King David’s Troubled Life

 

 

by

Damien F. Mackey

  

According to professor emeritus Israel Finkelstein, known as the “king”

of Israeli archaeologists, from Tel Aviv University, there is very little, to no,

real history or archaeology for kings David and Solomon.

Finkelstein is a complete biblical minimalist.

  

Part One: An Overview

 

 

King David of Israel (c. 1000 BC), son of Jesse, was a man of startling contradictions.

 

As a shepherd youth, nothing was too hard for him (cf. Sirach 48:13). And when he, an untested warrior, saw the Philistine giant Goliath mocking the armies of Israel, he viewed him like any bear, or lion, who endangered the flock. So while King Saul, towering head and shoulders above the rest of Israel, stood there trembling with his soldiers, and refusing to confront Goliath in single-hand combat, David, deadly with the sling, did not hesitate to step into the breach.

 

Yet, later in life, as a he grew rich and comfortable, David would say about his own military hard men, his nephews Joab and Abishai: ‘You are too hard for me, you sons of Zeruiah (David’s sister)’. All of a sudden, things had become too hard for David.

 

Always indulgent with his own children, and sometimes surprisingly merciful to others, David could also be shockingly brutal and merciless. One of the worst cases was with the Moabites, a people who had once sheltered David’s own parents. He had some captured Moabites spread out across the ground, and then proceeded to have every tenth one of them slain (decimation).

 

King Saul had grown envious of young David’s military reputation, because the women of Israel had started chanting:

 

‘Saul has killed his thousands;

and David, his tens of thousands’.

 

Saul, a loose cannon at the best of times, could not bear to hear of David upstaging him as a warrior, and he lost no opportunity in trying to pin David to the wall with his spear.

This forced David eventually to flee from Israel, and set up with a band of renegades, including some of Israel’s most dissolute characters, wandering in deserts and living like beasts in caves - an ancient Robin Hood.

 

Now, on one occasion, King Saul in pursuit of David happened to enter the cave in which David and his men were hiding.

 

Saul had gone in there “to cover his feet”, a euphemism for ‘going to the toilet’.

 

David was too noble ever to lay hands on the Lord’s anointed, the king, but the situation gave him the opportunity to show his loyalty to Saul. He lopped off the hem of Saul’s cloak, and showed it to him from afar after Saul had left the cave.

 

And, after Saul’s death, later, at the hands of the Philistines, David wrote a famous eulogy about Saul and his son, Jonathan: “How are the mighty fallen” on the mountains of Israel.

 

David was a poet, troubadour, master of the lyre, psalmist, and a brilliant military commander, one of those who never really lost a battle.

 

He could mourn with the best of them. No need for professional mourners when David was around. He mourned long and hard when his baby son by Bathsheba was dying. But then suddenly stopped off lamenting as soon as the baby died, much to the consternation of those around whom who were trying to mourn empathically with him.

 

And he would mourn long and hard again when his son Absalom was slain – even though Absalom’s rebellion against him had forced David out of the City of Jerusalem.

 

David could also act. Unloved and unwanted by King Saul, he fled to - of all people - the Philistines, the arch enemy.

Goliath had actually promised him rule over them if David could defeat him. For some reason, though, David felt that he had to act there like a complete idiot, so he started dribbling and scratching away at the gate panels.

 

You have to love the response from the King of Gath: ‘Haven’t I enough mad men around me that you should bring into my household this lunatic?’

 

Another noble act, which may not have been questioned by his men, was when David, tired from battle, had yearned for some of the sweet-tasting water from his home town of Bethlehem. Two of his heroes, one of them being his nephew, Abishai, ventured into enemy territory to fetch some of that water for him, at great risk to their own lives. But David poured it out as an oblation, saying that water obtained at such great cost should not be consumed by him.

 

I don’t know what Abishai thought of this act of nobility, but I have a fair idea what Aussie soldiers might have thought in a similar circumstance: ‘You ungrateful *^%$#@W’!

 

The followers of King Saul, even after the king’s death, hated the upstart David, and one of them, then Benjaminite, Shimei, came forward to abuse David ‘up hill and down dale’, throwing rocks at him and spitting at him, when David was forced out of Jerusalem by Absalom’s rebellion.

‘Get out, get out, you worthless man of bloodshed!’, screamed Shimei.

 

This was the occasion for another surprise reaction from David; for he, in response to general Abishai’s, ‘Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over now and cut off his head’, replied:

 

What have I to do with you, O sons of Zeruiah? If he curses, and if the LORD has told him, ‘Curse David,’ then who shall say, ‘Why have you done so?’ Then David said to Abishai and to all his servants, ‘Behold, my son who came out from me seeks my life; how much more now this Benjaminite? Let him alone and let him curse, for the LORD has told him. Perhaps the LORD will look on my affliction and return good to me instead of his cursing this day’.

 

David and his band of ruffians, whilst roaming the countryside, had given protection to some shepherds, and, whilst the shepherds had appreciated this gesture, their master, Nabal, who was a Saul-ite (a Benjaminite), did not.

In Nabal’s sight, David was just another rebel in the kingdom, a runaway.

 

This caused David to see red - unjustifiably as it seems to me - and so he and his men strapped on their swords ready to go off and slay Nabal’s entire household.

 

Nabal’s wise wife, Abigail, hastened to intervene, so that David would not come to his kingdom with blood on his hands.

 

A bit late for that!

 

David was already known as “a man of blood”, a name that I once got called in a Hebrew class. You see, the Hebrew word for “blood” is dam (דָּם). Now, an elderly lady filling in for the regular Hebrew teacher at the University of Sydney asked us our names. When I told her mine was “Damien”, she shrieked like a harpy: “Ah! Man of blood!”

 

Anyway, Abigail, by her thoughtful intervention, got herself a king husband. For Nabal (meaning Fool) died of a heart attack when he heard that his wife had been speaking to David. And David, not one to take a backward step, took Abigail for his wife.

 

David had by now been accumulating wives, and was having sons by them. These sons, half-brothers, were to cause him no end of trouble. The oldest, Amnon, would rape his half-sister, Tamar, for which he would, in turn, be slain by her brother, Absalom.

This Absalom would later rise up in rebellion against his father, David, and drive him out of Jerusalem.

 

Behind all of this intrigue lurked the sinister figure of the shrewd counsellor, Achitophel.

 

Finally, despite Solomon being intended by David for the throne, the now eldest son, Adonijah, rose up and tried to pull off his own version of Absalom-ic rebellion.

 

 

Part Two:

Just stories, or real history?

 

Whilst much more work needs to be done, it seems obvious that Dr. Bimson’s

Late Bronze Age placement of Solomon and Hatshepsut is far more appropriate than either Middle Bronze I or Iron Age II.

 

According to professor emeritus Israel Finkelstein, known as the “king” of Israeli archaeologists, from Tel Aviv University, there is very little, to no, real history or archaeology for kings David and Solomon.

Finkelstein is a complete biblical minimalist.

 

In a now famous article for The National Geographic, “Kings of Controversy” (December 2010), its author Robert Draper asked at the beginning: “Was the kingdom of David and Solomon a glorious empire – or just a little cow town?”

 

Professor Finkelstein, trying to squeeze the kingdom of David and Solomon into a mis-dated Iron II Age, will end up with a very diminished David – yes, you could say the ruler of “just a little cow town”- and with Solomon himself gone altogether.

Finkelstein has famously remarked in the above article – and quite logically according to the strictures of his conventional scheme (p. 85):

 

“Now Solomon. I think I destroyed Solomon, so to speak. Sorry for that!”

 

While it is nice to read all of the epic stories about King David, I, as a historian, want to know if these are more than mere entertaining stories. If I want just literary epics I can take up Homer (The Iliad and The Odyssey), or Virgil’s Aeneid. 

 

Fortunately not all scholars are biblical minimalists like professor Finkelstein.

 

One bright light, the British historian, Dr. John Bimson, has gone to the trouble of identifying the right archaeological level for the famous empire of King Solomon (“Can There be a Revised Chronology Without a Revised Stratigraphy?”, S.I.S Review, Vol. VIII, 1986). Whereas Finkelstein was futilely looking in the Iron II Age, Dr. Bimson realised that King Solomon must have belonged to an earlier phase, the Late Bronze Age:

 

a.         The Late Bronze Age and the Reign of Solomon

 

 …. Although an exhaustive study of the LBA [Late Bronze Age] contexts of all scarabs commemorating Hatshepsut and Thutmose III would be required to establish this point, a preliminary survey suggests that objects from the joint reign of these two rulers do not occur until the transition from LB I to LB II, and that scarabs of Thutmose III occur regularly from the start of LB II onwards, and perhaps no earlier .... Velikovsky's chronology makes Hatshepsut (with Thutmose III as co-ruler) a contemporary of Solomon, and Thutmose III's sole reign contemporary with that of Rehoboam in Judah …. Therefore, if the revised chronology is correct, these scarabs would suggest that Solomon's reign saw the transition from LB I to LB II, rather than that from LB I A to LB I B.

 

Placing the beginning of LB II during the reign of Solomon produces a very good correlation between archaeological evidence and the biblical record of that period. It is with this correlation that we will begin. In taking the LB I - II transition as its starting-point, the present article not only takes up the challenge offered by Stiebing, but also continues the revision begun in my previous articles, and will bring it to a conclusion (in broad outline) with the end of the Iron Age.

 

Though KENYON has stated that the LB I - II transition saw a decline in the material culture of Palestine … ongoing excavations are now revealing a different picture. LB II A "was definitely superior to the preceding LB I", in terms of stability and material prosperity; it saw "a rising population that reoccupied long abandoned towns" …. Foreign pottery imports are a chief characteristic of the period …. According to the biblical accounts in the books of Kings and Chronicles, Solomon's reign brought a period of peace which saw an increase in foreign contacts, unprecedented prosperity, and an energetic building programme which extended throughout the kingdom ....

 

I Kings 9:15 specifically relates that Solomon rebuilt Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. In the revised stratigraphy envisaged here, the cities built by Solomon at these sites would therefore be those of LB II A. More specifically, these three Solomonic cities would be represented by Stratum VIII in Area AA at Megiddo … by Stratum XVI at Gezer, and by Stratum XIV of the Upper City at Hazor (= Str. Ib of the Lower City) ….

 

The wealth and international trade attested by these levels certainly reflect the age of Solomon far more accurately than the Iron Age cities normally attributed to him, from which we have "no evidence of any particular luxury" ….

 

The above-mentioned strata at Megiddo and Gezer have both yielded remains of very fine buildings and courtyards …. The Late Bronze strata on the tell at Hazor have unfortunately not produced a clear picture, because of levelling operations and extensive looting of these levels during the Iron Age; but the LB II A stratum of the Lower City has produced a temple very similar in concept to the Temple built by Solomon in Jerusalem, as described in the Old Testament ….

 

Art treasures from these cities not only indicate the wealth of the period, but reflect contacts with Egypt and northern Mesopotamia .... These contacts are precisely those we would expect to find attested during Solomon's reign, the Bible records Solomon's trade with Egypt and his marriage to the Pharaoh's daughter … and says (I Kings 4:24) that his kingdom extended as far to the north-east as Tiphsah, which is probably to be identified with Thapsacus, "an important crossing in the west bank of the Middle Euphrates ... placed strategically on a great east-west trade route" ….

 

The Bible adds extra detail concerning Gezer: namely, that Solomon rebuilt it after it had been captured and burnt by the Pharaoh, who had given the site to his daughter, Solomon's wife, as a dowry (I Kings 9:16-17).

 

In Velikovsky's chronology, this pharaoh is identified as Thutmose I …. In the revised stratigraphy considered here, we would expect to find evidence for this destruction of Gezer at some point during LB I, and sure enough we do, including dramatic evidence of burning ….

 

The "latest possible date" for this destruction is said to be the reign of Thutmose III, with some archaeologists preferring an earlier date …. We may readily identify this destruction as the work of Solomon's father-in-law.

 

Mackey’s comment: But see my different view of “Gezer” in my article:

 

Solomon and Sheba, and the Gezer dowry

 

(4) Solomon and Sheba, and the Gezer dowry

 

Dr. Bimson continues:

 

From the period between this destruction and the LB II A city comes a group of several dozen burials in a cave. DEVER remarks that most of these "show signs of advanced arthritis, probably from stoop labour, which may be an indication of the hardships of life during this period" …. Yet contemporary finds, including "Egyptian glass, alabaster and ivory vessels, and a unique terra-cotta sarcophagus of Mycenaean inspiration" … indicate considerable prosperity and international trade at this time. In a revised framework, it is tempting to speculate that the burials were of people who suffered under Solomon's system of forced labour, by which Gezer was built according to I Kings 9:15. It emerges in I Kings 12 that this forced labour caused sufficient hardship to contribute to the bitterness which split the kingdom after Solomon's death.

 

We must turn briefly to Jerusalem, where Solomon's building activities were concentrated for the first twenty years of his reign, according to I Kings 9:10.

Here we find that traces of occupation datable to Solomon's time in the conventional scheme are rather poor ….

 

In the revised scheme, we may attribute to Solomon the impressive stone terrace system of LBA date excavated by Kenyon on the eastern ridge …. In fact, this is probably the "Millo" which Solomon is said to have built (I Kings 9:15, 24; II:27). Kenyon describes the nucleus of this terrace system as "a fill almost entirely of rubble, built in a series of compartments defined by facings of a single course of stones..." …. "Fill", or "filling", is the probable meaning of "Millo" [35]. Also to Solomon's time would belong at least some of the LBA tombs discovered on the western slope of the Mount of Olives; many of these contain LB I - IIA material which includes "a surprisingly large number" of imported items from Cyprus, Aegean and Egypt [36]. The number would not be surprising in the context of Solomon's reign. ….

 

Comparison of (A) LB II (Stratum Ib) temple at Hazor with (B) the basic ground plan of Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem, as deduced from biblical information. Both have a tripartite division on a single axis, side-rooms and a pair of free-standing pillars (though the latter are not identically situated in both cases).

 

[End of Bimson’s section]

 

Whilst much more work needs to be done, it seems obvious that Dr. Bimson’s Late Bronze Age placement of Solomon and Hatshepsut is far more appropriate than either Middle Bronze I or Iron Age II.

 

Iron Age II

 

Iron Age II, the archaeological phase favoured by archaeologists for

kings David and Solomon, turns out to be hopelessly inadequate

as a representation of that glorious period.

 

As we read above, Dr. John Bimson, contrasting his view of the Late Bronze Age for King Solomon with the conventional view of Iron Age II for the great king, wrote:

 

I Kings 9:15 specifically relates that Solomon rebuilt Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. In the revised stratigraphy envisaged here, the cities built by Solomon at these sites would therefore be those of LB II A. More specifically, these three Solomonic cities would be represented by Stratum VIII in Area AA at Megiddo … by Stratum XVI at Gezer, and by Stratum XIV of the Upper City at Hazor (= Str. Ib of the Lower City) ….

 

The wealth and international trade attested by these levels certainly reflect the age of Solomon far more accurately than the Iron Age cities normally attributed to him, from which we have "no evidence of any particular luxury" ….

 

[End of quote]

 

That the bankrupt conventional arrangement of chronology and attendant stratigraphy falls to pieces completely when subjected to biblical scrutiny is well apparent from the attempted merging of the Solomonic era with a mis-dated archaeological phase: Iron II.

 

David and Solomon simply disappear.

 

Let us test a specific situation. When David wanted to make friendly overtures to the king of the Ammonites, because his recently deceased father had treated David well, the new king and his men were suspicious and thought that David’s men just wanted to spy on them, so they shaved their beards down one side of their cheek and left their other cheeks (buttocks) exposed.

The men were too embarrassed to return to Jerusalem, so David bade them encamp at Jericho until they had re-grown their beards and self-respect.

 

Now Dr. John Osgood (Techlets - creation.com) has identified this very Davidic settlement at Jericho as belonging to Middle Bronze III C phase, which is far earlier than professor Israel Finkelstein’s Iron Age II for David and Solomon.

 

Historical contemporaries of David

 

Some of King David’s northern contemporaries, associated with the famous king Hammurabi of Babylon, have also been recently identified. King Hammurabi has been described as “floating about in a liquid chronology of Chaldea”, having first been dated to 2400 BC, then, later, to 1800 BC.

 

His real location, however, is as a contemporary of kings David and Solomon around 1000 BC.

 

David’s Syrian foe, Hadadezer, son of Rekhob, has been well identified with Shamsi-Adad I, son of Urukab-kabu (in which the name Rekhob [= Rukab] can be seen).

 

David and Solomon’s great ally, Hiram, is to be found in the name, Iarim-(Lim).

 

Solomon’s foe, Rezon, son of Eliada, is the king of Mari, Zimri-lim, son of Iahdu-(Lim) (in which the name Eliada [= Iahdu] can be seen).

 

This is nothing like the so-called ‘history’ to be found in the textbooks, however.

 

What Finkelstein ought to have been “sorry” for  was not the wise King Solomon – who continues to exist as a real historical and archaeological entity, despite the confused utterances of the current crop of Israeli archaeologists – but for Finkelstein’s own folly in clinging to a hopelessly out-dated and bankrupt archaeological system that has caused him and his colleagues to point every time to the wrong stratigraphical level for Israel’s Old Testament history (e.g. Exodus/Conquest; David and Solomon).

 

Archaeologists are famous for looking in the right place at the wrong time, or vice versa.

 

Part Three:

Fallout from Bathsheba affair

 

“Even more significant, Jonadab is called a “wise” man … 2 Sam 13:3 ….

The majority of translators take this to mean “crafty” or “shrewd” due to

the criminal nature of his advice to Amnon”.

 

Andrew E. Hill

 

Amnon, Tamar and Jonadab

 

 Amnon’s crafty adviser, Jonadab, whose pernicious counsel will be the cause of Amnon’s death, and of Tamar’s rape and subsequent desolation, is very much like the serpent that wormed its way into the idyllic Paradise and likewise counselled towards death and desolation.

 

Jonadab is described as ish hacham meod (אִישׁ חָכָם מְאֹד), “a very shrewd man”.

Perhaps “cunning” (another meaning for hacham, along with “wise”, “skilful”) would be more fitting in the context of the serpent in Paradise.

 

By far the best commentary that I have read on the Rape of Tamar and the subtle involvement therein of Jonadab - actually secretly working for Absalom - is the following enlightening one, by Andrew E. Hill, “A JONADAB CONNECTION IN THE ABSALOM CONSPIRACY?: http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/30/30-4/30-4-pp387-390-JETS.pdf.

 

Andrew Hill, reading between the lines, has written as follows (JETS 30/4 (December 1987) 387 -390):

---

 

“Jonadab the son of David’s brother Shimeah (Shammah, 1 Sam 16:9; 17:13) appears in the OT record only in chap. 13 of the Succession Narrative, that much-praised piece of ancient Israelite historiography documenting Solomon’s installation on the Davidic throne. His role in the Amnon-Tamar-Absalom triangle has long puzzled Biblical commentators, and that for two reasons: (1) because of the ill-fated advice he gave to the crown prince Anmon (2 Sam 13:3-5), and (2) on account of his uncanny foreknowledge of the events surrounding Absalom’s vengeful murder of Amnon (13:32-35). This note seeks to elucidate Jonadab’s role in the narrative by affording an explanation for his advice to Amnon and subsequent behavior in the royal court on the basis of all known pertinent data, Biblical or otherwise.

 

Jonadab is an acknowledged “friend” (réa') of Amnon (1323). While it is possible that he was a close personal friend of Amnon since he was a cousin, it seems more likely that the word here connotes a special office or association with the royal family (especially in light of his role as a counselor in David’s cabinet; cf. 13:32-35). During Solomon’s reign, Zabud son of Nathan has the title of priest and “king’s friend” (ré’eh hammelek, 1 Kgs 4:5). It may well be that with Jonadab (and others?) this cabinet post has its rudimentary beginnings in the Davidic monarchy.

 

Even more significant, Jonadab is called a “wise” man … 2 Sam 13:3 ….

The majority of translators take this to mean “crafty” or “shrewd” due to the criminal nature of his advice to Amnon.” …. H. P. Smith remarked that “Jonadab his cousin and intimate friend was a very wise man, though in this case his wisdom was put to base uses.” Most recently K. P. McCarter interprets Jonadab to be “very wise,” while acknowledging that our English connotation of “wise” may be a misleading translation.

….

I posit that the ploy suggested by Jonadab to Amnon for the seduction of Tamar was known to him by virtue of his standing in the royal court as a sage.

 

According to H. P. Miller, “after the beginning of the monarchy, it is commonly understood that the root hkm refers above all to the academic wisdom of the court and the ideals of the class entrusted with it." Furthermore, recent study has shown considerable Egyptian influence on a wide range of OT literary types, most notably Hebrew wisdom. In recognition of this fact, R. N. Whybray states that we cannot dismiss the considered opinion of S. Morenz, who claims that the presence at Solomon's court of bilingual officials with a competent knowledge of Egyptian writing must be regarded, in view of what we now know of that court and its diplomatic relations with Egypt, as absolutely beyond question; and what is true of Solomon’s court may reasonably be supposed to be true of David's also.

 

Given this Egyptian influence in the Israelite united monarchy and the knowledge of and access to Egyptian literature, my contention is that Jonadab was not only skilled in the academic wisdom of the royal court but also had some familiarity with Egyptian literature”.

 

Mackey’s comment: As we progress later into the life of King Solomon, and his profound involvement with Egypt, we shall find that - whilst no doubt there was a cultural influence of Egypt upon Israel, there was an extremely profound influence going the other way, from the Israelite-Tyrian alliance (David to Solomon and Hiram) into Egypt.

 

The example that Andrew Hill will now give of Egyptian love poetry may well have been Solomonic (e.g., “Song of Solomon”) in origin. Hill continues:

 

“The particular issue in question is Jonadab’s counsel to Amnon to feign illness (probably not too difficult since he was already “haggard”) and then make an innocent request of King David who would no doubt come and inquire about the crown prince’s health (2 Sam l3:4-5). This same motif occurs in the Egyptian love poetry of the New Kingdom (c. 1570-1085 B.C.) [sic].

 

One song is translated as follows by W. K. Simpson:

 

Now I’ll lie down inside

and act as if I’m sick.

My neighbors will come in to visit,

and with them my girl.

She’ll put the doctors out,

for she’s the one to know my hurt.

 

Here the scenario is slightly different and the cast of characters has changed.

 

The basic story line remains the same, however. The man in love pretends to be stricken with a malady. Naturally, visitors concerned about his well-being will arrive, and out of all this the young man will eventually end up alone with his lover so that she can attend to his “needs.” In the case of Amnon there is no reciprocation on the part of Tamar, and he must coerce her to have sexual relations with him (13:11-15). While Amnon achieved a degree of immediate gratification in this release of pent-up lust for Tamar, the more long-term ramifications of the misdeed are entirely predictable”.

 

Mackey’s comment: It has been suggested that Tamar appears to exhibit some nursing and healing knowledge, prompting this likening of her to a Mesopotamian baritu priestess: http://www.icanbreathe.com/Habbirya.html

 

“The first possibility is raised by the term biryâ. In 2 Sam 13, the root brh 8 is used to designate preparation of the food (tabrenî) and the ceremony involved in making the food (habbiryâ) which Amnon expects to eat (‘ebreh). Words arising from brh in the Bible have to do with eating, but are specific for breaking a fast in a time of grieving or illness. Forms of brh appear only in 2 Sam 3:35; 12:17; 13:5, 6, 10; and in Lam 4:10. Another form, barût is found in Ps 69:22 as food for a mourner.9 David for example refuses to break his fast, lehabrôt, during mourning for Abner (3:35) and he will not eat, brh, bread during his seven day fast and prayer vigil for the ailing infant of Bathsheba (12: 17). In Lam 4: 10, children become the food (perhaps divination-offering), lebarôt, prepared by their desperate mothers during the siege of Jerusalem.

 

These uses suggest that the word chosen to express eating in 2 Sam 13 includes a connotation beyond an ordinary meal.

 

The root has sacred connotations in Hebrew. Beriyt means covenant, perhaps arising from “binding” in Assyrian barû.

 

In the Bible beriyt commonly refers to being bound by the covenant with YHWH, but also by a covenant between humans (Gen 14:13; I Sam 18:3) and with death (Isa 28: IS, 18; 57:8).11 In later Jewish parlance there is a meal of comfort, called seûdat habra’â12 given to a mourner after the funeral. Biryâ may be related to beriyt, covenant. Conceivably this later custom was a restoration of some familial/tribal bond with the dead, a covenant meal prepared ritually by a woman.

….

Though the divinatory meaning of brh is not common in Hebrew, it is among ancient Israel’s neighbors. In Akkadian, barû priests are diviners who inspect livers, and the related term biru, “divination,” 14 is conducted also by women who interpret dreams. Occult inquiry was known in Israel where reported practice is primarily about men. Priests, prophets, seers, and kings in ancient Israel drew lots, used the ephod, interpreted dreams and signs to divine YHWH’s will. …. However, Barak (Judg 4), King Saul (1 Sam 28), and King Josiah (2 Kgs 22) learned the future by means of a woman. We may not assume that other people’s customs are identical to Israel’s; however, by exploring ancient approaches to healing we may apply to 2 Sam 13 a range of activities reflecting a frame of reference common to peoples of the ancient Near East.

….

In Mesopotamia, besides priestly diviners, there are references to two types of women diviners who in particular are “approached in cases of sickness,” … as is the case with Amnon. One passage reads, “We shall ask here the šã’litu-priestesses, the baritu-priestesses and the spirits of the dead …..”

….

 

Elsewhere, the goddess of healing, Gula, sings in a hymn of praise of herself, “Mistress of health am I, I am a physician, I am a diviner (ha-ra-ku), I am an exorcist…..”

….

Magic and medicine were one in the ancient Near East. …”.

 

Dr. Ed (Ewald) Metzler had suggested that Tamar’s response to Amnon (2 Samuel 13:12): ‘No, my brother!’ she said to him. ‘Don’t force me! Such a thing should not be done in Israel!’ Don’t do this wicked thing’, might be evidence of Amnon’s supposed Egyptian-ness on his mother’s side (which I myself no longer hold).

She herself, though, may have had Egyptian blood on her mother’s side, for Maacah could be an Egyptian name, Maatkare (Maa[t]ka[re]).  

 

The girl continues desperately, but also wisely, speaking to her half-brother Amnon (v. 13): ‘Don’t do this wicked thing. What about me? Where could I get rid of my disgrace? And what about you? You would be like one of the wicked fools in Israel’.

 

Then follows her unexpected suggestion: ‘Please speak to the king; he will not keep me from being married to you’.

But all to no avail (vv. 14-18):

 

But he refused to listen to her, and since he was stronger than she, he raped her.

Then Amnon hated her with intense hatred. In fact, he hated her more than he had loved her. Amnon said to her, ‘Get up and get out!’

‘No!’ she said to him. ‘Sending me away would be a greater wrong than what you have already done to me’.

But he refused to listen to her. He called his personal servant and said, ‘Get this woman out of my sight and bolt the door after her’.

 

So his servant put her out and bolted the door after her.

 

Heirs to the throne can apparently do whatever they like. But only to a point, for eventually any wicked deeds they may have committed will come back to bite them.

 

Andrew Hill continues:

 

“Unlike those who view this counsel of Jonadab to Amnon as bad advice because it concerned itself only with methods and failed to calculate the consequences, I am convinced that Jonadab knew full well the ultimate outcome of his counsel. The illness ploy, borrowed from Egyptian love poetry [sic], was maliciously designed to exploit Amnon’s domination by sensuality (a trait he shared with his father David). More than this, I am inclined to see Jonadab as a co-conspirator with Absalom in the whole affair, since both men have much to gain.

 

Absalom’s desires for revenge against Amnon and ultimately his designs for usurping his father’s throne are clearly seen in the narrative (cf. 13:21-23, 32; 1521-6). Amnon, as crown prince, stands in the way as a rival to the ambitions of Absalom.

Absalom and Jonadab collaborate to remove this obstacle to kingship by taking advantage of a basic weakness in Amnon’s character.

 

The calculated plotting of Absalom and Jonadab is evidenced by the pointed questioning of Tamar by Absalom after her rape and his almost callous treatment of a sister brutishly violated and now bereft of a meaningful future (almost as if he expected it, at least according to the tone of the statements in the narrative; cf. 13:20-22). While a most reprehensible allegation, it seems Tamar may have been an unwitting pawn of a devious schemer, an expendable token in the power play for the throne.

 

Further testimony to the Absalom-Jonadab conspiracy is found in the timetable exposed in the narrative. Absalom coolly bides his time for two years before ostensibly avenging Tamar’s rape (13:23), and only after a three-year self-imposed exile in Geshur (the homeland of his mother Maacah, 3:3) does he return to Jerusalem to make preparations for his own kingship by undermining popular allegiance to David (13:39; 15:1-6).

 

Certainly this belies a carefully constructed strategy for seizing control of the monarchy and bespeaks a man of considerable foresight, determination and ability.

 

One last proof adduced for a Jonadab connection in the Absalom conspiracy is Jonadab’s own response to the rumor supposing the assassination of all the king’s sons (13:30). In countering the false report Jonadab betrayed his complete knowledge of the ambush in Baal Hazor (including the participants in the crime, since he confirmed that “they [the servants of Absalom] killed” only Amnon; cf. 13:29, 30-32) before any official or eyewitness news reached Jerusalem. In addition he informed the royal court that Absalom had been plotting his revenge for two years (13:32-33).

The only possible explanation for Jonadab’s detailed foreknowledge of the bloodletting at Baal Hazor is his involvement in the scheme from its inception”.

 

Mackey’s comment: Andrew Hill will, in concluding, refer to “the almost annoying paucity of material for careful analysis” regarding Jonadab, who seems just to vanish from the scene after this, with Achitophel taking over “the cabinet position of king’s friend or even chief counselor to the king”.

But - and this is the beauty of alter egos (when they work) - I shall be a putting forward a case later for Jonadab to have been this very Ahitophel, counsellor to Absalom. 

 

Thus Andrew Hill concludes:

 

“For his part, Jonadab was no doubt wise enough to discern that Absalom was a more likely and more capable candidate as David’s successor. By aiding Absalom in the conspiracy to slay the crown prince, Jonadab was attempting to secure his political future. With Absalom on the throne perhaps he anticipated appointment to the cabinet position of king’s friend or even chief counselor to the king--although the latter apparently was never realized, since Ahithophel moved into that slot when Hushai fled Jerusalem with David (15:12; cf. 15:31-34).

 

In fact, while the motive of advancement in political rank logically explains the behavior of Jonadab, we can only speculate as to the particulars since he exits the narrative after this episode, never to reappear. It is possible that Jonadab died during Absalom’s three-year hiatus in Geshur, or upon his return he either forgot Jonadab or he fell out of favor with the new crown prince.

 

Despite the almost annoying paucity of material for careful analysis, Jonadab’s character remains an interesting study among the parade of personalities vying for power and position in David’s court, and ultimately his role in the Succession Narrative is best understood as that of co-conspirator in the Absalom coup.

 

Note that this theme is not uncommon in the narrative, since Absalom (2 Sam 16:1-18:18), Joab (20:4-13), Adonijah (1 Kgs 1:5-22:25) and Solomon (1:11-40) all maneuver behind the scenes to enhance their political prospects”.

 

Who was Ahitophel?

 

As I see it, the Jonadab who vanishes so completely (qua Jonadab) after his cunning advice had led to the rape of Tamar and the murder of Amnon, is also the wise counsellor, Ahitophel.

 

We recall that Andrew Hill had, in the course of his terrific commentary, expressed a certain frustration due to what he called “the almost annoying paucity of material for careful analysis” regarding Jonadab. And he simply presumed that the position at court to which Jonadab may have been aspiring, was afterwards, during the revolt of Absalom (he presuming that Jonadab had died in the meantime), in the hands of Ahitophel.

 

Andrew Hill had at least suspected a vocational and character likeness between Jonadab and Ahitophel.

Moreover, the approximate chronological link is obvious.

 

My explanation would be that, as in the case of Abram and Pharaoh, different names would be given to a person according to different sources, or authors.

 

For whilst, as we found, the toledôt of the Egyptian-ised Ishmael will refer to Abram’s wife-taker as “Pharaoh”, the toledôt of the Palestine-located Isaac will name him, “Abimelech”:

 

Toledôt Explains Abram's Pharaoh

 

(6) Toledôt Explains Abram's Pharaoh

 

Similarly - and with the Books of Samuel considered to have been written by more than one author (https://www.enterthebible.org/oldtestament.aspx?rid=30): “Ancient tradition identifies Samuel as the author of the first twenty-four chapters of 1 Samuel and asserts that the rest of 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel were completed by Nathan and Gad. …”

- and with the account of the Rape of Tamar reading perhaps like a complete piece on its own, then it is possible that, whilst one author might have named the counsellor, “Jonadab”, another might have called him “Ahitophel”.

 

Now I think that, whilst Jonadab (יוֹנָדָב) (var. Jehonadab) appears to be clearly a Hebrew name, Achitophel (אֲחִיתֹפֶל) may be foreign - say, a Hebraïsed version of the Egyptian element, Hotep.

We recall that Hill had suggested that Jonadab may have come under Egyptian “academic” influence.

So, as in the case of the “very wise” Jonadab, we read also of Ahitophel (2 Samuel 16:23): “Now in those days the advice Ahithophel gave was like that of one who inquires of God. That was how both David and Absalom regarded all of Ahithophel’s advice”.   

 

Jonadab and Ahitophel are highly comparable, then as to general chronology; expert counsel - though with a malicious edge; counsellor to the king and his sons; but (if Andrew Hill is right about Jonadab) siding with Absalom (no doubt with the intention of becoming the power behind the throne after the passing of David); possible Egyptian influence.

 

Furthermore, just as Jonadab’s counsel will involve the exercise of Amnon’s lust, so will Ahitophel’s counsel require Absalom’s sleeping with his father’s concubines.

 

2 Samuel 13:3: “Now Amnon had a friend named Jonadab son of Shimeah, David’s brother” might appear to pose a problem for Andrew Hill’s thesis if, as in the translation here, the Hebrew word rea (רֵעַ) is rendered as “friend”.

For Jonadab was no friend of Amnon’s if he were truly conspiring against him with Absalom.

But Hill had already accounted for this:

 

Jonadab is an acknowledged “friend” (réa') of Amnon …. While it is possible that he was a close personal friend of Amnon since he was a cousin, it seems more likely that the word here connotes a special office or association with the royal family (especially in light of his role as a counselor in David’s cabinet; cf. 13:32-35). During Solomon’s reign, Zabud son of Nathan has the title of priest and “king’s friend” (ré’eh hammelek, 1 Kgs 4:5). It may well be that with Jonadab (and others?) this cabinet post has its rudimentary beginnings in the Davidic monarchy.

 

The NIV, anyway, translates rea (perhaps more appropriately) as “adviser”, not as “friend”: “Now Amnon had an adviser named Jonadab son of Shimeah, David’s brother”. 

 

As far as my connection goes between Jonadab and Ahitophel, this same verse may also pose the biological problem for me that Jonadab was a “son of Shimeah, David’s brother”, presumably making him younger than David.

 

For Ahitophel is thought to have been the grandfather of David’s wife, Bathsheba, by comparison of 2 Samuel 11:13: “And David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said, ‘Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam …’.”, and 23:34: “… Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite …”.

 

One might generally expect a wise counsellor to be an old, grey-bearded man of experience – though exceptional young men can be sages, Solomon, for instance.

 

My proposed solution to this difficulty would appear to be, linguistically, quite an acceptable one. It utilises the very broad range of meanings attached to the Hebrew word ben – which may even refer to animals.

It can mean, for instance, “a member of a guild, order, class”.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/ben.html

Now, Jonadab is referred to in 2 Samuel 13:3 as ben-Shimeah (בֶּן-שִׁמְעָה), translated as the “son of Shimeah”. I would take it that my collective Jonadab-Ahitophel was not strictly a “son” of Shimeah’s, but, for example, an “attendant”, an “official” of Shimeah’s.

In the Septuagint version of this verse, ben is rendered by the Greek υἱὸς [Σαμαα: Shimeah], which word, too, is usually translated as “son”. But it does not need to be.

R. Brown, L. Tray and A. Gray explain the relationship between Hebrew ben and Greek huios (“A Brief Analysis of Filial and Paternal Terms in the Bible”)

http://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/28_3_PDFs/IJFM_28_3-BrownGrayGray-BriefAnalysis.pdf

 

“The usage of huios in Judeo-Greek often followed that in Hebrew, so we find huios where Jesus would have used the word ben, or its Aramaic coun­terpart bar. Examples are when he mentioned “attendants of the bride­groom” (Mark 2:19), “members of the Kingdom” (Matt. 8:12), “officials of the king” (Matt. 17:25), “people of this age” (Luke 20:34), “people who belong to the evil one” (Matt. 13:38; cf. 1 John 3:10), and “disciples of a teacher” (Matt. 12:27), all of which translate Greek huios.

 

Adam is presented as God’s son, evidently because God created him (Luke 3:38). In the wider Greek context, writers used huios for non-bi­ological relations as well.

 

According to Irenaeus (180 AD), “when any person has been taught from the mouth of an­other, he is termed the son of him who instructs him, and the latter [is called] his father.”

….

In this vein Peter refers to Mark as his son (1 Pet. 5:13), and Paul refers to Timothy in similar terms (1 Cor. 4:17; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2; cf. 1 John 2:1; ; cf. 3 John 4), using teknon”.  

 

Ahitophel becomes a very tragic figure, eventually, like Judas, committing suicide – a rarity in the Bible. His treason, though, may be more understandable if he really were the grandfather of Bathsheba, who was, in turn, revered by her husband, Uriah, whom David had murdered.

 

It is terrible to think that David’s double-headed crime may have had this further tragic ramification in the case of one who may well have been, formerly, David’s close friend:

http://www.rvharvey.org/d-ahithophel.htm

 

Ahithophel is Part of the Conspiracy (II Samuel 15:10-12)

 
I Chronicles 27:33 says that Ahithophel was the king’s counselor. He must have been a very gifted and recognized personality.

David and Ahithophel not only worshipped God together; they were the best of friends who shared their hearts. Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me. (Psalm 41:9)

 

For it was not an enemy that reproached me; then I could have borne it: neither was it he that hated me that did magnify himself against me; then I would have hid myself from him: But it was thou, a man mine equal, my guide, and mine acquaintance. We took sweet counsel together, and walked unto the house of God in company. (Psalm 55:12-14)

 

Ahithophel becomes a traitor! It is apparent from the above verses that many of the people were not aware of what Absalom intended to do, but Ahithophel seems to have been part of the conspiracy. It is possible that Ahithophel even suggested such an act to Absalom. Whatever the case may have been, Ahithophel, who was offering sacrifices in Gilo, didn’t hesitate to join Absalom in his plan to violently dethrone his father (II Samuel 15:12)”.

 

Ahitophel and Machiavelli

 

W. Thomas has a keen eye to Machiavelli as he describes Dryden’s Ahitophel, in The Crafting of Absalom and Achitophel: Dryden’s Pen for a Party, pp. 57-58:

 

Certainly in tradition ever afterwards Achitophel has been the archetype of the evil counsellor. To this archetype Dryden has added the figure of Machiavelli, the courtier who, for himself and for the person he advises, gives counsel aimed, in however devious and underhanded a way, at promoting the advancement of personal political ambition.

 

It is this double figure that Dryden first introduces. He takes the Biblical Achitophel,

 

Of these the false Achitophel was first:

A Name to all succeeding Ages Curst.

 

fastens on his “Counsell” in the next line, but makes it “crooked” in the manner of Machiavelli and equates it with something else Machiavellian, saying that he is "For close Designs, and crooked Counsell fit”.

….

But it is more from Machiavelli that Dryden draws, than from the Bible, when he elaborates further on his Achitophel (lines 173-174):

 

In Friendship False, Implacable in Hate.

Resolv’d to Ruine or to Rule the State.

 

And it is to Machiavelli that he looks when he makes his Achitophel, in a reversal of the Biblical situation, invite his Absalom to join him in rebellion against David. Throughout, in this fictitious construct, Dryden has added, to his Biblical and traitorous Achitophel, the ambitious and scheming Machiavelli.

 

Behind both Machiavelli and Achitophel is, of course, the earlier and larger archetype, Satan, whose name means “the adversary”. ….

 

“But it is more from Machiavelli that Dryden draws, than from the Bible …”.

Or not.

 

 

Reflecting on the biblical Egyptology of Ron Wyatt’s wife, Mary Nell (Lee)

by Damien F. Mackey According to Mary Nell, Ron believed that he had been able to work out the complexities of Egyptian dynastic history in relation to the Bible only because God had enabled him to do so. Otherwise, it would have been impossible considering the intricacies of the subject. Yesterday, the eve of today’s feast-day of the Immaculate Conception (8th December, 2025), I came across a video by Mary Nell (Lee) Wyatt on the high official, Senenmut, of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty: NEW Discovery | Ron Wyatt Found Evidence For Moses In Egypt! Prior to this, Mary Nell Wyatt was for me just a name that I had seen associated with, as his wife, the well-known Ron Wyatt. Thus I was stunned to hear her expatiate at great length and fluency on Egyptology, from the First Dynasty all the way through to the Eighteenth, in relation to her large book: Battle for the Firstborn: The Exodus and the Death of Tutankhamen (2020). Mary Nell’s narrative, heavily based upon the research of her deceased husband, gives as plausible account as most have been able to do of biblical history, from Abram (Abraham) to Moses, in its relation to the Egyptian dynasties. And it is highly original. Apparently, before the pair (met or) married, Ron had lived in Hawaii and had there, in the library, voraciously devoured books on history. What enhances Mary Nell’s presentation is she herself, a very likeable person who can listen patiently to her interviewer’s questions – unlike some guest speakers who want to talk all the time, talk all over the interviewer, and, when they do pause to listen, ostensibly, seem tense and impatient to re-commence their diatribe. According to Mary Nell, Ron believed that he had been able to work out the complexities of Egyptian dynastic history in relation to the Bible only because God had enabled him to do so. Otherwise, it would have been impossible considering the intricacies of the subject. Now she, as Ron’s successor, believes that the model that she has laid out in her book is the correct one. + + + + + Today’s feast of the Immaculate Conception recalls the one human person (Jesus, though having a fully human nature, was a Divine Person) in history who was not deceived, over whom the Devil never had any dominance. It is one thing to say that we are instruments of the Holy Spirit, but are we really? Might we be deceiving ourselves – or allowing the Devil, the Father of Lies (John 8:44), to deceive us? I remember years ago being turned off Ron Wyatt when I read that he would come to some mound and go all rigid with the Holy Spirit, standing there and pointing at the mound, within which some great biblical discovery, presumably, was waiting to be revealed. His gullible followers would then hasten keenly to start digging there. But nothing ever seemed to come to fruition. At the fateful moment, for example, the Israeli authorities (or some other unforeseen situation) would intervene, preventing the team from continuing. Nothing was ever able to come to fruition. The fact of the matter was, there was no fruition! Apparently the state of Israel is quite prepared to let loose such Christian Zionist amateur archaeologist types to dig in areas of no significance, looking on benignly while the Christians hope to add to their ‘amazing’ discoveries of no significance: Christian Zionists a boon to Israel, but sadly mistaken about Final Coming and Third Temple (7) Christian Zionists a boon to Israel, but sadly mistaken about Final Coming and Third Temple Another key point that we need to consider in studies such as this is that there is a world of difference between knowledge and wisdom, which is an inspired gift of the Holy Spirit. Knowledge is, too, of course (cf. Isaiah 11:2), but here I am talking about knowledge in natural terms, as knowing a whole lot of stuff. Our academic world is full of purveyors of much stuff, but wisdom can often seem to be in very short supply: Trenchant Criticisms of the Academic World (5) Trenchant Criticisms of the Academic World There is nothing self-deceptive in the wise man – the wise woman, Mary Immaculate. Take the prophet Daniel, as an example. He knew by the power of the Holy Spirit that what he had interpreted in relation to King Nebuchednezzar’s Dream, a humanly impossible assignment, was absolutely correct, coming as it did from God (Daniel 2:45): “The dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy”. This is what the Wyatt’s appear to have been claiming, as well. But can the same be said, “true”, “trustworthy” for their admittedly impressive (at least superficially) biblical Egyptology? The prophet Daniel’s wisdom was built upon prayer and fasting, and strict obedience. And there was no self-seeking, or ego, in it. Once the ego takes over, and a reputation is gained, one may feel pressure to ‘doctor’ digging sites, to start planting artefacts, as Ron Wyatt has often been accused of doing. All in the name of God, of course: Abandonment of common sense, telling lies for God, not necessary prerequisites for biblical interpretation (4) Abandonment of common sense, telling lies for God, not necessary prerequisites for biblical interpretation Professor Ian Plimer is not the problem here! The Wyatt version of Egyptology I like the fact that Ron Wyatt had approached Egyptology from the point of view of covering the extensive biblical phase from Abram (Abraham) to Moses, rather than simply focussing upon just one segment, e.g. the Famine era of Joseph. A holistic approach. How well, though, does he and his wife’s Egyptological platform serve for setting up later major events, archaeologically and/or geographically verifiable, such as Joshua’s Conquest of Jericho, and Shishak of Egypt’s despoliation of the Temple of Yahweh? If it be a case of a Danielic type of inspiration from the Holy Spirit, then the whole thing must, like Nebuchednezzar’s Dream, fall lock, stock and barrel, right into place. Sadly, as we are going to find out, this will not be the case. Once again, there will be a lack of fruition, unlike: An accurate revision of history is a ‘tree’ bearing ample fruit (7) An accurate revision of history is a 'tree' bearing ample fruit And if such be so, then it cannot justifiably be claimed to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit. Abraham and Joseph Mary Nell gets off to a very good start, so I believe, by supposing Abraham to have lived at the beginning of Egyptian dynastic history, First or Second Dynasty. It gets even better with her identification of Joseph with the great Imhotep, who served Horus Netjerikhet, a Famine Pharaoh, of Egypt’s Third Dynasty. Creationist Patrick Clarke, who will locate Joseph during Egypt’s Eleventh Dynasty, will refer critically to the Wyatt thesis here in his article: “Joseph’s Zaphenath Paaneah—a chronological key” (JOURNAL OF CREATION 27(3) 2013 || VIEWPOINT): …. Wyatt creates far greater problems by linking Joseph to the famous Imhotep. …. Wyatt (using the conventional Egyptian chronology as the guide) must move Imhotep and Zoser around seven centuries nearer the birth of Christ. …. Given the unsuitability of the choices of pharaohs and names for Joseph above, is there a suitable pharaonic candidate who meets the biblical requirements? Mentuhotep II appears to meet these requirements perfectly, needing a movement of three centuries rather that the stress-inducing seven centuries required by Wyatt above. …. The fact is (my opinion) that, to identify Joseph and Moses, one needs to knit together, as one, several Egyptian dynasties, even kingdoms. Both Wyatt and Clarke are correct that (Wyatt) Joseph is the Third Dynasty Imhotep and (Clarke) that he belonged to the Eleventh Dynasty Famine era of Mentuhotep II. See how I have connected all this, and more, in my article: Symmetrical dynastic links for Famine Pharaoh and Joseph (4) Symmetrical dynastic links for Famine Pharaoh and Joseph But both Wyatt and Clarke are wrong, however, in naming the Third Dynasty (Famine) Pharaoh as Zoser (see my article again). As far back as 1987, Tom Chetwynd had opined that Joseph may have been Imhotep (“A Seven Year Famine in the Reign of King Djoser with Other Parallels between Imhotep and Joseph”, Catastrophism and Ancient History, Volume IX, Part I). Did the Wyatt’s come to this conclusion independently? That can happen. Whatever be the case, it would be nice as a general courtesy if writers would indicate whenever they had adopted an idea from someone else. Whilst listening to Mary Nell most capably deliver her long account of Egyptian history, I wondered at times what happened to certain very important dynasties or rulers. For instance – and perhaps she has dealt with this in her book – the mighty Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt did not seem to get any reasonable mention at all. This, I believe, to have been the very dynasty (or one of them, as merging is necessary) that had begun the Oppression of Israel when Moses was born: Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty oppressed Israel (6) Egypt's Twelfth Dynasty oppressed Israel Mary Nell scoots through a whole swathe of dynasties and ends up in the Seventeenth, with Pharaoh Kamose as her first Oppressor King of Israel (cf. Exodus 1:8). This is a startlingly long jump from Imhotep as Joseph, in Egypt’s Third Dynasty (c. 2600 BC, conventional dating) to the infancy of Moses presumably under Kamose (c. 1550 BC, conventional dating). Biblically estimated, Moses was born only about 65 years after the death of Joseph. And now for the intriguing identification of Moses as the high Eighteenth Dynasty official, Senenmut – a view that has become extremely popular in recent times – with Moses’s Egyptian foster-mother as Hatshepsut. Bizarrely, Mary Nell chooses to identify the male Senenmut in statues as a female: Quite missing from her treatment of the Eighteenth Dynasty (at least in the video) is another much favoured candidate for Moses, the monotheistic pharaoh, Akhnaton. I do not recall Mary Nell even mentioning him. After Akhnaton came the famous Tutankhamun, Pharaoh’s ill-fated first born (see title of Mary Nell’s book). Actually, Smenkhkare is considered to have been Tutankhamun’s older brother, and apparently his features, and not those of Tutankhamun, are what adorn the royal mask. (Mary Nell claims that these are Tut’s father’s features): Tut’s famous middle coffin probably belonged to his predecessor Smenkhkare (6) Tut's famous middle coffin probably belonged to his predecessor Smenkhkare Dr. I. Velikovsky’s intuitive (though not properly worked out) identifications of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty, with, respectively, the biblical Queen of Sheba and King Shishak (Ages in Chaos, I, 1952), are far preferable, I would think, to Mary Nell’s admittedly intriguing and original scenario. And I was able in 1997 to include the addition of Senenmut, as (not Mary Nell’s Moses) King Solomon in Egypt (pairing with the Queen of Sheba, Hatshepsut): Solomon and Sheba (8) Solomon and Sheba All of this segues very nicely into Dr. Velikovsky’s thesis that pharaoh Thutmose III (Shishak), in his Year 22-23 (First Campaign) despoiled the Temple in Jerusalem, about 5 years after the death of King Solomon. The chronology is virtually exact, locking in, as it does, with Senenmut’s (as Solomon) fading from the Egyptian records around Year 16 (of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III). Dr. Velikovsky had made quite a mess, though, of putting together the geography of Thutmose III’s campaign unto Jerusalem, which I hope to have rectified in articles such as: Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III’s march on Jerusalem (6) Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III's march on Jerusalem I do not know if Mary Nell’s version of Egyptian history has projected this far ahead. But why I do know that the Egyptological reconstruction of the Wyatt’s is faulty, and thus not locked in as “trustworthy” by the Holy Spirit, is because any New Kingdom reconstruction of the Exodus will have as its consequence the sore fact that, when Joshua will arrive at Jericho, there will be no city there for him to attack. As I wrote in my article (favouring that holistic approach): From Raamses to the ‘Sea of Reeds’ (8) From Raamses to the 'Sea of Reeds' …. Why the new Kingdom is totally inappropriate While, superficially, a New Kingdom (Eighteenth or Nineteenth Dynasty) setting for the Exodus might appear to fit the bill, it would actually cause far more problems than it may seemingly manage to solve. For it is not sufficient simply to grab a particular phase out of history and claim that it attaches nicely to a biblical event. The Bible records a long, developing history which necessitates that the whole thing be fitted into an historical and archaeological framework. If, for instance, one were to take Ramses II as the Pharaoh of the Exodus, one would then need to be able to situate, each into its own proper place, Joseph and the Famine at an earlier phase of Egyptian history, and, then, Abram (Abraham), before Joseph. On this note, Dr. John Osgood has rightly, in a recent article (2024): https://assets.answersresearchjournal.org/doc/v17/ jericho_dating_joshuas_conquest_of_canaan_comments_osgood.pdf Answers Research Journal 17 (2024): 221–222, “The Walls of Jericho: Dating Joshua’s Conquest of Canaan—Comments”, expressed his ‘amazement’ when those involved in biblico-historical reconstructions exclude “a whole saga of history”: …. Habermehl tells us that “we note that the Bible does not say that Hiel built a city, but only a wall.” Really, then what do the words “Hiel of Bethel built Jericho” mean? It had a foundation (not specifically of a wall) and it had gates (1 Kings 16:34). But the archaeologists have clearly and categorically found a large city during Middle Bronze on the site of Jericho and therefore before Hiel. That city needs an explanation, as it won’t go away. This is where I am amazed at the blindness of both conventional and revisionist discussions, as if the pages of the book of Judges are stuck together and a whole saga of history is excluded. Namely, there was the attack on Jericho, the city of palm trees, by Eglon of Moab, and for 20 years that site was occupied by 10,000 of his troops (Judges 3:12– 30, see also Deuteronomy 34:3; Judges 1:16; 2 Chronicles 28:15—the city of palm trees). …. [End of quote] Nor will it be sufficient to focus only upon Egypt – though that nation was, admittedly, the main power during the biblical era from the patriarchs Abram (Abraham) to Moses. Mesopotamia, Syria, Canaan, and so on, must likewise be properly accounted for, both historically and archaeologically. Key to a biblico-historical synthesis will obviously be the Conquest of Canaan and its centrepiece, the Fall of Jericho, which outstanding episode should be archaeologically verifiable. Pharaoh Ramses II may indeed have had his wonderful horses and chariots, but, for those who hold him to have been the Pharaoh of the Exodus, these are now faced with a Late Bronze Age (LBA) archology for the Conquest, and for Jericho, that is hopelessly inadequate. Much has been written about this. Stuart Zachary Steinberg briefly sums it up here: Redating the Conquest of the Promised Land | by Stuart Zachary Steinberg | Medium “For nearly 150 years the conquest by the Israelites has been dated to the Late Bronze Age. The reason for that has been primarily placing the Exodus in the Late Kingdom to have Raamses II as the pharaoh of the Exodus, to correspond with Exodus where it states that the children of Israel built the store cities of Pithom and Raamses. The problem is that there are nearly no correspondence[s] between the destruction of various cities and archaeology in the Late Bronze Age (LBA). Most [of] the cities mentioned do not exist or were destroyed much earlier. Case in point is Jericho. During the Late Bronze Age there was no city at Jericho for Joshua to destroy”. This is the dire situation that confronts the conventional scholars and whoever else might look to situate the Exodus at the time of Egypt’s New Kingdom. The high point of the Conquest of Canaan by Joshua was the destruction of Jericho, whose walls famously fell down. However: “During the Late Bronze Age there was no city at Jericho for Joshua to destroy”. Boom, boom. This is that lack of fruition, again – no lock, stock and barrel co-ordination.

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