 70’s, who had the British quirk (at least) in those days of calling every male, “John”, including me. Immediately after telling me, “John”, what a cosmopolitan and welcoming city Sydney was, he had his head out the window loudly abusing a passing driver. Speaking of loose heads, St. John the Baptist, referred to above, lost his (Matthew 14:10-11), had to, in fact, according to some theologians, because the great man, John the Baptist, was “the head of the Old Testament”. Symbolically, then, it was necessary for this “head” to be removed in order to make way for the New Testament (Matthew 11:11): ‘Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he’. John the Baptist, the purpose of whose whole self-effacing life was to prepare the way for ‘the One who was to come’ (Luke 7:19), would have been horrified, would have rolled in his grave, had he learned that that ‘One’ was actually subservient to himself. Once Jesus had arrived, John’s career was ‘complete’ (John 3:29): ‘The friend who attends the Bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the Bridegroom’s voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete’. Some sects though, e.g. the Gnostic-like Mandaeans, seem to have perpetuated a mistaken view that John the Baptist, not Jesus, was the true Messiah. There appears to be much of this sort of mentality, too, in accounts of the supposedly “Johannite” Templars. Acts 19:1-7 describes a group of twelve disciples met by St. Paul in Corinth who had not yet evolved from John to Jesus Christ (and to the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete) as had the Apostles: While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, ‘Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?’ They answered, ‘No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit’. So Paul asked, ‘Then what baptism did you receive?’ ‘John’s baptism’, they replied. Paul said, ‘John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the One coming after him, that is, in Jesus’. On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all. This is already very much like the first Knights Templar of tradition: a group of pious men, followers of the Baptist, who, like Hugues (Hugh/Hughes) de Payens and his first band of holy men, had an encounter with a ‘Theoclete’ (= God-Holy Spirit). Might it be even more than this? Might this ‘Theoclete’ event, the encounter with the so-called Hugues de Payens, have actually occurred in the time of the Apostles, and not in a supposed 1118 AD? It is the purpose of this article to explore that unconventional idea. Hugues de Payen’s historical obscurity Theoclete, a “living Christ”, is Jesus (and/or the Holy Trinity), and Hugues de Payens represents Saint Peter, his close friend, André de Montbard, representing Andrew, Peter’s brother, with the other early Templars being the band of Apostles. The purpose of this article is to show that the incident of the founding of the Knights Templar, the encounter between Theoclete and Hugues de Payens, is simply a later appropriation (a European one) of the entrustment of the Church, by Jesus Christ himself, to Saint Peter, who was formerly a follower of St. John the Baptist. In other words, Theoclete, described as the “living Christ”, is Jesus (and/or the Holy Trinity), and Hugues de Payens represents Saint Peter, his close friend, André de Montbard, representing Andrew, Peter’s brother, with the other early Templars being the band of Apostles. Some of the words (speeches) of Hugues de Payens can be found to match those of Saint Peter. At this stage, though, I can find no relationship between their actual names. But Hugues himself is historically problematical, anyway. His historical obscurity reminds me of what I have found to have been the case with the so-called ‘Ionian’ (Greek) philosophers, and others, about some of whose lives we know virtually nothing, with little or no extant writings, leading me to conclude firmly that these were non-historical beings, often biblically-based (composite) characters. See e.g. my articles: Re-Orienting to Zion the History of Ancient Philosophy https://www.academia.edu/4105845/Re_Orienting_to_Zion_the_History_of_Ancient_Philosophy and: Apollonius of Tyana, like Philo, a fiction (5) Apollonius of Tyana, like Philo, a fiction | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu At the site: https://erenow.net/postclassical/the-real-history-behind-the-templars/3.php we read just how obscure is this enigmatic character, Hugues de Payens (or Payns), he also being known as “Hugo de Peanz”, or “Hugo de Pedans”, or “Hugonis de Peans”, or even “Hugh de Paganis”. (My emphasis added to following): Home Post-classical history History Behind the Templars Page 3 CHAPTER TWO Hugh de Payns Amid all the different theories about the beginning of the Templars there is one constant. The founder of the order was a certain Hugh de Payns, knight. Some say he and a few comrades first approached the patriarch of Jerusalem, asking to live a monastic life in the city. Others report the men went to Baldwin II, king of Jerusalem. Still others suggest that it was Baldwin who asked Hugh and his friends to act as protectors to the many pilgrims coming from the West to Jerusalem. In all of these, the main constant is Hugh. But who was Hugh? Where is Payns? What was his background and who were his family? What could have led him to devote his life to fighting for God? Despite his importance, even in his own day, a contemporary biography of Hugh has never been found. Nor has any medieval writer even mentioned reading one. I find this interesting because it indicates to me the uneasiness people felt about the idea of warrior monks. Other men who founded orders, like Francis of Assisi or Robert of Arbrissel, had biographies written about them immediately after their deaths. The main purpose of this was to have an eyewitness account of their saintliness in case they were suggested for canonization. Of the little that was written about Hugh, nothing was negative, but there .... does not seem to have been any sense that he was in line for sainthood. So how do we find out more about this man who started it all? The first clue we have is from the chronicler William of Tyre. He says that Hugh came from the town of Payns, near Troyes in the county of Champagne. …. William also mentions Hugh’s companion, Godfrey of St. Omer, in Picardy, now Flanders. These two men seem, in William’s eyes, to be cofounders of the Templars, but it was Hugh who became the first Grand Master. This may have been through natural leadership, but it also may have been because Hugh had the right connections. Payns is a small town in France, near Troyes, the seat of the counts of Champagne. It is situated in a fertile farmland that even then had a reputation for its wine. It’s not known when Hugh was born, or who his parents were. The first mention of him in the records is from about 1085-1090, when a “Hugo de Pedano, Montiniaci dominus,” or Hugh of Payns, lord of Montigny, witnessed a charter in which Hugh, count of Champagne, donated land to the abbey of Molesme. …. In order to be a witness, our Hugh had to have been at least sixteen. So he was probably born around 1070. Over the next few years, four more charters of the count are witnessed by a “Hugo de Peanz” or “Hugo de Pedans.” Actually, the place name is spelled slightly differently each time it appears. …. It is also spelled “Hughes.” Spelling was much more of a creative art back then. However, it’s fairly certain that these are all the same man. These show that Hugh was part of the court of the count of Champagne, perhaps even related to him. The last of these charters in Champagne is from 1113. The next time we find the name Hugh de Payns, it is in 1120 in Jerusalem. …. So now we have confirmation of the story that Hugh was in Jerusalem in 1119-1120 to found the Templars outside of later histories. However, it is not until five years later that Hugh witnesses a charter in which he lists himself as “Master of the Knights Templar.” …. In between, he is witness to a donation made in 1123 by Garamond, patriarch of Jerusalem, to the abbey of Santa Maria de Josaphat. Here Hugh is listed only by the name “Hugonis de Peans.” There is no mention of the Templars and Hugh is near the end of the list of witnesses, showing that he was not one of the most important people present. …. How did Hugh get to Jerusalem? What happened in those five years between witnessing a charter as a layman and becoming Master of the Templars? We can guess, but unless more information appears, we can’t know for certain. The most likely reason for Hugh to have gone to the Holy Land was in the company of Count Hugh. The count made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, his second, in 1114. …. There is no list of his companions, but it would fit that Hugh de Payns would have been in his company. Hugh was already among those at court often enough to be a witness to the count’s donations and therefore one of his liege men. But he must have been released from his obligation to his lord for, when Count Hugh returned home, Hugh de Payns remained in Jerusalem. Why? Again, Hugh hasn’t left anything to tell us. Was it as penance for his sins? Most pilgrimages were intended as a quest for divine forgiveness. Many people have insisted that knights only went to the Holy Land for wealth, either in land or goods looted from those they conquered. But in Hugh’s case, once he decided to remain in Jerusalem he resolved to live the life of a monk, owning nothing. It is even more surprising because Hugh apparently left a wife and at least one young child behind. His wife was named Elizabeth. She was probably from the family of the lords of Chappes, land quite close to Payns. …. Their son, Thibaud, became abbot of the monastery of La Colombe….. Hugh may have had two other children, Guibuin and Isabelle, but I don’t find the evidence for them completely convincing. …. However, after founding the commandery, it appears that Hugh donated nothing more to it. He returned to Jerusalem, probably around 1130, and died in 1136. May 24 is the traditional date. The records we have from the early twelfth century give no more information on Hugh de Payns. Of course, much has been lost over the years. Some of the Templar records in Europe were destroyed after the dissolution of the order at the Council of Vienne. This doesn’t seem to have been because the information was secret or heretical, simply that it was no longer needed and the parchment could be scraped and reused. The main Templar archives, which might have had more information on Hugh, were not in Europe, however, but in Jerusalem. They were moved to Acre and then Cyprus, where they were in 1312. War and conquest ensured that anything left was scattered or destroyed. Perhaps there was once a biography of sorts of Hugh de Payns. It seems to me that someone would have wanted to tell the world more about him. What we can deduce from his actions is that he must have been a strong-willed man, very devout and with the ability to convince others to see and follow his vision. He does not seem to have been particularly well educated. Nothing in his life or background would indicate that he was involved in anything of a mystical nature, nor that he founded the Templars to protect some newly discovered treasure or secret, as modern myths state. Hugh de Payns was most likely a deeply devout layman who wanted to serve God by protecting His pilgrims and His land. Hugh used his wealth, such as it was, and his family and social connections to make this possible. Nothing more. But, before that, some background will be needed. [End of quote] What we find in this mix is that there is no known contemporary biography of Hugh de Payens. Nor did any medieval writers ever mention having read one. Both Hugh’s place of birth and his parentage are unknown. While the above would suggest that he was French, he is variously known as Ugo of Nocera de' Pagani in Campania, southern Italy. There is a lack of evidence for the supposed two children he is thought to have fathered. All records appear to have been either lost or destroyed. This all conspires to make of Hugh de Payens, in historical terms, a very shadowy figure indeed. Legends about Hugh fit well the character of Saint Peter. For example: … he resolved to live the life of a monk, owning nothing. … he must have been a strong-willed man, very devout and with the ability to convince others to see and follow his vision. He does not seem to have been particularly well educated. Nothing in his life or background would indicate that he was involved in anything of a mystical nature, nor that he founded the Templars to protect some newly discovered treasure or secret, as modern myths state. Hugh de Payns was most likely a deeply devout layman who wanted to serve God …. Certainly, Peter bore a sword - though he was not a Knight - and he was prepared to use it (John 18:10). And so we have: “The Falchion or Malchus, the rarest medieval sword”. https://br.pinterest.com/pin/753860425100347974/ Did not Peter draw his sword to cut off the ear of one Malchus? John 18:10: “Then Simon Peter drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus”. The extraordinary notion that the Knights Templar arose “to save souls … by protecting pilgrims travelling the Holy Land” (https://theconversation.com/knights-templar-still-loved-by-conspiracy-theorists-900-years-on-128582), may be due to the Apostles protecting pilgrim souls in the Holy Land by showing them “the Way”, first announced by the prophet Isaiah, but pointing to, appropriately, John the Baptist (Matthew 3:1-3): In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea and saying, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near’. This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: “A voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the Way for the Lord, make straight paths for him’.” When Jesus came, He identified himself as this ‘Way” (John 14:6): ‘I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me’. Theoclete ‘the living Christ’ According to the traditional view: https://warsoftherosoes.blogspot.com/2017/12/johannite-order.html "At the time of Hugh de Payers, Theocletes was the living "Christ" of the Johannites. He communicated to the founders of the Temple the ideas of a sovereign priesthood of dedicated and initiated men united for the purpose of overthrowing the bishops of Rome and the establishment of universal civil liberty. The secret object of the Johannites was the restoration of the esoteric tradition and the gathering of mankind under the one eternal religion of the world. " - Orders of the Quest, The Holy Grail (Adept Series) by Manly P. Hall pg 31 This is all later legend. Returning to the 2016 article, we read: https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-important-events/secrets-knights-templar-knights-john-baptist-005088 Secrets of the Knights Templar: The Knights of John the Baptist The acquisition of the Johannite Church by the Knights Templar was later alluded to in Isis Unveiled by the nineteenth century esotericist Madam Blavatsky. While claiming to have learned it from ancient Kabbalistic records, Blavatsky stated: The true version of the history of Jesus and early Christianity was supposedly imparted to Hughes de Payens, by the Grand-Pontiff of the Order of the Temple [the Johannite sect], one named Theoclete, after which it was learned by some Knights in Palestine, from the higher and more intellectual members of the St. John sect, who were initiated into its mysteries. Freedom of intellectual thought and the restoration of one universal [Gnostic] religion was their secret object. Sworn to the vow of obedience, poverty, and chastity, they were at first the true Knights of John the Baptist, crying in the wilderness and living on wild honey and locusts. Such is the tradition and the true Kabbalistic version. Mackey’s comment: Whilst “Theoclete”, Jesus Christ, “the Truth”, did impart the true knowledge to his ‘knights’ (Apostles) in Palestine, who had been previously followers of St. John, the gnostic religion and Johannism of the Knights Templar, with which they have become associated, was a later devolution, as some of the early Christians fell away into apostasy and wrong thinking. Blavatsky’s history was echoed by no lesser authority than Pope Pius IX, the nineteenth century pope, who made a public statement regarding the Templars and the beginning of the Johannite “heresy” in his Allocution of Pio Nono against the Free Masons: The Johannites ascribed to Saint John the foundation of their Secret Church, and the Grand Pontiffs of the Sect assumed the title of Christos, Anointed or Consecrated, and claimed to have succeeded one another from Saint John by an uninterrupted succession of pontifical powers. He who, at the period of the foundation of the Order of the Temple, claimed these imaginary prerogatives was named Theoclete; he knew Hughes de Payens, he initiated him into the Mysteries and hopes of his pretended church; he seduced him by the notions of Sovereign Priesthood and Supreme royalty, and finally designated him as his successor. Two Doctrines The Heretical Johannite Teachings Upon receipt of the Johannite lineage, Hughes de Payens and his Knights Templar received documents and scrolls that revealed many mysteries that had been lost, hidden, or destroyed because of their heretical content. Some of the documents revealed that John the Baptist had been born within the Essene sect of the Nasoreans or Nazarenes, which was created when an ancient Gnostic sect from the East, the baptizing Mandeans, arrived in the Holy Land and united with the Essenes. Mackey’s comment: For the scriptural identification of the Essenes, see e.g. my article: Puzzling why those very prolific writing Essenes are not ever mentioned in Bible. Part One: Who exactly were the mysterious Essenes? (4) Puzzling why those very prolific writing Essenes are not ever mentioned in Bible. Part One: Who exactly were the mysterious Essenes? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The Mandeans apparently continued the Johannine legacy, but without the requisite conversion to Jesus Christ that John the Baptist had intended for his followers. Knights Templar – antiquity re-cast as mediaeval times The early ‘Templars’, so-called, were the biblical Jews, and later Christians, in Jerusalem. The supposed origins of the order, Knights Templar, I have shown to be shrouded in the deepest obscurity, with its founder, Hugues de Payens, having no contemporary biography. What our friend Hugues does have in spades, though, is an abundance of variations on his name, mostly French, but one suggesting instead a southerly Italian origin. This reminds me of Christopher Columbus, also having name variations, who, they say, may have been Italian, Spanish, or Portuguese. Hugh appears to have had, like Melchizedek, no known father or mother, and there is poor evidence, too, for the two children he is thought to have fathered. The Templars are said to have arisen from a long string of Patriarchs, all designated “John”, about seventy successive ones of these, commencing with John the Baptist. Mary Magdalene is even thrown into this mix. This long patrimony - which has no actual basis in history - is estimated to stretch all the way from New Testament times to 1118 AD, when the supposed Johannine Patriarch, “Theoclete”, handed over the mantle of authority to Hugh de Payens in Jerusalem. Thus was born, so they say, the Order of the Temple of Solomon. By the way, the Bible never speaks of a Temple of Solomon. It is always the Temple of Yahweh. This whole legendary thing is basically, as I have determined, the story of the founding of the Church with the Apostles, but re-cast later in European (Frankish) terms. Unsurprisingly, then, the patriarchal Theoclete, has been described as “the living Christ”. There is an obvious Trinitarian element here, Theo (God the Father), Clete (Holy Spirit), Christ. The Johannine element arises form the fact that Jesus Christ, though a transcendent God-Man, had, owing to his Kenosis (see e.g. Philippians 2:7), allowed John to baptise Him. Hugh de Payens represents Saint Peter, whom Hugh resembles both in his character, as we have found, and even in some of his words and exhortations. Templar Beginning and End My estimation of Templar origins, along with another thesis of mine, that the story of the supposed demise of the Templars in mainland Europe, on October 13 of 1307 AD, is largely an appropriation of the ancient (BC) Book of Esther: Book of Esther key to Knights Templar and 1307 AD https://www.academia.edu/43725074/Book_of_Esther_key_to_Knights_Templar_and_1307_AD has enabled me to fix the origins of the Templars (1118 AD) back in New Testament times, and the demise of a major part of the Templars (1307 AD) even further back, in the biblical Medo-Persian era. These are two typical cases of that strange phenomenon, of which I have often written, of real BC histories and events having been projected - in a garbled fashion, adapted to modern terms - into a fake AD ‘history’. To recall just a few of many of which I have written: Chedorlaomer of the time of the Patriarch Abram (c. 2000 BC, conventional dating - not mine) re-cast as the Frankish King Chlodomer; Judith of Bethulia re-cast as the Jewish Gudit (or Judith) of 900 AD Ethiopia; the biblical Nehemiah re-cast as Nehemiah at the time of the Prophet Mohammed (the latter being another of those anachronistic, biblical composites). And, most relevant to the Templars and the Crusades, and their foe, the so-called Seljuk Turks, we have found that the model for much of this were the Maccabees and the Seleucid Greeks. On this, see e.g. the following series: Maccabeans and Crusaders, Seleucids and Saltukids (Seljuks) https://www.academia.edu/37838441/Maccabeans_and_Crusaders_Seleucids_and_Saltukids_Seljuks_ Maccabeans and Crusaders, Seleucids and Saltukids (Seljuks). Part Two: Maccabees models for Teutonic Order https://www.academia.edu/37848593/Maccabeans_and_Crusaders_Seleucids_and_Saltukids_Seljuks_Part_Two_Maccabees_models_for_Teutonic_Order Something of a verification of my adventurous line of thinking here can be gauged from the following comment by a reader: “This was interesting because I work on the Teutonic Order's crusade in Lithuania, and in the Order's Latin chronicles the Maccabees are the main model”. And why is supposedly mediaeval Templar architecture described as Romanesque? “The name gives it away–Romanesque architecture is based on Roman architectural elements”: https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/medieval-world/romanesque-art/beginners-guide-romanesque/a/a-beginners-guide-to-romanesque-architecture “… relating to a style of architecture which prevailed in Europe c. 900–1200, although sometimes dated back to the end of the Roman Empire (5th century)”: https://www.google.com.au/search?safe=strict&q=Dictionary&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAO Given the Knights Templar’s legendary wealth and inventiveness, why would they not have developed their own unique architectural style? Clearly, then (at least so I think), the early ‘Templars’ were actually the biblical Jews, and later Christians, in Jerusalem. Their - as well as the Cistercians’ - likenesses to the ancient Essenes have been well demonstrated by Alan Butler and Stephan Dafoe in their fascinating book, The Knights Templar Revealed (2006). The Essenes may have at least their spiritual origins tracing back as far as the time of Elijah, who much resembles the founder of the Benedictines (see my): St Benedict and Elijah https://www.academia.edu/37584227/St_Benedict_and_Elijah an order whose inception is considered to have pre-dated that of the Templars. It is thought that the Essenes may have taken their name from the Hasidean warriors at the time of the Maccabees, hence the military aspect. Later, the Johannines, those who did not follow the Baptist’s counsel to embrace the Christ, would have morphed into sects such as the Mandeans and other gnostic groups, from whence evolved and arose the modern Templar groups and the Freemasons. Some of this intrigue, though, is extremely recent. See my article: Understanding the Priory of Sion https://www.academia.edu/43420461/Leonardo_da_Vinci_is_Archimedes_like_Part_Three_Understanding_the_Priory_of_Sion

A Greek and Roman “Chickpea”

by Damien F. Mackey “… I suggest that Cicero explicitly employs unhistorical (or at least not certifiably true) exempla, with a view to the internal consistency of the dialogues' fictional world”. Dan Hanchey Some Commonalities Some obvious similarities between the text-book Ptolemy Soter (so-called IX) and Cicero are their supposed beginnings before 100 BC, and their sharing of a name, or nickname, meaning “Chickpea”. In the book, Language Typology and Historical Contingency: In honor of Johanna Nichols (eds. B. Bickel et al.), 2013, we read as follows about this name (p. 303): The possible prehistory of *ḱiḱer- is more interesting. The attested forms are Latin (Glare 1996) cicer ‘chickpea’ (Cicer arietinum), cicera ‘chickling vetch’ (Lathyrus sativus), Armenian siseṙn ‘chickpea’, Macedonian (Hesychius) kíkerroi (Lathyrus ochrus), and Serbo-Croatian sȁstrica (Lathyrus cicera or Lathyrus sativus). …. There is also the possibility of Greek kriós, ‘chickpea’, which Pokorny (1994: 598) tentatively suggests might be from *kikriós with dissimilation, and Hittite kikris, a food item used in a mash, and measured in handfuls. …. [End of quote] Likewise, Ptolemy was, Cicero was, contemporaneous with a Cleopatra, who had no great love for the “Chickpea”, or vice versa. In the case of Ptolemy, we read (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ptolemy-IX-Soter-II): “Although [Cleopatra, so-called III] preferred his younger brother, Ptolemy Alexander, popular sentiment forced the dowager queen to dismiss him and to associate Ptolemy Soter on the throne with herself”. In parallel fashion, Cleopatra [so-called VII] ruled as co-regent with Ptolemy [so-called XII]: “Before his death, Ptolemy XII chose his daughter Cleopatra VII as his coregent. In his will, he declared that she and her brother Ptolemy XIII should rule the kingdom together”. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy_XII_Auletes). Interestingly, Cicero, according to what we read at this site, is supposed to have commented unfavourably on this latter situation: Throughout his long-lasting reign the principal aim of Ptolemy [XII] was to secure his hold on the Egyptian throne so as to eventually pass it to his heirs. To achieve this goal he was prepared to sacrifice much: the loss of rich Ptolemaic lands, most of his wealth and even, according to Cicero, the very dignity on which the mystique of kingship rested when he appeared before the Roman people as a mere supplicant. [End of quote] As for Cicero and Cleopatra: “Without doubt Cicero was hoping for bad news about Cleopatra. He did not like Greeks and he did not like women, and most of all he hated the Greek woman Cleopatra ...”. (Michael Foss, The Search for Cleopatra, 1999). Exiles Ptolemy experienced three of these, according to ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ptolemy-IX-Soter-II …. The latent hostility between the son and his mother finally erupted in October 110, when Cleopatra expelled him from Egypt and recalled his brother from Cyprus. Soter II returned in early 109 but was evicted anew by his mother in March of the following year. After a reconciliation in May 108 he fled a third time and established himself in Cyprus, from where in 107 he invaded northern Syria to assist one of the claimants to the Seleucid empire, while his mother, allying herself with the Jewish king in Palestine, actively aided another Seleucid pretender. …. [End of quote] Nor was Cicero a stranger to exile, as we learn at: http://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/marcus-tullius-cicero Cicero was elected quaestor in 75, praetor in 66 and consul in 63—the youngest man ever to attain that rank without coming from a political family. During his term as consul he thwarted the Catilinian conspiracy to overthrow the Republic. In the aftermath, though, he approved the key conspirators’ summary execution, a breach of Roman law that left him vulnerable to prosecution and sent him into exile. Cicero: Alliances, Exiles …. During his exile, Cicero refused overtures from Caesar that might have protected him, preferring political independence to a role in the First Triumvirate. Cicero was away from Rome when civil war between Caesar and Pompey broke out. He aligned himself with Pompey and then faced another exile when Caesar won the war, cautiously returning to Rome to receive the dictator’s pardon. …. [End of quote] Cyprus Continuing with the ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA account of Ptolemy IX, we read of his lengthy sojourn in Cyprus: After a reconciliation in May 108 [Ptolemy] fled a third time and established himself in Cyprus, from where in 107 he invaded northern Syria to assist one of the claimants to the Seleucid empire, while his mother, allying herself with the Jewish king in Palestine, actively aided another Seleucid pretender. During the protracted war his mother died (101) and Ptolemy X Alexander became the sole ruler of Egypt, while Soter II remained entrenched in Cyprus. …. [End of quote] As for Cicero, Ismail Veli has called him “Cicero The Most Famous Governor in Cypriot History!”: http://cyprusscene.com/2014/11/26/cicero-the-most-famous-governor-in-cypriot-history/ If I was to choose the most famous Governor in Cypriot history I would choose the great Marcus Tullius Cicero …. In 51 BC and much against his will he was assigned to Cilicia which was associated to Cyprus. As usual the previous Governor’s considered their post as an opportunity to enrich themselves at the expense of the local people. Arriving in August 51 B.C he remained until the following year until 3rd August 50 B.C. Though not pleased on his post Cicero as usual set about his task with honesty, hard work and aimed at making the lives of the locals much more comfortable. In addition to the corruption, Cilicia was in an unsettled state due to the Parthian wars. His first order was that the locals need not present him with gifts they could ill afford. He also did away with spending on many forms of Roman entertainment. He only accepted invitations to modest dinner parties so as not to force the locals extra spending. He himself restrained from having extravagant dinner parties, only well served and delicious food at the lowest cost possible was on offer. He never ordered anyone to be beaten with rods or stripped of their clothing. His biggest achievement was in fighting the embezzlement of public funds which was at a chronic level. He invited the culprits to hand over the funds on the condition that they would not be charged and allowed to retain their citizen rights. The effect was that much money was given back to the point that financial stability and prosperity grew. Any chiefs who refused were met with the wrath of the Roman army at Cicero’s disposal. By the time he left Cilicia the people honoured him with the title of ‘Imperator’. Meanwhile in Cyprus he found the same if not worse problems as he confronted in Cilicia. He assigned one of his most trusted men Q. Volusius as prefect to help with the task. The previous Governors had exacted large sums of money from the locals in compensation for not stationing Legionaries on the Island in winter at their expense. Instead they blackmailed the local cities to pay a charge amounting to over 200 Attic talents (one talent was worth 6000 Denarii. The average pay for a citizen was about 1-2 denarii a day). In addition when the city of Salamis needed a loan, Marcus Brutus levied a charge of 48% interest which was crippling the local economy. Raising loans by provincials in Rome was illegal under the Gabinian law (introduced in 67 B.C) Therefore Brutus together with Cato raised it on their behalf. The reason for their exorbitant interest was the excuse that times were volatile and with wars raging in Asia Minor and the Middle East they were at great risk of losing their money. In the end after heavy negotiation the locals were happy to settle for 106 Talents therefore reducing their heavy burden by almost half. Cicero made good the rest from some of the money he had won back from the embezzlers in Cilicia. A Scaptius complained bitterly to M. Brutus that Cicero was so unreasonable that he was not even allowed fifty troopers to have with him in Cyprus, to which Cicero replied that “Fifty troopers could do no little harm among such gentle folk as the Cypriotes. Spartacus had begun his insurrection with a smaller troop”. After leaving Cyprus, Cicero retained an interest in Cypriot affairs. In 47 B.C he wrote to C Sextilius Rufus who was quaestor for the Island in that year warmly commending to him all the Cypriotes, especially the Paphians; and suggesting that he would do well to set an example to his successor, instituting reforms in accordance with the law of P. Lentulus and following Cicero’s decisions and policies on the Island. So ended Cicero’s period of short but effective Governorship of the Roman province of Cyprus. Not many rulers treated the Cypriots with the care and concern as did Cicero. Even if some did I don’t have any doubt that anyone more famous in history can claim to have presided over the people of the Island. …. [End of quote] Sack of Athens An event that occurred at the hands of the Romans in the lifetime of Ptolemy IX, of Cicero. Thus, according to: ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA “Ptolemy Soter refused to give aid to the Romans in the course of their war with Pontus, a Black Sea kingdom, and after the Roman sack of Athens in 88 the Egyptian rulers helped rebuild the city, for which commemorative statues of them were erected”. And, in the case of Cicero: http://erenow.com/ancient/rome-an-empires-story-woolf/10.html Roman aristocrats returned to Athens soon after Sulla’s sack, in search of education and high culture. A shipwreck, found a century ago by sponge divers off the island of Antikythera at the southern point of Greece, revealed a cargo of extraordinary statues and other treasure en route for Italy. Excavations of the luxurious villas constructed in the last century BC show the probable destinations of such cargoes. Ancestral mansions in the city had been rebuilt on ever more lavish scales since the sixth century, but from the later second century Roman aristocrats had begun to expand their property portfolios. Cicero was far from the richest of senators, but even he owned eight villas. …. [End of quote] Dan Hanchey may be closer to the truth than he realises when he writes of Cicero’s employment of “unhistorical (or at least not certifiably true) exempla”: https://cj.camws.org/abstracts110.1 DAYS OF FUTURE PASSED: FICTION FORMING FACT IN CICERO'S DIALOGUES …. This paper analyzes Cicero's citations of the not-always-historical past in his theoretical corpus. Examining both the Marian oak in the prologue of De Legibus and Cicero's overall use of historical references, I suggest that Cicero explicitly employs unhistorical (or at least not certifiably true) exempla, with a view to the internal consistency of the dialogues' fictional world. By encouraging the reader's acceptance of such fictional examples, Cicero establishes an intersubjective and empathetic relationship with his audience. Ultimately, Cicero seeks to uphold and use others to confirm his internal world as an alternative to the tense world of Roman politics. ….

Abu Lahab, Lab’ayu, Ahab

by Damien F. Mackey “In searching the Hebrew Bible for a wicked man whose name resembles Abu Lahab, one finds Ahab (Hebrew: אַחְאָב), the seventh king of ancient Israel … son of King Omri and husband of Jezebel of Sidon”. Ercan Celik Ercan Celik is, I feel, on the right track here, in seeking to find, in the Bible, a leading character of the early Islamic story. For the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) is, himself, a fictitious (largely) biblical composite as according to my series: Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History https://www.academia.edu/12500381/Biography_of_the_Prophet_Mohammed_Muhammad_Seriously_Mangles_History With the life of Mohammed having borrowed so many of its bits and pieces from the Bible (both the Old and New Testaments), it is no wonder that Mohammed himself has been portrayed as a most remarkable kind of man (verging on a superman), having such a breathtaking career. The real miracle is that scholars down through the ages have been able to compile a coherent life of the man. The downside of it is - apart from the religious implications - that it is historically a complete shambles. Better to view the whole thing as a marvellous work of fiction. 1,025 × 400 Now, a Turkish writer, Ercan Celik, believes that he has traced the so-called “uncle” of Mohammed to the Old Testament: https://iqsaweb.wordpress.com/2015/05/26/celik_abu-lahab-jezebel/ Who were Abu Lahab and His Wife? A View from the Hebrew Bible In The Qur’an and Its Biblical Subtext, G. S. Reynolds observes that …scholars of the Qur’an accept the basic premise of the medieval Islamic sources that the Qur’an is to be explained in light of the life of the Prophet Muhammad… However, he proposes that critical Qur’anic scholarship not depend on prophetic biography (sīrah) or traditional Qur’anic exegesis (tafsīr), but rather, … the Qur’an should be appreciated in light of its conversation with earlier literature, in particular Biblical literature… This argument necessarily involves an examination of both the relationship of Muslim exegetical literature to the Qur’an and the relationship of the Qur’an to Biblical literature. Sūrat al-Masad (Q 111) offers a valuable example for how a Biblical perspective can augment our understanding of the Qur’anic text. The text of the sūrah names its main character Abu Lahab, and mentions that he has a wife, but does not provide any further identifying information. Only extra-Qur’anic literature can give us more details about who he was. In this blog post, I compare how he may be identified through the Islamic literary sources and through the Hebrew Bible. Abu Lahab In Islamic Literature Abu Lahab, meaning “the father of flame,” is identified as the uncle of the prophet Muhammad, ʿAbd al-ʿUzza ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib, nicknamed Abu Lahab on account of his reddish complexion. He is said to have been a rich and proud man, and he and his wife Umm Jamil, sister of Abu Sufyan, are depicted as fierce enemies of Muhammad and the early Muslim community. There are many anecdotes in the Islamic literary sources about their verbal and physical attacks on the prophet. Some Qur’an commentators say that Umm Jamil used to litter Muhammad’s path with harmful thorns of twisted palm leaf fibres, and that this is the historical context for the final verse of Sūrat al-Masad: “Will have upon her neck a halter of palm-fibre” (Q 111:5). Abu’l-Ahab in Biblical Literature In searching the Hebrew Bible for a wicked man whose name resembles Abu Lahab, one finds Ahab (Hebrew: אַחְאָב), the seventh kings of ancient Israel (r. ca. 885-874 BCE), son of King Omri and husband of Jezebel of Sidon. We could read “Abu Lahab” alternatively, and without substantial change, as “Abu’l-Ahab,” father of Ahab. According to the Hebrew Bible, the father of Ahab is Omri, who is described in 1 Kings 16:25 as having acted “more wickedly than all who were before him.” His son Ahab, in his own time, “married Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians, and went to serve Baal and worshiped him . . . Thus Ahab did more to provoke the Lord God of Israel than all the kings of Israel who were before him” (1 Kings 16:31-33). …. As for Jezebel, it is said that she ordered the killing of prophets (1 Kings 18:4). The prophet Elijah escaped her persecution and with God’s command confronted Ahab with a challenge to the priests of Baal: “You call on the name of your god and I will call on the name of the Lord; the god who answers by fire is indeed God” (18:24). The supporters of Baal called upon their god to send fire to consume their sacrifice, but nothing happened. When Elijah called upon the name of the Lord, fire came down from heaven immediately and consumed their offering. Eventually Ahab in killed in battle, and when Elisha, successor to the prophet Elijah, anoints Jehu king of Israel, the latter had the house of Ahab killed. Jezebel was captured by her enemies, thrown out of a window, trampled by a horse, and her flesh eaten by dogs. A Comparison of the Qur’anic and Biblical Characters There are some significant parallels between the qur’anic character of Abu Lahab and the biblical character of Abu’l-Ahab. To illustrate these, let us evaluate Sūrat al-Masad in light of the biblical account: • May the hands of Abu Lahab [Abu’l-Ahab] be ruined and ruined is he. The biblical story of Ahab fits well with this verse, in both linguistic and narrative/thematic terms. The father is invoked for ruin. Omri was the first person to introduce the worship of Baal in Israel, for which his progeny are to be ruined. In Qur’anic Arabic terminology, hands (here, yadā) are symbolic of power and of progeny. The fate of Omri’s progeny is pronounced not so much in the tafsir literature as in the biblical texts. • His wealth will not avail him or that which he gained. The Ahab of the Bible seems to have had greater wealth than the Abu Lahab of Islamic tradition; his great wealth failed to prevent his demise by God’s command. • He will [enter to] burn in a Fire of [blazing] flame. Hellfire is an eschatalogical concept associated with unbelief, especially with the sort of idolatry instituted by Omri and Ahab. • And his wife [as well]—the carrier of firewood. The feature of firewood (ḥaṭab) is key. The challenge at Mount Carmel consisted of sacrificing bulls on firewood in order. We can imagine Jezebel supporting the Baalist priests by collecting the best woods to burn the sacrifice easily. The image of Jezebel carrying firewood makes more sense of this verse than that of Umm Jamil dumping thorns. • Around her neck is a rope of [twisted] fiber. Traditional exegetes struggle to explain the meaning of the rope of palm-fiber (masad). It may be better understood in light of the Jezebel story. The term masad appears to be a hapax legomenon in the Qur’an that might have a Hebrew root and be related to Jezebel’s violent death. This term begs for further examination along these lines. …. [End of quotes] Name within a name No one could argue with Ercan Celik’s statement that: “In searching the Hebrew Bible for a wicked man whose name resembles Abu Lahab, one finds Ahab (Hebrew: אַחְאָב) …”. Why, the very element ahab appears in the name L-ahab. From what I have read, the name Ahab is somewhat problematical, with certain scholars suggesting that it may actually have been a foreign (non-Hebrew) name. Another suggestion is that Ahab means “uncle”, which would, at least, work in well with the view that Abu Lahab was the “uncle” of Mohammed. I have identified the biblical King Ahab with Lab’ayu (Labaya) of the El Amarna [EA] letters, an identification that I now consider to be virtually certain: King Mesha of Moab tells that he built Jericho (Qeriho) and used “prisoners of Israel” (4) King Mesha of Moab tells that he built Jericho (Qeriho) and used "prisoners of Israel" | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu King Ahab as El Amarna’s Lab’ayu What absolutely clinches Ahab as Lab'ayu for me is that King Abdi-hiba of Jerusalem (Urusalim) will complain in EA # 289 that Lab'ayu had been giving away “the land of Sakmu” (Shechem) to the Habiru. “Are we to act like Labayu when he was giving away the land of Sakmu Shechem] to the [tent-dwelling] Hapiru?” Abdi-Heba of Jerusalem, Amarna Letter EA 289: 18-24 Shechem was the northern Bethel, the Bethulia of the Book of Judith, as C.C. Torrey showed beyond all doubt (even though he did not believe that Judith was historical). The Habiru must be, in this case, the Moabites under King Mesha, who must therefore be Hiel the Bethelite (Shechemite) who built Jericho at the time of King Ahab. Mesha tells us straight out that he built Qeriho (Jericho) using "prisoners of Israel" (Moabite Stele): “I built Qeriho [Jericho]: the wall of the parkland and the wall of the acropolis; and I built its gates, and I built its towers; and I built the king’s house … and I dug the ditches for Qeriho with prisoners of Israel”. This adds a new dimension to our consideration of Ahab/Abu Lahab and the name. For Lab’ayu, not entirely dissimilar to Abu Lahab, inverted (Lahab Abu), is thought to mean ‘Lion Man’. The ‘Lion Man’ now becomes a perfect partner for Queen Jezebel, as EA’s Baalat-neše, ‘Mistress of Lions’. This would give us three sets of significant husband-and-wife combinations, namely: King Ahab-Queen Jezebel; Lab’ayu-Baalet-neše; Abu Lahab-(wife) Umm Jamil Two of these sets are regarded as being wicked, Ahab-Jezebel, and - as we read above - the accursed Abu Lahab and his wife. The little that we know of EA’s Lab’ayu would tend to give the impression, again, of a somewhat devious, or duplicitous, character. The Mount Carmel Incident Thanks to Ercan Celik’s piece above, I can now include Elijah and the Mount Carmel showdown with the Baalists, in the presence of King Ahab, as being yet another biblical borrowing in the biography of Mohammed. I had not noticed this one before. And his wife [as well]—the carrier of firewood. The feature of firewood (ḥaṭab) is key. The challenge at Mount Carmel consisted of sacrificing bulls on firewood in order. We can imagine Jezebel supporting the Baalist priests by collecting the best woods to burn the sacrifice easily. Mohammed has now assumed the rôle of the steadfast prophet Elijah against the Baalists, as represented by Abu Lahab and his wife: “… he and his wife Umm Jamil … are depicted as fierce enemies of Muhammad and the early Muslim community”. The Qur'an is so derivative! The Lord’s intended ruination of the House of Ahab, including Queen Jezebel, as conveyed by the great prophet Elijah, is echoed in Ercan Celik’s comments: • May the hands of Abu Lahab [Abu’l-Ahab] be ruined and ruined is he. The biblical story of Ahab fits well with this verse, in both linguistic and narrative/thematic terms. The father is invoked for ruin. Omri was the first person to introduce the worship of Baal in Israel, for which his progeny are to be ruined. In Qur’anic Arabic terminology, hands (here, yadā) are symbolic of power and of progeny. …. • His wealth will not avail him or that which he gained. …. • He will [enter to] burn in a Fire of [blazing] flame. Hellfire is an eschatalogical concept associated with unbelief, especially with the sort of idolatry instituted by Omri and Ahab. • Around her neck is a rope of [twisted] fiber. Traditional exegetes struggle to explain the meaning of the rope of palm-fiber (masad). It may be better understood in light of the Jezebel story. The term masad appears to be a hapax legomenon in the Qur’an that might have a Hebrew root and be related to Jezebel’s violent death. …. Including King Baasha of Israel There is yet a further dimension to be added to all of this. Emmet Sweeney comes close to it when he proposes to identify Lab’ayu with Elah, the son of King Baasha of Israel (The Theban Empire: Vol. 3, Ages in Alignment Series. Second and revised edition, p. 102): “… Labayu … can only be Baasha’s son Elah …”. Since I have, however, in various articles, identified Baasha with Ahab, then I must logically conclude that Baasha, not Elah, was EA’s Lab’ayu (= Ahab). The name Baasha, apparently meaning “rotten”, “stinking”, may be a derogatory name applied to an evil, ill-fated king. For more on this identification, see e.g. my article: Baasha as Ahab (5) Baasha as Ahab | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu There I wrote: Baasha and Ahab compare quite favourably Baasha’s sudden irruption onto the scene has its later ‘justification’, I would suggest, in the far more detailed biography of Ahab. As to reign length, we have almost a perfect match in that Baasha reigned for 24 years (I King 15:33) and Ahab for 22 (16:29). But that becomes quite a perfect match when we further realise that Baasha reigned for 2 years at Tirzah [which I have tentatively identified elsewhere as Shechem]. Though, in conventional terms, Samaria (at the time of Baasha) was not yet a capital city, according to my revision it would already have been. And king Ahab of Israel is said specifically to have reigned for 22 years “in Samaria”. Putting it all together, we get Baasha’s 2 years at Tirzah, and then a further 22 years (making his total 24 years); 22 years being the length of Ahab’s reign. In other words, Baasha-Ahab (if it is the same person) reigned for 2 years at Tirzah, and then for 22 years at Samaria, a total of 24 years of reign. This must have been after Ahab’s presumed father, Omri, had built Samaria (16:24). I say ‘presumed’, because I have, in my related articles, followed T. Ishida in his view that the Bible does not mention a House of Omri, but does refer to one of Ahab, thereby allowing for me to make the tentative suggestion that Ahab was probably related to Omri only though marriage. And that would further allow now for Ahab’s direct father to be, not Omri, but - as Baasha’s father: “Ahaziah of the house of Issachar” (1 Kings 15:27). …. Tomoo Ishida instead suggested that the narrative of dynastic instability in the Kingdom of Israel suggests an underlying rivalry between tribes for its throne.[1] In the biblical narrative, the House of Jeroboam was from the Tribe of Ephraim, while the House of Baasha was from the Tribe of Issachar.[1] The Omrides are connected in this narrative with the city of Jezreel, where they maintained a second palace. According to the Book of Joshua, Jezreel was controlled by the Tribe of Issachar. Ishida views the narrative as suggesting that the Omrides themselves were members of the Tribe of Issachar.[1] .... I would modify this, though, to say instead, not “the Omrides”, but the Ahabites “were members of the Tribe of Issachar”.

“Minoans” were basically the Philistines

by Damien F. Mackey Those whom Sir Arthur Evans fancifully named ‘the Minoans’, based on the popular legend of King Minos, son of Zeus, are biblically and historically attested as the Philistines. Gavin Menzies had followed Arthur Evans in labelling as “Minoans” the great sea-faring and trading nation that is the very focal point of his fascinating book, The Lost Empire of Atlantis: History's Greatest Mystery Revealed (HarperCollins, 2011). Though the ex-submariner, Menzies, could sometimes ‘go a bit overboard’ - or, should I say, he can become a bit ‘airborne’ (and don’t we all?) - he is often highly informative and is always eminently readable. According to the brief summary of the book that we find at Menzies’ own site: http://www.gavinmenzies.net/lost-empire-atlantis/the-book/ ... the Minoans. It’s long been known that this extraordinary civilisation, with its great palaces and sea ports based in Crete and nearby Thera (now called Santorini), had a level of sophistication that belied its place in the Bronze Age world but never before has the extent of its reach been uncovered. Through painstaking research, including recent DNA evidence, Menzies has pieced together an incredible picture of a cultured people who traded with India and Mesopotamia, Africa and Western Europe, including Britain and Ireland, and even sailed to North America. Menzies reveals that copper found at Minoan sites can only have come from Lake Superior, and that it was copper, combined with tin from Cornwall and elsewhere, to make bronze, that gave the Minoans their wealth. He uses knowledge gleaned as a naval captain to explore ancient shipbuilding and navigation techniques and explain how the Minoans were able to travel so far. He looks at why the Minoan empire, which was 1500 years ahead of China and Greece in terms of science, architecture, art and language, disappeared so abruptly and what led to her destruction. ... [End of quote] The Philistines Thanks to Dr. Donovan Courville (The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, Loma Linda CA, 1971), we can trace the Philistines - through their distinctive pottery - all the way back to Neolithic Knossos (Crete). And this, despite J. C. Greenfield’s assertion: “There is no evidence for a Philistine occupation of Crete, nor do the facts about the Philistines, known from archaeological and literary sources, betray any relationship between them and Crete” (IDB, 1962, vol. 1, p. 534). The distinctive type of pottery that Courville has identified as belonging to the biblical Philistines is well described in this quote that he has taken from Kathleen Kenyon: The pottery does in fact provide very useful evidence about culture. The first interesting point is the wealth of a particular class of painted pottery …. The decoration is bichrome, nearly always red and black, and the most typical vessels have a combination of metopes enclosing a bird or a fish with geometric decoration such as a “Union Jack” pattern or a Catherine wheel. At Megiddo the first bichrome pottery is attributed to Stratum X, but all the published material comes from tombs intrusive into this level. It is in fact characteristic of Stratum IX. Similar pottery is found in great profusion in southern Palestine … Very similar vessels are also found on the east coast of Cyprus and on the coastal Syrian sites as far north as Ras Shamra. [Emphasis Courville’s] By contrast, the pottery of the ‘Sea Peoples’ - a maritime confederation confusingly identified sometimes as the early biblical Philistines, their pottery like, but not identical to, the distinctive Philistine pottery as described above - was Aegean (Late Helladic), not Cretan. The indispensable “Table of Nations” (Genesis 10), informs us that the Philistines were a Hamitic people, descendants of Ham’s “son”, Mizraim (or Egypt) (v. 6). Genesis 10:13: “Mizraim was the father of the Ludites, Anamites, Lehabites, Naphtuhites, Pathrusites, Kasluhites (from whom the Philistines came) and Caphtorites”. These earliest Philistines would be represented by the users of this distinctive pottery at Neolithic I level Knossos (Dr. Courville): With the evidences thus far noted before us, we are now in a position to examine the archaeological reports from Crete for evidences of the early occupation of this site by the Caphtorim (who are either identical to the Philistines of later Scripture or are closely related to them culturally). We now have at least an approximate idea of the nature of the culture for which we are looking …. … we can hardly be wrong in recognizing the earliest occupants of Crete as the people who represented the beginnings of the people later known in Scripture as the Philistines, by virtue of the stated origin of the Philistines in Crete. This concept holds regardless of the name that may be applied to this early era by scholars. The only site at which Cretan archaeology has been examined for its earliest occupants is at the site of the palace at Knossos. At this site deep test pits were dug into the earlier occupation levels. If there is any archaeological evidence available from Crete for its earliest period, it should then be found from the archaeology of these test pits. The pottery found there is described by Dr. Furness, who is cited by Hutchinson. “Dr. Furness divides the early Neolithic I fabrics into (a) coarse unburnished ware and (b) fine burnished ware, only differing from the former in that the pot walls are thinner, the clay better mixed, and the burnish more carefully executed. The surface colour is usually black, but examples also occur of red, buff or yellow, sometimes brilliant red or orange, and sometimes highly variegated sherds”. A relation was observed between the decoration of some of this pottery from early Neolithic I in Crete with that at the site of Alalakh …. Continuing to cite Dr. Furness, Hutchinson commented: Dr. Furness justly observes that “as the pottery of the late Neolithic phases seems to have developed at Knossos without a break, it is to the earliest that one must look for evidence of origin of foreign connections”, and she therefore stresses the importance of a small group with plastic decoration that seems mainly confined to the Early Neolithic I levels, consisting of rows of pellets immediately under the rim (paralleled on burnished pottery of Chalcolithic [predynastic] date from Gullucek in the Alaca [Alalakh] district of Asia Minor). [Emphasis Courville’s] While the Archaeological Ages of early Crete cannot with certainty be correlated with the corresponding eras on the mainland, it would seem that Chalcolithic on the mainland is later than Early Neolithic in Crete; hence any influence of one culture on the other is more probably an influence of early Cretan culture on that of the mainland. This is in agreement with Scripture to the effect that the Philistines migrated from Crete to what is now the mainland at some point prior to the time of Abraham.[ ] [End of quotes] Late Chalcolithic, we have already learned, pertains to the era of Abram (Abraham), when the Philistines were apparently in southern Canaan: Better archaeological model for Abraham https://www.academia.edu/31214563/Better_archaeological_model_for_Abraham We next find the Philistines in the land of Palestine (the Gaza region) at the time of Joshua. Was there a Philistine migration out of Crete (“Caphtor”) at the time of the Exodus migration out of Egypt? (Amos 9:7): “Did I not bring Israel up from Egypt, the Philistines from Caphtor and the Arameans from Kir?” Dr. John Bimson becomes interesting at this point, as previously I have written: Here I take up Bimson’s account of this biblical tradition: There is a tradition preserved in Joshua 13:2-3 and Judges 3:3 that the Philistines were established in Canaan by the end of the Conquest, and that the Israelites had been unable to oust them from the coastal plain …. There is also an indication that the main Philistine influx had not occurred very much prior to the Conquest. As we shall see below, the Philistines are the people referred to as “the Caphtorim, who came from Caphtor” in Deuteronomy 2:23 … where it is said that a people called the Avvim originally occupied the region around Gaza, and that the Caphtorim “destroyed them and settled in their stead”. Josh. 13:2-3 mentions Philistines and Avvim together as peoples whom the Israelites had failed to dislodge from southern Canaan. This suggests that the Philistines had not completely replaced the Avvim by the end of Joshua’s life. I would suggest, in fact, that the war referred to in Ex. 13:17, which was apparently taking place in “the land of the Philistines” at the time of the Exodus, was the war of the Avvim against the newly arrived Philistines. As conventionally viewed, the end of MB II C coincides with the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt. Bimson however, in his efforts to provide a revised stratigraphy for the revision of history, has synchronised MB II C instead with the start of Hyksos rule. He will argue here in some detail that the building and refortifying of cities at this time was the work of the Avvim against the invading Philistines, with some of the new settlements, however, likely having been built by the Philistines themselves. [End of quote] I have further written on Dr. Bimson’s laudable effort to bring some archaeological sanity to this era: Bimson has grappled with trying to distinguish between what might have been archaeological evidence for the Philistines and evidence for the Hyksos, though in actual fact it may be fruitless to try to discern a clear distinction in this case. Thus he writes: Finds at Tell el-Ajjul, in the Philistine plain, about 5 miles SW of Gaza, present a particularly interesting situation. As I have shown elsewhere, the “Palace I” city (City III) at Tell el-Ajjul was destroyed at the end of the MBA, the following phase of occupation (City II) belonging to LB I …. There is some uncertainty as to exactly when bichrome ware first appeared at Tell el-Ajjul. Fragments have been found in the courtyard area of Palace I, but some writers suggest that this area remained in use into the period of Palace II, and that the bichrome ware should therefore be regarded as intrusive in the Palace I level …. It seems feasible to suggest that the invading Philistines were responsible for the destruction of City III, though it is also possible that its destruction was the work of Amalekites occupying the Negeb (where we find them settled a short while after the Exodus; cf. Num. 13:29); in view of Velikovsky’s identification of the biblical Amalekites with the Hyksos … the Amalekite occupation of the Negeb could plausibly be dated, like the Hyksos invasion of Egypt, to roughly the time of the Exodus …. But if our arguments have been correct thus far, the evidence of the bichrome ware favours the Philistines as the newcomers to the site, and as the builders of City II. [End of quotes] Next we come to the Philistines in the era of King Saul, for a proper appreciation of which I return to Dr. Courville’s thesis. He, initially contrasting the Aegean ware with that of the distinctive Philistine type, has written: The new pottery found at Askelon [Ashkelon] at the opening of Iron I, and correlated with the invasion of the Sea Peoples, was identified as of Aegean origin. A similar, but not identical, pottery has been found in the territory north of Palestine belonging to the much earlier era of late Middle Bronze. By popular views, this is prior to the Israelite occupation of Palestine. By the altered chronology, this is the period of the late judges and the era of Saul. … That the similar pottery of late Middle Bronze, occurring both in the north and in the south, is related to the culture found only in the south at the later date is apparent from the descriptions of the two cultures. Of this earlier culture, which should be dated to the time of Saul, Miss Kenyon commented: The pottery does in fact provide very useful evidence about culture. The first interesting point is the wealth of a particular class of painted pottery …. The decoration is bichrome, nearly always red and black, and the most typical vessels have a combination of metopes enclosing a bird or a fish with geometric decoration such as a “Union Jack” pattern or a Catherine wheel. At Megiddo the first bichrome pottery is attributed to Stratum X, but all the published material comes from tombs intrusive into this level. It is in fact characteristic of Stratum IX. Similar pottery is found in great profusion in southern Palestine … Very similar vessels are also found on the east coast of Cyprus and on the coastal Syrian sites as far north as Ras Shamra. [Emphasis Courville’s] Drawings of typical examples of this pottery show the same stylized bird with back-turned head that characterized the pottery centuries later at Askelon. … The anachronisms and anomalies in the current views on the interpretation of this invasion and its effects on Palestine are replaced by a consistent picture, and one that is in agreement with the background provided by Scripture for the later era in the very late [sic] 8th century B.C. [End of quotes] Dr. Bryant G. Wood’s View “Dr. Wood’s article ["The Genesis Philistines", 2006] provides the evidence that supports Crete as the ancient home of the Philistines”. It occurred to me during a recent re-reading of Gavin Menzies’ book, The Lost Empire of Atlantis, that those peoples he - following Sir Arthur Evans - termed ‘the Minoans’, must really have been the Philistines. Previously, I had devoted Chapter 2 (of Volume One) of my university thesis: A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf to a consideration of “The Philistines and their Allies”, the Philistines being relevant to any serious study of King Hezekiah of Judah. This chapter was heavily reliant upon the fine research into the subject by Dr. Donovan Courville (The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, 1971). Now, the intriguing “Dr Platypus” has referred to the findings of Dr. Bryant Wood in his post: “Philistines, Cypriots, and Minoans”, at: https://pursiful.com/2007/03/17/philistines-cypriots-and-minoans/ .... If the Philistines came most immediately from Cyprus, and Cyprus was within the Minoan sphere of influence, is it possible to place Philistines on Crete itself? Amazingly, the answer seems to be yes. The evidence for this has recently been advanced by Bryan[t] G. Wood in “The Genesis Philistines” .... According to Wood, the famous Phaistos Disk, a 6.5 inch diameter, half-inch think baked clay disk with undecipherable inscriptions on both sides, makes possible a Cretan-Philistine connection. This artifact dates from about 1700 BC in conventional chronology. Among its many symbols, the disk has a depiction of a warrior in a feathered headdress, which Wood claims is very similar to the depiction of the later Philistines in reliefs on the walls of Rameses III’s mortuary temple in Medinet Habu, Egypt (T. Dothan 1982: 22; T.and M. Dothan 1992: 35-36). This is not an isolated find, as identical signs, including frontal views of the feathered warrior, have been found inscribed on an axe found in a cave in Crete (Robinson 2002: 306-307). To the presence of this seemingly Philistine figure on Crete, Wood adds evidence of an early Cretan presence at Gerar (identified as Tell Haror, 17 miles east of Gaza). He states, Of particular interest is a Minoan graffito found in the sacred precinct dating to ca. 1600 BC. Analyses of the sherd determined that it originated in Crete, most likely the south coast. There are four Minoan signs on the graffito, inscribed prior to firing, which represent a bull’s head, cloth, branch and figs. In addition to the graffito, an unusual chalice of Canaanite shape and fabric was found in a room on the east side of the sacred area. What makes the chalice unusual is its high arching handles, a well-known feature of Minoan chalices, but not of Canaanite. This find suggests that the Minoans were living in Gerar‚ the city in which Abraham and Isaac encountered Philistines in Genesis 21 and 26‚ and had possibly been for a significant time prior to 1600 BC. Painting Minoan-style reliefs would hardly be among the first tasks undertaken by settlers. It would probably only be done after the city had been firmly established. (I should note here that I favor a lower chronology for the ancient world which would place the Tell Haror graffito at several centuries greater distance from Abraham. I’ll address the issues of chronology and possible anachronisms in the next installment.) Finally, although the language of Linear A has yet to be deciphered, the phonetic values of many of the signs can be determined by comparison with later Linear B. Interpreted in these terms, there are a couple of well-attested Philistine names (Padi, Ikausu) found in Linear A inscriptions from Crete. Crete: An African Connection? Is it possible to link Cretan culture with Egypt? If the Philistines are to be associated with Minoan culture and if Genesis 10 is taken to be in any sense an accurate representation of the ethnography of the ancient world, this question must be addressed. REPORT THIS AD Very little is known of Cretan history before the beginning of the Early Minoan period, conventionally dated to ca. 2600 BC, although several reputable scholars hazard a guess that there were early migrations from North Africa. Crete has been inhabited as far back as the Neolithic period, ca. 6000 BC. Apparently, most of the early settlement was from Anatolia, but there is also evidence that Crete had a racially diverse population. Differing skull-types discovered at Cretan excavations suggest that such diversity existed. From a later period, Homer (Odyssey 17:175-177) noted at least five different tribes or ethnic groups on the island with each of them speaking a different language. It is possible that Crete was made up of many or at least several separate states at an early stage in its history. In Homer’s day, Crete was a fair, rich land, begirt with water, and therein are many men, past counting, and ninety cities. They have not all the same speech, but their tongues are mixed. There dwell Achaeans, there great-hearted native Cretans, there Kydonians, and Dorians of waving plumes, and goodly Pelasgians. Of the five tribes Homer mentions two are late Greek-speaking arrivals: the Achaeans and the Dorians. Native Cretans (or “Eteocretans”), Kydonians, and Pelasgians were likely all present on Crete before the arrival of the Greeks in the Late Helladic period. Eteocretans and Kydonians may have been related groups (in mythology, Kydon was the son of Minos, Crete’s founder and first king). The Pelasgians were also to be found throughout the Aegean and on the Greek mainland. They apparently originated in Anatolia and may have been Crete’s original Anatolian ethnic stock. Known in later Greek literature as Pelasgoi, they were originally called Pelastoi (Iliad 16:233; the earliest attested form of the word has “t,” not “g”)‚ a likely origin for the Egyptian term Peleset and the Hebrew Pelishtim. Since many believe that the indigenous population of Crete had both Anatolian and North African roots, this leaves Eteocretans and Kydonians as possible candidates for descendancy from Mizraim (Ge 10:13-14). What else can be known? There are Greek traditions that the Libyans originally came from Crete and/or settled in Crete, although I must hasten to state that the historicity of these traditions is strenuously contested by some, who see them as resulting from a linguistic confusion between Mat Libu, the Assyrian name for the Lycians of Asia Minor, and Libya. At any rate, one of these Libyan groups was the Garamantes, whom Robert Graves (The Greek Myths, vol. 1, pp. 33-35) states originally lived in the Fezzan region of Libya, south of Cyrene. In other words, the Garamantes lived just south of the region of Africa associated with the Casluchim, the ancestors of the Philistines according to the Genesis Table of Nations. All of this, it must be emphasized, is purely speculation. No one can say for sure that the Eteocretans came from North Africa or were somehow culturally connected with Egypt. There is, however, an abundance of circumstantial evidence for a Cretan-Egyptian connection that has been noted since Sir Arthur Evans first excavated Knossos. Redmond notes several symbols shared by the two cultures: 1. The ankh. 2. Hathor-like images such as cows suckling calves. 3. The resemblance between the Minoan “Snake Goddess” figures and Wadjet, the Egyptian Nile goddess represented as a snake. (For a fuller explanation, see Christopher L. C. E. Witcombe, Minoan Snake Goddess. Witcombe states, “It is clear that the Minoans borrowed much their culture and various cult practices from Egypt. Numerous Egyptian objects of one kind or another were found by Evans at Knossos. The most spectacular discovery was the lower part of a diorite statue of a seated Egyptian figure identified from the hieroglyphic inscriptions as a priest of Wadjyt.”) 4. The orientation of the palaces on Crete was determined in relation to Sirius, as was the position of Hathor’s temple on the Nile. 5. Both cultures celebrated the New Year at the early rising of Sirius in July. Additional features might be noted, including: 1. Donald A. MacKenzie, Myths of Crete and Pre-Hellenic Europe, cites the affinities between the Cretan Zeus and Egyptian Osiris. 2. Sir Arthur Evans believed that Cretan Linear A script was similar to Egyptian hieroglyphics. 3. Evidence from Cretan murals indicates that the costumes the Minoans wore were similar to those of the Egyptians. These connections led Evans to speculate that during the unsettling time of the military unification of Upper and Lower Egypt, refugees from Lower Egypt may have immigrated to Crete. .... Neolithic Cretan Origins in Anatolia “... genetic researchers connected the source population of ancient Crete to the well-known Neolitihic sites in Anatolia ...”. Gavin Menzies and Ian Hudson Gavin Menzies and Ian Hudson, in The Lost Empire of Atlantis: History's Greatest Mystery Revealed, introduce us to professor Constantinos Triantafyllidis of Thessaloniki’s Aristotle University and his important DNA studies of the Cretan so-called ‘Minoans’ (ch. 7): Now that scientists are able to test genetic theories with rigour, I was here because of the new study reported by The Times. New work by an international group of geneticists showed that a section of Crete's Neolithic population (i.e. pre-Bronze Age) did indeed go there by sea from Anatolia – modern-day Turkey. Professor Constantinos Triantafyllidis of Thessaloniki’s Aristotle University had published the findings of a research group led by geneticists from Greece, the United States, Canada, Russia and Turkey. Professor Triantafyllidis states that their analysis indicated that the arrival of these new people on Crete had coincided with a social and cultural upsurge that had led to the birth of the Minoan civilisation around 7000 BC. Specifically, genetic researchers connected the source population of ancient Crete to the well-known Neolitihic sites in Anatolia: The earliest Neolithic sites of Europe are located in Crete and mainland Greece. A debate persists concerning whether these farmers originated in neighbouring Anatolia and over the role of maritime colonisation. To address 171 samples were collected from areas near three known early Neolithic settlement areas in Greece together with 193 samples from Crete. An analysis of Y-chromosome hectographs determined that the samples from the Greek sites showed strong affinity to Balkan data, while Crete shows affinity with central/ Mediterranean Anatolia. Haplogroup J2b–M12 was frequent in Thessaly and Greek Macedonia while haplogroup J2a–M410 was scarce. Alternatively, Crete, like Anatolia showed a high frequency of J2a-M410 and a low frequency of J2b-M12. This dichotomy parallels archaeobotanical evidence, specifically that white bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) is known from Neolithic Anatolia, Crete and southern Italy; [yet] it is absent from earliest Neolithic Greece .... [End of quote] From a biblical point of view, I think, the estimated date for “the birth of the Minoan civilisation around 7000 BC” would be very roughly 5000 years too early. But the origin of the Neolithic ‘Minoans’ in Anatolia would be perfectly in order, considering that post-Flood man must have spread out from the regions of: Karaca dag, Göbekli Tepe, Ur, Harran (4) Karaca dag, Göbekli Tepe, Ur, Harran | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and on to “central/ Mediterranean Anatolia”. Along the same lines, we read at: https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/the-minoans-dna-and-all/ The Minoans, DNA and all. Posted on April 14, 2008 | .... .... Starting with the breaking DNA news, and this rather sinks the ‘Black Athena’ theory from Bernal… .... Crete’s fabled Minoan civilization was built by people from Anatolia, according to a new study by Greek and foreign scientists that disputes an earlier theory that said the Minoans’ forefathers had come from Africa. The new study – a collaboration by experts in Greece, the USA, Canada, Russia and Turkey – drew its conclusions from the DNA analysis of 193 men from Crete and another 171 from former neolithic colonies in central and northern Greece. The results show that the country’s neolithic population came to Greece by sea from Anatolia – modern-day Iran, Iraq and Syria – and not from Africa as maintained by US scholar Martin Bernal. The DNA analysis indicates that the arrival of neolithic man in Greece from Anatolia coincided with the social and cultural upsurge that led to the birth of the Minoan civilization, Constantinos Triantafyllidis of Thessaloniki’s Aristotle University told Kathimerini. “Until now we only had the archaeological evidence – now we have genetic data too and we can date the DNA,” he said. Archeological dates for the colonisation of Crete are about 7,000 BC. In more detail The most frequent haplogroups among the current population on Crete were: R1b3-M269 (17%), G2-P15 (11%), J2a1-DYS413 (9.0%), and J2a1h-M319 (9.0%). They identified J2a parent haplogroup J2a-M410 (Crete: 25.9%) with the first ancient residents of Crete during the Neolithic (8500 BCE – 4300 BCE) suggesting Crete was founded by a Neolithic population expansion from ancient Turkey/Anatolia. Specifically, the researchers connected the source population of ancient Crete to well known Neolithic sites of ancient Anatolia: Asıklı Höyük, Çatalhöyük, Hacılar, Mersin/Yumuktepe, and Tarsus. Haplogroup J2b-M12 (Crete: 3.1%; Greece: 5.9%) was associated with Neolithic Greece. Haplogroups J2a1h-M319 (8.8%) and J2a1b1-M92 (2.6%) were associated with the Minoan culture linked to a late Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age migration to Crete ca. 3100 BCE from North-Western/Western Anatolia and Syro-Palestine (ancient Canaan, Levant, and pre-Akkadian Anatolia); Aegean prehistorians link the date 3100 BCE to the origins of the Minoan culture on Crete. Haplogroup E3b1a2-V13 (Crete: 6.7%; Greece: 28%) was suggested to reflect a migration to Crete from the mainland Greece Mycenaean population during the late Bronze Age (1600 BCE – 1100 BCE). Haplogroup J1 was also reported to be found in both Crete and Greece (Crete: 8.3%; Greece: 5.2%), as well as haplogroups E3b3, I1, I2, I2a, I21b, K2, L, and R1a1. No ancient DNA was included in this study of YDNA from the Mediterranean region. ....

‘A second Pericles’ in the emperor Hadrian

by Damien F. Mackey “Even Athens may have reflected with complacency on the loss of her liberty, while she revered a second Pericles in Hadrian”. James Bowling Mozley Some Commonalities The famous beard We read about it, for instance, in the book, Rethinking Revolutions Through Ancient Greece (ed. Simon Goldhill, Robin Osborne): But if Hadrian's beard is not that of a philosopher, what are we to make of it? Susan Walker has recently refined her answer to this question to describe the beard ‘as worn in the style of Pericles’. …. Pericles’ short, curly beard and moustache put her on safer ground art-historically than those who favour a philosophical reading …. Historiographically it lends him an identity that complements his building in Athens. But the more one pursues the implications of this hypothesis, the more one is made to doubt it. If one reads Plutarch to get a sense of Pericles’ reputation under Hadrian, one encounters an icon whose physical appearance is similar to Pisistratus. …. In some ways this is eminently suitable: Pisistratus is a prolific builder in Athens and inaugurates the Olympeion that Hadrian is to finish. …. But were Hadrian attempting to instigate a revolution, there is danger in even the slightest whiff of tyranny. Rest-assured, there is little additional evidence to support a Pericles-Hadrian parallel, at least not compared to stronger associations with a bearded Zeus or Jupiter …. [End of quote] Eleusinian mysteries Under Pericles http://www.e-telescope.gr/en/mystery/the-eleusinian-mysteries The Eleusinian mysteries attracted many initiates in Athens from about the seventh century BC, and the epics of Homer prove that, even that early, Greeks believed that the Eleusinian rites granted the initiates happiness after death. The citizens of Athens adopted the Mysteries of Eleusis as a feature of the state cult, then, at the time of Pericles, other Greek cities were admitted and later everyone who could speak Greek and had shed no blood or had subsequently been purified. …. Under Peisistratus https://www.britannica.com/biography/Peisistratus Since religion was closely interwoven with the structure of the Greek polis, or city-state, many of [Peisistratus’] steps were religious reforms. He brought the great shrine of Demeter at Eleusis under state control and constructed the first major Hall of the Mysteries (Telesterion) for the annual rites of initiation into the cult. Many local cults of Attica were either moved to the city or had branch shrines there. Artemis, for instance, continued to be worshiped at Brauron, but now there was also a shrine to Artemis on the Acropolis. Above all, Athena now became the main deity to be revered by all Athenian citizens. Peisistratus constructed an entry gate (Propylaea) on the Acropolis and perhaps built an old Parthenon under the temple that now stands on the crest of the Acropolis. Many sculptured fragments of limestone from Peisistratid buildings have been found on the Acropolis, and the foundations of a major, unfinished temple can still be seen. …. Under Hadrian http://romeartlover.tripod.com/Eleusi.html Emperor Hadrian was initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries; he and his successors Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius and Commodus all protected the shrine and contributed to its embellishment …. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian In September 128 [sic], Hadrian attended the Eleusinian mysteries again. This time his visit to Greece seems to have concentrated on Athens and Sparta – the two ancient rivals for dominance of Greece. Hadrian had played with the idea of focusing his Greek revival around the Amphictyonic League based in Delphi, but by now he had decided on something far grander. Panhellenion and Olympeion “The Panhellenion was devised with a view to associating the Roman Emperor with the protection of Greek culture and of the "liberties" of Greece – in this case, urban self-government. It allowed Hadrian to appear as the fictive heir to Pericles, who supposedly had convened a previous Panhellenic Congress …”. Peisistratus Rethinking Revolutions Through Ancient Greece: “Pisistratus is a prolific builder in Athens and inaugurates the Olympeion that Hadrian is to finish”. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/greece/olympieion/olympianzeus.html Dedicated to Olympian Zeus, the Olympieion was situated on the bank of the river Ilissus southeast of the Acropolis. It was built on the site of an ancient Doric temple, the foundation of which had been laid out by the tyrant Pisistratus, but construction was abandoned several decades later in 510 BC when his son Hippias, whose rule had become increasingly despotic, was expelled from Athens and a democracy established (he would return twenty years later with the Persians at Marathon, Thucydides, Peloponnesian War, VI.54ff). Aristotle cites the temple and the pyramids of Egypt as examples of how rulers subdue their populations by engaging them in such grandiose projects. Kept poor and preoccupied with hard work, there was not the time to conspire (Politics, V.11). Over three centuries later, in 174 BC, Antiochus IV Epiphanes (king of Syria and the "vile person" of Daniel 11:21) commissioned the Roman architect Cossutius to begin work again on the same ground plan. He did so "with great skill and taste," says Vitruvius, constructing a temple "of large dimensions, and of the Corinthian order and proportions" (On Architecture, VII, Pref.15, 17). Of all the works of Antiochus, the Temple of Jupiter Olympius or Olympian (as the Romans called it) was the "only one in the world, the plan of which was suitable to the greatness of the deity" (Livy, History of Rome, XLI.20). But when the king died a decade later, the temple still was "left half finished" (Strabo, Geography, IX.1.17), although it extended at least to the architrave of the columns still standing at the southeastern corner. …. Pericles http://erenow.com/biographies/hadrian-and-the-triumph-of-rome/24.html Plutarch writes that Pericles “introduced a bill to the effect that all Hellenes wheresoever resident in Europe or in Asia, small and large cities alike, should be invited to send deputies to a council at Athens.” The aim was to discuss matters of common interest—restoration of the temples the Persians had burned down, payment of vows to the gods for the great deliverance, and clearing the seas of pirates. …. Hadrian http://erenow.com/biographies/hadrian-and-the-triumph-of-rome/24.html More than half a millennium later [sic] Hadrian picked it up where it had fallen. During his previous visit, his attention had been caught by the synedrion, or council, at Delphi for the Amphictyonic League, but it did not include enough Greek cities. He decided to launch a new Panhellenion along Periclean lines. As before, a grandly refurbished Athens was to be the headquarters and Greek cities would be invited to send delegates to an inaugural assembly. Member communities had to prove their Greekness, both culturally and in genetic descent, although in practice some bogus pedigrees were accepted. The enterprise had a somewhat antiquarian character. So far as we can tell from the fragmentary surviving evidence, Hadrian aimed at roughly the same catchment area as Pericles had done—in essence, the basin of the Ionian Sea. Italy and Sicily were excluded once again, and there was no representation of Greek settlements in Egypt, Syria, or Anatolia. The emperor made a point of visiting Sparta, presumably to ensure that it did not stay away as it had done in the fifth century. A renaissance of old glories was reflected in the development of archaized language; so, for example, Spartan young men (epheboi) suddenly took on an antiquated Doric dialect in their dedications to Artemis Orthia, a patron goddess of the city. It seems clear that one of the purposes of Hadrian’s policy was to recruit the past to influence and to help define and improve the decadent present. Hadrian began to call himself the “Olympian,” echoing the example of Pericles as well as reflecting the completion of the Olympieion, the vast temple to Olympian Zeus. He was soon widely known throughout the Hellenic eastern provinces as “Hadrianos Sebastos Olumpios,” Sebastos being the Greek word for Augustus, or indeed “Hadrianos Sebastos Zeus Olumpios.” What did the Panhellenion actually do? It administered its own affairs, managed its shrine not far from the Roman Agora and offices, and promoted a quadrennial festival. It also assessed qualifications for membership. But Hadrian was careful to give it no freestanding political powers. All important decisions were referred to him for approval. Rather, the focus was cultural and religious, and a connection was forged with the Eleusinian Mysteries. In essence, the task was to build spiritual and intellectual links among the cities of the Greek world, and to foster a sense of community. The Panhellenion also furthered the careers of delegates, who were usually leading members of Greek elites (but not necessarily Roman citizens), and created an international “old-boy network” of friends who advanced one another’s interests. …. “Even Athens may have reflected with complacency on the loss of her liberty, while she revered a second Pericles in Hadrian”. James Bowling Mozley Ronnie Leslie will, for his part, describe the emperor Hadrian as “a new Pericles” in his article “Hadrian’s Second Jewish Revolt: Political or Religious?” But see my series arguing against the traditional view that there was a Second Jewish Revolt during the C2nd AD: Simon Bar Kochba in Temple period (6) Simon Bar Kochba in Temple period | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Ronnie Leslie writes: file:///C:/Users/lib_pubaccess/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/IV9J19BF/Ronnie-Leslie.pdf …. Right from the start Hadrian made it clear that he was his own man in his administration of the empire; he resumed the policy of the early emperors, dedicating his time to maintaining peace throughout the empire. However, this policy did not last long; one of his very first decisions was the abandonment of the eastern territories which Trajan had just conquered during his last campaign. Such a withdrawal, and the surrender of territory for which the Roman army had just paid for in blood, would hardly have been popular. Hadrian may be sharply contrasted with his predecessor Trajan, who owed his elevation to his successful wars in the Rhine region. After Trajan’s death, Hadrian called upon the eastern armies; however, the troops were demoralized by Trajan’s death, which in turn acted as a signal to Rome’s enemies in every province. …. Hadrian spent the better part of his reign away from the capital exploring every province of the empire. …. On his travels he grew deeply devoted to Greek studies, so much so that some Romans called him the little Greekling. …. Throughout his twenty-one year reign, Hadrian’s infinity for Greek culture are seen throughout his administration as well as religious ideology. He had been so fascinated by the culture of Greece that he introduced Greek customs and even grew a beard which was traditionally Greek. …. Furthermore, his court assumed more and more a Hellenic characteristic. He was constantly surrounded by Greek playwrights and sophists; his favorite was Antinous … with whom he had become acquainted with in Asia Minor and brought to Rome. He seemed to have viewed himself as a new Pericles; thus, most of his attention of the empire was exclusively focused on the east, particularly Athens. …. [End of quote] Then there is this one, “Pericles and Athens”: https://erenow.com/ancient/the-classical-world-an-epic-history-from-homer-to-hadrian/15.html “From the 450s until 429 the most famous Athenian politician was Pericles, so much so that this era is often known nowadays as the age of ‘Periclean Athens’. The Emperor Hadrian was well aware of Pericles’ example. Among his special favours for Athens, Hadrian may even have modelled his ‘Panhellenic’ role for the city on a project which biographers had ascribed to Pericles himself”. And also this one, a supposed “renaissance of old glories”: https://erenow.com/biographies/hadrian-and-the-triumph-of-rome/24.html …. Plutarch writes that Pericles “introduced a bill to the effect that all Hellenes wheresoever resident in Europe or in Asia, small and large cities alike, should be invited to send deputies to a council at Athens.” The aim was to discuss matters of common interest—restoration of the temples the Persians had burned down, payment of vows to the gods for the great deliverance, and clearing the seas of pirates. The Greek colonies of Sicily and Italy were not invited, for they had not been directly involved in the war. Nothing came of the project owing to opposition from the Spartans, then the great military rival of Athens. Pericles let the idea drop. More than half a millennium later Hadrian picked it up where it had fallen. During his previous visit, his attention had been caught by the synedrion, or council, at Delphi for the Amphictyonic League, but it did not include enough Greek cities. He decided to launch a new Panhellenion along Periclean lines. As before, a grandly refurbished Athens was to be the headquarters and Greek cities would be invited to send delegates to an inaugural assembly. Member communities had to prove their Greekness, both culturally and in genetic descent, although in practice some bogus pedigrees were accepted. The enterprise had a somewhat antiquarian character. So far as we can tell from the fragmentary surviving evidence, Hadrian aimed at roughly the same catchment area as Pericles had done—in essence, the basin of the Ionian Sea. Italy and Sicily were excluded once again, and there was no representation of Greek settlements in Egypt, Syria, or Anatolia. The emperor made a point of visiting Sparta, presumably to ensure that it did not stay away as it had done in the fifth century. A renaissance of old glories was reflected in the development of archaized language; so, for example, Spartan young men (epheboi) suddenly took on an antiquated Doric dialect in their dedications to Artemis Orthia, a patron goddess of the city. It seems clear that one of the purposes of Hadrian’s policy was to recruit the past to influence and to help define and improve the decadent present. Hadrian began to call himself the “Olympian,” echoing the example of Pericles as well as reflecting the completion of the Olympieion, the vast temple to Olympian Zeus. He was soon widely known throughout the Hellenic eastern provinces as “Hadrianos Sebastos Olumpios,” Sebastos being the Greek word for Augustus, or indeed “Hadrianos Sebastos Zeus Olumpios.” …. See also my article: Time to consider Hadrian, that ‘mirror-image’ of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus (6) Time to consider Hadrian, that 'mirror-image' of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

Ancient mentors and tutors

Ancient kings were wont to use wise men, or sages, to tutor their children and to educate them in a wide sense. Woman pharaoh Hatshepsut, in Eighteenth Dynasty Egypt, had called in the great Senenmut (or Senmut) as steward and tutor of her daughter,Neferure. Senenmut had the best of teaching credentials. Was he not the wise king Solomon of Israel? See e.g. my article: "Solomon and Sheba" https://www.academia.edu/3660164/Solomon_and_Sheba Filling a role in Egypt almost identical to that of Senenmut was the celebrated seer, Amenhotep son of Hapu. See e.g. my article: "Amenhotep son of Hapu had rôle like Senenmut. Part One: So alike despite being about a century apart" https://www.academia.edu/40182006/Amenhotep_son_of_Hapu_had_r%C3%B4le_like_Senenmut_Part_One_So_alike_despite_being_about_a_century_apart Who was this Amenhotep son of Hapu? I have tentatively connected him to the long-lived Horemheb: "Amenhotep son of Hapu had rôle like Senenmut. Part Two: Amenhotep also compares well with Horemheb" https://www.academia.edu/40182399/Amenhotep_son_of_Hapu_had_r%C3%B4le_like_Senenmut_Part_Two_Amenhotep_also_compares_well_with_Horemheb and again: https://www.academia.edu/40199570/Amenhotep_son_of_Hapu_had_r%C3%B4le_like_Senenmut_Part_Three_Strengthening_the_connection_with_Horemheb Another famous seer, who has exerted a vast influence upon antiquity over a long range of time, was Ahikar (or Achior), nephew of Tobit of Naphtalian Israel. Ahikar I have identified with the similarly well-known seer of Babylon, Esagil-kini-ubba. Ahikar famously tutored Nadin (or Nadab), or Ashur-nadin-shumi, the eldest son of Sennacherib, the ill-fated "Holofernes" of the Book of Judith, who betrayed his so-called "uncle", Ahikar (Tobit 14:10). See e.g. my article: ""Nadin" (Nadab) of Tobit is the "Holofernes" of Judith" https://www.academia.edu/36576110/_Nadin_Nadab_of_Tobit_is_the_Holofernes_of_Judith This situation, Ahikar tutoring a powerful king's militaristic son, has such likenesses to Aristotle's supposed tutoring of the militaristic Alexander the Great, son of King Philip, that I must wonder if the Greeks had borrowed the well-known earlier story and applied it to their hero, Alexander. The life of the latter does not give evidence that he had once been tutored by a mind like Aristotle's.

Golden Sword of Invincibility

A good portion of Homer's famous epic, "The Odyssey", I previously considered to have been taken from the Hebrew OT, especially from the books of Tobit and Job: "Similarities to The Odyssey of the Books of Job and Tobit" https://www.academia.edu/8914220/Similarities_to_The_Odyssey_of_the_Books_of_Job_and_Tobit There the goddess Athene (or Athena), disguised as a male, appears to have been substituted for the original, in Tobit, in which the angel Raphael likewise appears in the guise of a (young male). I wrote on this: The 'Divine' Messenger From whom the son, especially, receives help during his travels. In the Book of Tobit, this messenger is the angel Raphael (in the guise of ‘Azarias’). In The Odyssey, it is the goddess Athene (in the guise of ‘Mentes’). And again: Heavenly Visitor ... she [Athene] bound under her feet her lovely sandals of untarnished gold, which carried her with the speed of the wind.... Thus she flashed down from the heights of Olympus. On reaching Ithaca she took her stand on the threshold of the court in front of Odysseus' house; and to look like a visitor she assumed the appearance of a Taphian chieftain named Mentes… (I, 27-28). The reader will quickly pick up the similarities between this text and the relevant part of the Book of Tobit if I simply quote directly from the latter: The prayer of [Tobit and Sarah] was heard in the presence of the glory of the great God. And Raphael was sent (3:16,17). Then Tobias ... found a beautiful young man, standing girded, as it were ready to walk. And not knowing that he was an angel of God, he saluted him.... 'I am Azarias, the son of the great Ananias' (5:5, 6, 18). [End of quotes] Now that trend of Greek appropriation of popular OT stories, once more involving the goddess Athene, I may have detected in one of the legends of Hercules (Greek Heracles), which, I believe, to have been inspired by a famous incident in the Second Book of Maccabees. I refer to the account of Judas Maccabeus's receiving the golden sword from the now deceased prophet Jeremiah, this corresponding to Athene's gift to Hercules of a golden sword. Compare the two accounts: 2 Maccabees 15:6-16: "In his arrogance Nicanor had boasted that he would set up a monument in honor of his victory over Judas. But Judas was fully confident that the Lord would help him, so he urged his men not to be afraid of the enemy. He encouraged them to remember how the Almighty had helped them in times past and to rest assured that he would give them victory this time also. He renewed their hope by reading to them from the Law and the Prophets and by reminding them of the battles they had already won. When his men were ready for battle, he gave them their orders and at the same time pointed out how the Gentiles could not be trusted, because they never kept their treaties. He armed all his men, not by encouraging them to trust in shields and spears, but by inspiring them with courageous words. He also lifted their morale by telling them about his dream, a kind of vision that they could trust in. He told them that he had seen a vision of Onias, the former High Priest, that great and wonderful man of humble and gentle disposition, who was an outstanding orator and who had been taught from childhood how to live a virtuous life. With outstretched arms Onias was praying for the entire Jewish nation. Judas then saw an impressive white-haired man of great dignity and authority. Onias said: This is God's prophet Jeremiah, who loves the Jewish people and offers many prayers for us and for Jerusalem, the holy city. Then Jeremiah stretched out his right hand and gave Judas a gold sword, saying as he did so, 'This holy sword is a gift from God. Take it and destroy your enemies'." Now, Hercules and the Lernaean Hydra: "When it was time for the immortal head to be cut off, Heracles took a golden sword that Athena gave him, and using the same technique, the two heroes [including his nephew, Iolaus] managed to kill the monster". On another occasion: "Athena gave Hercules noisemaking clappers, known as krotala": https://www.thoughtco.com/the-goddess-athena-helps-hercules-117193#:~:text=Athena%20helped%20Hercules%20during%20la noise being also used in battle by the Maccabeans (e.g. 1 Maccabees 5:33): "... [they] sounded their trumpets and cried aloud in prayer". What seems to make the Maccabean connection with Hercules the more compelling is that, somewhat earlier in 2 Maccabees, Hercules is twice mentioned (4:18-20): "When the quinquennial games were held at Tyre in the presence of the king, the vile Jason sent representatives of the Antiochians of Jerusalem, to bring three hundred silver drachmas for the sacrifice to Hercules. But the bearers themselves decided that the money should not be spent on a sacrifice, as that was not right, but should be used for some other purpose. So the contribution meant for the sacrifice to Hercules by the sender, was in fact applied to the construction of triremes[e] by those who brought it".