Ushanahuru as Udjahorresne

Published February 14, 2019 by amaic
Image result for udjahorresnet

by

Damien F. Mackey

 

“The Chronicle of John of Nikiu who wrote of Cambyses[’] exploits after his name change to Nebuchadnezzar. He wrote of how Cambyses under his new name Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and desolated Egypt. It becomes apparent therefore that John gave credit to Cambyses for what Nebuchadnezzar accomplished”.

 

Too many invasions of Egypt

 

Introduction

 

Between c. 670 BC and c. 525 BC, nearly 150 years, three separate great world powers (Assyria, Babylonia and Persia) invaded Egypt.

Or so the history books tell us.

 

The king-invaders were (i) neo-Assyria’s Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal; (ii) neo-Babylonia’s Nebuchednezzar II; and (iii) Persia’s Cambyses.

 

However, if Esarhaddon – thought to have been the father of Ashurbanipal – were actually the same person as Ashurbanipal – see my multi-part series beginning with:

 

“Nebuchednezzar Syndrome”: dreams, illness-madness, Egyptophobia. Part One: Brief Introductory Section

 

https://www.academia.edu/37511819/_Nebuchednezzar_Syndrome_dreams_illness-madness_Egyptophobia._Part_One_Brief_Introductory_Section

 

in the very fashion that I have suggested regarding the supposed father and son combination:

 

Assyrian King Sargon II, Otherwise Known As Sennacherib

 

https://www.academia.edu/6708474/Assyrian_King_Sargon_II_Otherwise_Known_As_Sennacherib

 

and if Ashurbanipal/Esarhaddon were also Nebuchednezzar II himself:

 

Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar

 

https://www.academia.edu/38017900/Esarhaddon_a_tolerable_fit_for_King_Nebuchednezzar

 

then two (i) and (ii) of those three major invasion eras above would become just the one.

 

But there is more.

 

I have also hinted that Cambyses was something of a mirror-image of Nebuchednezzar II:

 

“Nebuchednezzar Syndrome”: dreams, illness-madness, Egyptophobia. Part Two: Ashurbanipal; Nabonidus; Cambyses; Artaxerxes III

 

https://www.academia.edu/37512120/_Nebuchednezzar_Syndrome_dreams_illness-madness_Egyptophobia._Part_Two_Ashurbanipal_Nabonidus_Cambyses_Artaxerxes_III

 

In this last article I had noted that Cambyses even bore the name of “Nebuchednezzar”:

 

“The Chronicle of John of Nikiu who wrote of Cambyses[’] exploits after his name change to Nebuchadnezzar. He wrote of how Cambyses under his new name Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and desolated Egypt. It becomes apparent therefore that John gave credit to Cambyses for what Nebuchadnezzar accomplished”.

 

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-witness/THIK59UKCUF68BLNL/evidence-indicating-egypts-40-year-desolation

 

So basically what I am getting at here is that the above presumed century and a half of history (c. 670 BC and c. 525 BC) may need to be collapsed, like a star into a presumed black hole, into just the one point in time.

 

Three major invasion eras of Egypt becoming reduced to just the one.

Meeting and identifying Udjahorresne

 

 

If this Ushanahuru were Udjahorresne, then it would provide a

chronological connecting link between c. 670 BC and c. 525 BC.

 

 

 

Cambyses’ (and later Darius’) assistant or mentor (tour guide) in Egypt was one Udjahorresne (or Udjahorresnet, Wedjaḥorresnet, and many other variants).

We read about this important official as “Wedjahor-Resne” in the following account:

https://www.livius.org/articles/person/wedjahor-resne/

 

The … Egyptian inscription was written over a naophoros-statue, i.e., a statue representing a man carrying (“phoros“) a small shrine (“naos“) with an image of a god. In this case, the god can be identified with Osiris, the ruler of the Underworld. The text commemorates all pious acts of the carrier, an important courtier named Wedjahor-Resne or Udjahor-Resnet. The statue, which is about 70 centimeters high, was brought to Italy by the Roman emperor Hadrian (r. 117-138), who kept it in his villa in Tivoli. Currently, it is displayed in the Egyptian department of the Vatican Museums.

 

Wedjahor-Resne was not only the pharaoh‘s personal physician, but was also responsible for the royal navy. In 526 BCE, king Amasis died and was succeeded by his son Psammetichus III. During the transitional period, the Persian king Cambyses attacked Egypt and defeated his unprepared enemies near the Pelusian branch of the Nile. The standard account is written by Herodotus.

 

It is probable that Wedjahor-Resne defected to the Persians at some stage before or during this war, because nothing is known about naval operations, although the Egyptians owned a large navy and had occupied Cyprus.note[Herodotus, Histories 2.182.] The Greek historian Ctesias of Cnidus, who is not known for his reliability but may for once have had access to reliable information, explicitly mentions a traitor, although his name is Combaphis.note[Ctesias, Persica 10.] It should be noted that an ally of Egypt, the Greek leader Polycrates of Samos, allowed himself to be bribed away.

Cartouche of Cambyses (“Mesuti-Ra Cambyses”)

 

When Cambyses had taken the Egyptian capital Memphis, he was recognized as the new king. Wedjahor-Resne was reinstated in almost all his former functions and helped Cambyses to behave like a true Egyptian king. For example, he persuaded Cambyses to direct the Persian garrison in the holy city of Sais to another camp, making sure that the ancient sanctuary of Neith, the mother of the supreme god Ra, and the shrine of Osiris were purified. Wedjahor-Resne also composed Cambyses’ new royal name, Mesuti-Ra (“born of Ra”).

Cambyses left Egypt in the spring of 522, taking Wedjahor-Resne with him as his physician. Unfortunately, the king had an accident on his way back, and his doctor was unable to cure him.

 

After Cambyses’ death and a violent civil war (described in the Behistun Inscription), Darius became king. The new ruler allowed Wedjahor-Resne to return home and ordered him to supervise the medical schools – the “houses of life” in the text – that had been destroyed (by Cambyses?). Since the text does not mention Darius’ visit to Egypt in 519/518, it is likely that the naophoros-statue was made soon after Wedjahor-Resne’s return.

 

His tomb has been discovered in 1995 at Abusir. Except for two damaged sarcophagi, little was found in the burial chamber. It is interesting to note that in c.340 BCE, Wedjahor-Resne seems to have been venerated as a more or less holy person in Memphis.

[End of quote]

 

What I am interested in within my new historical context is: Does our Udjahorresne emerge elsewhere, in an era other than the supposed Persian era, in, say, the neo-Assyrian period?

 

I think that he Udjahorresne may well thus emerge.

 

My suggestion is that Udjahorresne was the same person as Tirhakah’s (Taharqa’s) son and heir, Ushanahuru, as referred to by Esarhaddon (N. Grimal’s A History of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell, 1994, p. 350):

 

I laid siege to Memphis, [Taharqa’s] royal residence and conquered it in half a day by means of mines, breaches and assault ladders. His queen, the women of his palace, Ushanahuru his ‘heir apparent’, his other children, his possessions, horses, large and small cattle beyond counting I carried away as booty to Assyria ….

[Pritchard 1955: 293].

 

If this Ushanahuru were Udjahorresne, then it would provide a chronological connecting link between c. 670 BC and c. 525 BC.

I think that we find the very same elements in the two names, Ushanahuru and Udjahorresne, the latter of which the Assyrians may well have found rather difficult to transliterate:

 

Udja – horre[s] – ne

Usha – huru – na

 

 

It would make perfect sense that Esarhaddon (= Ashurbanipal = Nebuchednezzar II) might later have used a man of such culture, education and high-standing as his Egyptian prisoner Ushanahuru, to take back with him to Egypt – as Cambyses (named “Nebuchednezzar”).

 

The Udjahorresne Inscription

 

  1. Offering by the king to [the god] Osiris-Hemag: thousands of bread and beer, beef and birds and all other things good and pure, for the ka of a man honored with the gods of the province of Sais, the chief physician Wedjahor-Resne.
  2. Offering by the king to Osiris, who lives in Khet-Bjet: a funeral offering of bread and beer, beef and birds, alabaster vases and garments, incense and perfumes and all other good things, for the ka of a man honored by the gods of the province of Sais, the chief physician Wedjahor-Resne.
  3. Oh Osiris, Lord of Eternity! The chief physician
  4. Wedjahor-Resne keeps you in his arms to
  5. protect you. May your ka order that people do all kinds of useful things to him
  6. because he stands guard behind your eternal shrine.
  7. This man honored with the great [goddess] Neit, the mother of the god [Re], and with the gods of Sais, the prince, the royal chancellor, the unique companion,
  8. the one truly known and loved by the king, the scribe, the inspector of the scribes of the dedet-court, the first among the great scribes of the prison, the director of the palace,
  9. the admiral of the royal navy of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt Khnemibre [Amasis], the admiral of the royal navy of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt,
  10. Ankhkaenre [Psammetichus III], Wedjahor-Resne, son of the director of the castles, khrjep-priest, renep-priest, khepetwedet-priest, prophet of Neit, who is the head of the province of Sais Peftuôneit,
  11. says: ‘The great king of all foreign countries Cambyses came to Egypt, taking the foreigners of every foreign country with him. When he had taken possession of the entire country,
  12. they settled themselves down therein, and he was made great sovereign of Egypt and great king of all foreign countries. His Majesty appointed me his chief physician
  13. and caused me to stay with him in my quality of companion and director of the palace, and ordered me to compose his titulary, his name as king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Mesuti-Ra [born of Ra]. And I made sure that His Majesty knew of the greatness of Sais,
  14. which is the seat of the great Neit, the mother who brought forth Re, and who unveiled birth when birth did not exist. [And I made sure that His Majesty knew] the significance of the temple of Neit, which is the sky in all its dispositions, and knew the greatness of the castles of the Red Crown
  15. and all the gods and goddesses who live there, and knew significance of the greatness of Khet-Bjet, which is the dwelling of the sovereign, the lord of heaven [Osiris], and knew the greatness of the Resenet and the Mekhnet, of the dwelling of Re and the dwelling of Atum, which are the mysteries of all gods.’
  16. The man honored with his town’s god [Osiris] and all other gods, the prince, the royal chancellor, the unique companion, the one truly known and loved by the king,
  17. the chief physician Wedjahor-Resne, son of Atemirtis, says: ‘I made a petition
  18. to His Majesty the king of Upper and Lower Egypt Cambyses concerning the many foreigners billeted on the temple of Neit
  19. that they should be driven thence, so that the temple of Neit was restored to its former greatness. And His Majesty ordered that all the foreigners
  20. who were living in the premises of Neit should be driven out, that all their houses and all their garbage should be thrown out of the temple, and that
  21. all their baggage should be carried away from its premises, His Majesty ordered the purification of the temple of Neit and its restoration to the people
  22. [lacuna] and the schedule of the priests. His Majesty ordered to restitute the revenues of the wakf-estate to the great Neit, the mother of the god, and to the gods of Sais. His Majesty ordered
  23. to conduct all their festivities and all their processions as they had always been. His Majesty ordered these things because I had informed him about the greatness of Sais, which is the town where all gods have placed their eternal thrones.’
  24. The man honored with the gods of Sais,
  25. the chief physician Wedjahor-Resne, says: ‘The king of Upper and Lower Egypt Cambyses came to Sais. His Majesty came to the temple of Neit in person. Like all kings before, he prostrated himself before Her Majesty [Neit]. Like all good kings, he made a large sacrifice
  26. of all good things to the great Neit, mother of the god, and to all great gods of Sais. His Majesty did this because I had informed His Majesty about the greatness of Her Majesty,
  27. who is the mother of Re himself.’
  28. The man honored with Osiris-Hemag,
  29. the chief physician Wedjahor-Resne, says: ‘His Majesty did all useful things in the temple of Neit. Like all kings before him, he established libations to the lord of eternity in the interior of the temple of Neit.
  30. His Majesty did this because I had informed His Majesty about all useful things which had been done in the temple by all kings because of the greatness of this temple, which is the eternal dwelling of all gods.’
  31. The man honored with the gods of the province Sais, the chief physician Wedjahor-Resne, says: ‘I restored the revenues of the wakf-estate of the great Neit, the mother of the god,
  32. for eternity, as per His Majesty’s orders. I established [new and] pious funds for Neit, the mistress of Sais, like a servant
  33. excelling his master does. I am the benefactor of my city: I have saved its inhabitants from the very large troubles
  34. which had come over the whole country and which had not yet existed before in this country. I defended the meek
  35. against the powerful; I saved those who were afraid after an accident had happened to them; I gave them all useful things
  36. when they were unable to take care of themselves.’
  37. The man honored with his town’s god, the chief physician Wedjahor-Resne, says: ‘I am honored by my father, praised by my mother,
  38. trusted by my brothers. As per His Majesty’s orders, I established them in the function of prophet and gave them a fief
  39. for eternity. I made a fine tomb for those who had no tomb. I nourished all their children. I made their houses strong. I did
  40. all useful things for them, like a father does for his children, when trouble came over
  41. this province, when very large troubles came
  42. over the country as a whole.’
  43. The prince, the royal chancellor, the unique companion, the prophet of the one who lives with them, the chief physician Wedjahor-Resne, son of Atemirtis, says: ‘His Majesty the king of Upper and Lower Egypt Darius (may he live forever!) sent me back to Egypt, while His Majesty was in Elam, having become great king of all foreign countries and great sovereign of Egypt, ordering me to restore the Houses of Life
  44. and the [lacuna] after they had been ruined. The foreigners carried me from country to country until we reached Egypt, as per orders of the lord of both countries [Upper and Lower Egypt]. I did what His Majesty had ordered. I provided the [Houses of Life] with students, all sons of fine people; there were no sons of  common men. I placed them under the direction of all teachers
  45. [lacuna] all their works. His Majesty ordered to provide them with all necessary means to ensure that they could do their work. [Consequently], I gave them all they needed and all the scribes’ accessories, as it had always been. His Majesty did this, because he knew how useful this art can be to survive illness and to ensure that the names of the gods, their temples, the revenues of their wakf-estates and their rituals are remembered for eternity.’
  46. The chief physician Wedjahor-Resne, says: ‘I was honored by all my masters for all my life. They gave me golden ornaments and all kinds of useful things.’
  47. The man who was honored with Neit, says: ‘Oh great gods of Sais,
  48. remember all merituous actions done by the chief physician Wedjahor-Resne. Ensure that all kinds of useful things are done for him and ensure that his good reputation will remain unshattered in this country for ever.’

Psammetichus and other links

 

 

 

  • Ashurbanipal invaded Egypt at the time of Psammetichus I (c. 664 BC);
  • Nebuchednezzar II invaded Egypt at the time of Psammetichus II (c. 595-589 BC);
  • Cambyses invaded Egypt at the time of Psammetichus III (c. 526-525 BC).

 

Psammetichus coincidences

 

We are told that:

 

  • Ashurbanipal invaded Egypt at the time of Psammetichus I (c. 664 BC);
  • Nebuchednezzar II invaded Egypt at the time of Psammetichus II (c. 595-589 BC);
  • Cambyses invaded Egypt at the time of Psammetichus III (c. 526-525 BC).

 

Greek coincidences

 

Each of the above phases was said to be a time when Egypt was ‘opening itself up to the world’, including the Greeks. Thus we read in N. Grimal’s A History of Ancient Egypt:

 

  1. 355: “Egypt opened up increasingly to the outside world during the fifty-four years of Psammetichus [I]’s reign. Foreign merchants arrived on the heels of foreign soldiers, and diplomatic relations between Egypt and Greece evolved …”.

 

  1. 360: “Necho II [presumed father of Psammetichus II] pursued a policy of opening Egypt up to the Greek world …”.
  2. 262: “Psammetichus [II] … had troops – including numerous Carians …”.

 

  1. 363: “[Psammetichus III] … there was a peculiar mixture of Egyptian, Greek, Jewish and Oriental themes”.

Divine Adoratrice

 

  1. 361: “Psammetichus I had Nitocris adopted by the Divine Adoratrices of the time, Shepenwepet II and Amenirdis II”.

 

  1. 361: “Psammetichus [II] made sure that Ankhnesneferibre … was adopted by the Divine Adoratrice Nitocris”.

 

  1. 365: “Saites and Kushites were moreover agreed on the maintenance of the office of Divine Adoratrice at Thebes”.

 

Advertisements

Hebrew Law absorbed by Mesopotamians, Greeks

Published February 7, 2019 by amaic
Image result for greek law

by

Damien F. Mackey

 

“The name of Aqht, the son of Danel, returns as Qehat, the grandfather of Moses.

The name of the locality Mrrt, where Aqht was killed, figures in the gentilic form Merarî as the brother of Qehat in the Levite genealogy. The name of P?t, the daughter of Danel and the devoted sister of Aqht, is met in the Moses story as Pû’ã, a midwife who saved the life of the new-born Moses”.

Michael Astour

 

 

Law and Government

 

Moses

 

The great Lawgiver in the Bible, and hence in Hebrew history, was Moses, substantially the author of the Torah (Law). But the history books tell us that the Torah was probably dependent upon the law code issued by the Babylonian king, Hammurabi (dated to the first half of the 18th BC). I shall discuss this further on.

For possible Egyptian identifications of Moses, see e.g. my series:

 

Moses – may be staring revisionists right in the face. Part One: Historical Moses has presented quite a challenge

 

https://www.academia.edu/36803416/Moses_may_be_staring_revisionists_right_in_the_face._Part_One_Historical_Moses_has_presented_quite_a_challenge

 

Moses – may be staring revisionists right in the face. Part Two: Moses as Vizier and Chief Judge

 

https://www.academia.edu/people/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=moses+as+judge+damien+

 

The Egyptians may have corrupted the legend of the baby Moses in the bulrushes so that now it became the goddess Isis who drew the baby Horus from the Nile and had him suckled by Hathor (the goddess in the form of a cow – the Egyptian personification of wisdom). In the original story, of course, baby Moses was drawn from the water by an Egyptian princess, not a goddess, and was weaned by Moses’ own mother (Exodus 2:5-9).

 

But could both the account of the rescue of the baby Moses in the Book of Exodus, and the Egyptian version of it, be actually based upon a Mesopotamian original, as the textbooks say; based upon the story of king Sargon of Akkad in Mesopotamia?

Sargon tells, “in terms reminiscent of Moses, Krishna and other great men”, that [as quoted by G. Roux, Ancient Iraq, Penguin Books, 1964, p. 152]:

 

.… My changeling mother conceived me, in secret she bore me. She set me in a basket of rushes, with bitumen she sealed my lid. She cast me into the river which rose not over me. The river bore me up and carried me to Akki, the drawer of water. Akki, the drawer of water, took me as his son and reared me ….

 

Given that Sargon is conventionally dated to the C24th BC, and Moses about a millennium later, it would seem inevitable that the Hebrew version, and the Egyptian one, must be imitations of the Mesopotamian one. Such is what the ‘history’ books say, at least, despite the fact that the extant Sargon legend is very late (C7th BC); though thought to have been based upon an earlier Mesopotamian original.

See my own explanation of all this in:

 

Did Sargon of Akkad influence the Exodus account of the baby Moses?

 

https://www.academia.edu/35752394/Did_Sargon_of_Akkad_influence_the_Exodus_account_of_the_baby_Moses

 

Dean Hickman has re-dated king Hammurabi of Babylon to the time of kings Solomon and David (mid-C10th BC), re-identifying Hammurabi’s older contemporary, Shamsi-Adad I, as king David’s Syrian foe, Hadadazer (2 Samuel 10:16) (“The Dating of Hammurabi”, Proceedings of the Third Seminar of Catastrophism and Ancient History, Uni. of Toronto, 1985, ed. M. Luckerman, pp. 13-28).

For more on this, see e.g. my article:

 

Davidic Influence on King Hammurabi

 

https://www.academia.edu/30639370/Davidic_Influence_on_King_Hammurabi

 

According to this new scenario, Hammurabi could not possibly have influenced Moses.

 

(a) Greek and Phoenician ‘Moses-like Myths’

 

Michael Astour believes that Moses, a hero of the Hebrew scriptures, shares “some cognate features” with Danaos (or Danaus), hero of Greek legend.

He gives his parallels as follows (Hellenosemitica, p. 99):

Moses grows up at the court of the Egyptian king as a member of the royal family, and subsequently flees from Egypt after having slain an Egyptian – as Danaos, a member of the Egyptian ruling house, flees from the same country after the slaying of the Aigyptiads which he had arranged. The same number of generations separates Moses from Leah the “wild cow” and Danaos from the cow Io.

 

Mackey’s Comment: The above parallel might even account for how the Greeks managed to confuse the land of Ionia (Io) with the land of Israel in the case of the earliest philosophers.

Astour continues (pp. 99-100):

 

Still more characteristic is that both Moses and Danaos find and create springs in a waterless region; the story of how Poseidon, on the request of the Danaide Amymona, struck out with his trident springs from the Lerna rock, particularly resembles Moses producing a spring from the rock by the stroke of his staff. A ‘cow’ features also in the legend of Cadmus, son of Agenor, king of Tyre upon the disappearance of his sister Europa, who was sent by his father together with his brothers Cilix and Phoenix to seek her with instructions not to return without her. Seeking the advice of the oracle at Delphi, Cadmus was told to settle at the point where a cow, which he would meet leaving the temple, would lie down. The cow led him to the site of Thebes (remember the two cities by that name). There he built the citadel of Cadmeia. Cadmus married Harmonia, the daughter of Ares, god of war, and Aphrodite and, according to the legend, was the founder of the House of Oedipus.

 

 

Astour believes that “even more similar features” may be discovered if one links these accounts to the Ugaritic (Phoenicio-Canaanite) poem of Danel, which he had previously identified as “the prototype of the Danaos myth” (p. 100):

 

The name of Aqht, the son of Danel, returns as Qehat, the grandfather of Moses. The name of the locality Mrrt, where Aqht was killed, figures in the gentilic form Merarî as the brother of Qehat in the Levite genealogy. The name of P?t, the daughter of Danel and the devoted sister of Aqht, is met in the Moses story as Pû’ã, a midwife who saved the life of the new-born Moses. The very name of Moses, in the feminine form Mšt, is, in the Ugaritic poem, the first half of Danel’s wife’s name, while the second half of her name, Dnty, corresponds to the name of Levi’s sister Dinah.

 

Michael Astour had already explained how the biblical story of the Rape of Dinah (Genesis 34) was “analogous to the myth of the bloody wedding of her namesakes, the Danaides”.

He continues on here with his fascinating Greco-Israelite parallels:

 

Dân, the root of the names Dnel, Dnty (and also Dinah and Danaos), was the name of a tribe whose priests claimed to descend directly from Moses (Jud. 18:30); and compare the serpent emblem of the tribe of Dan with the serpent staff of Moses and the bronze serpent he erected. …Under the same name – Danaë – another Argive heroine of the Danaid stock is thrown into the sea in a chest with her new-born son – as Moses in his ark (tébã) – and lands on the serpent-island of Seriphos (Heb. šãrâph, applied i.a. to the bronze serpent made by Moses). Moses, like Danel, is a healer, a prophet, a miracle-worker – cf. Danel’s staff (mt) which he extends while pronouncing curses against towns and localities, quite like Moses in Egypt; and especially, like Danel, he is a judge….

 

(b) Roman ‘Moses-like Myth’

 

The Romans further corrupted the story of the infant Moses, following on probably from the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Phoenicians and Greeks. I refer to the account of Romulus (originally Rhomus) and Remus, thought to have founded the city of Rome in 753 BC. Both the founders and the date are quite mythical. Did the Romans take an Egyptian name for Moses, such as Musare, and turnd it into Rhomus and Remus (MUSA-RE = RE-MUS), with the formerly one child (Moses) now being doubled into two babies (twins)? According to this legend, the twins were put into a basket by some kind servants and floated in the Tiber River, from which they were eventually rescued by a she-wolf. Thus the Romans more pragmatically opted for a she-wolf as the suckler instead of a cow goddess, or a lion goddess, Sekhmet (the fierce alter ego of Hathor).

 

The Romans may have taken yet another slice from the Pentateuch when they had the founder of the city of Rome, Romulus, involved in a fratricide (killing Remus); just as Cain, the founder of the world’s first city, had killed his own brother, Abel (cf. Genesis 4:8 and 4:17).

 

(c) Mohammed: Arabian `Moses-like Myths’

 

An Islamic lecturer, Ahmed Deedat [“What the Bible Says About Mohammed (Peace Be Upon Him) the Prophet of Islam” (www.islamworld.net/Muhammad.in.Bible.html)], told of an interview he once had with a dominee of the Dutch Reformed Church in Transvaal, van Heerden, on the question: “What does the Bible say about Muhummed?”

Deedat had in mind the Holy Qur’an verse 46:10, according to which “a witness among the children of Israel bore witness of one like him…”. This was in turn a reference to Deuteronomy 18:18’s “I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.” The Moslems of course interpret the “one like him [i.e. Moses]” as being Mohammed himself.

Faced with the dominee’s emphatic response that the Bible has “nothing” to say about Mohammed – and that the Deuteronomic prophecy ultimately pertained to Jesus Christ, as did “thousands” of other prophecies – Deedat set out to prove him wrong.

For some of my own views on Mohammed, see my series:

 

Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History

 

https://www.academia.edu/12500381/Biography_of_the_Prophet_Mohammed_Muhammad_Seriously_Mangles_History

 

Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History. Part One (b, ii): Mohammed and Nineveh

 

https://www.academia.edu/30409580/Biography_of_the_Prophet_Mohammed_Muhammad_Seriously_Mangles_History._Part_One_b_ii_Mohammed_and_Nineveh

 

Some Conclusions regarding Mohammed (c. 570-632 AD, conventional dating)

 

Whilst Mohammed supposedly lived much later than Moses, there nevertheless do seem to be Arabic borrowings of the Moses story itself (and even appropriations of certain very specific aspects of the life of Jesus, as we shall read later) in the legends about Mohammed, who especially resembles Moses in

 

(i) the latter’s visit to Mount Horeb (modern Har Karkom) with its cave atop, its Burning Bush, and angel (Exodus 3:1-2), possibly equating to Mohammed’s “Mountain of Light” (Jabal-an-Nur), and ‘cave of research’ (`Ghar-i-Hira’), and angel Gabriel;

(ii) at the very same age of forty (Acts 7:23-29), and

(iii) there receiving a divine revelation, leading to his

(iv) becoming a prophet of God and a Lawgiver.

 

Mohammed as a Lawgiver is a direct pinch I believe from the Hebrew Pentateuch, and also from the era of Jeremiah. Consider the following by M. O’Hair (“Mohammed”, A text of American Atheist Radio Series program No. 65, first broadcast on August 25, 1969. (www.atheists.org/Islam.Mohammed.html):

 

“Now the Kaaba or Holy Stone at Mecca was the scene of an annual pilgrimage, and during this pilgrimage in 621 Mohammed was able to get six persons from Medina to bind themselves to him. They did so by taking the following oath.

 

Not consider anyone equal to Allah;

Not to steal;

Not to be unchaste;

Not to kill their children;

Not willfully to calumniate”.

 

This is simply the Mosaïc Decalogue, with the following Islamic addition:

“To obey the prophet’s orders in equitable matters.

In return Mohammed assured these six novitiates of paradise.

The place where these first vows were taken is now called the first Akaba”.

 

“The mission of Mohammed”, perfectly reminiscent of that of Moses, and later of Nehemiah, was “to restore the worship of the One True God, the creator and sustainer of the universe, as taught by Prophet Ibrahim [Abraham] and all Prophets of God, and complete the laws of moral, ethical, legal, and social conduct and all other matters of significance for the humanity at large.”

 

The above-mentioned Burning Bush incident occurred whilst Moses

 

(a)    was living in exile (Exodus 2:15)

(b)   amongst the Midianite tribe of Jethro, in the Paran desert.

(c)    Moses had married Jethro’s daughter, Zipporah (v. 21).

 

Likewise Mohammed (also partly applicable to Jeremiah and to Nehemiah)

 

(a)    experienced exile;

(b)   to Medina, a name which may easily have become confused with the similar sounding, Midian, and

(c)    he had only the one wife at the time, Khadija. Also

(d)   Moses, like Mohammed, was terrified by what God had commanded of him, protesting that he was “slow of speech and slow of tongue” (Exodus 4:10). To which God replied: “Who gives speech to mortals? Who makes them mute or deaf, seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord? Now go, and I will be your mouth and teach you what you are to speak’ (vv. 11-12).

 

Now this episode, seemingly coupled with Moses’s (with Jeremiah’s) call, has come distorted into the Koran as Mohammed’s being terrified by what God was asking of him, protesting that he was not learned. To which God supposedly replied that he had ‘created man from a clot of congealed blood, and had taught man the use of the pen, and that which he knew not, and that man does not speak ought of his own desire but by inspiration sent down to him’.

Ironically, whilst Moses the writer complained about his lack of verbal eloquence, Mohammed, ‘unlettered and unlearned’, who therefore could not write, is supposed to have been told that God taught man to use the pen (?). But Mohammed apparently never learned to write, because he is supposed only to have spoken God’s utterances. Though his words, like those of Moses (who however did write, e.g. Exodus 34:27), were written down in various formats by his secretary, Zaid (roughly equating to the biblical Joshua, a writer, Joshua 8:32, or to Jeremiah’s scribe, Baruch).

 

This is generally how the Koran is said to have arisen.

 

But Mohammed also resembles Moses in his childhood (and Tobit also) in the fact that, after his infancy, he was raised by a foster-parent (Exodus 2:10). And there is the inevitable weaning legend (Zahoor, A. and Haq, Z., “Biography of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)”, http://cyberistan.org/islamic/muhammad.html 1998.): “All biographers state that the infant prophet sucked only one breast of his foster-mother, leaving the other for the sustenance of his foster-brother”.

 

There is even a kind of Islamic version of the Exodus. Compare the following account of the Qoreish persecution and subsequent pursuit of the fleeing Moslems with the persecution and later pursuit of the fleeing Israelites by Pharaoh (Exodus 1 and 4:5-7) [O’Hair, op. cit., ibid.]:

 

When the persecution became unbearable for most Muslims, the Prophet advised them in the fifth year of his mission (615 CE) to emigrate to Abyssinia (modern Ethiopia) where Ashabah (Negus, a Christian) was the ruler. Eighty people, not counting the small children, emigrated in small groups to avoid detection. No sooner had they left the Arabian coastline [substitute Egyptian borders], the leaders of Quraish discovered their flight. They decided to not leave these Muslims in peace, and immediately sent two of their envoys to Negus to bring all of them back.

 

The Koran of Islam is basically just the Arabic version of the Hebrew Bible with all its same famous patriarchs and leading characters. That is apparent from what the Moslems themselves admit. For example [ibid.]:

 

The Qur’an also mentions four previously revealed Scriptures: Suhoof (Pages) of Ibrahim (Abraham), Taurat (‘Torah’) as revealed to Prophet Moses, Zuboor (‘Psalms’) as revealed to Prophet David, and Injeel (‘Evangel’) as revealed to Prophet Jesus (pbuh). Islam requires belief in all prophets and revealed scriptures (original, non-corrupted) as part of the Articles of Faith.

 

Mohammed is now for Islam the last and greatest of the prophets. Thus, “in the Al-Israa, Gabriel (as) took the Prophet from the sacred Mosque near Ka’bah to the furthest (al-Aqsa) mosque in Jerusalem in a very short time in the latter part of a night. Here, Prophet Muhammad met with previous Prophets (Abraham, Moses, Jesus and others) and he led them in prayer” [ibid.].

 

Thus Mohammed supposedly led Jesus in prayer.

 

The reputation of Ibn Ishaq (ca 704-767), a main authority on the life and times of the Prophet varied considerably among the early Moslem critics: some found him very sound, while others regarded him as a liar in relation to Hadith (Mohammed’s sayings and deeds). His Sira is not extant in its original form, but is present in two recensions done in 833 and 814-15, and these texts vary from one another. Fourteen others have recorded his lectures, but their versions differ [ibid.]:

 

It was the storytellers who created the tradition: the sound historical traditions to which they are supposed to have added their fables simply did not exist. . . . Nobody remembered anything to the contrary either. . . . There was no continuous transmission. Ibn Ishaq, al-Waqidi, and others were cut off from the past: like the modern scholar, they could not get behind their sources…. Finally, it has to be realized that the tradition as a whole, not just parts of it as some have thought, is tendentious, and that that tendentiousness arises from allegiance to Islam itself. The complete unreliability of the Muslim tradition as far as dates are concerned has been demonstrated by Lawrence Conrad. After close examination of the sources in an effort to find the most likely birth date for Muhammad–traditionally `Am al-fil, the Year of the Elephant, 570 C.E.–Conrad remarks that [“What Historians have Deduced about the Historical Mohammed.

(http://jeromekhan123.tripod.com/enlightenment/id11.html; – currently not online)

See also Barnes, T. D. “The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East II: Land Use and Settlement Patterns, ed. Averil Cameron and G. R. D.; King [Papers of the Second Workshop on Late Antiquity and Early Islam. Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam 1], volume II (Princeton: The Darwin Press, 1994)” (1996-1997), IX: 191-199.; “The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East III: States, Resources and Armies, ed. Averil Cameron [Papers of the Third Workshop on Late Antiquity and Early Islam. Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam 1], volume III (Princeton: The Darwin Press, 1995)” (1996-1997), IX: 191-199.; “Albrecht Noth’s The Early Arabic Historical tradition. A Source-Critical Study, trans. Michael Bonner, in collaboration with Lawrence I. Conrad [Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam 3] (Princeton: The Darwin Press, 1994)”, (1996-1997), IX: 191-199.]:

 

“‘Well into the second century A.H. [A.H. is the muslim time reckoning and means `Asahhus-siyar’.] scholarly opinion on the birth date of the Prophet displayed a range of variance of eighty-five years. .. . . . Muhammad, as Prophet and mouthpiece for the universal deity Allah, is an invention of the ulama of the second and third centuries A.H”.

 

Our own estimation of the historical dislocation of the Prophet Mphammed would involve far more than a mere “variance of eighty-five years”. The fact is that we now have a ‘Mohammed’ who is a semi-legendary version of the original Prophet. Mohammed, a composite figure, seems to have likenesses even to pre-Mosaïc patriarchs, and to Jesus in the New Testament. Thus Mohammed, at Badr, successfully led a force of 300+ men (the number varies from 300-318) against an enemy far superior in number, as did Abraham (Genesis 14:14); and, like Jacob (Genesis 30, 31), he used a ruse to get a wife (in Jacob’s case, wives). And like Jesus, the greatest of all God’s prophets, Mohammed is said to have ascended into heaven from Jerusalem.

 

(d) Modern Myths about Moses

 

From the above it can now be seen that it was not only the Greeks and Romans who have been guilty of appropriation into their own folklore of famous figures of Israel. Even the Moslems have done it and are still doing it. A modern-day Islamic author from Cairo, Ahmed Osman, has – in line with psychiatrist Sigmund Freud’s view that Moses was actually an Egyptian, whose Yahwism was derived from pharaoh Akhnaton’s supposed monotheism [Out of Egypt. The Roots of Christianity Revealed (Century, 1998)] – identified all the major biblical Israelites, from the patriarch Joseph to the Holy Family of Nazareth, as 18th dynasty Egyptian characters. Thus Joseph = Yuya; Moses = Akhnaton; David = Thutmose III; Solomon = Amenhotep III; Jesus = Tutankhamun; St. Joseph = Ay; Mary = Nefertiti.

 

This is mass appropriation! Not to mention chronological madness!

 

I was asked by Dr. Norman Simms of the University of Waikato (N.Z.) to write a critique of Osman’s book, a copy of which he had posted to me. This was a rather easy task as the book leaves itself wide open to criticism. Anyway, the result of Dr. Simms’ request was my article, “Osman’s ‘Osmosis’ of Moses” article [The Glozel Newsletter, 5:1 (ns) 1999 (Hamilton, N.Z), pp. 1-17], in which I argued that, because Osman is using the faulty textbook history of Egypt, he is always obliged to give the chronological precedence to Egypt, when the influence has actually come from Israel over to Egypt. [This article, modified, can now be read at:

 

Osman’s ‘Osmosis’ of Moses. Part One: The Chosen People

 

https://www.academia.edu/27115376/Osmans_Osmosis_of_Moses._Part_One_The_Chosen_People

 

and:

 

Osman’s ‘Osmosis’ of Moses. Part II: Christ the King

 

https://www.academia.edu/27139956/Osmans_Osmosis_of_Moses._Part_II_Christ_the_King

 

The way that Egyptian chronology is structured at present – thanks largely to E. Meyer’s now approximately one century-old Ägyptische Chronologie (Philosophische und historische Abhandlungen der Königlich preussischen Akad. der Wissenschaften, Berlin, Akad. der Wiss., 1904).) could easily give rise to Osman’s precedence in favour of Egypt view (though this is no excuse for Osman’s own chronological mish-mash). One finds, for example, in pharaoh Hatshepsut’s inscriptions such similarities to king David’s Psalms that it is only natural to think that she, the woman-pharaoh – dated to the C15th BC, 500 years earlier than David – must have influenced the great king of Israel. Or that pharaoh Akhnaton’s Hymn to the Sun, so like David’s Psalm 104, had inspired David many centuries later. Only a revision of Egyptian history brings forth the right perspective, and shows that the Israelites actually had the chronological precedence in these as in many other cases.

 

It gets worse from a conventional point of view.

 

The ‘doyen of Israeli archaeologists’, Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University, frequently interviewed by Beirut hostage victim John McCarthy on the provocative TV program “It Ain’t Necessarily So”, is, together with his colleagues, virtually writing ancient Israel right off the historical map, along with all of its major biblical characters. This horrible mess is an inevitable consequence of the faulty Sothic chronology with which these archaeologists seem to be mesmerized.

With friends like Finkelstein and co., why would Israel need any enemies!

 

The Lawgiver Solon

 

Whilst the great Lawgiver for the Hebrews was Moses, and for the Babylonians, Hammurabi, and for the Moslems, supposedly, Mohammed, the Lawgiver in Greek folklore was Solon of Athens, the wisest of the wise, greatest of the Seven Sages.

Though Solon is estimated to have lived in the C6th BC, his name and many of his activities are so close to king Solomon’s (supposedly 4 centuries earlier) that we need once again to question whether the Greeks may have been involved in appropriation.

And, if so, how did this come about?

It may in some cases simply be a memory thing, just as according to Plato’s Timaeus one of the very aged Egyptian priests supposedly told Solon (Plato’s Timaeus, trans. B. Jowett, The Liberal Arts Press, NY, 1949), 6 (22)) and /or Desmond Lee’s translation, Penguin Classics, p. 34]:

 

“O Solon, Solon, you Hellenes [Greeks] are never anything but children, and there is not an old man among you. Solon in return asked him what he meant. I mean to say, he replied, that in mind you are all young; there is no old opinion handed down among you by ancient tradition, nor any science which is hoary with age. …”

 

Perhaps what the author of the Timaeus really needed to have put into the mouth of the aged Egyptian priest was that the Greeks had largely forgotten who Solomon was, and had created their own fictional character, “Solon”, from their vague recall of the great king Solomon who “excelled all the kings of the earth in riches and in wisdom” (1 Kings 10:23). Solon resembles Solomon especially in roughly the last decade of the latter’s reign, when Solomon, turning away from Yahwism, became fully involved with his mercantile ventures, his fleet, travel, and building temples for his foreign wives, especially in Egypt (10:26-29; 11:1-8).

Now, it is to be expected that the pagan Greeks would remember this more ‘rationalist’ aspect of Solomon (as Solon) rather than his wisdom-infused, philosophical, earlier years when he was a devout Jew and servant of Yahweh (4:29-34).

And Jewish Solon apparently was!

Edwin Yamauchi has studied the laws of Solon in depth and found them to be quite Jewish in nature, most reminiscent of the laws of Nehemiah (c. 450 BC) (“Two reformers compared: Solon of Athens and Nehemiah of Jerusalem,” Bible world. New York: KTAV, 1980. pp. 269-292).

That date of 450 BC may perhaps be some sort of clue as to approximately when the Greeks first began to create their fictional Solon.

Solomon was, as I have argued in my “Solomon and Sheba” article (“Solomon and Sheba”, SIS C and C Review, 1997:1, pp. 4-15), the most influential Senenmut of Egyptian history, Hatshepsut’s mentor; whilst Hatshepsut herself was the biblical Queen [of] Sheba. This article can now be read at:

 

Solomon and Sheba

 

http://www.academia.edu/3660164/Solomon_and_Sheba

 

I have also identified Hatshepsut/Sheba as the biblical Abishag, who comforted the aged David (I Kings 1-4), and the beautiful virgin daughter of David, Tamar. See my series:

 

The vicissitudinous life of Solomon’s pulchritudinous wife 

 

https://www.academia.edu/34418620/The_vicissitudinous_life_of_Solomons_pulchritudinous_wife

 

and:

 

https://www.academia.edu/36014908/The_vicissitudinous_life_of_Solomons_pulchritudinous_wife._Part_One_ii_Was_Abishag_indeed_married_to_King_David

 

The vicissitudinous life of Solomon’s pulchritudinous wife. Part Two: “Tamar” in the Song of Solomon

 

https://www.academia.edu/34453394/The_vicissitudinous_life_of_Solomons_pulchritudinous_wife._Part_Two_Tamar_in_the_Song_of_Solomon

 

The vicissitudinous life of Solomon’s pulchritudinous wife. Part Three: Tamar (Abishag) as the “Queen of Sheba”

 

https://www.academia.edu/34495117/The_vicissitudinous_life_of_Solomon_s_pulchritudinous_wife._Part_Three_Tamar_Abishag_as_the_Queen_of_Sheba_

 

Professor Henry Breasted had made a point relevant to my theme of Greek appropriation – and in connection too with the Solomonic era (revised). Hatshepsut’s marvellous temple structure at Deir el-Bahri, he said, was “a sure witness to the fact that the Egyptians had developed architectural styles for which the Greeks later would be credited as the originators” (A History of Egypt, 2nd ed., NY (Scribner, 1924), p. 274).

 

One need not necessarily perhaps always accuse the Greeks of a malicious corruption of earlier traditions, but perhaps rather of a ‘collective amnaesia’, to use a Velikovskian term; the sort of forgetfulness by the Greek nation as alluded to in Plato’s Timaeus.

 

There is also to be considered that the Phoenicians and/or Jews had migrated to Greece. In 1 Maccabees 12:21 [Areios king of the Spartans, to Onias the high priest, greetings: “A document has been found stating that the Spartans and the Jews are brothers; both nations descended from Abraham.” Areus, der König zu Sparta, entbietet Onias, dem Hohenpriester, seinen Gruß. “Wir finden in unsern alten Schriften, daß die von Sparta und die Juden Brüder sind, dieweil beide Völker von Abraham herkommen.” 1. Macc. 12:20, 21, The New American Bible, 1970], for instance, the Spartans claim to have been, like the Jews, descendants of Abraham. By this late stage the earlier histories would already have been well and truly corrupted. The Abrahamic emigrants would naturally have carried their folklore – not to mention their architectural expertise – to the Greek archipelago where it would inevitably have undergone local adaptation.

 

 

 

Achior and Demaratus

Published February 6, 2019 by amaic
Image result for demaratus sparta

by

Damien F. Mackey

Several commentators compare the exchange … between

Holophernes and Achior to a discussion between the Persian ruler

Xerxes and the exiled Spartan king Demaratus found in Herodotus …”.

 Deborah Levine Gera

 

 

That the Jewish (Simeonite) heroine, Judith, and her deeds have been picked up in various pseudo-histories and mythologies, both BC and (supposedly) AD, I have shown in my series:

 

World Renowned Judith of Bethulia

https://www.academia.edu/37051861/World_Renowned_Judith_of_Bethulia

Another important character in the Book of Judith, Achior, has similarly been reproduced.

I gave an example of this in my university thesis:

 

A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah

and its Background

AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf

(Volume Two, p. 60, n. 1286):

 

This fiery confrontation between the commander-in-chief, his subordinates and Achior would be, I suggest – following on from my earlier comments about Greco-Persian appropriations – where Homer got his idea for the main theme of The Iliad: namely the argument at the siege of Troy between Agamemnon, supreme commander of the Greeks, and the renowned Achilles (Achior?). ….

 

Deborah Levine Gera has drawn a comparison between the Achior of the Book of Judith and the Spartan king Demaratus in Herodotus (Judith. Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature, 2013), which is rather interesting in light of the statement in I Maccabees 12:20-21 that the Spartans were, like the Jews, descendants of Abraham: “Arius, king of the Spartans, to Onias the high priest, greeting. It has been found in writing concerning the Spartans and the Jews that they are brethren and are of the family of Abraham”.

On p. 200, she writes:

 

Achior is also associated with two figures found outside biblical literature, the Assyrian sage Ahiqar ….

 

Mackey’s comment: In my university thesis, but also in articles such as:

 

“Arioch, King of the Elymeans” (Judith 1:6)

https://www.academia.edu/28190921/_Arioch_King_of_the_Elymeans_Judith_1_6_

I have estabished this very connection between Achior and “the Assyrian sage Ahiqar”. But this Ahiqar was not, as Deborah Levine Gera describes next, a “pagan”, nor was he ethnically “Assyrian”. He was an Israelite (Naphtalian) captive in Assyrian Nineveh.

Deborah Levine Gera continues:

 

…. and the Herodotean wise adviser, the Spartan Demaratus. Ahiqar, the pagan wise man who had a checkered career at the court of Sennacherib and Esarhaddon, and produced a series of of maxims and proverbs, may have been an actual historical Assyrian [sic] figure. Like Achior, Ahiqar is a good pagan [sic] who is persecuted by the powerful, but ultimately receives his due. The earliest surviving version of Ahiqar’s story is in Aramaic, found in fragmentary bits of the fifth century B.C.E. Elephantine papyri, but there are Greek, Arabic, Armenian, and Syriac versions as well. The tale was probably Assyrian in origin and clearly was popular in the East, among Jews as well as gentiles; see the useful survey of Lindenberger (1985, 479–493). Thus we find a Jewish Ahiqar in the Book of Tobit (1:21–22; 2:10; 11:19; 14:10). There, Ahiqar is said to be Tobit’s nephew, and he helps Tobit return to Nineveh, interceding on his behalf with Esarhaddon. He cares for the blind Tobit for two years and shares in the joy of the happy end of his story. We also hear of the bad behavior of Nadin, the adopted nephew of Ahiqar.

 

Mackey’s comment: This “Nadin” is, as I have explained:

 

“Nadin” (Nadab) of Tobit is the “Holofernes” of Judith

https://www.academia.edu/36576110/_Nadin_Nadab_of_Tobit_is_the_Holofernes_of_Judith

Deborah Levine Gera continues:

 

The Vulgate Tobit 11:20 has a reading “Achior” for the Greek Αξιαξαρο« or Αξικαρ (Tobit 11:19 short and long versions) …

 

Mackey’s comment: That is because Judith’s “Achior” is the Vulgate Tobit’s “Achior”,

 

and this may have influenced modern commentators who link the two figures; see Schmitz (2004b, 20–21 nn. 4-8).

There is a resemblance of sorts between the Ahiqar of Tobit (“converted” to Judaism by the author of Tobit, as it were) and Achior of Judith (a pagan who converts to Judaism in the course of the tale): both combine theoretical wisdom with actual deeds. Indeed Achior will later apply his theological speech to himself personally when he converts to Judaism (14:10); see further Cazelles (1951) and Schmitz (2004b).

Several commentators compare the exchange here between Holophernes [Holofernes] and Achior to a discussion between the Persian ruler Xerxes and the exiled Spartan king Demaratus found in Herodotus (Hdt. 7.101-104).

 

Mackey’s comment: This strengthens me in my view that the Herodotean “Xerxes” was a non-historical composite character. See e.g. my article:

 

King ‘Xerxes’. Part One: ‘Xerxes’ and Sennacherib

https://www.academia.edu/25282804/King_Xerxes_._Part_One_Xerxes_and_Sennacherib

Deborah Levine Gera continues:

 

Xerxes questions Demaratus about the Spartanswillingness to fight the much larger Persian army and Demaratus, speaking freely, contrasts Spartan courage, ability to wage war, and love of freedom with the Persian way of life. Both Achior and Demaratus describe the characteristics of a foreign people to an enemy leader about to go to war, but Demaratus concentrates on the Greek way of life, while Achior deals chiefly with the history of the Jews and their relationship with their God. Thus the chief parallel between the Xerxes-Demaratus scene and the encounter here between Holophernes and Achior is in the function of the speeches, rather than their content, as Schmitz (2004b) notes. ….

 

Mackey’s comment: As I also noted in my thesis, B. Childs (Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis, Studies in Biblical Theology, Second Series 3-4, SCM Press, London, 1967) had discerned some degree of commonality between the speech of Achior to Holofernes, in the Book of Judith, and that of the Rabshakeh of Sennacherib’s army, with which high official I had further identified Achior/Ahiqar in my thesis.

Thus I wrote (Volume Two, p. 9):

 

Most interestingly, Childs – who has subjected the Rabshakeh’s speech to a searching form-critical analysis, also identifying its true Near Eastern genre – has considered it as well in relation to an aspect of the speech of [the Book of Judith’s Achior (who I shall actually be identifying with this Rabshakeh in Chapter 2, e.g. pp. 46-47) to Holofernes (Judith 5:20f.). ….

Ahiqar and Aesop

Published February 6, 2019 by amaic
Image result for seven sages

 

“The Christian writer Clement of Alexandria … claimed that the Greek author Democritus (ca. 460–370 b.c.e.) plagiarized from a stele of Ahiqar (tēn Akikarou stēlēn [Str. 1.69, 4]).

In this connection, the Persian Muslim philosopher Shahrastani (1071–1153), in a collection of sayings from Democritus, cites three sayings which agree very closely with proverbs from the versions of Ahiqar”.

Anchor Bible Dictionary

 

 

Ioannis M. Konstantakos in his scholarly article, “The Tale of Ahiqar and the Vita Aesopi” (Akicharos, vol. 3), draws “point-by point comparison between the Vita’s Babylonian section and the main extant versions of Ahiqar”:

https://www.academia.edu/3209219/Akicharos_vol._3_The_Tale_of_Ahiqar_and_the_Aesop_Romance._Athens_Stigmi_Publications_2013_616_pp

On p. 1 he writes:

 

The so-called Vita Aesopi (or Aesop Romance) is an extensive fictional narrative concerning the life and adventures of Aesop, the legendary fabulist. The original work, composed sometime between the 1st c. B.C. and the 2nd c. A.D., has not survived to the present. Among extant redactions, the G (transmitted by one manuscript of the 10th/11th c.) is the older one and represents more faithfully the original text. The W version, compiled in the early Byzantine period, is briefer and secondary; nonetheless, it preserves some authentic elements which have been lost or distorted in the G. A number of papyrus fragments (dating from the 2nd/3rd to the 7th c. A.D.) offer variant texts, not entirely identical either to the G or to the W. This suggests that the Vita was enjoying a complex and fluid tradition already in late antiquity. Part of the Vita (§§ 101-123, the so-called “Babylonian section”) is based on the Near-Eastern Tale of Ahiqar.

 

Other recent theories (by F. R. Adrados and S. Schirru), attempting to trace the core of the Vita back to the Hellenistic age or the 5th c. B.C., are not based on compelling arguments. The presence of Cynic elements in the narrative fully accords with the flourishing of Cynicism in the early Imperial period and the influence of its ideas and literary forms on authors of that time. The Vita illustrates many customs and realities of life prevalent in the Roman age. Aristophanes cannot have known anything remotely resembling the Vita Aesopi in its present form. Apparent echoes of Ahiqar’s story in the Birds are to be explained as products of a different line of transmission.

 

There is no consensus as to the identity and provenance of the creator of the original work (the “Vita-Author”, as he will be called here for convenience). B. E. Perry argued that he was Egyptian, but on unconvincing grounds: the cult of Isis, who plays a capital role in the early phase of the plot, was widespread around the Mediterranean; popular tales about the Pharaoh Nectanebo had infiltrated the Greek tradition since Hellenistic times and may well have circulated outside Egypt. The Vita-Author was not an enemy of Hellenic learning. He was an educated man, with access to Greek literary and philosophical works. His satire against the pedantic philosopher Xanthos and his insipid disciples belongs to a thriving Greek tradition of anti-philosophical lampoons, extending from the Clouds to Lucian. Antonio La Penna, on the other hand, proposed that the creator of the Vita stemmed from Syria, like other writers of that time maintaining an interest in Aesopic lore (Lucian, Babrios etc.). However, the Vita-Author’s use of Ahiqar does not imply anything about his geographical origins. The Tale of Ahiqar was available in Greek since the early Hellenistic period and was also current in Demotic Egyptian and Aramaic. In any case, the Vita-Author appears to have been keenly interested in Egypt and knowledgeable about its culture ….

 

The present study offers a detailed, point-by-point comparison between the Vita’s Babylonian section and the main extant versions of Ahiqar: both the earliest Aramaic text (from the 5th-c. papyrus of Elephantine) and the most notable later recensions, which circulated in various languages during late antiquity and the Middle Ages (Syriac, Armenian, Arabic, Neo-Aramaic, Old Slavonic, Ethiopic, Old Turkish, Romanian). In this way, the form of Ahiqar known and exploited by the Vita-Author can be reconstructed. It also becomes possible to trace the changes made by the Vita-Author to his model, discover the reasons that dictated them, and investigate how the story of Ahiqar was organically integrated into the Greek work. We may thus better appreciate the Vita-Author’s writing practices and compositional techniques, as well as examine the construction of the Vita as a coherent whole.

 

On p. 59, Ioannis M. Konstantakos begins to conclude:

 

…. Many sayings of Aesop correspond to items of the Elephantine collection or of the first sequence in the later oriental recensions. In most cases the similarities concern only the content, a common moral theme or basic idea. Frequently, however, the Greek and the oriental maxim also share common modes of expression, e.g. keywords, similar combinations of terms, or comparable syntax patterns. In some maxims the similarities extend to more developed formations, such as figures of speech, similes, parallelisms, metaphors and imagery. Sometimes the same distinctive combination of themes or ideas underlies both Aesop’s and Ahiqar’s saying, bringing them close despite their divergent wording. Finally, in a few instances there are strong similarities in phrasing and vocabulary, clearly indicating that the Greek maxim is a rendering or paraphrase of the oriental one. On the contrary, the sayings of the Vita which find no equivalent at all in any version of Ahiqar are very few: only three such examples occur in the fullest collection (P.Oxy. 3720), and one of them is too lacunose to discern its actual meaning or theme.

 

It is thus clear that the maxims of Vita §§ 109-110 are derived from Ahiqar, presumably from the model version used by the Vita-Author. In most cases the wording or ideology of the oriental prototype has been freely altered, but an essential thematic and formal connection to the original saying is retained. The parallels to Aesop’s sayings are found only in the first sequence of the later recensions, as well as in those maxims of Elephantine that belong to the same genre (i.e. moral precepts or apophthegms of general truth). ….

[End of quotes]

 

Here are two other examples of this theme of the Greeks (Aesop) having plagiarised Ahiqar:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270951085_Art_XIII-_Contributions_to_the_History_of_Ahikar_and_Nadan

 

….

Art. XIII.—Contributions to the History of Aḥiḳar and Nadan

M. Gaster

 

The history of Aḥiḳar and his nephew Nadan forms part of Eastern popular literature. When publishing my history of Roumanian popular literature seventeen years ago (Bucureesti, 1883) I devoted a special chapter to the Roumanian versions of this history (pp. 104–114). I was the first to recognize the connection between the Roumanian and Slavonic versions and those contained in the Arabian Nights. I then drew attention to the intimate relation between this legend and that which has entered the Greek life of Æsop. Since that time scholars have paid much attention to this legend, especially as through Meissner’s studies it is being considered as one of the lost Apocrypha mentioned already in the Book of Tobit. ….

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: “Aḥiḳar and his nephew Nadan”, above, I have identified as, respectively, the Book of Judith’s “Achior” and “Holofernes”. See e.g. my article:

“Nadin” (Nadab) of Tobit is the “Holofernes” of Judith

http://www.academia.edu/36576110/_Nadin_Nadab_of_Tobit_is_the_Holofernes_of_Judith

The next excerpt has been taken from The Anchor Bible Dictionary:

http://www.biblicalwritings.com/ahikarahiqar-person-the-anchor-bible-dictionary/

 

…. Several ancient writers mention a character whose name closely resembles that of Ahiqar; they may be referring to the hero of the book (Harris, Lewis, Conybeare APOT 2: 715–17; Küchler 1979: 344–46; Lindenberger OTP 2: 491). The Christian writer Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–215) claimed that the Greek author Democritus (ca. 460–370 b.c.e.) plagiarized from a stele of Ahiqar (tēn Akikarou stēlēn [Str. 1.69, 4]). In this connection, the Persian Muslim philosopher Shahrastani (1071–1153), in a collection of sayings from Democritus, cites three sayings which agree very closely with proverbs from the versions of Ahiqar. Strabo (ca. 63 b.c.e.–23 c.e.), in his Geography 16,2,39, gives from Poseidonius (135–51 b.c.e.) the names of famous seers; among them he names Achaikaros as being among the people from the Bosporus. It has been suggested that Bosporus is an error for Borsippa, so that the Mesopotamian savant could be intended (Harris, Lewis, Conybeare APOT 2: 716). This must be regarded, however, as quite uncertain. Diogenes Laertius (3d century c.e.) provides a list of the works by Theophrastus (372–287 b.c.e.), among which is one named Akicharosa. If all of these intend the Ahiqar known from the story and proverbs, they show that his fame, especially as a dispenser of wise words, was early and spread over a wider area than the Semitic world. The same could be concluded from the fact that the Greek Life of Aesop borrows heavily from the story and proverbs of Ahiqar in chaps. 23–32. It has also been suggested that Ahiqar’s name should be restored on the 3d-century c.e. Roman mosaic of Monnus in Trier. In it there are 9 octagonal sections in each of which are pictured a Muse with a symbol of the art with which she is connected and an expert in that art or founder of it. In the section for Polymnia, the Muse often associated with dance and mime, is a figure only part of whose name is preserved. The letters -icar could well be part of Acicarus or Ahiqar (Lindenberger OTP 2: 492), though combining him with Polymnia is surprising (Küchler 1979: 352–55). ….

 

 

 

 

Ahiqar and Aesop

Published February 4, 2019 by amaic
Image result for seven sages

 

  

“The Christian writer Clement of Alexandria … claimed that the Greek author Democritus (ca. 460–370 b.c.e.) plagiarized from a stele of Ahiqar (tēn Akikarou stēlēn [Str. 1.69, 4]).

In this connection, the Persian Muslim philosopher Shahrastani (1071–1153), in a collection of sayings from Democritus, cites three sayings which agree very closely with proverbs from the versions of Ahiqar”.

 Anchor Bible Dictionary

 

 

 

Ioannis M. Konstantakos in his scholarly article, “The Tale of Ahiqar and the Vita Aesopi” (Akicharos, vol. 3), draws “point-by point comparison between the Vita’s Babylonian section and the main extant versions of Ahiqar”:

https://www.academia.edu/3209219/Akicharos_vol._3_The_Tale_of_Ahiqar_and_the_Aesop_Romance._Athens_Stigmi_Publications_2013_616_pp

On p. 1 he writes:

 

The so-called Vita Aesopi (or Aesop Romance) is an extensive fictional narrative concerning the life and adventures of Aesop, the legendary fabulist. The original work, composed sometime between the 1st c. B.C. and the 2nd c. A.D., has not survived to the present. Among extant redactions, the G (transmitted by one manuscript of the 10th/11th c.) is the older one and represents more faithfully the original text. The W version, compiled in the early Byzantine period, is briefer and secondary; nonetheless, it preserves some authentic elements which have been lost or distorted in the G. A number of papyrus fragments (dating from the 2nd/3rd to the 7th c. A.D.) offer variant texts, not entirely identical either to the G or to the W. This suggests that the Vita was enjoying a complex and fluid tradition already in late antiquity. Part of the Vita (§§ 101-123, the so-called “Babylonian section”) is based on the Near-Eastern Tale of Ahiqar.

 

Other recent theories (by F. R. Adrados and S. Schirru), attempting to trace the core of the Vita back to the Hellenistic age or the 5th c. B.C., are not based on compelling arguments. The presence of Cynic elements in the narrative fully accords with the flourishing of Cynicism in the early Imperial period and the influence of its ideas and literary forms on authors of that time. The Vita illustrates many customs and realities of life prevalent in the Roman age. Aristophanes cannot have known anything remotely resembling the Vita Aesopi in its present form. Apparent echoes of Ahiqar’s story in the Birds are to be explained as products of a different line of transmission.

 

There is no consensus as to the identity and provenance of the creator of the original work (the “Vita-Author”, as he will be called here for convenience). B. E. Perry argued that he was Egyptian, but on unconvincing grounds: the cult of Isis, who plays a capital role in the early phase of the plot, was widespread around the Mediterranean; popular tales about the Pharaoh Nectanebo had infiltrated the Greek tradition since Hellenistic times and may well have circulated outside Egypt. The Vita-Author was not an enemy of Hellenic learning. He was an educated man, with access to Greek literary and philosophical works. His satire against the pedantic philosopher Xanthos and his insipid disciples belongs to a thriving Greek tradition of anti-philosophical lampoons, extending from the Clouds to Lucian. Antonio La Penna, on the other hand, proposed that the creator of the Vita stemmed from Syria, like other writers of that time maintaining an interest in Aesopic lore (Lucian, Babrios etc.). However, the Vita-Author’s use of Ahiqar does not imply anything about his geographical origins. The Tale of Ahiqar was available in Greek since the early Hellenistic period and was also current in Demotic Egyptian and Aramaic. In any case, the Vita-Author appears to have been keenly interested in Egypt and knowledgeable about its culture ….

 

The present study offers a detailed, point-by-point comparison between the Vita’s Babylonian section and the main extant versions of Ahiqar: both the earliest Aramaic text (from the 5th-c. papyrus of Elephantine) and the most notable later recensions, which circulated in various languages during late antiquity and the Middle Ages (Syriac, Armenian, Arabic, Neo-Aramaic, Old Slavonic, Ethiopic, Old Turkish, Romanian). In this way, the form of Ahiqar known and exploited by the Vita-Author can be reconstructed. It also becomes possible to trace the changes made by the Vita-Author to his model, discover the reasons that dictated them, and investigate how the story of Ahiqar was organically integrated into the Greek work. We may thus better appreciate the Vita-Author’s writing practices and compositional techniques, as well as examine the construction of the Vita as a coherent whole.

 

On p. 59, Ioannis M. Konstantakos begins to conclude:

 

…. Many sayings of Aesop correspond to items of the Elephantine collection or of the first sequence in the later oriental recensions. In most cases the similarities concern only the content, a common moral theme or basic idea. Frequently, however, the Greek and the oriental maxim also share common modes of expression, e.g. keywords, similar combinations of terms, or comparable syntax patterns. In some maxims the similarities extend to more developed formations, such as figures of speech, similes, parallelisms, metaphors and imagery. Sometimes the same distinctive combination of themes or ideas underlies both Aesop’s and Ahiqar’s saying, bringing them close despite their divergent wording. Finally, in a few instances there are strong similarities in phrasing and vocabulary, clearly indicating that the Greek maxim is a rendering or paraphrase of the oriental one. On the contrary, the sayings of the Vita which find no equivalent at all in any version of Ahiqar are very few: only three such examples occur in the fullest collection (P.Oxy. 3720), and one of them is too lacunose to discern its actual meaning or theme.

 

It is thus clear that the maxims of Vita §§ 109-110 are derived from Ahiqar, presumably from the model version used by the Vita-Author. In most cases the wording or ideology of the oriental prototype has been freely altered, but an essential thematic and formal connection to the original saying is retained. The parallels to Aesop’s sayings are found only in the first sequence of the later recensions, as well as in those maxims of Elephantine that belong to the same genre (i.e. moral precepts or apophthegms of general truth). ….

[End of quotes]

 

Here are two other examples of this theme of the Greeks (Aesop) having plagiarised Ahiqar:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270951085_Art_XIII-_Contributions_to_the_History_of_Ahikar_and_Nadan

 

….

Art. XIII.—Contributions to the History of Aḥiḳar and Nadan

M. Gaster

 

The history of Aḥiḳar and his nephew Nadan forms part of Eastern popular literature. When publishing my history of Roumanian popular literature seventeen years ago (Bucureesti, 1883) I devoted a special chapter to the Roumanian versions of this history (pp. 104–114). I was the first to recognize the connection between the Roumanian and Slavonic versions and those contained in the Arabian Nights. I then drew attention to the intimate relation between this legend and that which has entered the Greek life of Æsop. Since that time scholars have paid much attention to this legend, especially as through Meissner’s studies it is being considered as one of the lost Apocrypha mentioned already in the Book of Tobit. ….

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: “Aḥiḳar and his nephew Nadan”, above, I have identified as, respectively, the Book of Judith’s “Achior” and “Holofernes”. See e.g. my article:

 

“Nadin” (Nadab) of Tobit is the “Holofernes” of Judith

http://www.academia.edu/36576110/_Nadin_Nadab_of_Tobit_is_the_Holofernes_of_Judith

The next excerpt has been taken from The Anchor Bible Dictionary:

http://www.biblicalwritings.com/ahikarahiqar-person-the-anchor-bible-dictionary/

 

…. Several ancient writers mention a character whose name closely resembles that of Ahiqar; they may be referring to the hero of the book (Harris, Lewis, Conybeare APOT 2: 715–17; Küchler 1979: 344–46; Lindenberger OTP 2: 491). The Christian writer Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–215) claimed that the Greek author Democritus (ca. 460–370 b.c.e.) plagiarized from a stele of Ahiqar (tēn Akikarou stēlēn [Str. 1.69, 4]). In this connection, the Persian Muslim philosopher Shahrastani (1071–1153), in a collection of sayings from Democritus, cites three sayings which agree very closely with proverbs from the versions of Ahiqar. Strabo (ca. 63 b.c.e.–23 c.e.), in his Geography 16,2,39, gives from Poseidonius (135–51 b.c.e.) the names of famous seers; among them he names Achaikaros as being among the people from the Bosporus. It has been suggested that Bosporus is an error for Borsippa, so that the Mesopotamian savant could be intended (Harris, Lewis, Conybeare APOT 2: 716). This must be regarded, however, as quite uncertain. Diogenes Laertius (3d century c.e.) provides a list of the works by Theophrastus (372–287 b.c.e.), among which is one named Akicharosa. If all of these intend the Ahiqar known from the story and proverbs, they show that his fame, especially as a dispenser of wise words, was early and spread over a wider area than the Semitic world. The same could be concluded from the fact that the Greek Life of Aesop borrows heavily from the story and proverbs of Ahiqar in chaps. 23–32. It has also been suggested that Ahiqar’s name should be restored on the 3d-century c.e. Roman mosaic of Monnus in Trier. In it there are 9 octagonal sections in each of which are pictured a Muse with a symbol of the art with which she is connected and an expert in that art or founder of it. In the section for Polymnia, the Muse often associated with dance and mime, is a figure only part of whose name is preserved. The letters -icar could well be part of Acicarus or Ahiqar (Lindenberger OTP 2: 492), though combining him with Polymnia is surprising (Küchler 1979: 352–55). ….

 

 

Durie’s Verdict: No Mohammed

Published February 3, 2019 by amaic
Image result for mark durie

by

Damien F. Mackey

 

“There is no physical evidence that Mecca existed at the time of Muḥammad.

It is also striking that recurring place names in the Qur’an, Thamūd, Madyan (Midian),

and Ād, all refer to localities well to the north of Mecca and Medina.

Another issue is the observation in Q37:137–38 that the Qur’an’s audience can pass by the remains of Lūṭ’s [Lot’s] people in the morning and by night. The Biblical account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is associated with the region around the Dead Sea…”.

 Mark Durie

 

Last night (1st February, 2019) I watched Andrew Bolt’s fascinating interview of Mark Durie on SkyNews in relation to the pastor and linguist’s controversial new book on Islam’s Qur’an, The Qur’an and its Biblical Reflexes. Investigations into the Genesis of a Religion (Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, August, 2018).

The interview further confirmed my view that the Prophet Mohammed was not a real, single historical entity. See such articles of mine as:

 

Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History

https://www.academia.edu/12500381/Biography_of_the_Prophet_Mohammed_Muhammad_Seriously_Mangles_History

“Scholars have long pointed out the historical problems associated with the life of the Prophet Mohammed and the history of Islam, with some going even so far as to cast doubt upon Mohammed’s actual existence. Biblico-historical events, normally separated the one from the other by many centuries, are re-cast as contemporaneous in the Islamic texts. Muslim author, Ahmed Osman, has waxed so bold as to squeeze, into the one Egyptian dynasty, the Eighteenth, persons supposed to span more than one and a half millennia.
Now, as I intend to demonstrate in this article, biblico-historical events that occurred during the neo-Assyrian era of the C8th BC, and then later on, in the Persian era, have found their way into the biography of Mohammed supposedly of the C7th AD”.

 

Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History. Part One (b, ii): Mohammed and Nineveh

https://www.academia.edu/30409580/Biography_of_the_Prophet_Mohammed_Muhammad_Seriously_Mangles_History._Part_One_b_ii_Mohammed_and_Nineveh

Andrew Bolt has summarised his encounter with Mark Durie in the Herald Sun:

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/did-muhammed-really-dictate-the-

 

DID MUHAMMED REALLY DICTATE THE KORAN?

 

Linguist and [theologian] Mark Durie has written a brilliant new book: The Qu’ran and its Biblical Reflexes.  (I interviewed him here.)

 

No, he concludes: the Koran was almost certainly not written when, where and how Muslims traditionally believe. Its Arab dialect, its geographical and historical references and carbon dating of its earliest copies suggest it was created earlier in an area closer the [abandoned] city of Petra than at Mecca or Medina.

 

In fact, the Koran does not even mention the creation of Muhammed, long worshipped as the Prophet, or actually the “Messenger”, who dictated it to his followers. Indeed, the Koran names Muhammed just four times, and the reference may just be a title: “Praised One”.

 

What’s more, the very earliest copies of the Koran do not mention Mohammed at all.

In any case, concludes Durie, the Koran is inconsistent with the biographies given of Muhammed in the sacred Hadith, or sayings of the Prophet, the first of which was not written until 150 years after his death.

 

Durie also dismantles the popular claim of apologists that Muslims and Christians just worship the same God, given that the Koran, too, mentions God, Moses, Abraham, Noah, Lot, Heaven, Hell, Satan and even Jesus – although this Jesus is not God’s son, and his mother is the sister of Moses.

 

Durie shows that while some of the characters of the Christian Bible have been borrowed, the Christian theology has not. Even the meanings of some of the most important of the borrowed words has been changed, so that Messiah in the Koran has come to be interpreted by some Muslim theologians as meaning simply that Christ had flat feet. (Durie quotes a former Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia on this point.)

 

The God in the Koran turns out be very much a creation of Arab society at the time – a God who shows compassion rather than love, and who orders rather than makes deals or a “covenant” with his people. Durie notes that Allah considers humans as “slaves”.

Crucially, midway through the Koran, the “Messenger” – with his followers getting impatient with waiting for Allah to punish their enemies – hears Allah change his message. Once Allah had [urged] tolerance, but now he tells the Messenger that Muslims may be instruments of his justice on earth. They may kill unbelievers for him – in commands that haunt the modern world. No longer need they leave future punishment of unbelievers to their God.

 

Durie’s book is meticulously researched and footnoted, and been praised already by scholars in Australia and abroad.

 

HERE is my all-to-brief Sky News interview with Mark Durie.

 

And here are some excerpts from Durie’s book:

 

Even the barest outline of the life of Muḥammad — that is, that someone called Muḥammad was the Messenger figure in the Qur’an, which was sent down to him first in Mecca and then Medina — is difficult to reconcile with contemporary historical sources and the Qur’an’s own internal evidence.

 

The Qur’an itself has scant information on Muḥammad, only mentioning him by name (written as m-ḥ-m-d) four times (Q3:144; Q33:40; Q47:2; Q48:29), but this word could also be an epithet meaning “praised one.”…

 

The name Muḥammad is also mentioned surprisingly rarely in contemporary non-Muslim sources until well into the second Islamic century, and when Muḥammad first appears, it is not in reference to a religious leader….

 

There is no physical evidence that Mecca existed at the time of Muḥammad. It is also striking that recurring place names in the Qur’an, Thamūd, Madyan (Midian), and Ād, all refer to localities well to the north of Mecca and Medina.

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: My argument that ‘Mohammed’ is a composite and largely (though perhaps not entirely) biblical character – very heavily based, in some aspects, upon Tobias son of Tobit (Book of Tobit) – would account for a more northerly (“well to the north of Mecca and Medina”) geography. Does not a “Media” (there to be taken as “Midian”) figure importantly in the Book of Tobit? See my article:

 

A Common Sense Geography of the Book of Tobit

 

https://www.academia.edu/8675202/A_Common_Sense_Geography_of_the_Book_of_Tobit

 

Back to Durie’s book:

 

Another issue is the observation in Q37:137–38 that the Qur’an’s audience can pass by the remains of Lūṭ’s [Lot’s] people in the morning and by night. The Biblical account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is associated with the region around the Dead Sea… The Qur’an again implies its audience was closer to the Dead Sea than to northern Arabia when it says “the people of Lūṭ are not far from you” (Q11:89)…

 

Another type of evidence which points away from Mecca to the Southern Levant is the dialect in which the consonantal skeleton or rasm of the Qur’an was recorded…. This implies that the Qur’an was originally recited in the Arabic of settled areas in the Southern Levant…

 

Muḥammad was active as a messenger from 570 to 632 CE, and the text of the Qur’an was reportedly standardized under Uthman between 650 and 655 CE. If the Islamic account of the standardization of the Qurʾan were true, we should expect extant manuscripts to date from no earlier than 650 CE

 

In the Great Mosque of Ṣanʿaʾ in Yemen, a cache of manuscripts was found behind a wall during renovations in 1972… Two leaves dated from 543–643 CE, one from 433–599 CE, one from 603–662 CE, and one from 388–535 CE… All these dates are too early to accord with the traditional account of Muḥammad’s life, who was reported to have commenced receiving Qur’anic revelations in 610 CE… Folios of the manuscript 1. or. fol. 4313, of the Berlin State Library, has been dated to 606–652 CE…

These dates are startling… Multiple instances carbon dating results cannot be reconciled with the dating of the life of Muḥammad, let alone the Uthmanic recension: the outer limit of some dates finish even before Muḥammad’s prophecies commenced.

 

This is a must-read, and not just for scholars of Islam. Buy it

 

 

 

Ramses II and Tirhakah

Published January 20, 2019 by amaic
Image result for tirhakah

by

Damien F. Mackey

“[Snofru] is said to have led an expedition into Nubia to crush a ‘revolt’ …

and to have captured 7,000 prisoners”.

Grimal

 

“The IREM of Upper Egypt rebel and are crushed by Ramses-II.  7,000 prisoners taken”.

 http://www.sanityquestpublishing.com/time/2k-1k/Egypt/NK.html

 

 

 

Pharaoh Sneferu (Snefru, Snofru), whom the conventional Egyptologists have dated as far back as c. 2613 – 2589 BC, seems to me to be something of an anachronism for such early times. Certainly, there is a disturbing lack of archaeology for his famous Nubian campaign, as attested by Torgny Säve-Söderbergh (“From prehistory to Pharaonic times”, p. 22):

https://unesdoc.unesco.org/…/attach_import_5f9b266d-d651-4d81-bff4-4e38018bc57e

 

These Egyptian enterprises seem to have taken place during a vacuum in Nubian history, and when King Snofru tells us that he “hacked up the land of Nubia, taking 7,000 prisoners and bringing away 200,000 cattle and sheep”, we are at a loss from an archaeological point of view, for no traces have been found of this population with its vast herds.

 

The fact that King Snofru mentions cattle as characteristic of the Nubian economy of his time indicates that his opponents were pastoralist nomads, probably living in the areas which are now desert which were more habitable at that time thanks to a more humid climate.

….

Many questions remain unanswered. This is often the case for similar periods when there are no archaeological finds to enlighten us about what really happened. ….

 

[End of quote]

 

Moreover, the numbers of captives Sneferu is said to have taken in his Nubian campaign seems to have been an excessive number for that particular period in time.

Grimal has written about it (A History of Ancient Egypt, pp. 67-68):

 

The Palermo Stone suggests that Snofru was a warlike king. He is said to have led an expedition into Nubia to crush a ‘revolt’ in the Dodekaschoenos region and to have captured 7,000 prisoners in the campaign. This is a huge number considering that the population of the Dodekaschoenos, effectively corresponding to Egyptian-dominated Nubia, was thought to be 50,000 only in the 1950’s. The account of this campaign also mentions the even higher number of 200,000 head of cattle, as well as 13,100 head of cattle which, according to the same source was obtained in a campaign against the Libyans, 11,000 of them are said to have been taken prisoner. ….

[End of quote]

 

There is much uncertainty as well about Sneferu’s actual length of reign:

http://wikipedia.moesalih.com/Snofru “Estimates of his reign vary, with for instance The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt suggesting a reign from around 2613 to 2589 BCE,[4] a reign of 24 years, while Rolf Krauss suggests a 30-year reign,[5] and Rainer Stadelmann a 48-year reign.[6]

And, as is apparent from the following Tour of Egypt article, there is debate as to his parentage; his dynasty; and his wife:

https://www.bible-history.com/links.php?cat=46&sub=3276&cat_name=&subcat_name=Snefru+

 

Snefru in Tour Egypt SNEFRU, 1ST KING OF EGYPT’S 4TH DYNASTY by Jimmy Dunn Snefru is credited as being the first pharaoh of Egypt’s 4th Dynasty.

…. Snefru was most likely the son of Huni, his predecessor, though there seems some controversy to this, considering the break in Dynasties. However, his mother may have been Meresankh I, who was probably a lessor wife or concubine and therefore not of royal blood. Hence, this may explain what prompted the ancient historian, Manetho (here, Snefru is known by his Greek name, Soris), to begin a new dynasty with Snefru. However, it should be noted that both the royal canon of Turin and the later Saqqara List both end the previous dynasty with Huni.

Snefru was almost certainly married to Hetepheres I, who would have been at least his half sister, probably by a more senior queen, in order to legitimize his rule. ….

 

[End of quote]

 

First new consideration

 

Sneferu may have been hopelessly misplaced in the arrangement of pharaohs and dynasties. And a possible identification for Sneferu much further down in Egyptian history might be as the similarly named, Snefer-Ra, that is, Piankhi, of the so-called 25th “Ethiopian” dynasty.

 

He, Piankhi, I have already enlarged by identifying him with the famous Tirhakah, having concluded: “Snefer-Ra Piankhi was Tirhakah”. See e.g. my series:

 

Piankhi same as Bible’s Tirhakah?

 

https://www.academia.edu/37451966/Piankhi_same_as_Bibles_Tirhakah

Piankhi same as Bible’s Tirhakah? Part Two: 25th (Ethiopian) Dynasty not clear cut

https://www.academia.edu/37479175/Piankhi_same_as_Bibles_Tirhakah_Part_Two_25th_Ethiopian_Dynasty_not_clear_cut

First Conclusion: Sneferu may be Snefer-Ra Piankhi/Tirhakah.

 

 

Second new consideration

 

Since the number of prisoners from Nubia attributed to Sneferu’s campaign – but whose plausibility is seriously questioned for such an early time – is exactly the same as the number attributed to Ramses II in Irem (Nubia), 7,000, then the possibility needs to be at least considered that Sneferu = Snefer-Ra (Piankhi-Tirhakah) was also Ramses II.

Piankhi in fact bore at least two names of Ramses II, Meryamun and Usermaatre.

Immense building, and fleet, programme

 

According to N. Grimal (A History of Ancient Egypt, p. 69):

 

“Not only is Snofru credited with the construction of ships, fortresses, palaces and temples but he is the only ruler to whom three pyramids are ascribed”.

 

In Part One:

https://www.academia.edu/38171411/Sneferu_may_have_been_misplaced?email_work_card=thumbnail-desktop

I put forward the, albeit controversial, proposal that pharaoh Sneferu – about whom there appears to be a fair degree of biographical uncertainty – may have been wildly mis-placed historically, and that he might actually be the same as Snefer-Ra Piankhi (= Tirhakah).

His achievements as outlined above by Grimal were phenomenal, and perhaps more befitting a later Egyptian dynast than an Old Kingdom one. This same comment would apply to the incredible amount of captives and cattle that pharaoh Snefru is aid to have taken from Nubia and from Libya.

 

Furthermore, I, having noted that Ramses II had also, like Sneferu, captured 7,000 Nubians, had proceeded to advance the further possibility that the composite Sneferu was also pharaoh Ramses II ‘the Great’.

I have already identified Ramses II with Ramses III. See e.g. my article:

 

New Revision for Ramses II

https://www.academia.edu/37465568/New_Revision_for_Ramses_II

Ramses II was a famous conqueror of the Nubians, just like Sneferu.

 

 

And, like Sneferu again, Ramses II conquered the Libyans

 

 

And so did Ramses III.

 

 

Moreover, the colossal number of cattle, 200,000, that Sneferu allegedly captured from the Nubians would befit a Ramses III, who “confirmed the temples in their property … half a million head of cattle, over 400,000 of which were the sole property of Amon”:

https://books.google.com.au/books?isbn=1317651723

 

Tirhakah a conqueror on a Ramesside scale

 

 

“…. the inscription was branded by the noted Egyptologist E. A. Wallis Budge

as an “example of the worthlessness, historically, of such lists”.

…. Petrie concludes that “Taharqa was as much ruler of Qedesh and Naharina as George II. was king of France, though officially so-called.” …..

 

The Sabbath and Jubilee Cycle

 

 

Further to my suggestion in Part Two of this series:

https://www.academia.edu/38177386/Sneferu_may_have_been_misplaced._Part_Two_Immense_building_and_fleet_programme

that the composite Sneferu (= Snefer-Ra Piankhi/Tirhakah) may also have been pharaoh Ramses II, I find that the pharaoh’s (as Tirhakah) list of captured cities seems to be identical, in part, to those of Ramses II ‘the Great’.

 

This is invariably interpreted by scholars as Tirhakah seeking to emulate an earlier Ramses II.

 

We read in the article, The Sabbath and Jubilee Cycle, pp. 114-117:

http://www.newbookinc.com/456-455BC%20AS%20SABATH%20YEAR-RETURN%20TO%20JUDEA.pdf

 

… Egyptologists were amazed to find a long list of captured cities written on the base of a statue found at Karnak which belonged to a king named Tirhakah …. Each city represents the greater region under the control of this king. This record not only states that a king named Tirhakah controlled Ethiopia, Egypt, and northern Africa, but it claims that he had some sort of sovereignty over Tunip (Upper Syria, west of the Euphrates) … Qadesh (Lower Syria/ Palestine) … and the Shasu (region of Edom and the Trans-Jordan) … as far north as Arzawa (western Asia Minor) … Khatti (eastern Asia Minor) … and Naharin (western Mesopotamia) … and as far east as Assur (Assyria) …and Sinagar (Babylonia) ….

 

In a footnote (p. 114, n.61), we reads this comment:

 

MarietteBey (KETA, pp. 66f), followed by Petrie (AHOE, 3, p. 297), and others, thought this list from Tirhakah was copied from an identical one found on a colossus which they believed belonged to Ramesses the Great (cf. KETA, Plate 385f). This colossus was identified with Ramesses II because his name was found inscribed upon it.

 

The article continues:

 

…. the inscription was branded by the noted Egyptologist E. A. Wallis Budge as an “example of the worthlessness, historically, of such lists”. …. Petrie concludes that “Taharqa was as much ruler of Qedesh and Naharina as George II. was king of France, though officially so-called.” …..

Despite the fact that these inscriptions are presently shunned, the ancient records actually confirm them. Severus (1.50), for example, notes that this “Tarraca, king of Ethiopia, invaded the kingdom of the Assyrians, Strabo speaks of a great king named “Tearko the Ethiopian” …. Tearko being the Greek form of the name Tirhakah. …. Tearko, he states, had led one of the great expeditions of the ancient world which were not “matters of off-hand knowledge to everybody”. ….

[End of quotes]

 

But perhaps, now, some of these inscriptions will need to be re-interpreted.

We have already found, rather surprisingly, that 20th dynasty archaeology may have been contemporaneous with the 25th dynasty (Tirhakah’s).

Also, we may now be in a better position to understand why Horemheb is associated with Tirhakah on an inscription:

 

Velikovsky had pharaoh Tirhakah contemporaneous with Horemheb. Part One: A new historical location for Horemheb

 

https://www.academia.edu/people/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=Velikovsky+had+pharaoh+Tirhakah+contemporaneous+with+Horemheb.

 

And why Ramses II is depicted alongside Esarhaddon, a contemporary of Tirhakah:

 

Velikovsky had pharaoh Tirhakah contemporaneous with Horemheb. Part Two: A second challenging inscription

 

https://www.academia.edu/38129462/Velikovsky_had_pharaoh_Tirhakah_contemporaneous_with_Horemheb._Part_Two_A_second_challenging_inscription

 

Dr. Velikovsky may well have got it right insofar as he had determined that Ramses II was a contemporary of Nebuchednezzar II, whom I have identified with Esarhaddon:

 

Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar

 

https://www.academia.edu/38017900/Esarhaddon_a_tolerable_fit_for_King_Nebuchednezzar

– though I personally would embrace a 25th dynasty identification for the 19th dynasty of Ramessides rather than Velikovsky’s choice of a 26th dynasty parallel.

 

And Dr. Courville  may not have been too far out, either, in dating the long reign of Ramses  II to the approximate era of king Hezekiah of Judah, as the biblical pharaoh ‘So’. Though Courville had the long reign of a now-aged Ramesses II concluding with the ‘So’ incident, whereas I think that the ‘So’ era would be far closer to the beginning of the reign of Ramses II.

Courville’s hopeful derivation of the name, ‘So’, from a Suten Bat name of Ramses II is far from convincing. I wrote of this in my university thesis:

 

A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah

and its Background

 

AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf

 

(Volume One, p. 266):

 

Now according to Courville’s system … Ramses II, whose reign would have terminated in 726/725 BC, must have been the biblical “King So of Egypt” with whom Hoshea of Israel conspired against the king of Assyria (2 Kings 17:4). Courville had plausibly (in his context) suggested that the reason why ‘So’ was unable to help Hoshea of Israel was because the Egyptian king was, as Ramses II, now right at the end of his very long reign, and hence aged and feeble. Courville had looked to find the name ‘So’ amongst the many names of Ramses II, and had opted for the rather obscure ‘So’ element in that pharaoh’s Suten Bat name, Ra-user-Maat-Sotep-en-Ra.727 (See also pp. 286-287). ….