Thursday, October 24, 2019

Significance of sandals in Book of Ruth and Gospels


 

 


The meaning of it is wonderfully explained in the context of the Levirate Law in the article, “Whose Sandal Strap I am Not Worthy to Untie”, to be found at:


 

The book by the prominent Spanish scripture scholar Luis Alonso-Schokel called I Nomi Dell'Amore (The Names of Love) provides a fascinating and spiritually rich look at marriage symbols in the bible. I’d like to offer a brief summary of some of the insights of the chapter from that book entitled "The Levirate."
 

Schokel begins by noticing 5 similar texts from the New Testament all dealing with St. John the Baptist:

Matthew 3:11 he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry

Mark 1:7 After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie

Luke 3:16 he who is mightier than I is coming, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

John 1:27 even he who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.
 

Acts 13:25 after me one is coming, the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to untie.

Now any text repeated in all of the gospels (and the book of Acts too) must have a grand significance. Most people will see it as illustrating the humility of the Baptist, unworthy to untie the sandals of the Lord, but several internal hints point to a deeper, more profound answer.

Schokel points out three textual clues:
 

1) In John 1:30 the Baptist speaks of Christ as, "This is he of whom I said, `After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me.'" The word translated as "man" here is not the Greek word "anthropos" usually translated as man, instead it is "aner" a word, as Schokel points out, having more of a "sexual" (in the sense of gender) or relational meaning. It isn't man, but "male" (maschio in Italian); a male in relation to a female. The passage would better be translated in English, "After me comes a male who ranks before me." [John the Baptist is the "anthropos" - see John 1:6, 3:27]. Schokel also points out the references in John 1-3 to Isaiah 40-66, esp. chapter 54:1-10, where Yahweh is referred to as the Bridegroom/husband and in the LXX, the "aner")
 

2) At least in the synoptics the word "unworthy" or "unfit" has a juridical sense. That word is "ikanos" while John uses "axios." So it seems to be more of unfitness according to some type of Judaic law, and with the use of "aner" possibly a marital law.
 

3) Looking a few chapters down, we come to the last words of John recorded in the gospel. In responding to questions as to who this Jesus is, he responds, "You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him. He who has the bride is the bridegroom; the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom's voice; therefore this joy of mine is now full" (John 3:28-29). John here is challenging Israel's Messianic expectations - they expect their Christ to come as a political leader, or a warrior, or even a prophet like John the Baptist, but John says this is incorrect. He says that the messiah will come as the Bridegroom of his bride Israel; ultimately that Israel has the wrong expectations.
 

So keeping all of this in mind: the repeated reference to untying of sandals, the "maleness" of Christ, the juridical context, and the spousal-messianism John uses to describe the Christ, Schokel (along with the Fathers) exegetes this text in light of the Levirate Law in the Old Testament.
 

The Levirate Law (derived from Latin levir, meaning "a husband's brother") is the name of an ancient custom ordained by Moses, by which, when an Israelite died without issue, his surviving brother was required to marry the widow, so as to continue his brother's family through the son that might be born of that marriage (Gen 38:8; De 25:5-10 ) comp. (Ruth 3:1 4:10) Its object was "to raise up seed to the departed brother."

But if the surviving brother refused (for whatever reason) to marry the widow, a rite called "Halizah" would occur. Deut 25:5-10 describes the Levirate and Halizah:

"If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no offspring, the wife of the dead shall not be married outside the family to a stranger; her husband's brother shall go in to her, and take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her.

And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his brother who is dead, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. And if the man does not wish to take his brother's wife, then his brother's wife shall go up to the gate to the elders, and say, `My husband's brother refuses to perpetuate his brother's name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother to me.' Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him: and if he persists, saying, `I do not wish to take her,' then his brother's wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say, `So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother's house.' And the name of his house shall be called in Israel, The house of him that had his sandal pulled off" (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).

The sandal is the key - the sandal is symbolic of he who has the right to marriage. The one who wears the sandal is the Bridegroom. As St. Cyprian said, this is why both Moses (Ex 3:2-6) and Joshua (John 5:13-15) were told by Yaweh that they had to remove their sandals; although they might have been prophets, they were not the one who had the right to marry Israel the Bride. In saying that he is not fit (juridically) to remove the sandal from Jesus' foot he is saying that Jesus is the bridegroom, he is the one who has the right to marriage, not John - even though he came first.

"Even though he came first" - John admits to this, being the precursor of the Messiah-Bridegroom, but he is not the one that will marry the bride (as he is not the Messiah, as some of the Jews had thought). To understand this better (and the entire Levirate process) one must look to the book of Ruth. In it, the widow Ruth is set to marry her "next of kin" via the levirate law, but Boaz arrived first to claim Ruth. It does not matter though, the next of kin has first choice. But he decides to pass up the marriage to Ruth, and gives her to Boaz. And in doing so he "drew off his sandal" (Ruth 4:8). Even though John came first, Jesus is the one with the right to the woman, and he opts for the marriage - and thus does not remove his sandal. John will not be given the chance to take his place.

This interpretation of these passages are not new, as Schokel points out. Several of the Fathers, including Jerome, Cyprian, and Gregory all see the Levirate law being referred to in the passages about John the Baptist. As Jerome writes, "being as that Christ is the Bridegroom, John the Baptist is not merited to untie the laces of the bridegroom's sandal, in order that, according to the law of Moses (as seen with Ruth) his house will not be called "the house of the un-sandaled," [a reference to the refusal to carry on the name of the deceased brother].

So, if John is not the messiah-bridegroom, and is unfit to untie the bridegroom's sandals, as the "friend of the groom" - what is his duty, esp. in the Levirate context? The root of his mission "to prepare the way of the Lord" can be found in Ruth 3:3 when the elders tell Ruth before her wedding to "Wash therefore and anoint yourself, and put on your best clothes." John's baptism of repentance is done to prepare the bride for the wedding.

Liturgically, he cleans her from her impurities (see also Ezekiel 16) preparing the bride "that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word" (Ephesians 5:26). To prepare Israel the Bride for her nuptial with Christ her bridegroom is the heart of the Baptist's mission.

Now with all symbolism and typologies, it is hard to "stretch" the analogy too far. But in order to get the full meaning of Christ's fulfillment of the Old Testament, one has to twist symbols around a bit. In order to do understand one other crucial aspect of the Levirate, that of the "deceased" brother, we must be a bit creative, and look at it from a different perspective. Christ marries his bride, consummates his union with her, on the cross (see Eph 5) - but this leads to his death. So he could be seen as the "dead husband." So who will be the "brother" who takes his place in marrying his bride? For the answer we must again turn to the gospel of John.

"When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold, your son!' Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home" (John 19:26-27).

Jesus had no other brothers, so he gave his mother to John - and thus in becoming her son, John (and all apostles and Christians likewise) became Jesus' brother. But we cannot forget that on a different level (see Rev 12) Mary is the "icon of the church," the bride - so John as he becomes Jesus' brother, is given to the Church as her bridegroom. Here we have what Schokel says might be seen as the "root of apostolic succession." The Church is passed on from brother/apostle to brother/apostle - yet the bride still keeps the name of her first husband, as Paul writes, "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Corinthians 1:13). The name of the husband is carried on by the generation of new sons, thus the brother through his preaching of the word, causes the bride to become fruitful. Look to St. Paul (a Jew well versed in the Law) again, "For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers.

For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Corinthians 4:15). The bishops/apostles have their charge to carry on the name of Christ by preaching the gospel and celebrating the sacraments - and in doing so the church/bride becomes church/mother and the Levirate law is thus fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

Tuesday, October 22, 2019

Some Moses-like myths



1. Did God really write the Ten Commandments Himself?
 

 














by
 
Damien F. Mackey
 
 
 
 
Astour believes that Moses, a hero of the Hebrew scriptures, shares
"some cognate features" with Danaos (or Danaus), hero of Greek legend.
 
 
 
 
Law and Government
 
The great Lawgiver in the Bible, and hence in Hebrew history, was Moses, substantially the author of the Torah (Law). But the history books tell us that the Torah was probably dependent upon the ‘law code’ issued by the Babylonian king, Hammurabi (dated to the first half of the C18th BC).
I shall discuss this historical anomaly a little further on.
 
For Egyptian identifications of Moses as a legal official in Egypt, see e.g. my article:
 
Moses a Judge in Egypt
 
 
 
For Moses the Lawgiver appropriated by the Greeks (Spartans), see my article:
 
Moses and Lycurgus
 
 
 
The Egyptians may have corrupted the legend of the baby Moses in the bulrushes so that now it became the goddess Isis who drew the baby Horus from the Nile and had him suckled by Hathor (the goddess in the form of a cow - the Egyptian personification of wisdom). In the original story, of course, baby Moses was drawn from the water by an Egyptian princess, not a goddess, and was weaned by Moses' own mother (Exodus 2:5-9).
Anyway, Moses became for the Egyptians Hor-mes, meaning 'son of Hathor', which legendary person the Greeks eventually absorbed into their own pantheon as Hermes, the winged messenger god. [The Roman version of Hermes is Mercury]
 
Could both the account of the rescue of the baby Moses in the Book of Exodus, and the Egyptian version of it, be actually based upon a Mesopotamian original, as the textbooks say; based upon the story of King Sargon of Akkad in Mesopotamia? Sargon tells, "in terms reminiscent of Moses, Krishna and other great men", that [as quoted by G. Roux, Ancient Iraq, Penguin Books, 1964, p. 152]:
 
.… My changeling mother conceived me, in secret she bore me. She set me in a basket of rushes, with bitumen she sealed my lid. She cast me into the river which rose not over me. The river bore me up and carried me to Akki, the drawer of water. Akki, the drawer of water, took me as his son and reared me ….
 
Given that Sargon is conventionally dated to the C24th BC, and Moses about a millennium later, it would seem inevitable that the Hebrew version, and the Egyptian one, must be imitations of the Mesopotamian one. Such is what the ‘history’ books say, at least, despite the fact that the extant Sargon legend is very late (C7th BC); thought, though, to have been based upon an earlier Mesopotamian original. See my article:
 
Did Sargon of Akkad influence the Exodus account of the baby Moses?
 
 
For Sargon of Akkad as a possible biblical character, see e.g. my article:
 
Nimrod a "mighty man"
 
 
 
 
What is more certain and accurate, I think, is Dean Hickman re-dating of King Hammurabi of Babylon to the time of Solomon (mid-C10th BC), re-identifying Hammurabi's older contemporary, Shamsi-Adad I, as king David's Syrian foe, Hadadazer (2 Samuel 10:16).
I have been able to take this further since in articles such as:
 
Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as Contemporaries of Solomon
 
 
According to this new scenario, Hammurabi well post-dated Moses and could not possibly have influenced the Torah (Law).
 
(a) Greek and Phoenician 'Moses-like Myths'
 
M. Astour believes that Moses, a hero of the Hebrew scriptures, shares "some cognate features" with Danaos (or Danaus), hero of Greek legend. He gives his parallels as follows [Hellenosemitica, p. 99]:
 
Moses grows up at the court of the Egyptian king as a member of the royal family, and subsequently flees from Egypt after having slain an Egyptian - as Danaos, a member of the Egyptian ruling house, flees from the same country after the slaying of the Aigyptiads which he had arranged. The same number of generations separates Moses from Leah the "wild cow" and Danaos from the cow Io.
 
My comment: The above parallel might even account for how the Greeks managed to confuse the land of Ionia (Io) with the land of Israel in the case of the earliest philosophers:
 
Joseph as Thales: Not an "Hellenic Gotterdamerung" but Israelite Wisdom
 
 
Astour continues (op. cit., pp. 99-100):
 
Still more characteristic is that both Moses and Danaos find and create springs in a waterless region; the story of how Poseidon, on the request of the Danaide Amymona, struck out with his trident springs from the Lerna rock, particularly resembles Moses producing a spring from the rock by the stroke of his staff.
 
A ‘cow’ features also in the legend of Cadmus, son of Agenor, king of Tyre upon the disappearance of his sister Europa, who was sent by his father together with his brothers Cilix and Phoenix to seek her with instructions not to return without her. Seeking the advice of the oracle at Delphi, Cadmus was told to settle at the point where a cow, which he would meet leaving the temple, would lie down. The cow led him to the site of Thebes (Greek and Egyptian cities by that name).
There he built the citadel of Cadmeia.
 
Cadmus married Harmonia, the daughter of Ares, god of war, and Aphrodite and, according to the legend, was the founder of the House of Oedipus]
Astour believes that "even more similar features" may be discovered if one links these accounts to the Ugaritic (Phoenicio-Canaanite) poem of Dan’el, which he had previously identified as "the prototype of the Danaos myth" (p. 100):
 
The name of Aqht, the son of Danel, returns as Qehat, the grandfather of Moses. The name of the locality Mrrt, where Aqht was killed, figures in the gentilic form Merarî as the brother of Qehat in the Levite genealogy. The name of P?t, the daughter of Danel and the devoted sister of Aqht, is met in the Moses story as Pû'ã, a midwife who saved the life of the new-born Moses. The very name of Moses, in the feminine form Mšt, is, in the Ugaritic poem, the first half of Danel's wife's name, while the second half of her name, Dnty, corresponds to the name of Levi's sister Dinah.
 
Astour had already explained how the biblical story of the Rape of Dinah (Genesis 34) was "analogous to the myth of the bloody wedding of her namesakes, the Danaides".
He continues on here with his fascinating Greco-Israelite parallels:
 
Dân, the root of the names Dnel, Dnty (and also Dinah and Danaos), was the name of a tribe whose priests claimed to descend directly from Moses (Jud. 18:30); and compare the serpent emblem of the tribe of Dan with the serpent staff of Moses and the bronze serpent he erected. …Under the same name - Danaë - another Argive heroine of the Danaid stock is thrown into the sea in a chest with her new-born son - as Moses in his ark (tébã) - and lands on the serpent-island of Seriphos (Heb. šãrâph, applied i.a. to the bronze serpent made by Moses). Moses, like Danel, is a healer, a prophet, a miracle-worker - cf. Danel's staff (mt) which he extends while pronouncing curses against towns and localities, quite like Moses in Egypt; and especially, like Danel, he is a judge….
 
(b) Roman 'Moses-like Myth'
 
The Romans further corrupted the story of the infant Moses, following on probably from the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Phoenicians and Greeks. I refer to the account of Romulus (originally Rhomus) and Remus, thought to have founded the city of Rome in 753 BC. Both the founders and the date are quite mythical. The Romans may have taken an approximate form of the Egyptian name for Moses, (Sinuhe, or Sa-nu(mu) Musare), and turned it into Rhomus and Remus (MUSA-RE = RE-MUS), with the formerly one child (Moses) now being doubled into two babies (twins). According to this legend, the twins were put into a basket by some kind servants and floated in the Tiber River, from which they were eventually rescued by a she-wolf. Thus the Romans more pragmatically opted for a she-wolf as the suckler instead of a cow goddess, or a lion goddess, Sekhmet (the fierce alter ego of Hathor).
The Romans took yet another slice from the Pentateuch when they had the founder of the city of Rome, Romulus, involved in a fratricide (killing Remus); just as Cain, the founder of the world's first city, had killed his own brother, Abel (cf. Genesis 4:8 and 4:17).
 
 
 
(c) Mohammed: Arabian ‘Moses-like Myths'
 
An Islamic lecturer, Ahmed Deedat ["What the Bible Says About Mohammed (Peace Be Upon Him) the Prophet of Islam" (www.islamworld.net/Muhammad.in.Bible.html)], told of an interview he once had with a dominee of the Dutch Reformed Church in Transvaal, van Heerden, on the question: "What does the Bible say about Muhummed?" Deedat had in mind the Holy Qur'an verse 46:10, according to which "a witness among the children of Israel bore witness of one like him…". This was in turn a reference to Deuteronomy 18:18's "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."
The Moslems of course interpret the "one like him [i.e. Moses]" as being Mohammed himself.
Faced with the dominee's emphatic response that the Bible has "nothing" to say about Mohammed - and that the Deuteronomic prophecy ultimately pertained to Jesus Christ, as did "thousands" of other prophecies - Deedat set out to prove him wrong.
For the gross historical anachronisms associated with ‘Mohammed’, see articles such as my:
 
Further argument for Prophet Mohammed's likely non-existence
 
 
In such articles the prophet Mohammed is shown to have been (at least in part) a composite biblical character and a non-historical entity.  
 
Some Conclusions regarding Mohammed (c. 570-632 AD, conventional dating)
 
It is not surprising that the biography of ‘Mohammed’, much of whose foundations were actually Israelite (biblical), as I have argued, borrowed in part from the Moses story, as is even more the case with the so-called ‘Buddha’. On the latter see e.g. my series:
 
Buddha just a re-working of Moses. Part One: The singular greatness of Moses
 
beginning with:
 
 
Mohammed especially resembles Moses in:
 
(i) the latter's visit to Mount Horeb (modern Har Karkom) with its cave atop, its Burning Bush, and angel (Exodus 3:1-2), possibly equating to Mohammed's "Mountain of Light" (Jabal-an-Nur), and 'cave of research' (‘Ghar-i-Hira'), and angel Gabriel;
(ii) at the very same age of forty (Acts 7:23-29), and
(iii) there receiving a divine revelation, leading to his
(iv) becoming a prophet of God and a Lawgiver.
 
 
Mohammed as a Lawgiver is a direct pinch, I believe, from the Hebrew Pentateuch – but also from the era of the prophet Jeremiah whom Mohammed also much resembles.
Consider the following [O'Hair, M., "Mohammed", A text of American Atheist Radio Series program No. 65, first broadcast on August 25, 1969. (www.atheists.org/Islam.Mohammed.html)]:
"Now the Kaaba or Holy Stone at Mecca was the scene of an annual pilgrimage, and during this pilgrimage in 621 Mohammed was able to get six persons from Medina to bind themselves to him. They did so by taking the following oath.
 
Not consider anyone equal to Allah;
Not to steal;
Not to be unchaste;
Not to kill their children;
Not willfully to calumniate".
 
This is simply the Mosaïc Decalogue, with the following Islamic addition [ibid.]:
"To obey the prophet's orders in equitable matters.
In return Mohammed assured these six novitiates of paradise. The place where these first vows were taken is now called the first Akaba".
 
"The mission of Mohammed", perfectly reminiscent of that of Moses (and of Jeremiah), was "to restore the worship of the One True God, the creator and sustainer of the universe, as taught by Prophet Ibrahim [Abraham] and all Prophets of God, and complete the laws of moral, ethical, legal, and social conduct and all other matters of significance for the humanity at large."
 
The above-mentioned Burning Bush incident occurred whilst Moses
 
(a)    was living in exile (Exodus 2:15)
(b)   amongst the Midianite tribe of Jethro, in the Paran desert.
(c)    Moses had married Jethro's daughter, Zipporah (v. 21).
 
Likewise Mohammed (also partly applicable to Jeremiah)
 
(a)    experienced exile;
(b)   to Medina, a name which may easily have become confused with the similar sounding, Midian, and
(c)    he had only the one wife at the time, Khadija. Also
(d)   Moses, like Mohammed, was terrified by what God had commanded of him, protesting that he was "slow of speech and slow of tongue" (Exodus 4:10). To which God replied: "Who gives speech to mortals? Who makes them mute or deaf, seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord? Now go, and I will be your mouth and teach you what you are to speak' (vv. 11-12).
 
Now this episode, seemingly coupled with Moses’s (with Jeremiah’s) call, has come distorted into the Koran as Mohammed's being terrified by what God was asking of him, protesting that he was not learned.
To which God supposedly replied that he had 'created man from a clot of congealed blood, and had taught man the use of the pen, and that which he knew not, and that man does not speak ought of his own desire but by inspiration sent down to him'.
Ironically, whilst Moses the writer complained about his lack of verbal eloquence, Mohammed, 'unlettered and unlearned', who therefore could not write, is supposed to have been told that God taught man to use the pen (?). But Mohammed apparently never learned to write, because he is supposed only to have spoken God's utterances. Though his words, like those of Moses (who however did write, e.g. Exodus 34:27), were written down in various formats by his secretary, Zaid (roughly equating to the biblical Joshua, a writer, Joshua 8:32, or to Jeremiah’s scribe, Baruch).
 
This is generally how the Koran is said to have arisen.
 
But Mohammed also resembles Moses in his childhood in the fact that, after his infancy, he was raised by a foster-parent (Exodus 2:10).
And there is the inevitable weaning legend [Zahoor, A. and Haq, Z., "Biography of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)", (http://cyberistan.org/islamic/muhammad.html), 1998.]: "All biographers state that the infant prophet sucked only one breast of his foster-mother, leaving the other for the sustenance of his foster-brother".
 
There is even a kind of Islamic version of the Exodus. Compare the following account of the Qoreish persecution and subsequent pursuit of the fleeing Moslems with the persecution and later pursuit of the fleeing Israelites by Pharaoh (Exodus 1 and 4:5-7) [O’Hair, op. cit., ibid.]:
 
When the persecution became unbearable for most Muslims, the Prophet advised them in the fifth year of his mission (615 CE) to emigrate to Abyssinia (modern Ethiopia) where Ashabah (Negus, a Christian) was the ruler. Eighty people, not counting the small children, emigrated in small groups to avoid detection. No sooner had they left the Arabian coastline [substitute Egyptian borders], the leaders of Quraish discovered their flight. They decided to not leave these Muslims in peace, and immediately sent two of their envoys to Negus to bring all of them back.
 
The Koran of Islam is, to a great extent, an Arabic version of the Hebrew Bible with all its same famous patriarchs and leading characters.
That is apparent from what the Moslems themselves admit. For example [ibid.]:
 
The Qur'an also mentions four previously revealed Scriptures: Suhoof (Pages) of Ibrahim (Abraham), Taurat ('Torah') as revealed to Prophet Moses, Zuboor ('Psalms') as revealed to Prophet David, and Injeel ('Evangel') as revealed to Prophet Jesus (pbuh). Islam requires belief in all prophets and revealed scriptures (original, non-corrupted) as part of the Articles of Faith.
 
The reputation of Ibn Ishaq (ca 704-767), a main authority on the life and times of the Prophet varied considerably among the early Moslem critics: some found him very sound, while others regarded him as a liar in relation to Hadith (Mohammed's sayings and deeds). His Sira is not extant in its original form, but is present in two recensions done in 833 and 814-15, and these texts vary from one another. Fourteen others have recorded his lectures, but their versions differ [ibid.]:
 
It was the storytellers who created the tradition: the sound historical traditions to which they are supposed to have added their fables simply did not exist. . . . Nobody remembered anything to the contrary either. . . .
There was no continuous transmission. Ibn Ishaq, al-Waqidi, and others were cut off from the past: like the modern scholar, they could not get behind their sources.... Finally, it has to be realized that the tradition as a whole, not just parts of it as some have thought, is tendentious, and that that tendentiousness arises from allegiance to Islam itself. The complete unreliability of the Muslim tradition as far as dates are concerned has been demonstrated by Lawrence Conrad. After close examination of the sources in an effort to find the most likely birth date for Muhammad--traditionally `Am al-fil, the Year of the Elephant, 570 C.E.--Conrad remarks that ["What Historians have Deduced about the Historical Mohammed.

(d) Modern Myths about Moses
 
From the above it can now be seen that it was not only the Greeks and Romans who have been guilty of appropriation into their own folklore of famous figures of Israel. Even the Moslems have done it and are still doing it. A modern-day Islamic author from Cairo, Ahmed Osman, has - in line with psychiatrist Sigmund Freud's view that Moses was actually an Egyptian, whose Yahwism was derived from pharaoh Akhnaton's supposed monotheism [Out of Egypt. The Roots of Christianity Revealed (Century, 1998)] - identified all the major biblical Israelites, from the patriarch Joseph to the Holy Family of Nazareth, as 18th dynasty Egyptian characters. Thus Joseph = Yuya; Moses = Akhnaton; David = Thutmose III; Solomon = Amenhotep III; Jesus = Tutankhamun; St. Joseph = Ay; Mary = Nefertiti.
 
This is mass appropriation! Not to mention chronological madness!
 
I was asked by Dr. Norman Simms of the University of Waikato (N.Z.) to write a critique of Osman's book, a copy of which he had posted to me. This was a rather easy task as the book leaves itself wide open to criticism. Anyway, the result of Dr. Simms' request was my "Osman's 'Osmosis' of Moses" article [The Glozel Newsletter, 5:1 (ns) 1999 (Hamilton, N.Z), pp. 1-17], in which I argued that, because Osman is using the faulty textbook history of Egypt, he is always obliged to give the chronological precedence to Egypt, when the influence has actually come from Israel over to Egypt.
A revised version of this article can now be read as:
 
Osman's 'Osmosis' of Moses. Part One: The Chosen People
 
 
The way that the conventional Egyptian chronology is artificially structured at present, is thanks largely to Eduard Meyer's now approximately one century-old Ägyptische Chronologie, Philosophische und historische Abhandlungen der Königlich preussischen Akad. der Wissenschaften, Berlin (Akad. der Wiss., 1904).
 
For a refutation of this hopeless system, see e.g. my article:
 
The Fall of the Sothic Theory: Egyptian Chronology Revisited
 
 
Meyer’s erroneous thesis could easily give rise to Osman's precedence in favour of Egypt view (though this is no excuse for Osman's own chronological mish-mash). One finds, for example, in Hatshepsut's inscriptions such similarities to king David's Psalms that it is only natural to think that she, the woman-ruler - dated to the C15th BC, 500 years earlier than David - must have influenced the great king of Israel. Or that pharaoh Akhnaton's Hymn to the Sun, so like David's Psalm 104, had inspired David many centuries later.
Only a proper revision of Egyptian history brings forth the right perspective, and shows that the Israelites actually had the chronological precedence in these as in many other cases.
 
It gets worse from a conventional point of view.
 
The 'doyen of Israeli archaeologists', Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University, frequently interviewed by Beirut hostage victim John McCarthy on the provocative TV program "It Ain't Necessarily So", is, together with his colleagues, virtually writing ancient Israel right off the historical map, along with all of its major biblical characters.
This horrible mess is an inevitable consequence of the faulty Sothic chronology with which these archaeologists seem to be mesmerized. With friends like Finkelstein and co., why would Israel need any enemies!

The Lawgiver Solon
 
Whilst the great Lawgiver for the Hebrews was Moses, and for the Babylonians, Hammurabi, and for the Spartans, Lycurgus, and for the Moslems, supposedly, Mohammed, the Lawgiver in Athenian Greek folklore was Solon of Athens, the wisest of the wise, greatest of the Seven Sages.
Though Solon is estimated to have lived in the C6th BC, his name and many of his activities are so close to king Solomon's (supposedly 4 centuries earlier) that we need once again to question whether the Greeks may have been involved in appropriation. And, if so, how did this come about? It may in some cases simply be a memory thing, just as according to Plato's Timaeus one of the very aged Egyptian priests supposedly told Solon [Plato's Timaeus, trans. B. Jowett (The Liberal Arts Press, NY, 1949), 6 (22) and /or Desmond Lee's translation, Penguin Classics, p. 34]:
 
\’O Solon, Solon, you Hellenes [Greeks] are never anything but children, and there is not an old man among you. Solon in return asked him what he meant. I mean to say, he replied, that in mind you are all young; there is no old opinion handed down among you by ancient tradition, nor any science which is hoary with age. …’.
 
Perhaps what the author of the Timaeus really needed to have put into the mouth of the aged Egyptian priest was that the Greeks had largely forgotten who Solomon was, and had created their own fictional character, "Solon", from their vague recall of the great king Solomon who "excelled all the kings of the earth in riches and in wisdom" (1 Kings 10:23).

Monday, October 21, 2019

High Priest Eli, and his sons, and our relationship with God


Image result for sons of priest eli

 
 
 
“The old priest Eli was "lukewarm" and his sons "corrupt; they frightened the people and beat them with sticks." In their battle against the Philistines, the Israelites brought with them the Ark of the Covenant, but as something “magical,”
"something external ." And they are defeated: the Ark is taken from them by their enemies. There is no true faith in God, in His real presence in life …”.
 
Pope Francis
 
  
 
According to pope Francis some years ago (2014-01-16):
 

Pope Francis: scandals happen when there is no true relationship with God

 
(Vatican Radio) Scandals in the Church happen because there is no living relationship with God and His Word. Thus, corrupt priests, instead of giving the Bread of Life, give a poisoned meal to the holy people of God: that’s what Pope Francis affirmed in his homily Thursday morning during the Mass celebrated in the Santa Marta guesthouse. ....
 
 
Commenting on the day's reading and responsorial Psalm which recount the crushing defeat of the Israelites by the Philistines, the Pope notes that the people of God at that time had forsaken the Lord. It was said that the Word of God was "uncommon" at that time. The old priest Eli was "lukewarm" and his sons "corrupt; they frightened the people and beat them with sticks." In their battle against the Philistines, the Israelites brought with them the Ark of the Covenant, but as something “magical,” "something external." And they are defeated: the Ark is taken from them by their enemies. There is no true faith in God, in His real presence in life:
 
"This passage of Scripture,” the Pope says, “makes us think about what sort of relationship we have with God, with the Word of God: is it a formal relationship? Is it a distant relationship? The Word of God enters into our hearts, changes our hearts. Does it have this power or not? Is it a formal relationship? But the heart is closed to that Word! It leads us to think of the so many defeats of the Church, so many defeats of God's people simply because they do not hear the Lord, do not seek the Lord, do not allow themselves to be sought by the Lord! And then after a tragedy, the prayer, this one: 'But, Lord, what happened? You have made ​​us the scorn of our neighbors. The scorn and derision of those around us. You have made us the laughing stock (it: favola) among nations! All the nations shake their heads about us. '"
 
And of the scandals in the Church, Pope Francis said:
 
"But are we ashamed? So many scandals that I do not want to mention individually, but all of us know... We know where they are! Scandals, some who charged a lot of money.... The shame of the Church! But are we all ashamed of those scandals, of those failings of priests, bishops, laity? Where was the Word of God in those scandals; where was the Word of God in those men and in those women? They did not have a relationship with God! They had a position in the Church, a position of power, even of comfort. But the Word of God, no! 'But, I wear a medal,' ‘I carry the Cross ' ... Yes, just as those bore the Ark! Without the living relationship with God and the Word of God! I am reminded of the words of Jesus about those for whom scandals come ... And here the scandal hit: bringing decay (it: decadenza) to the people of God, including (it: fino alla) the weakness and corruption of the priests."
 
Francis … concluded his homily, turning his thoughts to the people of God, saying:
 
"Poor people! We do not give the Bread of Life to eat; we do give – in those cases - the bread of Truth! And many times, we even offer a poisoned meal! ‘Awaken! Why do you sleep, Lord?' Let this be our prayer! ‘Awaken! Do not reject us forever! Why do you hide Your face? Why do You forget our affliction and oppression?' We ask the Lord that we never forget the Word of God, which is alive, so that it enters into our hearts and never to forget the holy people faithful to God who ask us to nourish and strengthen them."
....

Sunday, October 20, 2019

David’s Philistine contingent


Image result for david and his 600



 

“Goliath … shouted … choose you a man for you, and let him come down to me.

If he be able to fight with me, and to kill me, then will we be your servants …”.


I Samuel 17:8-9
 



Taken from John R. Salverda's

David as Cadmus (Part One)

 

….

Another source of David's army, a group of volunteers from Gath, called "Gittites" (also called "might men" or "Gibborim." These Gittites are called Gibborim by the Septuagint and by Josephus.) may have served as an "inspirational" model for the Greek myth. David seems to have earned no small measure of respect amongst the Philistines, especially those of Goliath's hometown Gath, this may be due to the giant's, little noted, taunting pledge;

"And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, . . . And he stood and cried unto the armies of Israel, and said unto them, . . . choose you a man for you, and let him come down to me. If he be able to fight with me, and to kill me, then will we be your servants: but if I prevail against him, and kill him, then shall ye be our servants, and serve us." (1st Samuel 17:4-9).
 

These, the words of Goliath's own mouth, may indeed have had something to do with the fact that David was able to find refuge among the Philistines at the city of Gath when King Saul had made him his enemy. David stayed with the Philistines for more than a year and was eventually made a commander of a Gittite contingent of the Philistine army. David retained the city of Ziklag and 600 soldiers from Gath who swore allegiance to him and were his faithful men. It is almost as if many of the Philistines from the city of Gath, the home town of Goliath, were honoring the pledge of their champion to serve under David in the event that he should kill Goliath. This is perhaps another way to understand how Cadmus could obtain soldiers from the teeth (his word) of the slain monster (Goliath). ....
 
 

Image result for cadmus teeth slain monster

 




Friday, October 18, 2019

Hatshepsut - Warrior Monarch


 

 

 

“… Hatchepsut is portrayed as a sphinx, a human-headed crouching lion

crushing the traditional enemies of Egypt”.

 

  

 


 

...

[Hatshepsut's] temple [at Deir el Bahri] was filled with many beautiful scenes that prove herself as Pharaoh. There was even some reference to military activity at the temple, even though she is often portrayed as a peaceful queen. She did, in fact, have some conquest, like the rest of her seemingly war-loving family.

 

This refers to a campaign in Nubia. She even sent Thuthmose III out with the army, on various campaigns (many of which little is known at all!). One inscription even says that Hatshepsut herself led one of her Nubian campaigns. The inscription at Sehel island suggest that Ty, the treasurer of Lower Egypt, went into battle under Hatshepsut herself. This proves her as a warrior Pharaoh to her people, and also depicts her expedition to the Land of Punt. ....

 



Moreover, we read at:


 

In 'Hatchepsut, the Female Pharaoh', Joyce Tyldesley writes:

 

'Evidence is now growing to suggest that Hatchepsut's military prowess has been seriously underestimated due to the selective nature of the archaeological evidence which has been compounded by preconcieved notions of feminine pacifism.

 

Egyptologists have assu[m]ed that Hatchepsut did not fight, and have become blind to the evidence that, in fact, she did. As so many of Hatchepsut's texts were defaced, amended or erased after her death, it is entirely possible that her war record is incomplete. Furthermore, Hatchepsut's reign, falling between the reigns of two of the greatest generals Egypt was ever to know (Tuthmosis I and Tuthmosis III) is bound to suffer in any immediate comparison.

 

The Deir el-Bahri mortuatry temple provides us with evidence for defensive military activity during Hatchepsut's reign. By the late 19th century Naville had uncovered enough references to battles to convince him that Hatchepsut had embarked on the now customary series of campaigns against her vassals to the south and east. These subjects, the traditional enemies of Egypt, almost invariably viewed any change of [pharaoh] … as an opportunity to rebel against their overlords, while the [pharaohs] … themselves seem to have almost welcomed these minor insurrection as a means of proving their military might.

 

The fragments and inscriptions found in the course of the excavations at Deir el-Bahri show that during Hatchepsut's reign wars were waged against the Ethiopians, and probably also against the Asiatics. Among these wars which the queen considered the most glorious, and which she desired to be recorded on the walls of the temple erected as a monument to her high deeds, was the campaign against the nations of the Upper Nile.

 

Blocks [originally] … sited on the eastern colonnade show the Nubian god Dedwen leading a series of captive southern towns towards the victorious Hatchepsut, each town being represented by a name written in a crenellated cartouche and topped by an obviously African head. The towns all belong to the land of Cush (Nubia). Elsewhere in the temple, Hatchepsut is portrayed as a sphinx, a human-headed crouching lion crushing the traditional enemies of Egypt. There is also a written, but unfortunately badly damaged, description of a Nubian campaign in which Hatchepsut appears to be claiming to have emulated the deeds of her revered father;

 

.....as was done by her victorious father, the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Aakheperkare (Tuthmosis I) who seized all lands....a slaughter was made among them, the number of dead being unknown, their hands were] … cut off....she overthrew (gap in text) the gods (gap in text)...

 

….

Hatchepsut's military policy is perhaps best described as one of unobtrusive control; active defence rather than deliberate offence … while either unwilling or unable to actually expand Egypt's sphere of influence in the near east, she was certainly prepared to fight to maintain the borders of her country. '

 

Source(s): 'Hatchepsut The Female Pharaoh' by Joyce Tyldesley