‘I have found David son of Jesse, a man after my own heart' (Acts 13:22)
Thursday, November 20, 2025
An Astronomy that has meaning!
by
Damien F. Mackey
G. Mackinlay, following through Isaac Newton’s principle that the Jewish teachers frequently made figurative allusions to things that were actually present,
suggested that “other allusions” unspecified by Newton, “such, for instance,
as the comparison of the Baptist to the shining of the Morning Star”,
must also indicate that the object of reference was present.
Introduction
As discussed previously, some laudable attempts have been made by scholars to identify the Nativity Star of the Magi.
The complexity of such an enterprise is apparent from Frederick (“Rick”) A. Larson’s question: Could the star have been a meteorite; a comet; a supernova; a planet; or a new star?
Whilst lawyer, Larson, will favour, for the Magi Star, the planet Jupiter, the two other scholars considered in my article:
Solid attempts to interpret the biblical sky
(3) Solid attempts to interpret the biblical sky | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Bruce Killian and G. Mackinlay, have opted for the planet Venus.
Though Venus, again, will even play a rôle in Larson’s view of a bright conjunction with Jupiter.
Frederick Larson is nothing if not thorough.
He has picked up what he has called “The Nine Points of Christ’s Star” that he believes to be the key pieces in the puzzle of the sacred text, and he says he will not be satisfied with a final scenario that does not accommodate all nine of these.
https://youtu.be/HIrwQJpD_OA
Such is Larson’s thoroughness that even eight points for him will not suffice.
His major difficulty will be with the fact that the Magi Star had stopped.
But then it occurred to him that the planets, due to the optical phenomenon known as “retrograde motion”, actually appear to stop. Mars does a loop; Venus does a backflip; Jupiter inscribes a shallow circle.
Important Chronological Notes
While Larson has his Nine Points, I have interlaced previous articles on this subject with four Chronological Notes, the most relevant one here being this first one, on retrocalculation:
* A very important comment on chronology (D. Mackey):
Studies on the Star of the Magi and on other archaeoastronomical issues, with their retrocalculations of the night skies back into BC time, assume that our AD time is fixed, and that we actually live, today, a little over 2000 years after the Nativity of Jesus Christ.
Not until revisionists like Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky came along were the standard BC calculations and ‘Dark Ages’ seriously questioned, and that has led to scholars today also rigorously testing AD time and its ‘Dark Ages’. See, e.g., Dr. Hans-Ulrich Niemitz:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/volatile/Niemitz-1997.pdf
and Jan Beaufort’s summary:
http://www.cybis.se/forfun/dendro/hollstein/hollstein0/beaufort/index.htm
I, whilst not necessarily agreeing with all of what these writers have to say, think that there is enough in their theses, however, and that of those to whom they refer, to prompt one seriously to question the accuracy of the received AD dates. (I have since done this in various articles).
Applying this note to Larson’s thesis, for instance, I have written:
One of Larson’s nine points, his first in fact, has to do with this tricky subject of chronology. And this area of research may be his weak link, and may actually vitiate his whole argument. Larson has determined, based on an ancient version of the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, that the Birth of the Messiah had occurred in relation to the reign of Herod in 3-2 BC (***).
*** A third chronological note
This all becomes quite irrelevant, however, if I am correct in my view of Judas Maccabeus belonging to the approximate time of the Nativity of Jesus Christ ….
Next I introduced:
Bruce Killian, Venus The Star Of Bethlehem, whilst warmly praising Larson’s effort, has offered his own criticisms of Larson’s “The Star of Bethlehem” (2021):
http://www.scripturescholar.com/VenusStarofBethlehem.pdf
….
Fredrick Larson is a lawyer and does an excellent job of selling the wrong identification of the Star of Bethlehem. He identifies the Star of Bethlehem as Jupiter.
He also notes that Jupiter is the largest of the planets, but that was unknown to the ancients who would see Venus as the most important because it was the brightest. He sees the king of the Jews identified in a month long shallow loop of Jupiter near Regulus the king star in the constellation of Leo.
It does not “crown” this star but loops near it as it appears to loop like a Spiro graph drawing continuously in the sky. He then observed a close conjunction of Venus and Jupiter to indicate the conception of Jesus and he claims these two stars coming together was the brightest star anyone had ever seen. The problem is that Venus at its inferior conjunction is brighter than these two stars together.
Finally he saw a link between the woman in Revelation 12 giving birth, but he fails to mention this happens each year and that it was not visible because it was during the day. He further presents the star guiding the magi to Bethlehem when they already knew that was where they were to go, but not identifying which of the many boys in Bethlehem was the newborn king.
The stopping of Jupiter is when it reverses and goes into retrograde motion, but this point really does not even point to Bethlehem because when do you determine that this has occurred, visually you can’t, and when during the night?
A miracle—many believe the star that guided the magi was simply a miracle. A light clearly called a star. Today we live at a time that planes fly over head all the time, God could have done this but why say a star guided them rather than an angel. It is clear from the information presented in this article that God was able from the foundation of the world to use the lights He set in the sky to guide the magi. I believe that most who hold this view do not recognize the special attributes of the planet Venus. These stars could be seen by all, but were faint, one would only see them if they were paying close attention. ....
[End of quote]
Bruce Killian would agree with Frederick Larson, though, about the Divine use of easy-to-read star tableaux.
Regarding Killian’s hard BC dates (days and months), I added, recall my earlier warning about retrocalculations.
George Mackinlay’s major contribution
By far the most important contribution of the three, though, so I believe, is that of Lieutenant-Colonel G. Mackinlay, The Magi: How they recognized Christ's star (Hodder and Stoughton, 1907).
He, too, had determined that the Star of Bethlehem was a planet, namely Venus in his case. He did not, back in his day, have the advantage of modern computer software, as has Larson, but was reliant on astronomical charts to put a date to the circumstances of Venus that he had determined had pertained to the chronology of Jesus Christ.
Mackinlay - like Larson and others, relying heavily on the Scriptures - showed just how significant Venus was as “the morning star” and “the evening star”, and he quoted texts from the prophet Micah; including that fateful text without which King Herod (the Godfather of today’s abortionists) would never have condemned to death the children of Bethlehem.
George Mackinlay also showed through Micah that the Baptist was symbolised as the morning star, heralding as it does the dawn (Christ).
He was able to determine an internal chronology of Jesus Christ, and the Baptist, based on the periods of shining of the morning star, all this in connection with historical data, seasons and Jewish feasts.
As said, the inherent weakness in such reconstructions as Larson’s, and even Mackinlay’s, is their presuming that the conventional dates for Herod and Jesus Christ are basically accurate - just as 539 BC is now wrongly presumed to be a certain date for King Cyrus of Persia - and that it is, therefore, simply a matter of finding an astronomical scenario within that conventional period and then being able to refine the dates using sophisticated modern scientific data.
Happily, though, neither Larson’s nor Mackinlay’s scenario has that odd situation of the shepherds watching their sheep out in the open, in winter, that critics seem to latch on to every Christmas in order to ridicule St. Matthew’s account.
Whilst I do not accept that Larson, Killian, or Mackinlay have managed, despite their valiant attempts, to identify the Magi Star, the contribution of Mackinlay on the chronological importance of the planet Venus I consider to be ground-breaking.
Neither Killian’s nor Larson’s efforts - worthwhile though they assuredly are - can, I believe, match the coherent consistency of Lieutenant-Colonel G. Mackinlay’s model, that shows a Divine plan at work in every major phase of the life of Jesus Christ.
Mackinlay was able to demonstrate how perfectly the eight year cycles of Venus wrap around the events of the life of Christ (who is also the “Sun of righteousness”), shining throughout the joyful occasions, but hidden during episodes of sadness and darkness.
But not only does the Divine artist make use of the planet Venus in this regard.
The Moon, too, in its various phases, and also the seasons (reflecting now abundance, now paucity), as Mackinlay has shown, also serve as chronological markers.
Mackinlay’s harmonious theory has, to my way of thinking, the same sort of inherent consistency as has Florence and Kenneth Wood’s explanation, in Homer’s Secret ‘Iliad’ (http://www.amazon.com/Homers-Secret-Iliad-Night-Decoded/dp/0719557801), that the battles between the Greeks and Trojans as described in The Iliad mirror the movements of stars and constellations as they appear to fight for ascendancy in the sky.
Since George Mackinlay’s thesis is far too detailed to do justice to it here, with all of its diagrams and detailed astronomical explanations always interwoven with the Scriptures, the interested reader is strongly advised to read the entire book.
Mackinlay commences with the example of Saint John the Baptist and his association also with the morning star. (This symbolism has an Old Testament precedent, too, in Joseph’s astronomical dream, Genesis 37:9-10, according to which people are represented by heavenly bodies). Let us begin.
Simile of St. John the Baptist to the Morning Star
The figurative use of the morning star in reference to the Baptist is evident from the prophet Malachi’s description of the Christ’s forerunner: “My messenger, and he shall prepare the way before Me” (Malachi 3:1); because, as noted by Mackinlay (p. 39), “the same figure of speech is supported by Malachi 4:2, where the Christ is spoken of as the Sun of righteousness, who shall arise with healing in His wings”. That this definitely is the right association of scriptural ideas is shown by the reference made by Zechariah, the father of St. John the Baptist (Luke 1:76), to these two passages in the Old Testament. Thus, on the occasion of St. John’s circumcision, Zechariah prophesied of him: “You shall go before the face of the lord”, and, two verses later, he likens the coming of the Christ to “the Dayspring [or Sunrising] from on high”, which shall visit us.
We note further that this same passage from Malachi, with reference to the Baptist, was quoted also by Mark the Evangelist (1:2); by the angel of the Lord who had appeared to Zechariah before his son’s birth (Luke 1:17); by the Baptist himself (John 3:28); by Jesus during his ministry (Matthew 11:10; Luke 7:27); and by the Apostle Paul at Antioch (Acts 13:24-25).
These quotations are all the more remarkable because they were made at considerable intervals of time the one from the other. Jesus used the words more than three decades after they had been spoken to Zechariah by the angel, announcing that Christ’s forerunner would be born. And St. Paul referred to the very same passage in the Book of Malachi some fourteen years after Jesus had spoken them.
St. John the Evangelist wrote of the Baptist: “The same came for a witness, that he might bear witness to the Light, that all might believe through him.
He was not the Light, but came that he might bear witness to the Light” (John 1:7, 8). George Mackinlay, commenting on this passage (p. 41), says that “The Light par excellence is the Sun, and the Morning Star, which reflects its light, is not the light itself, but is a witness of the coming great luminary”.
All four Evangelists record the Baptist as stating that the Christ would come after him: a statement in perfect harmony with the comparison of himself to the morning star (see e.g. Matthew 3:2; Mark 1:7; Luke 3:16 and John 1:15).
On three memorable occasions St. John the Baptist preceded and also testified to Jesus: viz. some months before Jesus’s birth (Luke 1:41, 44); shortly before Jesus’s public ministry (Matthew 3:11); and by his violent death at the hands of Herod, about a year before the Crucifixion (Matthew 14:10). Alluding to the Baptist’s martyrdom, Jesus said: “Even so shall the Son of Man also suffer” (Matthew 17:12, 13).
The figure of St. John the Baptist as the morning star is therefore a most appropriate one.
Object of Reference Always Present
George Mackinlay, following through Isaac Newton’s principle that the Jewish teachers frequently made figurative allusions to things that were actually present, suggested (p. 56) that “other allusions” unspecified by Newton, “such, for instance, as the comparison of the Baptist to the shining of the Morning Star”, must also indicate that the object of reference was present. “We may reasonably conclude”, he added, “that the planet was then to be seen in the early morning before sunrise”. Mackinlay realised that if Newton’s principle really worked in this instance, it would enable him to “find an indication of the dates of the ministries of Christ and of John, and consequently of the crucifixion”.
Making use of calculations made by expert astronomers at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, Mackinlay, himself a professional observer, drew up a chart recording the periods when Venus appeared as the morning star for the period AD 23-36 – “a period which covers all possible limits for the beginning and ending of Christ’s ministry”.
{One will need to refer to Mackinlay’s own chart reproducing the astronomical data that he had received. I have already listed various chronological precautions that I believe must seriously affect dating methods, including Mackinlay’s}.
From Mackinlay’s diagram we learn that the morning star shines continuously on the average for about seven and a half lunar months at the end of each night, giving at least an hour’s notice of sunrise; but if we include the period when it is still visible, but gives shorter notice, the time of shining may be lengthened to about nine lunar months.
An eight years’ cycle containing five periods of the shining of the morning star - useful for practical purposes - exists between the apparent movements of the sun and Venus, correct to within a little over two days. The morning star is conventionally estimated (see previous comment on chronology) to have begun to shine at the vernal equinox, AD 25, and eight years afterwards, viz. in AD 33, it began again its period of shining at the same season of the year; and so, generally, at all years separated from each other by eight years, the shinings of the morning star were during the same months.
From the historical data available, it is conventionally agreed that the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ occurred between the years AD 28 – 33.
Of necessity, then, the three and a half years’ ministry (Mackinlay is of the view that Christ’s public ministry lasted “the longer period” of between three and four years, whilst he also discusses “the shorter period” of less than three years) would have begun in one of the years AD 24-29 (conventional dating).
We shall proceed now to examine in more detail those passages in the Gospels that refer to St. John the Baptist as the morning star.
(a) Beginning of the Baptist’s Ministry
At the very beginning of his ministry, the Baptist referred to the prophecy in Malachi 3:1, in which he himself is likened to the morning star, when he said: “He who comes after me is mightier than I” (Matthew 3:2, etc.).
Now, according to Isaac Newton’s principle of scriptural interpretation, that figures are taken from things actually present, the morning star would have been shining when the Baptist began his ministry; thus the witness in the sky, and the human messenger, each gave a prolonged heralding of the One who was to come.
If we refer to the Gospel of Matthew (3:8, 10 and 12), we find St. John the Baptist using three figures of speech at the beginning of his ministry:
1. “Now is the axe laid to the root of the trees” – presumably to mark the unfruitful trees to be cut down (see also Matthew 7:19).
2. “Every tree that does not bring forth good fruit is cut down …”.
3. “His winnowing fork is in his hand, and He will clear his threshing floor, and gather his wheat into the granary, but the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire”.
As Mackinlay has noted (p. 60), these three figures used by St. John all refer to the time of harvest, which would have taken place within the month of the Passover, “as the place where John began his ministry was the deep depression ‘round about Jordan’ (Luke 3:3), where the harvest is far earlier than on the Judaean hills”. Now, according to Mackinlay’s chart, the morning star was shining during the month after the Passover (April or May) only in the years AD 24, 25 and 27, in the period AD 24-29.
Hence we conclude that St. John the Baptist began his ministry in one of these three years.
(b) Beginning of Jesus’s Ministry
The Baptist again bore witness just before the beginning of Jesus Christ’s public ministry, when he proclaimed to the people: “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, for He was before me’” (John 1:15); and he repeated that statement the next day (John 1:30) – again bearing out the simile of the morning star and the rising sun.
George Mackinlay, analysing what time of year this was, is certain that it must have been a good deal later than the beginning of St. John’s own ministry; “probably at least four or five months, to allow time for the Baptist to be known and to attract public attention”, he says (p. 61). It could not have been earlier than the latter part of August, he goes on; and “it must also have been long before the following Passover”, for several events in Jesus’s ministry “occurred before that date”. Mackinlay suggests that Jesus Christ most likely began his public ministry, “which we must date from the marriage in Cana of Galilee”, before November, “because there would have been leaves on the fig tree” when Nathanael came from under it (John 1:47, 48) (pp. 61-62).
Jesus approvingly called Nathanael “an Israelite indeed” (John 1:47). Unlike the hypocrites who loved to pray so as to be seen by men (Matthew 6:5), Nathanael had carefully hidden himself for quiet prayer under cover of his fig tree, and so he was greatly surprised that Jesus had seen him there.
In Scripture, the state of the vegetation of the fig tree is used to indicate the seasons of the year (see Matthew 24:32). We are informed that when the branch of the fig tree “becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near”.
From the Song of Songs (2:13), we read of the season when “the fig tree puts forth her green figs”; and the fading of the leaf of the fig tree is mentioned in Isaiah 34:4.
From this scriptural detail, relating to seasons, Mackinlay is able to narrow even further the choice of years (from AD 24-29) for the beginning of the two ministries.
“We must reject AD 24, for the morning star definitely was not shining between the months August to November of that year”, he writes (p. 63). This leaves us with only two options, viz. AD 25 and 27. At this stage Mackinlay makes a further assumption – previously he had asked the reader to assume for the time being that “the shorter period’ choice for the length of Jesus’s ministry be put aside – in relation to the date AD 27. Whilst admitting that AD 27 would fulfil the necessary conditions given above “if we suppose that Christ began His ministry within a month or six weeks from the time of John’s first appearance”, Mackinlay elected to put aside this date for reasons that would become apparent later on.
“He must increase, but I must decrease”.
The next reference to St. John the Baptist under the figure that we are considering is: “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30). According to F. Meyer, the Baptist “knew that he was not the Light, but sent to bear witness of it, not the Sun, but the Star that announces the dawn …” (Life and Light of Men, p. 42). St. John’s words may have foreshadowed his imprisonment as well, as Mackinlay thinks, for “they were uttered after the first Passover, which took place, according to the assumption which we have just made, in AD 26, but before the Baptist was cast into prison” (pp. 63-64). Consequently, he adds, we may assume that St. John the Baptist spoke these words about the beginning or the middle of April.
Meyer may not have been correct, however, in concluding his otherwise beautiful metaphor above by saying that “the Star”, which represents the Baptist, and which “announces the dawn”, also “wanes in the growing light” of the Sun.
The waning of a celestial body appears to be the scriptural symbolism for the destruction of wickedness.
The seeming annihilation of the stars caused by the rising of the sun, was an ancient figure of speech used to typify the triumph of good over the powers of darkness and evil.
George Mackinlay suggests that this may be the image intended by St. Paul when he spoke of “The lawless one, whom the Lord shall bring to nought by the manifestation (in Greek, “shining forth”) of His coming” (II Thessalonians 2:8); and he adds that the figure of the rising sun extinguishing the light of the stars “is associated with conflict, punishment and judgment, which certainly did not represent the relationship between Christ and His forerunner John” (p. 65).
Undoubtedly, rather, the impression that the Evangelist was intending to convey in this instance was one of the morning star decreasing in the sense of its non-appearance in the sky at the end of each night, as the increasing power of the sun’s heat and light became manifest. The planet Venus moves further and further away from its position as morning star, and increases its angular distance on the other side of the sun as the evening star. According to Mackinlay, in the year 26 AD Venus began to appear as the evening star “shortly before midsummer” (p. 64).
Interestingly, George Mackinlay’s chart indicates that it is the more probable explanation of the non-appearance of Venus in the sky at the end of the night as being the more appropriate figure to depict the decreasing of St. John the Baptist, which is fulfilled in the circumstance under consideration.
Imprisonment of St. John the Baptist
It is likely, as W. Sanday has noted (Outlines from the Life of Christ, p. 49), that the imprisonment of the Baptist took place after the Passover, and before the harvest of AD 26 (John 4:35); and soon after St. John had stated that “He must increase, but I must decrease”.
Sanday considered that the events surrounding the Passover (of John 2:13-4:45) did not occupy more than three or four weeks, and when Jesus arrived in Galilee (see Matthew 4:12) the impression of his public acts at Jerusalem was still fresh.
Sanday thought that his estimation of the date of the Baptist’s imprisonment was “somewhat strengthened by the fact that the Synoptic Gospels record no events after Christ’s Baptism and before John was delivered up, except the Temptation (Matthew 4:12; Mark 1:14 see also Luke 4:14); and because the Apostle Paul said that “as John was fulfilling his course, he said, ‘What do you suppose that I am? I am not He. No, but after me One is coming, the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to untie’.” (Acts 13:25)”.
These words tend to place the end of the Baptist’s career rather early, because the message here referred to was proclaimed by him when he announced the Messiah, in autumn of AD 25 (John 1:26, 27).
Following George Mackinlay (p. 64), we therefore estimate that St. John the Baptist was imprisoned about the middle or end of April, AD 26, when, as is apparent from Mackinlay’s chart, the morning star, appropriately, was not shining.
“He was a burning and shining lamp”
The next reference to St. John the Baptist under this simile is a very striking one.
Jesus speaks of him as “a burning and shining lamp; and you were willing to rejoice for a season in his light”. (John 5:35). Mackinlay has suggested that, because the definite article is used twice in the Greek version of this passage, “it therefore seems to indicate some particular light” (p. 67). Though St. John was in prison, Jesus said of him at this time: “You sent to John, and both was and still is a witness to the truth” (John 5:33). Regarding the phrase “to rejoice for a season in his light”, Dr. Harpur tells of a custom in the East for travellers by night to sing songs at the rising of the morning star because it announces that the darkness and dangers of the night are coming to an end (as referred to by Mackinlay, p. 68).
In effect, then, Jesus was saying that the disciples of the Baptist were willing to rejoice in the light of the herald of day, which shines only by reflecting the light of the coming sun; but should rejoice now ever more since the sun itself had arisen – since “the Light of the World” had actually come.
This interpretation harmonises with Jesus’s statement recorded a few verses on (John 5:39) that “you search the Scriptures … which bear witness of Me”; the inference again being – now that I have come, you ought to receive Me.
All through this conversation, Mackinlay notes, “the subject is that of bearing witness” – by his own works; by the Father; by the Baptist; by the Scriptures and by Moses – “the whole pointing to the necessity of receiving the One to whom such abundant witness had been borne”.
The time when Jesus made this particular statement about the Scriptures bearing witness to Him was just after the un-named feast of John 5:1, and before the Passover of John 6:4. It is often assumed, George Mackinlay informs us, that this un-named feast was Passover – but some have opted for naming it the feast of Purim, fixed several centuries earlier by the command of Queen Esther (Esther 9:32); or even the feast of Weeks at the beginning of June (p. 69).
This does not affect our chronological scheme, however, for we learn from Mackinlay’s chart that the morning star was appropriately shining on each one of these feasts in AD 27.
The Crucifixion
But when we come to the last Passover, in the year AD 29, the herald of the dawn had just disappeared.
George Mackinlay shows (p. 81) that the disappearance of the planet Venus harmonises perfectly with the record of the complete isolation of Jesus Christ at his Crucifixion, given as follows:
(1)
The disappearance of the witness John by death (Matthew 14:10).
The forsaking of Our Lord by all his disciples (Matthew 26:56; Psalm 38:11; 49:20).
(3The absence of any record of a ministry of angels, as after the Temptation (Matthew 4:11).
The hiding of God’s face, when Christ uttered the cry: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46; Psalm 22:1).
(5) In nature, the Sun’ light failed (Luke 23:45).
(6) Being daytime, the Paschal Full Moon was, of course, below the horizon.
Most relevant to our subject also is the following chapter from George Mackinlay’s book:
Chapter Three: “A Star … out of Jacob”
Mackinlay commences by establishing “the greater probability” of the following two facts:
(a) That the Nativity of Jesus Christ was at least five months after the beginning of a period of shining of the morning star, and
(b) That the Nativity was at a Feast of Tabernacles (p. 140).
Firstly, we consider Mackinlay’s reason for believing that the Lord’s Nativity was:
(a) Five months after a period of shining.
To begin with, we must consider what reason there is for supposing that the morning star was shining at all when Jesus Christ was born. In Malachi 3:1, as we have seen already, St. John the Baptist is referred to under the figure of the morning star, as the forerunner of the Christ. But the morning star itself may be called “My messenger who shall prepare the way before Me”. It is not unusual for inanimate objects thus to be spoken of in Scripture, for instance in Psalm 88:38 we have “the faithful witness in the sky”, and in Psalm 148:3 the sun, moon and stars of light are exhorted to praise God.
Consequently, as George Mackinlay has explained it (p. 141), “we can reasonably suppose that the Morning Star was shining at the Nativity”.
Furthermore, he adds, if the morning star were the herald of the coming One, it is fitting to imagine that a somewhat prolonged notice should be given; for “it would be more dignified and stately for the one to precede the other by a considerable interval, than that both should come almost together”.
We shall find Mackinlay’s supposition of a prolonged heralding by the morning star borne out by the following inference. According to the principle of metaphors being taken from things present, we could infer that the morning star was actually shining when Jesus Christ (in Matthew 11:10), quoting Malachi 3:1, spoke of the Baptist as “My messenger … before My face”. Consistently following the same line of thought, we may reasonably infer that the morning star was also shining more than thirty years earlier when Zechariah quoted the same scriptural verse– i.e. Malachi 3:1 – at the circumcision of his son, John (Luke 1:76). Even had this appropriate passage not been quoted at the time, Mackinlay suggests (p. 142), “we might have inferred that the herald in the sky would harmoniously have been shining at the birth of the human herald”.
George Mackinlay further suggests from his inference that both Jesus and John were born when the morning star was shining, that “both must have been born during the same period of its shining”. [He shows this in his charts].
The Annunciation to Mary was made by the angel Gabriel in the sixth month after the announcement to Zechariah (Luke 1:13, 24, 26); and so it follows that the Baptist was born five to six months before Jesus. Since Mackinlay’s charts indicate that the periods of shining are separated from each other by intervals of time greater than six months, then both Jesus and his herald must have been born during the same period of shining.
Consequently Jesus Christ was born at least five months after the beginning of a period of shining of the morning star.
It will be noticed that some years in Mackinlay’s charts are omitted – this is due simply to lack of space – but no events recorded in the Gospels took place in these omitted years, nor were any of them enrolment (see below) or Sabbath years.
(b) At a Feast of Tabernacles
The Law, we are told by St. Paul, has “a shadow of the good things to come” (Hebrews 10:1). The various ordinances and feasts of the Old Testament, if properly understood, are found, according to George Mackinlay, “to refer to and foreshadow many events and doctrines of the New Testament” (p. 143). Again, A. Gordon had remarked that: “Many speak slightingly of the types, but they are as accurate as mathematics; they fix the sequence of events in redemption as rigidly as the order of sunrise and noontide is fixed in the heavens” (The Ministry of the Spirit, p. 28).
The deductions drawn from Gospel harmonies attest the truth of his statement.
We have already observed that the Sabbath Year began at the Feast of Tabernacles; the great feasts of Passover and Weeks following in due course. Jesus’s death took place at the Passover (Matthew 27:50), probably, George Mackinlay believes, “at the very hour when the paschal lambs were killed”. “Our Passover … has been sacrificed, even Christ” (1 Corinthians 5:7); the great Victim foretold during so many ages by the yearly shedding of blood at that feast.
The first Passover at the Exodus was held on the anniversary of the day when the promise –accompanied by sacrifice – was given to Abraham, that his seed would inherit the land of Canaan (Exodus 12:41; Genesis 15:8-18).
Jesus Christ rose from the dead on the day after the Sabbath after the Passover (John 20:1); the day on which the sheaf of first fruits, promise of the future harvest, was waved before God (Leviticus 23:10, 11).
Hence we are told by Saint Paul that as “Christ the first-fruits” (1 Corinthians 15:20. 23) rose, so those who believe in him will also rise afterwards. This day was the anniversary of Israel’s crossing through the “Sea of Reeds” (Exodus 12-14), and, as in the case of the Passover, it was also a date memorable in early history, being the day when the Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (Genesis 8:4). The month Nisan, which had been the seventh month, became the first at the Exodus (Exodus 12:2). Thus Christ’s Resurrection was heralded by two most beautiful and fitting types, occurring almost – possibly exactly – on the same day of the year; by the renewed earth emerging from the waters of the Flood, and by the redeemed people emerging from the waters of the “Sea of Reeds”.
Mackinlay proceeded to search for any harmonies that there may be between the characteristics of this Feast of Tabernacles and the events recorded in connection with the Nativity. As we have noticed previously, he says (p. 146), there were two great characteristics of the Feast of Tabernacles: 1. Great joy and 2. Living in booths (tents).
1. Great joy.
The Israelites were told at this feast, “You shall rejoice before the Lord your God” (Leviticus 23:40), and “You shall rejoice in your feast … you shall be altogether joyful” (Deuteronomy 16:14, 15). King Solomon dedicated his Temple on a Feast of Tabernacles, and the people afterwards were sent away “joyful and glad of heart” (1 Kings 8:2, 66; 2 Chronicles 7:10).
There was no public rejoicing at the Nativity of Jesus Christ, however; on the contrary, as George Mackinlay notes, “shortly afterwards Herod was troubled and all Jerusalem with him” (Matthew 2:3).
But though He was rejected by the majority, we find the characteristic joy of Tabernacles reflected in the expectant and spiritually-minded souls.
Before the Nativity both the Virgin Mary and Elizabeth rejoiced in anticipation of it (Luke 1:38, 42, 44, 46, 47).
At the Nativity an angel appeared to the shepherds and brought them good tidings of great joy; and then “suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, ‘Glory to God in the highest’.” The shepherds then came to the infant Saviour and returned “glorifying and praising God” (Luke 2:9-20).
Forty days after the Nativity, at the Purification, Simeon, who had been waiting a long time for the consolation of Israel, and the venerable Anna who was a constant worshipper, joined in with their notes of praise and gladness (Luke 2:22-38).
And lastly the wise men from the East “rejoiced with exceeding great joy” when they saw the star indicating where the Saviour was, and they came into the house, saw the young Child with his Mother, and presented the gifts that they had brought (Matthew 2:9-11). This “Mother”, the Virgin Mary, is the ultimate “Star” pointing to Jesus Christ, her Son.
John Paul II’s encyclical, Redemptoris Mater (1987), is full of allusions to the Blessed Virgin Mary as ‘our fixed point’, or star ‘of reference’. To quote just this one example (# 3):
…. The fact that she “preceded” the coming of Christ is reflected every year in the liturgy of Advent. Therefore, if to that ancient historical expectation of the Saviour we compare these years which are bringing us closer to the end of the second Millennium after Christ and to the beginning of the third, it becomes fully comprehensible that in this present period we wish to turn in a special way to her, the one who in the “night” of the Advent expectation began to shine like a true “Morning Star” (Stella Matutina). For just as this star, together with the “dawn,” precedes the rising of the sun, so Mary from the time of her Immaculate Conception preceded the coming of the Saviour, the rising of the “Sun of Justice” in the history of the human race.
2. Living in booths.
According to George Mackinlay (pp. 147-148), the living in booths finds a parallel in the language of the Apostle John, when he wrote concerning the Birth of Jesus, “The Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us” (John 1:14); and Our Lord himself used a somewhat similar figure when he spoke of his body thus “Destroy this Temple, and in three days I shall raise it up” (John 2:19) – words misunderstood by his enemies and afterwards quoted against him (Matthew 26:61; 27:40).
It was at the Feast of Tabernacles that the glory of God filled the Temple that King Solomon had prepared for Him (2 Chronicles 5:3, 13, 14), and it would seem to have been at the beginning or first day of the feast, the fifteenth day of the month. Consequently, in Mackinlay’s opinion (p. 148) “it would appear to be harmonious that the Advent of the Lord Jesus in the body divinely prepared for him (Hebrews 10:5) should also take place at the same feast and most suitably on the first day of its celebration”.
It will be noticed that the glory of God did not cover the tent of meeting when the Israelites were in the wilderness, and did not fill the tabernacle, at the Feast of Tabernacles. But it did so on the first day of the first month of the second year after the departure from Egypt (Exodus 40:17, 34, 35).
We must remember that there was no Feast of Tabernacles in the wilderness, nor was the Sabbath Year kept at this stage; but both of these ordinances were to be observed when the Israelites entered into the Promised Land (Exodus 34:22). No agricultural operations were carried out during the forty years of wandering in the wilderness.
As the Feast of Tabernacles inaugurated the Sabbath Year, Mackinlay judged (p. 149) that the glory of God filled the temple on the first day of the feast, “as that would be in harmony with what happened in the tabernacle in the wilderness when the glory of the Lord filled it on the first day of the only style of year then observed”.
A. Edersheim, writing about the Feast of Tabernacles, says (The Temple, note on p. 272): “It is remarkable how many allusions to this feast occur in the writings of the prophets, as if its types were the goal of all their desires”.
For further reading, see my articles:
The Magi and the Star that Stopped
(3) The Magi and the Star that Stopped
and:
Magi were not necessarily astronomers or astrologers
(3) Magi were not necessarily astronomers or astrologers
Saturday, November 15, 2025
by
Damien F. Mackey
“… Cushan is an Edomite king who subjugated the tribe of Judah
whose territory was adjacent to Edom …”.
jewishvirtuallibrary
In the first two of three cases given here, (i) Balaam and (ii) Cushan-rishathaim, so-called, Aram occurs where I think the correct geography would be Edom.
Whereas, in the third case, conversely, (iii) Hadad, the foe of King Solomon, the story is situated in Edom, when I think it should be Aram.
(i) Case of Balaam
Following a clue from W. F. Albright, I wrote an article:
Baleful Balaam son of Beor
(1) Baleful Balaam son of Beor
according to which Balaam was an Edomite:
“Balaam was an ancient Edomite sage”, wrote W.F. Albright (“The Home of Balaam”, Jstor, 1915), whilst himself failing to connect “Balaam son of Beor” (Numbers 22:5) - as do some commentators - with “Bela son of Beor”, who “became king of Edom” (Genesis 36:31).
James B. Jordan is one who has proposed such a connection, whilst in the same article including the prophet Job amongst the list of Edomite kings (“Was Job an Edomite King? (Part 2)”, 2000). Job, though, was not Edomite king, but a Naphtalian Israelite:
Job’s Life and Times
(2) Job’s Life and Times
Job would have lived almost a millennium after Balaam and the Edomite king, Jobab, with whom Jordan (as do others) had hoped to identify Job.
Jordan has written as follows on this Genesis 36 list of Edomite kings:
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-131-was-job-an-edomite-king-part-2/
… Genesis 36:31-39 provides us a list of seven kings over Edom, followed by an eighth.
1. Bela ben Beor from Dinhabah
2. Jobab ben Zerah from Bozrah
3. Husham from Teman
4. Hadad ben Bedad from Avith
5. Samlah from Masrekah
6. Saul from Rehoboth
7. Baal-Hanan ben Achbor
8. Hadar/d from Pau
….
The third Edomite king was Husham, the second was Jobab, and the first was Bela son of Beor.
I suggest that this Bela is to be linked with Balaam son of Beor (Numbers 22:5). We know that there were already kings in Edom at this time, because one such king denied Moses passage through his territory (Numbers 20:14-21). If this king was Bela son of Beor, Balaam would possibly be his brother.
The name Bela is written bela` while the name Balaam is written bil`am. The E in Bela is short, and could easily shorten further to an I if the name is extended, as it is in the name Bilam: Bela is accented on the first syllable, while Bil`am is accented on the second, after a break in sound. Thus, it is entirely possible that Bela and Balaam are the same person. The name seems to be a shortened form of Baal, which means "lord, husband, eater." Bela, as first king of Edom, would be "Lord/Husband/Eater," while Balaam means "Lord/Husband/Eater of a People." (Compare the Babylonian god Bel with the Canaanite god Baal for a similar association.)
The lord of a people is their husband, and "eats" them into himself as a body politic, as part of his body. ….
Whether Bela and Balaam were the same person or not, the fact that they are both sons of Beor, the only mention of any "Beor" in the Bible, indicates the strong possibility that they were at least brothers, and thus contemporaries.
….
Now, assume that Bela and Balaam are the same person. Moses put this man to death right at the end of the wilderness wanderings (Numbers 31:8 — and the mention of Balaam the son of Beor alongside five kings of Midian heightens the possibility that Balaam was Bela, king of Edom). ….
[End of quote]
(ii) Case of Cushan-rishathaim
I explained the geographical situation for this oppressor of Israel in my article:
Cushan rishathaim was king of Edom
(1) Cushan rishathaim was king of Edom
“Therefore the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and he sold them into the hand of Chushan rishathaim ... and the children of Israel served Chushan rishathaim eight years”.
Judges 3:8
The version of the Bible from which I recently read this verse, Judges 3:8, had Cushan rishathaim as “king of Edom”; whereas I had usually read him as being a “king of Aram Naharaim”.
There is, of course, a fair bit of distance between Edom, to the south of Israel, and Aram Naharaim, in Upper Mesopotamia.
Armed with this new piece of information, I decided to re-visit the list of Edomite kings to be found in Genesis 36, in anticipation of perhaps finding there a name like Cushan (כּוּשַׁן).
Having previously thought to have identified Balaam in that Edomite list (following Albright):
William Foxwell Albright a conventional fox with insight ‘outside the box'’
(1) William Foxwell Albright a conventional fox with insight 'outside the box'
and knowing that Balaam (at the time of Joshua) to have pre-existed Cushan (the time of Othniel), I checked for an appropriate name not far below King No. 1 in the list, Bela ben Beor (or Balaam son of Beor):
1. Bela ben Beor from Dinhabah
2. Jobab ben Zerah from Bozrah
3. Husham from Teman
4. Hadad ben Bedad from Avith
5. Samlah from Masrekah
6. Saul from Rehoboth
7. Baal-Hanan ben Achbor
8. Hadar/d from Pau
King No. 3 looked perfect for Cushan, or Chushan: namely, Husham (or Chusham, חֻשָׁם).
Later I would learn that other scholars (see below) had already come to this same conclusion (i.e., Husham = Cushan).
In the following brief article, the jewishvirtuallibrary will query both long names associated with this enemy of Israel, the “Rishathaim” element and the “Naharaim” element.
“The second element, Rishathaim ("double wickedness"), is presumably not the original name”, and: “The combination Aram-Naharaim is not a genuine one for the period of the Judges”:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/cushan-rishathaim
CUSHAN-RISHATHAIM (Heb. כּוּשַׁן רִשְׁעָתַיִם), the first oppressor of Israel in the period of the Judges (Judg. 3:8–10). Israel was subject to Cushan-Rishathaim, the king of Aram-Naharaim, for eight years, before being rescued by the first "judge," *Othniel son of Kenaz. The second element, Rishathaim ("double wickedness"), is presumably not the original name, but serves as a pejorative which rhymes with Naharaim. The combination Aram-Naharaim is not a genuine one for the period of the Judges, since at that time the Arameans were not yet an important ethnic element in Mesopotamia. In the view of some scholars, the story lacks historical basis and is the invention of an author who wished to produce a judge from Judah, and raise the total number of judges to twelve. Those who see a historical basis to the story have proposed various identifications for Cushan-Rishathaim: (1) Cushan is to be sought among one of the Kassite rulers in Babylonia (17th–12th centuries; cf. Gen. 10:8). Josephus identifies Cushan with an Assyrian king. Others identify him with one of the Mitannian or Hittite kings. (2) Cushan is an Egyptian ruler from *Cush in Africa (Nubia; cf. Gen. 10:6; Isa. 11:11, et al.). (3) The head of the tribe of Cush, which led a nomadic existence along the southern border of Palestine. Such Cushite nomads are mentioned in the Egyptian Execration Texts of the first quarter of the second millennium B.C.E. and in the Bible (Num. 12:1; Hab. 3:7; II Chron. 14:8; 21:16). (4) Aram (Heb. ארם) is a corruption of Edom (Heb. אדום) and Naharaim is a later addition. Thus, Cushan is an Edomite king who subjugated the tribe of Judah whose territory was adjacent to Edom. (5) Cushan is from central or northern Syria, and is to be identified with a North Syrian ruler or with irsw, a Hurrian (from the area of Syria-Palestine) who seized power in Egypt during the anarchic period at the end of the 19th dynasty (c. 1200 B.C.E.). In his campaign from the north to Egypt, he also subjugated the Israelites. Othniel's rescue of the Israelites is to be understood against the background of the expulsion of the foreign invaders from Egypt by the pharaoh Sethnakhte [sic], the founder of the 20th dynasty.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
E. Taeubler, in: HUCA, 20 (1947), 137–42; A. Malamat, in: JNES, 13 (1954), 231–42; S. Yeivin, in: Atiqot, 3 (1961), 176–80.
Point 4 above: “... (4) Aram (Heb. ארם) is a corruption of Edom (Heb. אדום) and Naharaim is a later addition. Thus, Cushan is an Edomite king who subjugated the tribe of Judah whose territory was adjacent to Edom”, will now be viewed as the relevant one, with the addition of Husham the Temanite as the actual identification of this “Edomite king”.
Avrāhām Malāmāṭ has, I think, managed to sew it all up, following Klostermann.
In “Cushan Rishathaim and the Decline of the Near East around 1200 BC” (Jstor 13, no. 4, 1954), Malāmāṭ wrote (p. 232):
The second component of the name Cushan Rishathaim is even more obscure and is undoubtedly a folkloristic distortion of the original form. ... Among the various efforts to ascertain the original name, those of Klostermann and Marquart have found the widest acceptance. Klostermann's proposal was that רִשְׁעָתַיִם originally represented [` נ] תימ ה ש[א]רֵ, “chieftain of the Temanites”, and identified כּוּשַׁן with חֻשָׁם, “(Husham) of the land of the Temanites”, who is third in the list of the kings of Edom (Gen. 36:34). .... Understandably, those who proposed that Cushan Rishathaim reigned in the south of Palestine could not believe the name Aram-Naharaim or Aram (Judg 3:10) to be the genuine form. They accepted the emendation of Aram to Edom, a proposal made as far back as Graetz. Naharaim was considered as a later gloss inserted for the sake of rhyming with Rishathaim. .... Consequently, our passage was viewed as the echo of a local struggle between the Edomites (or Midianites) and Othniel the Kenizzite, the leader of a southern clan related to the tribe of Judah. ....
Given the lack of detail associated with the oppression of Israel by Cushan, this scenario appears to make more sense than my previous notion that Cushan was a significant Mesopotamian (perhaps Assyrian) king controlling Palestine. It was more of “a local struggle”.
This now means that I must also re-consider Dr. John Osgood’s view (as previously discussed) that the Khabur culture in the north was archaeologically reflective of the period of domination by Cushan. We would need to look instead for a localised cultural dominance.
(iii) Case of Hadad
Solomon’s Adversaries
I Kings 11:14-22:
Then the Lord raised up against Solomon an adversary, Hadad the Edomite, from the royal line of Edom.
Earlier when David was fighting with Edom, Joab the commander of the army, who had gone up to bury the dead, had struck down all the men in Edom.
Joab and all the Israelites stayed there for six months, until they had destroyed all the men in Edom.
But Hadad, still only a boy, fled to Egypt with some Edomite officials who had served his father.
They set out from Midian and went to Paran. Then taking people from Paran with them, they went to Egypt, to Pharaoh king of Egypt, who gave Hadad a house and land and provided him with food.
Pharaoh was so pleased with Hadad that he gave him a sister of his own wife, Queen Tahpenes, in marriage.
The sister of Tahpenes bore him a son named Genubath, whom Tahpenes brought up in the royal palace. There Genubath lived with Pharaoh’s own children.
While he was in Egypt, Hadad heard that David rested with his ancestors and that Joab the commander of the army was also dead. Then Hadad said to Pharaoh, ‘Let me go, that I may return to my own country’.
‘What have you lacked here that you want to go back to your own country?’ Pharaoh asked. ‘Nothing’, Hadad replied, ‘but do let me go!’
But was this Hadad really a Syrian (Aramite), rather than an Edomite?
2 Samuel 10:13 Commentaries: So Joab and the people who were with him drew near to the battle against the Arameans, and they fled before him.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
And Joab drew nigh, and the people that were with him, unto the battle against the Syrians,.... Fell upon them; attacked them first, began the battle with them; rightly judging, that if they, being hired soldiers, were closely pressed, they would give way, which would discourage the Ammonites, who depended much upon them; and the fight, according to Josephus (x), lasted some little time, who says, that Joab killed many of them, and obliged the rest to turn their backs and flee, as follows:
and they fled before him: the Syriac and Arabic versions in this verse, and in all others in this chapter where the word "Syrians" is used, have "Edomites", reading "Edom" instead of "Aram", the letters "R" and "D" in the Hebrew tongue being very similar.
(x) Ut supra. (Antiqu. l. 7. c. 6. sect. 2.) ….
Wednesday, October 29, 2025
Ensi Gudea’s building pattern following Solomonic structure
“Upon completion of the project, Gudea recorded, he was blessed and promised
long life by his personal gods. It has been suggested that the account of Solomon’s construction of the Jerusalem temple follows this same general outline”.
Lars Haukeland
Pharaoh Thutmose I followed Davidic (Israelite) procedure when crowing Hatshepsut:
Thutmose I Crown Hatshepsut
(3) Thutmose I Crowns Hatshepsut
In that article I (Damien Mackey) pointed out that:
“The very ceremonial procedure, in its three phases, that David used for the coronation of his chosen son, Solomon, was the procedure also used by pharaoh Thutmose I in the coronation of Hatshepsut, who is thought to have been the pharaoh’s daughter”.
(i) The Assembly is Summoned
(ii) The Future Ruler Presented
(iii) The Assembly Embraces King's Decision
….
Now Lars Haukeland has picked up a similar sort of procedural parallelism between Gudea’s, and Solomon’s, Temple building activity:
The cylinders of Gudea (1 Kings 3) | larshaukeland
And there is no doubt that he is correct about that.
Naturally, however, with Gudea conventionally dated to c. 2100 BC, Lars Haukeland has presumed that King Solomon (c. 960 BC) was imitating Gudea’s procedure.
He is not correct about that if I am right in identifying Gudea as being a paganised version of King Solomon of Israel:
Gudea, King of Peace, builds a Great Temple
(5) Gudea, King of Peace, builds a great Temple
Lars Haukeland has written:
The cylinders of Gudea (1 Kings 3)
Two large, inscribed clay cylinders were discovered at the end of nineteenth century.
After their broken pieces had been meticulously reassembled, the cylinders revealed
a lengthy Sumerian composition memorializing the building of a new temple by a Mesopotamian ruler named Gudea (reigned ca. 2112-2095 B.C or shortly before).
The cylinders claim that the deity Ningirsu appeared to Gudea in a dream, commanding him to build his new temple, the Eninnu. Gudea prayed and slept in the temple already existing on the site, waiting for a second dream; in it Ningirsu revealed the new temple’s plan. The cylinders provide detailed information about the preparation and purification of the temple area and specifics about conscripting workers, the acquisition of building materials and the laying of the foundations. Next, they describe the building process, decorations and furnishings. Gudea then installed the statues of Ningirsu and his consort, Baba, offered dedicatory prayers and hosted a seven-day banquet. Upon completion of the project, Gudea recorded, he was blessed and promised long life by his personal gods.
It has been suggested that the account of Solomon’s construction of the Jerusalem temple follows this same general outline. Since divine sanction for Solomon’s temple building had been given to his father, David (2 Samuel 7:12-13), Solomon declared his intention to build Yahweh’s temple in fulfilment of the divine command (1 Kings 5:3-5).
This is followed by a description of the arrangements between Hiram of Tyre and Solomon, which provided for Hiram to contribute cedars and pine for the building project, as well as for Solomon’s levy for labourers and the quarrying of stone for the foundation (5:6-18). The details of the construction process, including the layout and dimensions of the individual rooms, are included (6:1-38), as are directives regarding the furnishings (7:13-51).
Just as Gudea installed the statues of his deities to symbolize their presence in the temple, Solomon brought the ark of the covenant, which represented God’s footstool (1 Chronicles 28:2), into the temple in Jerusalem (1 Kings 8:1-21). He then offered his prayer of dedication and hosted a seven-day feast (8:22-66). Finally, the Lord appeared to the king to bless him and promise him an everlasting throne over Israel, provided Solomon would continue to follow His commands (9:1-9).
That the account of Solomon’s temple building follows the same structure need not surprise or alarm the reader. The inspired writers worked within familiar cultural and literary structures to faithfully transmit the history of Israel and of the Word of God.
Damien Mackey’s comment: No, the chronology for Gudea is totally over-inflated. King Solomon had the precedence, and – just as Hatshepsut’s coronation procedure followed the biblical pattern for Solomon – so, too, is the pagan account of Gudea’s temple building entirely dependent upon the Solomonic pattern.
Tuesday, October 28, 2025
Gudea, King of Peace, builds a great Temple
by
Damien F. Mackey
“One night, as Gudea slept, he had a vivid dream. In this dream, a giant figure appeared to him, with the head of a god and the body of a man. The figure showed Gudea a tablet with the plans for the temple, and instructed him on how it should
be built. When Gudea awoke, he immediately called for his scribes and had them record every detail of the dream”.
Here is a wonderful story about wise Gudea, the Temple builder, that I picked up at: The Peaceful King of Lagash: Gudea’s Legacy of Culture and Prosperity | by Leslie | Time Chronicles | Medium
It was written by Leslie (October 18, 2024).
While I have kept the story, I have had to make some serious amendments to it, based upon my view that the enigmatic Gudea was Israel’s famed King Solomon, the wisest of the wise, who also, as Senenmut, played a major part in Eighteenth Dynasty Egypt:
Yahweh, Solomon, Jerusalem - Ningirsu, Gudea and Girsu
(13) Yahweh, Solomon, Jerusalem - Ningirsu, Gudea and Girsu
Leslie commences:
Gather ‘round, my friends, and let me tell you a tale from the distant past, a story of a king unlike any other. In the land between two great rivers, where civilization first took root, there lived a ruler whose name still echoes through the ages: Gudea, the peaceful king of Lagash.
Damien Mackey’s comment: Gudea may better be described as the ruler of Girsu, which I believe was Jerusalem. This Girsu is sometimes referred to as “the mother city” of Lagash, for: “… Girsu became the capital of the Lagash kingdom and continued to be its religious center …”. (Girsu - Wikipedia)
Leslie continues:
Picture, if you will, a time long before our own, when the world was young and the gods walked among men. It was a time of great upheaval, when kings waged war for glory and conquest. But in the city-state of Lagash, nestled in the heart of ancient Sumer, a different kind of ruler came to power.
The year was 2144 BCE, or thereabouts — time has a way of blurring the edges of history.
Damien Mackey’s comment: Hold it right there!
Somehow, was it late, during the Seleucid era?, some famous Judean history appears to have become re-written, ‘Sumerianised’, re-located to central/southern Iraq.
The date here for Gudea of “2144 BCE” is hopelessly wrong, it being more than a millennium too early.
And, as for Sumer, read e.g. my article:
“The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia
(8) “The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia
Leslie continues:
The people of Lagash had grown weary of war and strife. They yearned for a leader who would bring peace and prosperity to their land. And so, as if answering their prayers, Gudea ascended to the throne.
Now, you might be wondering, what made Gudea so special? Well, let me tell you, it wasn’t his prowess in battle or his thirst for conquest. No, Gudea was a different breed of king altogether. He was a man of peace, a builder, a patron of the arts, and a devout servant of the gods.
Damien Mackey’s comment: This reads exactly like King Solomon.
Initially, a loyal Yahwist, he later apostatised (I Kings 11:1-8).
Leslie continues:
When Gudea first took the throne, the people of Lagash held their breath. Would he be like the kings before him, leading them into battle and leaving their fields untended? But Gudea had other plans. On the day of his coronation, he stood before his people and made a bold declaration.
“My people,” he said, his voice ringing out across the crowded square, “I stand before you not as a conqueror, but as a builder. Not as a warrior, but as a peacemaker. Under my rule, Lagash will not seek to dominate others, but to cultivate our own greatness. We will build, not destroy. We will create, not conquer. And in doing so, we will make Lagash a beacon of culture and prosperity for all of Sumer!”
Damien Mackey’s comment: Lagash (var. Lakish) was actually the second great fort after Jerusalem, Lachish, also known as Ashdod (cf. Isaiah 20:1), Assyrian Ashduddu, which later became associated with Lagash as Eshnunna (Ashnunnu), supposedly in central Mesopotamia.
How did this come about???
The Kingdom of Girsu (Jerusalem) appears to have been frequently referred to, instead, as the kingdom of Lagash.
Leslie continues:
The crowd was stunned into silence. Then, slowly, a cheer began to build. It started as a whisper, then grew to a roar. The people of Lagash had found their king, and they embraced his vision with open arms.
True to his word, Gudea set about transforming Lagash. But his first act as king was not to build a palace or erect monuments to his own glory. No, Gudea’s first order of business was to restore the great temple of Eninnu, dedicated to the god Ningirsu, the patron deity of Lagash.
Damien Mackey’s comment: Ningirsu simply means Lord of Girsu, that is, Lord of Jerusalem - hence Yahweh.
See article above, “Yahweh, Solomon, Jerusalem - Ningirsu, Gudea and Girsu”.
Leslie continues:
Now, you might think that building a temple is a straightforward affair. But let me tell you, when it came to Gudea, nothing was ever simple. You see, Gudea was a deeply pious man, and he wanted to ensure that every aspect of the temple’s construction was in accordance with divine will.
One night, as Gudea slept, he had a vivid dream. In this dream, a giant figure appeared to him, with the head of a god and the body of a man. The figure showed Gudea a tablet with the plans for the temple, and instructed him on how it should be built. When Gudea awoke, he immediately called for his scribes and had them record every detail of the dream.
Damien Mackey’s comment: King Solomon had a famous Dream (Cf. I Kings 3:56-15 and 2 Chronicles 1:7-12).
The Lord, in fact, “had appeared to him twice” (I Kings 11:9).
See also:
Solomon, Gudea and Ezekiel
(8) Solomon, Gudea and Ezekiel
Leslie continues:
But Gudea wasn’t satisfied with just one divine vision. Oh no, he sought confirmation from the gods at every turn. He consulted oracles, made sacrifices, and even embarked on a pilgrimage to seek the blessing of other deities. It’s said that he was so devoted to getting every detail right that he delayed the start of construction for months, much to the frustration of his advisors.
“My king,” they would plead, “surely we have enough guidance from the gods. Let us begin the work!”
But Gudea would simply smile and say, “Patience, my friends. The gods work on their own time, not ours. We must ensure that every brick, every beam, every carving is exactly as they wish it to be.”
And so, the people of Lagash waited, watching their king’s tireless devotion with a mixture of awe and exasperation.
But when the construction finally began, it was a sight to behold.
Gudea spared no expense in building the Eninnu temple. He imported cedar wood from distant Lebanon, gold and lapis lazuli from far-off lands. The finest artisans in all of Sumer were brought to Lagash to work on the project. Day and night, the sound of hammers and chisels filled the air as the temple slowly took shape.
But Gudea didn’t just oversee the construction from afar. No, he rolled up his sleeves and worked alongside his people. There are stories of him carrying bricks, mixing mortar, and even carving intricate designs himself. Can you imagine it? A king, with his own royal hands calloused and stained from labor, all in service to his god and his people.
As the temple rose, so too did the spirits of the people of Lagash. They saw in their king a model of piety and dedication, and they strove to emulate him. The city began to flourish as never before. Craftsmen honed their skills, creating works of art that would be marveled at for generations to come. Farmers tended their fields with renewed vigor, knowing that their harvests would feed their families and not fuel endless wars.
But Gudea’s vision extended beyond just the Eninnu temple. He embarked on a vast building program, constructing and restoring temples throughout Lagash and its territories. Each temple was a marvel in its own right, a testament to the skill of Sumerian architects and the wealth of the city-state.
Now, you might be thinking, “All this building and devotion is well and good, but surely a king needs to defend his realm?” And you’d be right to wonder. The ancient world was a dangerous place, and many a peaceful kingdom had fallen to more aggressive neighbors.
But Gudea had a different approach to security. Instead of building up a mighty army or constructing imposing walls, he focused on diplomacy and trade. He sent envoys to neighboring city-states, bearing gifts and proposals for mutual cooperation. He welcomed foreign merchants, encouraging them to trade in Lagash’s markets.
There’s a story that illustrates Gudea’s approach perfectly. One day, a group of warriors from a rival city-state arrived at the gates of Lagash. The guards were alarmed and sent word to Gudea, expecting him to call the army to arms. But Gudea simply smiled and said, “Invite them in. Prepare a feast in their honor.”
The warriors were brought before Gudea, their hands on their weapons, unsure of what to expect. But Gudea greeted them warmly, as if they were old friends. He had his servants bring out the finest foods and wines, and he engaged the warriors in conversation, asking about their homes, their families, their dreams.
By the end of the night, the warriors were laughing and singing with the people of Lagash. When they left the next day, they did so not as potential conquerors, but as friends and allies. And from that day forward, their city-state became one of Lagash’s staunchest supporters.
This approach earned Gudea a reputation throughout Sumer. He became known as a wise and just ruler, one who could be trusted to keep his word and to seek peaceful solutions to conflicts. Other kings sought his counsel, and merchants went out of their way to trade in Lagash, knowing they would be treated fairly.
But perhaps Gudea’s greatest legacy was not in the temples he built or the alliances he forged, but in the culture he fostered. Under his rule, Lagash became a center of learning and artistic expression. He established schools where young scribes could learn the art of writing, preserving knowledge for future generations. He patronized artists and sculptors, encouraging them to push the boundaries of their crafts.
One of the most remarkable artifacts from Gudea’s reign are the statues of the king himself. These aren’t your typical royal portraits, mind you. The statues of Gudea are unlike anything seen before in Sumer. They’re carved from hard diorite stone, polished to a smooth sheen. But what’s truly striking about them is the way they portray the king.
In these statues, Gudea isn’t shown as a mighty warrior or a domineering ruler. Instead, he’s depicted as a humble servant of the gods. In many of the statues, he’s seated with his hands clasped in prayer, his head bowed in reverence. The inscriptions on the statues speak not of military victories or conquests, but of Gudea’s piety and his commitment to serving his people.
One statue, in particular, tells a fascinating story. It shows Gudea holding a tablet and a stylus. On the tablet is a plan for a temple, complete with measurements and architectural details. But here’s the interesting part: the plan on the tablet matches exactly with the remains of the actual Eninnu temple that archaeologists have uncovered. It’s as if Gudea wanted to show future generations that he had followed the divine plan to the letter.
These statues weren’t just works of art; they were also powerful propaganda tools. They sent a clear message to the people of Lagash and to visitors from other city-states: here was a king who ruled not through force, but through wisdom and devotion. A king who saw himself not as a god, but as a servant of the gods and the people.
Now, you might be wondering, “How do we know all this about Gudea? Surely, after all these thousands of years, much of his story must be lost to time?” And you’d be right to ask. But here’s where the story gets even more fascinating.
You see, Gudea left us a remarkable gift: his words, preserved in clay. During his reign, he commissioned numerous inscriptions detailing his building projects, his prayers to the gods, and his vision for Lagash. These inscriptions were carved into clay cylinders and cones, which were then buried in the foundations of the temples he built.
For thousands of years, these clay documents lay hidden, protected from the ravages of time. Then, in the 19th and 20th centuries, archaeologists began to uncover the ruins of ancient Sumer [sic]. And there, amidst the crumbling bricks and fallen columns, they found Gudea’s words, as clear and powerful as the day they were written.
One of the most remarkable of these documents is known as the Cylinders of Gudea. These two clay cylinders, each about a foot long, contain over 1,300 lines of text in the Sumerian language. They tell the story of the construction of the Eninnu temple, from Gudea’s divine dream to the final dedication ceremony.
Reading these cylinders is like stepping into a time machine. We can hear Gudea’s voice across the millennia, speaking of his hopes, his fears, his deep devotion to the gods.
We can feel his pride as he describes the magnificent temple he’s building, and his humility as he acknowledges that all his accomplishments are due to divine favor.
But the cylinders do more than just tell us about one building project. They give us a window into the world of ancient Sumer. We learn about religious beliefs, about social structures, about trade networks that stretched across the ancient world. We see a society that, despite being separated from us by thousands of years, grappled with many of the same issues we face today: how to govern justly, how to ensure prosperity for all, how to live in harmony with one’s neighbors.
Gudea’s reign lasted for about twenty years, from around 2144 to 2124 BCE [sic]. In that time, he transformed Lagash from a minor city-state into one of the cultural and economic powerhouses of Sumer. His peaceful approach to rule, his emphasis on cultural development, and his dedication to serving his people and his gods left a lasting impact not just on Lagash, but on the entire region.
But all good things must come to an end, and eventually, Gudea’s reign drew to a close. The records don’t tell us much about his final days or how he died. Perhaps he passed peacefully in his sleep, satisfied with a life well-lived. ….
Saturday, September 27, 2025
Must watch Exposition by Don Esposito of true Temple location
Uncovering Jerusalem's Lost Temple (The temple of the Jews in the City of David)
Uncovering Jerusalem's Lost Temple (The temple of the Jews in the City of David)
….
It's difficult to admit the Temple is really in the City of David. For the Jews, and Christians for that matter, to admit they have been bobbing their heads at a Roman fort for centuries would be hard to admit to oneself. But, if they want their temple built, just admit it and start construction. Let Muhammad keep his Dome of the Rock built on the Court of the Gentiles (Rev. 11:1-2). Besides, as far as Fort Antonia goes, can you imagine the Romans, the conquerors, allowing a Jewish Temple, the conquered, to be tower above and be much larger than their presence?. That is ridiculous. The Romans are going to make sure they are the biggest and most imposing presence in the city. Also, Micah 3 tells us the site of the temple would be plowed like a field...and it was. Look at the old photos.
….
I am not a biblical scholar, and not an archeologist, but I know when I read where Yeshua told his disciples that not one stone would be left upon another of the grand temple they were talking about, I would wonder seeing the Jews at the wailing wall. I knew Yeshua was never wrong. I just could not figure out why they chose that wall to pray at. Now that I have the back history it makes sense. Maybe it would be hard for them to accept that they have been praying up against a Roman fortress wall. Ok, I know what they thought (and many still think) about Yeshua, so they would not know what He said to His disciples. But they were praying in their heart to the One Almighty Yahweh. Isn't that what matters seeing as they do not have a temple? Will they come around? Only time will tell. Thank you, I have now watched several stories about the Lost Temple site. I am so happy and convinced that this is where it is at, in the old city of David. Makes 100% sense. It seems like Yahweh is revealing so much in this time. I hope everyone gets on board and learns of His will for our lives, and His love for ALL of us. Thank you again, you are reaching people, may you continue to be blessed with the ability to get this truth out there.
….
I absolutely love it when people can extricate themselves from the accepted narrative and simply think according to what the facts are saying. Congrats!
….
When I was first introduced to this possibility, I was very resistant. As a Christian, I also had accepted that the Dome of the Rock was built upon the place of the Temple of our God in Jerusalem. But after just considering all the information, I reluctantly accepted the truth. It was hard, but all the evidence literally proves it. Thank you for your discussion.
….
The fact that they say the Roman’s built the aqueduct is SUCH A GOOD point
….
Bob Cornuke wrote a book about the Soloman [sic] temple in the City of David as the site of the temple, Bobs [sic] a former police detective, he used those investigating skills to layout all the evidence to prove that Soloman temple was in the City of David.
Where Is The Third Temple? | Bob Cornuke
Monday, September 22, 2025
Looking for King David in extra-biblical history
Part One:
Can be found only with a revised history-archaeology
by
Damien F. Mackey
With King Solomon established by Dean Hickman as a contemporary of
the celebrated Hammurabi of Babylon, we would thus expect Solomon
and his father, David, also to emerge historically in this new setting.
Buoyed by my apparent success in finding King Solomon in the historical records, as the grand Steward, the quasi-royal Senenmut (Senmut), ‘the power behind the throne’ of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty pharaohs, Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, I have tended to go in search of further historical manifestations of that King of Israel in preference to his most illustrious father, David. Though I have not entirely neglected the latter.
Whether or not Senenmut really was King Solomon, my reconstruction has aroused enough interest, at least, for my thesis on this subject to have been published twice.
Firstly, as “Solomon and Sheba”, in SIS’s Chronology and Catastrophism Review, in 1997, and, most recently (2025), in the French journal, Kadath, as “Salomon et la reine de Saba”.
Salomon et la reine de Saba
Prenant le relais des travaux jadis présentés par Immanuel Velikovsky dans son livre Ages in Chaos (Le Désordre des siècles pour la version française), Damien F. Mackey propose ici de nouveaux éléments en faveur de l’hypothèse selon laquelle Hatchepsout, la pharaonne de la XVIIIe dynastie égyptienne, était en fait la reine de Saba biblique. L’argument principal avancé est la présence de Salomon lui-même, dans les inscriptions égyptiennes, sous l’identité de Sénènmout, l’éminence grise d’Hatchepsout.
Taking up the work formerly presented by Immanuel Velikovsky in his book Ages in Chaos, Damien F. Mackey proposes here new elements in favor of the hypothesis according to which Hatshepsut, the pharaoh of the 18th Egyptian dynasty, was actually the biblical queen of Saba. The main argument put forward is the presence of Solomon himself, in Egyptian inscriptions, under the identity of Senenmut, the grey eminence of Hatshepsut.
Damien F. Mackey, Salomon et la reine de Saba, traduit de l’anglais par Stéphane Normand.
37 pages, 6 illustrations.
Outside of Egypt, and its Velikovksian synchronisations of the Eighteenth Dynasty with the United Monarchy of Israel (Ages in Chaos, I, 1952) – thereby enabling for my identification of King Solomon, in that revised context, as Senenmut – a further vital synchronisation has been provided by Dean Hickman, in “The Dating of Hammurabi”, according to which King Solomon would have been a contemporary of the famous Hammurabi of Babylon.
{Hickman, George Albert. 1986. “The Dating of Hammurabi.” In Proceedings of The Third Seminar of Catastrophism and Ancient History}
Surely, I thought, King Solomon was of sufficient greatness for him to be identifiable as well in this new context, well to the north of Egypt/Ethiopia.
I Kings 10:23-25:
“King Solomon was greater in riches and wisdom than all the other kings of the earth. The whole world sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God had put in his heart. Year after year, everyone who came brought a gift—articles of silver and gold, robes, weapons and spices, and horses and mules”.
Dean Hickman had already laid a solid platform towards this end.
Had he not identified Hammurabi’s mighty older contemporary, Shamsi-Adad I of Assyria and Syro-Mitanni, as the biblical Hadadezer, Syrian arch foe of King David? And Shamsi-Adad I’s father, Ilu-kabkabu, or Uru-Kabkabu, as Hadadezer’s father, Rekhob (= Uru-Kab)?
2 Samuel 8:3:
“Moreover, David defeated Hadadezer son of Rehob [Rekhob], king of Zobah, when he went to restore his monument at the Euphrates River”.
An accurate revision of history is a ‘tree’ bearing ample fruit
(4) An accurate revision of history is a 'tree' bearing ample fruit
so I have recently written.
And this now becomes apparent as Dean Hickman’s healthy ‘tree’ of revisionism begins to yield its fine produce. Thus I have further determined that:
• Hammurabi’s contemporary, Zimri-lim of Mari, was Solomon’s persistent foe, Rezon (Rezin), whose father,
• Iahdulim (Iahdulin) was Eliada (=Li(m)iahdu), the father of Rezon.
A very good name fit!
I Kings 11:23-25:
“Here is how God made Rezon son of Eliada an enemy of Solomon: Rezon had run away from his master, King Hadadezer of Zobah. He formed his own small army and became its leader after David had defeated Hadadezer's troops. Then Rezon and his army went to Damascus, where he became the ruler of Syria and an enemy of Israel”.
In these few scriptural verses, we now find several known historical characters of the Hammurabic era: Zimri-Lim (Rezon); Iahdulim (Eliada); Shamsi-Adad I (Hadadezer). And we have just read that Uru-kabkabu (Rekhob) was the father of Shamsi-Adad I.
But where is the historical King David amongst all of these famous names?
Building on Dean Hickman’s rock-solid foundation - expecting to pick more fruit from his abundant ‘tree’ - I ventured some further biblico-historical identifications, namely:
• Iarim-Lim of Yamhad (location not determined) was David’s ally, King Hiram;
• Hammurabi himself may be Huram-abi, the specialist artificer whom Hiram appointed to assist King Solomon with the design of the Temple and Palace.
2 Chronicles 2:13-14:
‘I am sending you Huram-Abi, a man of great skill, whose mother was from Dan and whose father was from Tyre. He is trained to work in gold and silver, bronze and iron, stone and wood, and with purple and blue and crimson yarn and fine linen. He is experienced in all kinds of engraving and can execute any design given to him. He will work with your skilled workers and with those of my lord, David your father’.
Iarim-Lim fits very well, indeed, as Hiram, the most influential king of the time, as we learn in a Mari letter (my emphasis): There is no king who is mighty by himself. Ten or fifteen kings follow Hammurabi the ruler of Babylon, a like number Rim-Sin of Larsa, a like number Ibal-pi-el of Eshnunna, a like number Amud-pi-el of Qatanum, but twenty follow Yarim-Lim of Yamhad.
What’s more, Iarim-Lim does exactly what King Hiram does - he supplies his patrons with fleets of ships. On this, see e.g. my article:
King Solomon’s other great ally King Hiram
(10) King Solomon’s other great ally King Hiram
I Kings 10:11-12:
“Hiram’s ships brought gold from Ophir; and from there they brought great cargoes of almugwood and precious stones. The king used the almugwood to make supports for the Temple of the Lord and for the royal palace, and to make harps and lyres for the musicians. So much almugwood has never been imported or seen since that day”.
Can we eke out - especially with regard to kings David and Solomon - any further biblico-historical value from the above Mari letter, naming five great kings of the day?
There is no king who is mighty by himself. Ten or fifteen kings follow Hammurabi the ruler of Babylon, a like number Rim-Sin of Larsa, a like number Ibal-pi-el of Eshnunna, a like number Amud-pi-el of Qatanum, but twenty follow Yarim-Lim of Yamhad.
So far I have proposed biblical identifications for two of these five kings:
Hammurabi (= Huram-abi?); Rim-Sin of Larsa; Ibal-pi-el of Eshnunna; Amud-pi-el of Qatanum; Yarim-Lim (= Hiram).
The great Shamsi-Adad I (Hadadezer) had by now, presumably, passed from the scene.
Part Two:
The geographical revolution that is also required
Apart from, perhaps, Qatna (Qatanum), the four other cities/lands
referred to in that famous Mari letter:
Babylon; Larsa; Eshnunna; and Yamkhad (Yamhad),
may (or will) need to be re-located.
In Part One, we encountered a handful of royal and geographical names that would be regarded as being generally unfamiliar, except to the specialists. Names such as Yarim-Lim; Yamkhad (Yamhad); Rim-Sin; Larsa; Ibal-pi-el; Eshnunna; Amud-pi-el; Qatanum.
Some of these names have been completely lost on me.
I would not have been able to pinpoint on a map either Yamkhad or Larsa independently of the usual guesses for these.
Yarim-Lim I have confidently identified as the biblical King Hiram - though his problematical kingdom of Yamkhad will need to be properly explained in this context.
And Eshnunna (Ashnunna) I have confidently identified with Ashduddu (Ashdod), which is the same as Lagash (var. Lakish), that is, Lachish, in SW Judah, a long, long way from where Eshnunna/Lagash is conventionally placed in southern Mesopotamia.
On this, see my article:
As Ashduddu (Ashdod) is to Lachish, so, likewise, is Eshnunna to Lagash
https://www.academia.edu/89313146/As_Ashduddu_Ashdod_is_to_Lachish_so_likewise_is_Eshnunna_to_Lagash?uc-sb-sw=31251124
This is part of that ‘geographical revolution’ as referred to above.
For more on all of this, and regarding just how far-reaching it is, see another article of mine:
More geographical ‘tsunamis’: lands of Elam and Chaldea
https://www.academia.edu/104403646/More_geographical_tsunamis_lands_of_Elam_and_Chaldea?f_ri=32226
I am content at this stage, at least, to accept the common opinion that Qatanum was Qatna, and was in western central Syria.
While I am confident that the kings of this Hammurabic period, and their geography, will become identifiable (some already having been identified) in a c. 1000 BC context, I hold out no hope whatsoever for the conventional historians - still stuck in an artificial c. 1800 BC for Hammurabi - being fully able to identify any of these kings.
And that huge chronological discrepancy (some 800 years) will not serve well, either, one would think, for the conventionalists to sort out whatever geographical anomalies.
Apart from, perhaps, Qatna (Qatanum), the four other cities/lands referred to in that famous Mari letter: Babylon; Larsa; Eshnunna; and Yamkhad (Yamhad), may (or will) need to be re-located.
Babylon
Following Royce (Richard) Erickson’s radical shift of the lands of Chaldea and Elam (see ‘tsunamis’ article above), which I wholeheartedly accept, a corresponding shift of the related Babylon has become absolutely necessary.
Here is Royce Erickson’s visually explanatory map (his Figure 6).
After a fair amount of trial and error, I have settled upon the important city of Carchemish for Babylon (var. Karduniash):
Correction for Babylon (Babel). Carchemish preferable to Byblos
(2) Correction for Babylon (Babel). Carchemish preferable to Byblos
This re-location of the famous Babylon is in accord with the westwards (N and S) shifting also of Elam; of Chaldea; and of other places that ‘fall permanently off the map of lower Mesopotamia’ (see Eshnunna section, next).
Eshnunna
If Eshnunna/Lagash really was - (not in southern/central Mesopotamia) - Ashdod/ Lachish in SW Judah, a strong fort second only to Jerusalem, then it now becomes most likely that Ibal-pi-el of Eshnunna, of the Mari letter, was Solomon himself, perhaps as Crown Prince, governing Jerusalem’s major fort.
Or, perhaps, as King Solomon himself, with his kingdom known to the Syrians and Assyrians as Ashdod (to be distinguished from the Philistine Ashdod, known to the Assyrians as “Ashdod-by-the sea”).
Jerusalem is otherwise referred to in the historical records as Girsu (the “mother city” to Lagash), it being one of those places along with Lagash - supposedly situated in southern Mesopotamia - that, according to Seth Richardson, “seemingly fell permanently off the political map of lower Mesopotamia …” (“Ningirsu returns to his plow: Lagaš and Girsu take leave of Ur” (2008): (5) Ningirsu returns to his plow: Lagaš and Girsu take leave of Ur (2008) | Seth Richardson – Academia.edu).
Why?
Because “Lagaš and Girsu” (read Lachish and Jerusalem) should never have been on the map of lower Mesopotamia in the first place. See also on this my article:
Goodbye, not hello, to Girsu at Tello
(3) Goodbye, not hello, to Girsu at Tello
Yamkhad
When I wrote above of “the usual guesses” for Yamkhad and Larsa, I had in mind, in the case of Yamkhad, what I had already read about this kingdom regarding the various uncertainties associated with it. Comments like this one:
https://petesfavouritethings.blog/2017/11/10/the-amorite-kingdoms/
Little is known about the kingdom of Yamkhad, which probably occupied what today is Syria and Lebanon. There have been no internal written records found and what we do know comes from the records of surrounding countries. This was the Amorite homeland. It is very possible that Yamkhad was never a kingdom as such, but more an area controlled by a loose confederation of tribes who banded together only in the face of external danger.
This Yamkhad is said to have been centred on Aleppo (Halab):
https://kurdistantribune.com/free-state-aleppo/
“In the ancient times of Yamkhad, Aleppo had a direct access to the Mediterranean via its port Alalakh, the now inland-lying site Tell Atchana”.
Obviously, Yamkhad was (despite what we read above) a very significant kingdom at the time of Iarim-Lim, who appears to have become the dominant king in the region (presumably after the departure of Shamsi-Adad I).
This would indicate to me that the kingdom also went by another, better-known name. I have never yet read a decent explanation for the name Yamkhad.
My tentative suggestion would be that Yamkhad was Chaldea - the revised version of it according to Royce Erickson’s maps above. Perhaps the Yam element in the name equates with the Hebrew word Yam for Sea: the Sealand, another most obscure entity:
Horrible Histories: Kingdom of the Sealand is ‘all at Sea’
https://www.academia.edu/104962176/Horrible_Histories_Kingdom_of_the_Sealand_is_all_at_Sea
If Iarim-Lim was King Hiram, as I maintain, then we would expect the kingdom of Yamkhad to take in, also, Tyre, of which Hiram is said to have been king (I Kings 5:1).
Tyre, a coastal port like Alalakh, is a long way to the south of it (see map above).
A colleague of mine has informed me that Josephus (I have not personally seen the quote) has Hiram returning home from Tyre, which would suggest, as we both agreed, that he was not based at Tyre.
Tyre could have been, in the minds of the Jews, the geographical reference point most meaningful to them over which the mighty King Hiram had exerted power.
No wonder he had accumulated twenty kings in train (Mari letter) if he had dominated the entire coastal region!
Larsa
That leaves just Larsa. And Rim-Sin.
Larsa is not included by Seth Richardson (above) as being one of those places that “seemingly fell permanently off the political map of lower Mesopotamia …”.
Apart from Lagaš and Girsu, he had also included Puzriš-Dagān and Umma.
But Larsa, along with Uruk, Isin, and Nippur, he had left untouched.
Had Seth Richardson mentioned Larsa in the same fashion as Lagaš and Girsu (my Lachish and Jerusalem), then I would have been able to eye off Larsa as being another name requiring to be shifted to the land of Israel.
Larsa is supposed to have been situated not very far away from Lagash:
AI Overview
“The ancient cities of Larsa and Lagash were relatively close, located in what is now southern Iraq, with Larsa approximately 25 kilometers southeast of Uruk and Lagash situated about 22 kilometers east of the modern town of Al-Shatrah. While the specific distance between them isn't given, they were both significant Sumerian city-states in the same region, with Larsa being annexed into the empire of the king of Lagash in the past”.
That the conventionally located Larsa has proven to be somewhat problematical for archaeologists is apparent from what Marc Van de Mieroop wrote in 1993, in his article:
1993 “The Reign of Rim-Sin,” Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 87 (1993): 47-69.
(4) 1993 “The Reign of Rim-Sin,” Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 87 (1993): 47-69. | Marc Van De Mieroop - Academia.edu
“Many texts are published as deriving from Larsa, a site that was indeed
heavily looted before scientific excavations took place; yet it is often unclear
as to whether they are from the site itself or from a neighboring tell”.
And we learn at:
https://www.ancient-origins.net/premium-preview/larsa-0019154
Scant sources for Larsa
There is scant evidence of Larsa being mentioned in archaeological finds, before its rise as a strong city state. King Eanatum of Lagash’s Stele of Vultures (circa 2450 BC) [sic] mentions that he made the King of Umma swear an oath to Larsa’s sun god Utu, and it refers to sacrifices that were performed at Utu’s temple in Larsa. It is called the Stele of Vultures for it depicts vultures flying away from the battlefield with the heads of the slain enemy in their beaks. ….
Part Three: As an older contemporary of Hammurabi
King Solomon
In Part Two, we reached the important conclusions that two names generally associated with central and lower Mesopotamia, namely Eshnunna and Lagash, both, in fact, refer to the strong Jewish fort of Lachish, clearly recognised in Lakish, a variant of Lagash - with Eshnunna (Ashnunna) being Ashdod (Ashduddu), another name for Lachish.
This now means that any ruler historically referenced in connection with Lagash, or Eshnunna, is going to be an Israelite (Jewish) king, or, at the least, governor.
Apart from Senenmut as Solomon in Egypt, as previously discussed, I find what I believe to be two other manifestations of him in connection with Lagash, and with Eshnunna.
One of these is as the semi-historical, semi-mythological Gudea of Lagash, of very uncertain chronology (c. 2080–2060 BC, SHORT CHRONOLOGY, c. 2144–2124 BC, MIDDLE CHRONOLOGY.) (Perhaps Gudea was Solomon much later divinised by the Seleucids/Ptolemies in a fashion similar to their venerating of Imhotep and Amenhotep son of Hapu in Egypt).
Another manifestation of King Solomon is as the Ibal-pi-el of Eshnunna whom we met in the Mari letter. A contemporary of Hammurabi, as we would now confidently expect King Solomon to have been, my reasons for opting for Ibal-pi-el, for Solomon, apart from his rule of Eshnunna, will become clear as we move on to consider King David.
The only other historical identification for King Solomon with which I have toyed is as Jabin (Ibni) of Hazor, a fort ruled by Solomon. Jabin also emerges in the Mari letters. Jabin, a generic name for rulers of Hazor, apparently, must not be confused with earlier kings Jabin of Hazor, one at the time of Joshua, and one at the time of Deborah:
Cosmopolitan King Solomon
(4) Cosmopolitan King Solomon
This identification (Solomon as Jabin) is still, admittedly, quite tentative.
Archaeologically, the House (Kingdom) of King Solomon is attested in El Amarna letters, revised by Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky (Ages in Chaos, I, 1952) from c. C14th BC down to about a century after King Solomon. Before Dr. Velikovsky wrote his book, any hope of connecting the El Amarna (EA) references to King Solomon would have been impossible. I wrote in my article:
Abdi hiba and the House of Solomon
(4) Abdi hiba and the House of Solomon
…. two … pieces of evidence in EA letters 285-290 … determine
the historical terminus a quo for king Abdi-Hiba: namely, the mention
of Jerusalem; and the mention of Beth Shulman (“House of Solomon”).
King David
The House of David is also attested archaeologically, and most famously, in the Tell Dan inscription.
Surely, the great King David must emerge at the approximate time of the Mari correspondence, as either a ruler of Eshnunna, or of Lagash, or of ‘the mother city’ of Lagash, Girsu (Jerusalem)!
And emerge he does.
The father of Ibal-pi-el (my Solomon) had the most David of names, Dadusha, and he, too, of course, ruled Eshnunna. His supposed brother, Naram-Sin, ruler of Eshnunna, also had a David-like name, “Beloved of [the god]”.
Since this Naram-Sin had a David name, and ruled Eshnunna, and since he fought against Shamsi-Adad I (Hadadezer) as did King David (name from the noun דוד (dod), “beloved”), I would confidently identify these supposed brothers, Naram-Sin and Dadusha, as just the one David the Beloved.
Dadusha - Wikipedia
Dadusha (Dāduša) (reigned c. 1800–1779 BC) [sic] was one of the kings of the central Mesopotamian [sic] city ESHNUNNA, located in the DIYALA VALLEY. He was the son of the Eshnunna king Ipiq-Adad II (reigned c. 1862–1818 BC) [sic]. Although previously kings of Eshnunna had referred to themselves as ENSI (governor) of the city god TISHPAK, in the early 19th century rulers of Eshnunna began referring to themselves as King (Sumerian LUGAL). Dadusha's father Ipiq-Adad II and his brother NARAM-SUEN (reigned c. 1818–? BC), who ruled Eshnunna before him, both used the title king and Dadusha followed suit.
....
Dadusha followed the expansionist policies of his father and his brother Naram-Suen, mixing war and diplomacy to increase his control over areas. His continued expansionism caused Eshnunna to become one of the most powerful states in the Mesopotamian region in the early 18th century. ....
Dadusha was succeeded by his son IBAL PI’EL II (reigned c. 1779–65 BC). ….
….
In 1781 BC, Dadusha joined forces with the king of Upper Mesopotamia, SHAMSHI-ADAD I, in order to subdue the area between the two ZAB RIVERS. [sic] The attack on Qabrā occurred in the last regnal year of Dadusha and the 28th regnal year of Shamshi-Adad I. .... They were successful in this endeavor, and Dadusha had a victory stele commissioned commemorating the event. .... The fragmentary Mardin Stele of Shamshi-Adad I tells the story from a different perspective. ....
[End of quote]
Whether or not King David and Hadadezer were once allies, we learn that Naram-Sin, like David, successfully fought against the Syrian potentate:
Naram-Sin of Eshnunna - Wikipedia
“[Naram-Sin] was contemporary of SHAMSHI-ADAD I, the future king of the Kingdom of Upper Mesopotamia. .... Shamshi-Adad was apparently ousted from his city by Naram-Sin which led to a brief exile in Babylon”.
Dadusha’s (Naram-Sin’s) victory stele may possibly be referred to in an Old Testament verse, usually taken to mean that it was Hadadezer who was setting up his stele (I Chronicles 18:3): “Moreover, David defeated Hadadezer king of Zobah, in the vicinity of Hamath, when he went to set up his monument at the Euphrates River”.
David as Rim Sin
Though he fell short by a few years of the mammoth 66-67 year reign of pharaoh Ramses II ‘the Great’ of a later era, Rim Sin’s approximately 60-year reign (c. 1822 BC to 1763 BC, conventional dating) is quite remarkable – though, probably, significantly over-exaggerated.
But what is especially remarkable is that a king who could boast of so lengthy a reign, and who popularly equated with greats such as Hammurabi and Solomon in following: “.... Ten or fifteen kings follow Hammurabi the ruler of Babylon, a like number Rim-Sin of Larsa, a like number Ibal-pi-el of Eshnunna ...”, is almost totally lacking in depictions.
Thus I must exclaim:
Where are all the depictions of the long-reigning Rim Sin so-called I?
Although I have been slow to realise it - considering the incredible apparent borrowing by Rim Sin from the wisdom writings and thoughts of King David, and the fact that, like David, Rim Sin was an older contemporary of Hammurabi - I would now identify this Rim Sin as David himself, a shepherd king, a man after God’s own heart.
The identification can be facilitated, I think, through David’s alter ego, Naram-Sin of Eshnunna, the name Rim Sin being merely a shortening of the name Naram-Sin.
Compare: “Prince Rim-Sîn, you are the shepherd, the desire of his heart”, with the shepherd David’s being “a man after my own heart” (Acts 13:22).
Rim Sin is so like David that he can be David.
Larsa could be simply an anagram for Israel.
But that now raises some queries.
Was the kingdom of David divided between he, with his 10-15 kings, and his son Solomon, with his 10-15?
Perhaps the fact was that Rim Sin, and that Ibal-pi-el, both led the same 10-15 kings; or that Solomon as Crown Prince ruled the strong SW fort of Lachish, while his father looked after the region of Girsu (Jerusalem).
Or, that David had actually died, recently, but was still included in the Mari letter – this one seems most unlikely.
Whatever be the case, the stunning truth is that, despite what the Mari letter has to say, Marc Van de Mieroop, writing of Rim Sin, claimed that he was “… more important than his challenger [sic] Hammurabi …”.
Rim Sin’s kingdom supposedly extended to the Girsu that I have re-located so as to be Jerusalem itself. “Ninkimar in Ašdubba near Larsa” is most interesting.
The name Ašdubba is almost identical to the neo-Assyrian name, Ashduddu (Ashdod), that I have identified with the Judean fort of Lachish (Lagash).
Rim-Sin seems to be frequently moving here in Syro-Palestinian, and not Babylonian, territory, with Eshnunna/Lachish, with Karkar, and with Al-Damiq-ilišu looking rather suspiciously like the Syrian capital city of Damascus (Dimašqu).
Apparently there was temple in Larsa (Israel?).
Eanatum (Eannatum) of Lagash, here, I have identified as the potent king of Judah, Hezekiah (C8th BC):
Scant Sources for Larsa
There is scant evidence of Larsa being mentioned in archaeological finds, before its rise as a strong city state. KING EANATUM of Lagash’s Stele of Vultures (circa 2450 BC) [sic] mentions that he made the King of Umma swear an oath to Larsa’s sun god [sic] Utu, and it refers to sacrifices that were performed at Utu’s temple in Larsa. It is called the Stele of Vultures for it depicts vultures flying away from the battlefield with the heads of the slain enemy in their beaks.
Hezekiah withstands Assyria - Lumma withstands Umma
(5) Hezekiah withstands Assyria - Lumma withstands Umma





