“The Egyptian” of Acts 21:38 – an unlikely candidate for Jesus

Published December 16, 2018 by amaic

Image result for ancient egyptian warrior


Damien F. Mackey

Good luck to anyone who is able to convert the Jewish Jesus Christ of the New Testament, whose death occurred early during the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate, into a rebel insurgent leading a force of 4000 murderous sicarii (assassins) at Mount Olivet, or into the wilderness, at a point late in the procuratorship of Felix – and an “Egyptian” rebel at that!


Lena Einhorn has attempted to do just that in her, albeit most intriguing, book, A Shift in Time, and in her article, “Jesus and the Egyptian Prophet”: http://lenaeinhorn.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Jesus-and-the-Egyptian-Prophet-12.11.25.pdf


I, having read through a substantial amount of the material that Lena referenced for me on the subject, wrote her this my summary of it all:


Dear Lena,

Many thanks for your interesting contributions which I have enjoyed reading ….


What I got out of it, though, is not what you would have wanted me to get out of it.
Your showing how well Procurator Felix fits the biblical Pontius Pilate was a revelation to me.

St. Paul says to Felix that the latter had been a judge of the nation “for many years” (Acts 24:27), which could not be true of just Felix at that time (about a handful of years only).
But it would be perfectly true were Felix to be merged with Pontius Pilate, making for some two decades of overall governorship.

And, regarding the startling likenesses between some aspects of Jesus and “the Egyptian” – though one would be very hard put indeed to make of Jesus, “love thy enemy”, “he who lives by the sword will die by the sword”, “my kingdom is not of this world”, “render to Caesar”, a murderous revolutionary.

What happens is that the influential life of Jesus Christ gets picked up and absorbed into pseudo-historical characters, such as the Buddha (his birth was miraculous, he walks on water, he has 12 inner apostles and 72 outer ones, etc.), Krishna, Prophet Mohammed, and, most notably, Apollonius of Tyana, whom many regard as being the actual model for the biblical Jesus. Unfortunately for Apollonius, his association with Nineveh (destroyed in 612 BC and whose location was totally unknown until the C19th AD), renders him an historical absurdity – same with Mohammed and his various associations with Nineveh.

Also Heraclius of Byzantium for the very same reason.

Josephus has obviously merged into the one scenario, two very disparate characters: Jesus Christ and the Egyptian.

Hence some incredibly striking parallels mixed with some impossible differences.

My best wishes,




Pontius Pilate was a judge over Israel for many years

Published December 16, 2018 by amaic

Image result for pontius pilate


Damien F. Mackey


“Procurator Felix (52-ca. 59 C.E.), as he is depicted in Josephus’ texts,

in several ways appears to bear stronger similarities to the Pilate

described in the Gospels, than Pilate himself”.

Lena Einhorn


As professor Julius Sumner Miller would have asked: “Why is it so?”


Why is it that Josephus’s procurator Felix, conventionally dated to c. 50 AD, may better fit the biblical description of Pontius Pilate than does Pilate himself, conventionally at c. 30 AD?


The answer to this question comes fairly easy to a hardened revisionist such as myself.


Similarly, the question is asked – and I have answered it – why does king Nabonidus of Babylon (conventionally dated to c. 540 BC) better fit the Book of Daniel’s description of the Chaldean “King Nebuchednezzar” than does the historical Nebuchednezzar (II) (c. 600 BC, conventional dating) himself?


Simple answer: The Babylonian history has been over-extended and heavily duplicated.

King Nabonidus is very much like Daniel’s “Nebuchednezzar” because he was, in fact, Daniel’s “Nebuchednezzar” – {and Nabonidus was also the historical Nebuchednezzar II}.

And Nebuchednezzar II’s son, Belshazzar (also known as Evil-Merodach), the son-successor of “Nebuchednezzar” in the Book of Daniel’s famous chapter 5 (the ‘Writing on the Wall’), was simply the same person as Nabonidus’s well-known son, Belshazzar.


I have written by now various articles on this subject of neo-Babylonian revision, including:

“Nebuchednezzar” of the Book of Daniel


Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus



Instinctively now, therefore, I would incline to the view that Procurator Felix was so like the biblical Pilate because he was Pontius Pilate. No need, then, for any 20-year “time shift”.


A suggested procuratorial merger


The Bible never calls him Marcus Antonius Felix,

just “Felix”, which could well be simply a nickname.


My suggestion would be – as already strongly hinted in the first part of this article – that the Pontius Pilate of the Gospels was the same as the “Felix” of the Book of Acts.


Whether accurately or not, this Felix has come down to us variously as Marcus Antonius (Roman writers) and as Claudius (Josephus).


He, Pontius Pilate in the Gospels, is Felix in the Book of Acts.

This use of different names for the same person in different books of the Bible – or, in the same book, but recounted by different authors (or different sources), is not uncommon.

Thus we have found that the story of the abduction by “Pharaoh” of Abram’s wife, Sarai, in Ishmael’s toledôt, becomes almost like a different story at the hands (or toledôt) of Isaac, in which “Pharaoh” is newly named, “Abimelech”:


Toledôt Explains Abram’s Pharaoh





Now Lena Einhorn has well shown, in “Jesus and the Egyptian Prophet”, that the Procurator Felix of Acts fits the biblical Pontius Pilate, though without her identifying Felix as Pilate: http://lenaeinhorn.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Jesus-and-the-Egyptian-Prophet-12.11.25.pdf




Changing the names of authority figures in the gospel texts, in order to detect (or disguise) parallels in the historical sources, would at the same time be a simple and a radical intervention. It would with one stroke of the pen move the narrative to a different era, but it would also likely bestow upon these authority figures characteristics and circumstances which are not in reality theirs. When comparing the gospel descriptions of various dignitaries with those from Josephus, not only does such a pattern indeed seem to emerge; in addition, there is some consistency with regard to which dignitaries would change names, and when they are active. Procurator Felix (52-ca. 59 C.E.), as he is depicted in Josephus’ texts, in several ways appears to bear stronger similarities to the Pilate described in the Gospels, than Pilate himself.

As noted above, in Josephus’ accounts of Pilate’s reign we find no descriptions of robbers, nor of crucifixions of Jews, or co-reigning high priests, or open conflict between Galileans and Samaritans. Under Felix, and under Cumanus, we do.

There are other examples. Luke 13:1 reads: “At that very time there were some present who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.” This statement fits poorly with Pilate. To begin with, Pilate was not the ruler of Galilee, Herod Antipas was. Secondly, the only registered violent encounter between Pilate and the Jews occurred in Jerusalem – thus in Judea – when non-violent protests against the aqueduct prompted Pilate to instruct his soldiers “with their staves to beat those that made the clamour” (B.J. 2.175-177).

This stands in stark contrast to what occurred under Felix, in particular. Felix, unlike Pilate, was the ruler not only of Judea, but also of “Samaria, Galilee, and Peraea” (B.J. 2.247; the western part of Galilee after 54 C.E.). At this point, “the country was again filled with robbers and impostors”, a disproportionate amount of whom were Galileans,30 and Felix was exceptionally cruel in dealing with these insurgents. As Josephus writes: “But as to the number of the robbers whom he caused to be crucified, and of those who were caught among them, and whom he brought to punishment, they were a multitude not to be enumerated” (B.J. 2.253).

Tacitus, in turn, puts much of the blame for the emerging rebellion on Felix and Cumanus (Ann. 12.54).

There are other, more personal, examples: the Gospels attribute great influence to Pilate’s wife (Matt. 27:19: “While he was sitting on the judgement seat, his wife sent word to him, ‘Have nothing to do with that innocent man …’”). The Gospels also mention a feud between Pilate and the Jewish king (Luke 23:12: “That same day Herod and Pilate became friends with each other; before this they had been enemies.”)

In contrast, Josephus does not mention Pilate’s wife, and, more significantly, fails to mention any animosity between Pilate and Herod Antipas (Philo does mention one possible occasion of disagreement – when “the four sons of the king” [Herod] are asked by the people to implore Pilate to remove the guilt shields, or ensigns, from Jerusalem).31

Josephus does, however, describe a significant – and very personal – disagreement between Felix and Herod Agrippa II. The conflict concerns the procurator’s wife. Felix had fallen in love with Agrippa’s sister, princess Drusilla (A.J. 20.141-144). But Drusilla was not only married; Agrippa had forced her first husband, king Azizus, to convert to Judaism. Now Felix “endeavored to persuade her to forsake her present husband, and marry him”, which Drusilla did, thus “transgressing the laws of her forefathers” (A.J. 20.137-144; cf. Acts 24:24).

Hence, a prominent wife, and a personal disagreement with a Jewish ruler, are aspects of Felix’ life; not, as far as is known, of Pilate’s.

Yet another example: the text in Luke 23:6-7 does, if it pertains to Pilate and Herod Antipas, contain a curious tautology: “When Pilate heard this, he asked whether the man was a Galilean. And when he learned that he was under Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him off to Herod …” Since Pilate ruled Judea, and Herod Antipas ruled Galilee, the words “under Herod’s jurisdiction” seem superfluous. A more logical sentence would have read: “When Pilate heard this, he asked whether the man was a Galilean. And when he learned that he was, he sent him off to Herod …”

With Felix and Herod Agrippa II, however, the sentence makes perfect sense. From 54 C.E., jurisdiction over Galilee was divided between them – with Felix ruling over western Galilee, and Herod Agrippa II ruling over the eastern parts. Thus, the information that Jesus is a Galilean would not automatically put him under Herod’s jurisdiction.

In conclusion, there are in the Gospels a number of characteristics and events ascribed to Pilate or his times which, judging by Josephus, fit better with later procurators, principally Felix, procurator in the 50s (Table 1).

[End of quote]


The “Egyptian” of Acts 21:38


‘Are you not the Egyptian, then, who recently stirred up a revolt and led

the four thousand men of the Assassins out into the wilderness?’

Acts 21:38



My conclusion has been in this series that the reason why Procurator Felix so resembles the biblical Procurator Pontius Pilate is because he was the same person as Pilate.


The governor called “Pontius Pilate” in the Gospels is referred to instead, in Acts, simply as “Felix”.


This, I would suspect, was the Procurator’s nickname.


Admittedly, Peter and John do mention him by the name of Pontius Pilate in Acts 4:27, but this is I would take to be a direct quote from the Apostles: ‘Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed’.


My identifying Pontius Pilate with Felix (conventionally separated by some two decades) would, so I believe, account for why Lena Einhorn has arrived at her ‘time shift’ of two decades theory:




The length of governorship of Pontius Pilate would now, according to my own view, be much expanded due to the inclusion of Felix (and vice versa). That is why Paul is able to say to Felix (Acts 24:10): ‘I cheerfully make my defence, knowing that for many years you have been a judge over this nation’.


The Greek phrase for the words in italics (for many years) is:


Ἐκ πολλῶν ἐτῶν


Lena also claims to have found significant likenesses between the Egyptian and Jesus: http://lenaeinhorn.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Jesus-and-the-Egyptian-Prophet-12.11.25.pdf

Perhaps the most significant aspect of Felix’s procuratorship, however, is that if the 30s are devoid of strong Jewish messianic leaders, the 50s are not.35 And the most important of them is one that Josephus describes at length, in both his major works (A.J. 20.169-172; B.J. 2.261-263; cf. Acts 21:38):


There came out of Egypt about this time to Jerusalem one that said he was a prophet, and advised the multitude of the common people to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of five furlongs. He said further, that he would show them from hence how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down; and he promised them that he would procure them an entrance into the city through those walls, when they were fallen down. Now when Felix was informed of these things, he ordered his soldiers to take their weapons, and came against them with a great number of horsemen and footmen from Jerusalem, and attacked the Egyptian and the people that were with him. He also slew four hundred of them, and took two hundred alive. But the Egyptian himself escaped out of the fight, but did not appear any more (A.J. 20.169-172).


The description in B.J. 2.261-263 is similar, but more negative. And it adds the information that this messianic leader “got together thirty thousand men” that he “led round about from the wilderness to the mount which was called the Mount of Olives”. The ensuing battle is described in a similar way.


There are significant differences, but had the Egyptian been active in the 30s, instead of in the 50s, historians would undoubtedly have made comparisons with Jesus from Nazareth.

[End of quote]


Much of Josephus’s description of “the Egyptian”, for example the Mount of Olives aspect, does not appear at all in the brief biblical account, the location there being “the wilderness”.

Quite a difference!

Moreover, the chronology – the “recently” or “before these days” (πρὸ τούτων τῶν ἡμερῶν) – would be closer to the latter part of Paul’s life rather than to the time of the ministry of Jesus.


Josephus, writing after these events, had apparently confused the incident of the arrest of Jesus, well known as a Jew (Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:9; Luke 23:38; John 19:3), with the later revolt of the obscure “Egyptian” insurrectionist.


Two Jezebels are worse than one. Part One: Old and New Testament Jezebel  

Published December 2, 2018 by amaic
Image result for amaic two jezebels are worse than one


Damien F. Mackey



‘Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead’.

Revelation 2:20-23



No doubt “Jezebel” here is meant to be taken metaphorically, having in mind the original Jezebel, that notorious queen of the Old Testament who was the wife of king Ahab of Israel, for, according to the following testimony of commander Jehu to Jezebel’s son, king Jehoram – {Jehu would oversee the death of this first Jezebel} – she was, just like her ‘re-incarnation’ in the Apocalypse, an idolatrous and immoral witch (2 Kings 9:21-22):


And Jehoram said, ‘Make ready’. And his chariot was made ready. And Jehoram king of Israel and Ahaziah king of Judah went out, each in his chariot, and they went out against Jehu, and met him in the portion of Naboth the Jezreelite.


And it came to pass, when Jehoram saw Jehu, that he said, ‘Is it peace, Jehu?’ And he answered, ‘What peace, so long as the whoredoms of thy mother Jezebel and her witchcrafts are so many?’



This first Jezebel I have been able to identify with – thanks to the benefits of a revised history and chronology – the only female correspondent of the El Amarna [EA] letters, Baalat-neše:


Queen Jezebel makes guest appearances in El Amarna



The following article gives an outline of the two biblical Jezebels:



Bible Question:


Who was Jezebel?

Bible Answer:


There are two Jezebels in the Bible. The first one is found in the Old Testament, and the second one is found in the New Testament.


Jezebel – Old Testament


The first time the name Jezebel occurs in the Bible is when she is getting married to King Ahab in 1 Kings 16:31,

And Ahab the son of Omri did evil in the sight of the LORD more than all who were before him. And it came about, as though it had been a trivial thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, that he married Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians, and went to serve Baal and worshiped him. 1 Kings 16:30-31 (NASB)

She was an evil woman who killed many prophets of God while feeding and caring for the prophets of two gods called Baal and Asherah (1 Kings 18:1-19). In 1 Kings 18:20-46 Ahab, Elijah and 450 prophets of Baal gather to see, “Who is God?” Elijah puts it simply,

How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him. 1 Kings 18:21 (NASB)

What followed was a one-sided contest. The followers of Baal prepared a sacrifice but Baal never sent fire to consume the sacrifice even though the 450 prophets called to Baal all day pleading, “O Baal, answer us.” Then they even cut themselves with swords and lances and still Baal did not answer. Baal never responded. Finally, Elijah poured water on his sacrifice three times. After Elijah prayed, God sent fire from heaven to consume his sacrifice. Elijah killed the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:40). Therefore, Jezebel sought to kill Elijah (1 Kings 19:1-2).

In 1 Kings 21:5-25 Jezebel had Naboth the Jezreelite killed so that her husband could own Naboth’s vineyard. What a wicked woman! Eventually, Jezebel was trampled to death by horses (2 Kings 9:30-37). Then dogs ate her flesh, leaving only her skull and the palms of her hands. What a horrible way to die. Jezebel was a wicked, evil, adulterous woman who was fighting against God.


Jezebel – New Testament


The name Jezebel is used for a woman once again in Revelation 2:18-29. Here, Jezebel is described as a prophetess, a false teacher, an immoral woman and idol worshipper. She attended a church at Thyatira. She encouraged those who attended the church to engage in sexual sin and worship other gods.

But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. And I gave her time to repent; and she does not want to repent of her immorality. Rev. 2:20-21 (NASB)

She was like the Jezebel in the Old Testament. They share many of the same characteristics. God warned this Jezebel that He would punish her if she did not stop teaching this evil and repent. God not only warned Jezebel the teacher, He also warned her followers to stop and repent (Rev. 2:22-23).

And I will kill her children with pestilence, and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds. Rev. 2:23 (NASB)



Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a sharp contrast to Jezebel. She was a woman who committed herself to God and followed Him. Notice Mary’s attitude of willing submission to God when she agreed to become the mother of Jesus,

And Mary said, “Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word.” Luke 1:38 (NAS95S)


And Mary said: “My soul exalts the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave.” Luke 1:46-48 (NASB)

What a wonderful woman! What a contrast. This is the kind of woman God desires, one who is humble, God honoring and God glorifying.


Babylon and Avignon

Published November 27, 2018 by amaic
Image result for babylon and avignon


 Damien F. Mackey


“Especially significant was Petrarch’s image of the Avignon papacy as the equal to the Babylonian Captivity, the idea that the popes lived in thrall just as the Israelites spent 70 years in captivity in Babylon, an image Martin Luther embraced with alacrity”.

Matthew Bunson



For centuries, now, comparisons have been drawn between the biblical Babylonian Captivity of 70 years duration and the Avignon Captivity of the Church in France of approximately the same length of time.


At: https://www.gotquestions.org/Avignon-Papacy.html for instance, the question is asked


What was the Avignon Papacy / Babylonian Captivity of the Church?


with the following answer being given:

The Avignon Papacy was the time period in which the Roman Catholic pope resided in Avignon, France, instead of in Rome, from approximately 1309 to 1377. The Avignon Papacy is sometimes referred to as the Babylonian Captivity of the Church because it lasted nearly 70 years, which was the length of the Babylonian captivity of the Jews in the Bible (Jeremiah 29:10).

There was significant conflict between King Philip IV of France and Pope Boniface VIII. When the pope who succeeded Boniface VIII, Benedict XI, died after an exceedingly short reign, there was an extremely contentious papal conclave that eventually decided on Clement V, from France, as the next pope. Clement decided to remain in France and established a new papal residence in Avignon, France, in 1309. The next six popes who succeeded him, all French, kept the papal enclave in Avignon.

In 1376, Pope Gregory XI decided to move the papacy back to Rome due to the steadily increasing amount of power the French monarchy had developed over the papacy in its time in Avignon. However, when Gregory XI died, his successor, Urban VI, was rejected by much of Christendom. This resulted in a new line of popes in Avignon in opposition to the popes in Rome. In what became known as the Western Schism, some clergy supported the Avignon popes, and others supported the Roman popes.
The Western Schism gave rise to the conciliar movement (conciliarism), in which ecumenical church councils claimed authority over the papacy. At the Council of Pisa in 1410, a new pope, Alexander V, was elected and ruled for ten months before being replaced by John XXIII. So, for a time, there were three claimants to the papacy: one in Rome, one in Avignon, and one in Pisa. At the Council of Constance in 1417, John XXIII was deposed, Gregory XII of Rome was forced to resign, the Avignon popes were declared to be “antipopes,” and Pope Martin V was elected as the new pope in Rome. These decisions were accepted by the vast majority of Christendom, and so the Western Schism was ended, although there were various men claiming to be the pope in France until 1437. ….


And again at: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8903 we read:


The great Italian humanist and poet Petrarch wrote of the popes during the so-called Avignon Papacy:


Now I am living in France, in the Babylon of the West . . . Here reign the successors of the poor fishermen of Galilee; they have strangely forgotten their origin. I am astounded, as I recall their predecessors, to see these men loaded with gold and clad in purple, boasting of the spoils of princes and nations; to see luxurious palaces and heights crowned with fortifications, instead of a boat turned downward for shelter.


These pontiffs — all of them French — resided at Avignon, France, instead of Rome, from 1309 to 1377. The letters of Petrarch were a reflection of his own dislike for Avignon and his desire to see the popes return to the Eternal City. But Petrarch’s harsh caricature of the popes also has served as ammunition for writers, critics, and heretics ever since. Especially significant was Petrarch’s image of the Avignon papacy as the equal to the Babylonian Captivity, the idea that the popes lived in thrall just as the Israelites spent 70 years in captivity in Babylon, an image Martin Luther embraced with alacrity. ….


[End of quote]


I now find it rather intriguing that I had proposed in my article:

Not the Templars, but the enemies of the Jews, arrested on the 13th day of the month



that the famous incident when King Philip IV is said to have arrested the Templar knights, on the 13th day of a month (October), may actually have had its origins in the story of Queen Esther, King Ahasuerus – with whom I had then likened King Philip IV of France – and the evil Haman. More recently, I have historically identified Haman as the Jewish king, Amon (= Jehoiachin/ Coniah). See my article:


‘Taking aim on’ king Amon – such a wicked king of Judah




The drama narrated in the Book of Esther – and perhaps picked up in a garbled fashion in the later accounts of King Philip IV and the Knights Templar – would be cosmically ‘re-enacted’ in the great drama at Fatima, Portugal, in 1917, again on the 13th day (13th May to 13th October), culminating in the promised great miracle. See my book:


The Five First Saturdays of Our Lady of Fatima



The stupendous Miracle of the Sun, 1917, on October 13th (same day Templars were supposedly arrested, 13 October 1307) presages the ultimate Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary of whom Queen Esther was a type.

Maccabeans and Crusaders, Seleucids and Saltukids (Seljuks)  

Published November 24, 2018 by amaic
Image result for crusaders


 Damien F. Mackey



“Modern authors tend to accept as an axiom that in the twelfth century, there existed a strong identification between crusaders and the Maccabean warriors.

Penny Cole wrote, for example, that “in all essential ways the struggles of the Maccabees against the persecutor Antiochus . . . and by association, of the crusaders against Muslim infidel, are substantially identical”.”

Elizabeth Lapina




Elyse Sulkey compares – but also unfavorably contrasts, with reference to Guibert of Nogent – the Maccabees and the Crusaders, when she writes as follows in her article, “Guibert of Nogent: The Development of Rhetoric from Anti-Judaism to Anti-Semitism”:



During the twelfth century, authors began to reach back into the Old Testament to find biblical precedents for the crusaders, which eventually led to the use of the Maccabees as “proto-crusaders.”54 The Maccabees were a Jewish rebel force active in the mid-second century BCE who fought to reassert Judaism in Judea against the influence of Hellenism and the Seleucid Empire.55  The Maccabees made an apt comparison for crusaders because they used forced conversion and conquest to meet their aims, much like the crusaders.56 In his early works, Guibert followed traditional models of exegetical debate about the Old Testament.57

From the beginning of The Deeds of God through the Franks, Guibert set out to ensure that his audience understood that Jews, even the Maccabees, are lesser than their Christian counterparts. In the introduction he stated that he wrote his chronicle of the First Crusade because “[he] thought, if [he] may dare to say this, that it deserved being told with greater dignity than all the histories of Jewish warfare, if God would grant someone the ability to do this.”58 Guibert thus makes it clear that despite their accomplishments, one of his goals in writing The Deeds of God through the Franks was to elevate Christian crusaders above the well-known Jewish warriors. He does this throughout The Deeds of God through the Franks by demonstrating Jewish theological shortcomings, a technique often employed in anti-Judaic writing.


Later, Guibert further emphasized the higher status of the crusaders in comparison to the Maccabees. He retold the sermon of Pope Urban II in Clermont declaring that the pope had said, “If the Maccabees once deserved the highest praise for piety because they fought for their rituals and their temple, then you too, O soldiers of Christ, deserve such praise, for taking up arms to defend the freedom of your country.”59 The pope continued on to tell the crusaders they were fighting the Antichrist. In this instance, a comparison was being drawn that the Maccabees fought for their own sake, while the crusaders fought for God as well as the protection of their country.60 This comparison elevated the crusaders for their righteous, spiritual cause while putting the Maccabees in a realm of corporeal selfishness.


Guibert continued this critique of the Maccabees when he related the “despicable vanity of the Jewish people.”61 Though Guibert excused Jewish fathers now celebrated by the Church, such as David, Joshua, and Samuel, he accused the Jews of being a “wretched” people who served God only to fill their own bellies.62 Guibert then declared that these “idolaters” were given their victories, while the Christian crusaders were sacrificing to achieve theirs.63 While Guibert seemed to emphasize the disadvantages the crusaders faced, he later said “if celestial help appeared long ago to the Maccabees fighting for circumcision and the meat of swine, how much more did those who poured out their blood for Christ, purifying the churches and propagating the faith, deserve such help.”64 Guibert used these passages not only to demonstrate to his readers the weakness of the Maccabees, who needed worldly comforts and divine help in order to succeed, but to assure his readers that the crusaders would be victorious because of their greater sacrifice and true devotion to God. Later in The Deeds of God through the Franks, Guibert reminded us of his previous point by stating that neither Ezra nor Judas Maccabeus suffered as much as the crusaders for their victories.65 This passage also served to illustrate how the crusaders did not just possess purer motive and devotion than the Maccabees, but actually surpassed the accomplishments of their greatest warriors.66

[End of quote]

Region of Erzurum conquered by Seleucids, by Seljuks







The proximity of Erzurum to the important centers of civilization in addition to its natural conditions and geographical location made it one of the oldest settlement centers of Anatolia. Some excavated stone artifacts take back the history of the settlement in this area as early as the Paleolithic age.

The Macedonian King Alexander conquered the region in the 4th century B.C which was dominated by the Hurris, Hayasas, Urartians, Assirians, Cimmerians, Iskıts, Meds and Persians in turn after 3000 B.C.This region was reined by the Seleucids after the death of Alexander.Later on by the Roman Empire was the scene of the bloody wars between the Romans and Parthes.With the division of the Roman Empire into two parts in 395,Erzurum which was included in part of the Byzantine Empire changed hands between the Byzantines and the Sassanides a number of times. The invansion of the region by the Hun State which was established on the north of the Blacksea between the years 295-398 was the first entry of Turks into the region.In this period there was a city by the name Karin in the location of Erzurum and another city by the name Erzen on the west of the Erzurum Plateau in this period.Anatolius who was the general of the Byzantine Emperor Theodosius 2(408-450) who himself had taken the Erzurum region back from the Huns,had a castle built in the most strategic location of the region where Karin was located against the attacks that could come from Iran and changed the name of the city to Theodosiopolis. ….


Erzurum changed hands between the Byzantine Empire and the Muslim Arabs consisting of the Ummayads and the Abbasids until the year 949.The Muslims named Theodopolis as “Kalikala” which meant “Carpet City” Erzurum the population of which reached 200 thousand in the 7th century was one of the largest cities of the world at the time.The Seljuk Turks who entered the Byzantine territory in order to conquer Eastern Anatolia captured Erzen which was located on the west of the plain in 1048. The people who ran from Erzen which had been ruined after the attacks,found rescue in Kalikala and changed its name to Erzen. The original Erzen which that was ruined after the attacks,was later named as Kara Erzen and in time as Karaz. And the new Erzen was later referred to as Roman Erzen which in turn became Erzurum, the modern name of the city. …

[End of quote]


Preceding the article, “Great Seljuq Empire”: http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Great_Seljuq_Empire

one is cautioned: “Not to be confused with Seleucid Empire”.


“The Great Seljuq Empire (Modern Turkish: Büyük Selçuklu Devleti; Persian: دولت سلجوقیان‎) was a medieval Turko-Persian[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Sunni Muslim empire, originating from the Qynyq branch of Oghuz Turks.[9] The Seljuq Empire controlled a vast area stretching from the Hindu Kush to eastern Anatolia and from Central Asia to the Persian Gulf. From their homelands near the Aral sea, the Seljuqs advanced first into Khorasan and then into mainland Persia before eventually conquering eastern Anatolia”.


One might easily, however, confuse the names, Seleuc-id and Seljuk, or Saltukid.

Just as one may be excused for noticing many striking parallels between the Macabbees and the Crusaders, fighting to regain the Holy City of Jerusalem.


Elizabeth Lapina provides further such similarities at:






Narratives of the Crusades and, more specifically, of the First Crusade provide one of the most important clusters of references to the Maccabees – primarily the Maccabean warriors, but also the Maccabean martyrs – in Christian medieval sources. Many authors writing about the crusades used the stories of both types of the Maccabees, the warriors and the martyrs, to interpret current events in the Holy Land. There was a particularly large number of references in connection with one event: the Battle of Antioch, fought between crusaders and Muslims on June 28, 1098. Two more crucial references appear in the context of two more battles fought by Prince Roger of Antioch in the vicinities of the city: the Battle of Tall Danith (1115) and the Battle of the Field of Blood (1119). Although there seems to be no direct connection between Antioch and the Maccabean warriors, the city was of paramount importance for the Maccabean martyrs. Although the locations of the martyrdom of seven Maccabean brothers, their mother, and Priest Eleazar and of their initial burial (the remains eventually found their way to Constantinople and Rome) are uncertain, a number of patristic sources mention Antioch in connection with them.



There is no doubt that at one point Antioch was the center of the Maccabean cult. In one of his sermons, St. Augustine of Hippo argues vehemently that the Maccabean martyrs belong not to the Jewish but rather to the Christian tradition. As proof, he refers to a church dedicated to the Maccabees in Antioch. Augustine found it ironic and fitting that the city bearing nearly the same name as King Antiochus IV, the persecutor of the Maccabean martyrs, would celebrate those whom he persecuted.


In Late Antiquity, Antioch suffered an unprecedented series of disasters from which it never recovered. The Crusades, however, signaled a rediscovery of the city by western Christians. On their way to Jerusalem, crusaders stopped at Antioch and besieged the city for eight months. Within days of its capture, they found themselves besieged in turn by an impressive army assembled by Kerbogha, atabeg of Mosul. The lack of supplies was drastic, desertions multiplied, the majority of horses were lost, and reports were made to the Byzantine emperor Alexius that the annihilation of the crusaders was imminent. In desperation, unable to continue their resistance in the long-depleted city, crusaders opted for a battle, in the course of which they routed Kerbogha’s troops.


Apart from its purely military significance, the Battle of Antioch was at the very center of medieval conceptions of the First Crusade. For many authors, the triumph of crusaders at this particular point, when everything foreboded disaster, proved the extent of God’s support for the Christian side. For many contemporaries, this was made evident by a number of miracles reported in connection with the battle: the discovery of the Holy Lance; a multiplication of visions; and – most importantly for the present discussion – intervention of a number of saints, perhaps an entire celestial army, on the side of crusaders. In this manner, the battle would end up, to some degree, upstaging the capture of Jerusalem a year later. It is unclear what exactly the crusaders and medieval chroniclers of the Crusades knew about the importance of Antioch within the cult of the Jewish martyrs in Late Antiquity. When describing the city, crusading sources do not mention the Maccabees. One of the rare exceptions is the so-called Charleville Poet, who claims that Antioch was  very ancient: “The book of Maccabees asserts its [Antioch’s] existence, when the priest is said to have perished, next to Daphne.” The poet is apparently alluding to the assassination of the pious Priest Onias in the vicinity of the city, described in the Second Book of Maccabees (2 Macc 4:34). Still, it is possible that crusaders learned about the ancient cult of the Maccabees at Antioch during their interactions with the local population, which included a sizable Christian minority. At least some of the chroniclers of the First Crusade must have had access to St. Augustine’s above-mentioned sermon. And they were undoubtedly familiar with King Antiochus IV Epiphanes, whom a variety of medieval sources present as an Antichrist-like figure. Just as St. Augustine did centuries earlier, they must have been capable of constructing an associative link between Antioch and the Maccabees through the intermediary of Antiochus. Whatever the case might be, the connection between the city of Antioch and the Maccabees displays a certain degree of continuity from Late Antiquity to the crusading period. However, if in Late Antiquity it was the Maccabean martyrs that attracted attention …


Damien Mackey’s comment: On this subject, and for further Maccabean-Christian parallelism, see my article:


Hadrianic patterns of martyrdom


Elizabeth Lapina continues:


… during the crusading period it was the Maccabean warriors.


In general, medieval writers of history were always eagerly looking for biblical prototypes of later events and figures. While Maccabean martyrs hardly resembled crusaders, Maccabean warriors did. Maccabean warriors shared the name of the Maccabean martyrs, but, of course, not their fate, fighting Antiochus actively under the leadership of Judas Maccabeus. Both the Maccabean warriors and crusaders fought for control of the city of Jerusalem and took pride in the restoration of holy sites. While the Maccabees fought against a Pagan enemy, crusaders struggled against Muslims, whom they frequently associated with Pagans. Last but not least, both profited from divine help on the battlefield. Modern authors tend to accept as an axiom that in the twelfth century, there existed a strong identification between crusaders and the Maccabean warriors. Penny Cole wrote, for example, that “in all essential ways the struggles of the Maccabees against the

persecutor Antiochus . . . and by association, of the crusaders against Muslim infidel, are substantially identical.”


Indeed, Baldwin I, the second ruler and first Latin king of Jerusalem, was called a “second Maccabee” in the laudatory inscription on his tombstone. Describing the Battle of Tall Danith, in which Prince Roger of Antioch emerged victorious, Fulcher of Chartres exclaims as follows: “For when did victory of fighters ever depend upon the number of men? Remember the Maccabees, Gideon, and many others who confided not in their own strength but in God and in that way overcame many thousands.”



Part Two: Maccabees models for Teutonic Order


“This was interesting because I work on the Teutonic Order’s crusade in Lithuania,

and in the Order’s Latin chronicles the Maccabees are the main model”.

A reader commenting on Part One


I did a quick check on this subject at Google and found the following verifications of what the reader above has claimed regarding Part One of this series:



Here are just a few of my findings:




This study examines the religious and historical literature of the Teutonic Order, the brotherhood of warrior-monks whose northern crusade subdued and converted the eastern Baltic region during the late Middle Ages.Chapter One presents the background against which the Teutonic Knights produced their Biblically-inspired works. It establishes that the early years of the 14th century were a time of crisis for the Order.Chapter Two focuses on the Rule of the Teutonic Order and the Biblical foundation upon which its statutes rested. It was to this Rule that the Knights turned in their “generation of crisis,” and it was from this Rule that their Order drew its stubborn will to survive. The Rule rekindled in the warrior-monks a sense of Biblical mission and it inspired them to defend themselves not only with the sword, but also with the written word.Chapter Three provides an overview of the Order’s crisis-born literature; Deutschordensliteratur is defined and circumscribed according to specific documents, authors and themes. A work by work survey pays special attention to Biblical translations.The Order’s German rendering of I and II Maccabees is the subject of Chapter Four. The Makkabaerbuch receives thorough treatment as the work best typifying the literary efforts of the brothers. ….




The Maccabees as Role Models in the German Order

Henrike Lähnemann (Newcastle University)


Across the different genres of literary and pragmatic texts used in the German Order, the Maccabees, especially Judas Maccabeus, figure prominently as forerunners of the Teutonic Knights on a historical, typological and allegorical level. The main focus of this paper will be on how the Maccabäer, 1 the most comprehensive vernacular version of the Books of the Maccabees ever prepared, 2 adapts that material for the Order. 3 The framework for understanding the way in which biblical epic is presented is provided by the prologues to the

Statuten des Deutschen Ordens, in which the Maccabees occupy a key position ….





The Statutes of the Teutonic Knights: A Study of Religious Chivalry

Indrikis Sterns



We remember also the struggle, praiseworthy and pleasing to God, of the knights who were called the Maccabees; how stoutly, for their honor and their faith, they fought with the pagans who wished to force them to deny God, and, with His help, defeated and exterminated them so that they cleansed once again the Holy City which the pagans had defiled, and restored once again peace in the land.


  1. These struggles, this holy Knightly Order of the Hospital of Saint Mary of the German House has zealously imitated and has deserved to be graced with many honorable members, for there are knights and chosen fighters, who for love of honor and the fatherland have exterminated the enemies of the faith with a strong hand. They also, from abundance of love, receive visitors and pilgrims and the poor. They also from tender-heartedness, serve with fervor the sick who lie in the hospital. .





The defence of the Holy Land and the memory of the Maccabees


Nicholas Morton




This article explores the evolving use of Maccabaean ideas in sources concerning the conduct of Christian holy warfare between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries. It demonstrates that the memory of the Maccabees and other Old Testament exemplars played an important role in shaping the idea of crusading and its subsequent evolution to encompass new frontiers in the Baltic and Iberia, as well as structural developments in crusading, such as the establishment of the military orders.





Stapel, Rombert

Title: The late Fifteenth-Century Utrecht Chronicle of the Teutonic Order : manuscripts, sources, and authorship ….



425 The most notable biblical exempla used by the military orders are arguably the Maccabees: E. Poleg, ‘On the books of Maccabees: an unpublished poem by Geoffrey, prior of the Templum Domini’, Crusades 9 (2010) 13–56; Morton, ‘Defence of the Holy Land’; M.C. Fischer, ‘The books of the Maccabees and the Teutonic Order’, Crusades 4 (2005) 59–71.





The Teutonic Order: Politics and Religion in the Baltic Crusades


Collin Chadwick


…. Book 1 of the Chronicle of Prussia ends with the author directly linking the knights to the Maccabees, a Jewish family mentioned in the Apocrypha to the Bible who were said to have defended a realm around Jerusalem during the second century BC. Part of a tradition of drawing comparisons between crusaders in the Holy Land to the struggles of heroes of the 0ld Testament who battled to protect the Promised Land, the mention of the Maccabees is significant for its implications in the adopted crusading ideology in the Baltic. The Teutonic Knights compared their endeavors to those of the Israelites and Maccabees so they could style themselves as a new generation of defenders of the Holy Land. …. Even with the Holy Land permanently lost to the Muslims, the 0rder continued to use such Biblical metaphors to justify their actions in the Baltic. ….




Japheth and Iapetos

Published November 23, 2018 by amaic
Image result for nakedness of noah

Part One: Hesiod and Book of Genesis



“Neither has a speaking part, both serving primarily as genealogical agents,

sons of parents who are more significant, who themselves marry and have sons”.

 Bruce Louden


The biblical patriarch, Japheth, is often considered to have been picked up in Greek myth by the almost identically named Iapetos, and also in Hindu myth by Pra-japati, thought to have the meaning, “Father Japheth”.


Here Bruce Louden, in his article “Hesiod and Genesis: Iapetos and Japheth”, draws some connections between the biblical and Greek versions. He takes the standard line of pagan precedence over the Hebrew (biblical) account: “Japheth … may well derive from Hesiod’s Iapetos”: http://apaclassics.org/index.php/annual_meeting/143rd_annual_meeting_abstracts/


Each foundational for their respective cultures, each a combination of several of the same genres of myth, Hesiod and Genesis overlap in ways that remain under-analyzed. The tradition preserved at Gen 6:2 and 4, in which “the sons of the gods” (plural in the original, often edited out of translations) mate with mortal women and give birth to a race of heroes, is unexpectedly close to Hesiod’s Bronze Age (Works 155-69; cf. Pindar Olympian 9, 53-56).

Scholars have long recognized a number of Near Eastern elements in Hesiod (M. L. West: 1966, 1997), while more recent analyses (e.g., López-Ruiz: 2010) suggest Northwest Semitic ties in particular (Ugaritic, Syrian / Phoenician), the same context out of which Genesis is thought to have evolved (the Biblical Canaanites = Phoenicians). But Genesis also includes specific allusions to Greek culture (Javan) in the aftermath of the Flood myth. Noah’s son Japheth, father of Javan, appears to be the same name as the Hesiodic Iapetos, a specific intersection of both traditions.


Neither has a speaking part, both serving primarily as genealogical agents, sons of parents who are more significant, who themselves marry and have sons. Genesis 9:27 uses wordplay on Japheth’s name, “May God extend Japheth’s boundaries,” where “extend,” is the Hebrew, yapht, much like Hesiod on the name Titans (Theog. 207-9: Τιτῆνας . . . τιταίνοντας). Both characters are linked to their respective Flood myths (Iapetos is grandfather of Deukalion). Pindar, at a fairly early date (468), knows a complete version of the myth (Olympian 9, 40-56), and makes prominent mention of Iapetos. In Hesiod Iapetos’ brother Kronos castrates his father Ouranos. Japheth’s brother Ham sees Noah naked, passed out from drinking, and tells Shem and Japheth. When Noah wakes he curses Ham, but directs the curse at his son Canaan (9:20-27). ….


… many assume Genesis 9:20-7 is an abbreviated excerpt from a longer tale. The Talmud (b. Sanhedrin 70a) suggests that Ham originally committed a much greater offence, that he castrated Noah, or sexually abused him (on the basis of parallels between “and he saw” also at Gen 34:2 of Shechem violating Dinah; if correct, Ham would offer unexpected parallels with the Derveni Papyrus, López-Ruiz: 139-42).


Damien Mackey’s comment: For the true nature of Ham’s action and sin, I would agree entirely with the following version, except to suggest the alternative possibility that Noah’s wife, with whom Ham had sex, may not necessarily have been Ham’s own biological mother:



Noah planted a vineyard and got drunk. Then, Ham, Noah’s son, committed some act that resulted in a curse placed on Canaan. These happenings have been heavily debated by theologians: some say Ham saw that Noah was naked; some say Ham committed a homosexual act with Noah, and some say it is and will remain an unsolved mystery, but there is another possibility that we have accepted. We have concluded that Ham went into the tent and had sex with his mother; this union produced Canaan. When Noah woke up, he cursed Canaan, Ham’s unborn son. Noah didn’t curse himself, nor did he curse Ham, but he cursed Canaan and gave him the name which means “humiliated.” This is the only scenario that makes sense and here are our reasons for promoting this view:


  • The term saw the “nakedness of his father” (Genesis 9:22) is the same term as used in the Levitical law when dealing with incest (e.g. Leviticus 20:11 “And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness:” – KJV). This clearly means having sexual relations.


(b)  Noah knew that the result of this union would upset the balance between good and evil (1 John 3:12, Genesis 4:25).

[End of quote]


Bruce Louden continues:


In Hesiod Kronos castrates his father, but Iapetos has also committed unspecified offences for which he is punished in Tartaros (Iliad 8.479; cf. his name’s likely derivation from ἰάπτω [Chantraine]). Iapetos and his wife Klymene produce four sons (Theog. 507-616), three of whom are severely punished: Atlas, Menoitios (who seems most like Ham: Theog. 514-16), and Prometheus, referred to eight times as “Son of Iapetos.” Not only are there multiple points of contact with Hesiod, but after the flood Japheth becomes the father of Javan (10:2), the same eponym as the Greek Ion (from *Ἰαϝων). ….


Based on the congruence of these motifs, the characters’ occurrence at similar stages of larger creation myths, and Japheth’s specific connection to Greek culture (as father of Javan) we might best see this part of Genesis as having evolved in a dialogic relation with Hesiod’s account (cf. Louden 2011, which argues that parts of Genesis evolved in a dialogic relation with The Odyssey).


Damien Mackey’s comment: The Odyssey, I think, would be later, much of it being based upon the books of Tobit and Job. See e.g. my article:


Similarities to The Odyssey of the Books of Job and Tobit



Bruce Louden concludes:


There is no evidence external to the Bible for the names of Noah’s sons (Carr 162), and recent scholarship has moved the dates up for Genesis considerably (Carr passim). Elsewhere the Bible several times transposes other cultures’ divine names to human characters (Nimrod: Ninurta; Esther: Ishtar, Mordecai: Marduk). Though the resultant versions lack an exact match between the two characters (they do not occupy the same sequential position in their Flood myths), Japheth, who is absent from all other Near Eastern accounts, may well derive from Hesiod’s Iapetos.




  • Carr, David M. 1996. Reading the Fractures of Genesis. Westminster.
  • López-Ruiz, Carolina. 2010. When the Gods Were Born: Greek Cosmogonies and the Near East. Harvard University Press.
  • Louden, B. 2011. Homer’s Odyssey and the Near East. Cambridge University Press.
  • Wadjenbaum, Philippe. 2011. Argonauts of the Desert: Structural Analysis of the Hebrew Bible. Equinox.
  • West, M. L. 1966. Hesiod: Theogony. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • West, M. L. 1997. The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth. Oxford: Clarendon Press.



Part Two: Japheth and Prajapti



“In the Indian account of the Flood, “Noah” is known as Satyaurata,

who had three sons, the eldest of whom was named Jyapeti.

The other two were called Sharma and C’harma (Shem and Ham?)”.

 Emmanuel Enid




Bill Cooper has written as follows about the biblical Japheth, in “The Early History of Man: Part One. The Table of Nations”: https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j04_1/j04_1_67-92.pdf


(1) Japheth


Literally the progenitor of many nations — all the Indo-European peoples, in fact — it would be surprising indeed if his name had gone unremembered among them. As it is, we find that the early Greeks worshipped him as IAPETOS, or IAPETUS, whom they regarded as the son of heaven and earth, and the father of many nations. Likewise, in the ancient Sanskrit vedas of India, he is remembered as PRA-JAPATI, the sun and ostensible Lord of Creation.

His name was further corrupted and assimilated into the Roman pantheon as IUPATER, which eventually became that of Jupiter. None of these names are recognised as being of Greek, Indian or Latin origin; but are rather mere corruptions of the Hebrew name of Japheth. Similarly, the early Saxon races perpetuated his name as Sceaf, (pr. ‘sheef’ or ‘shaif’), and recorded his name in their early genealogies as the son of Noah, the forebear of their various peoples.



Again, we read at: http://emmanuelenid.org/index.php/about/58-sermon-notes-archive/bible-study-notes/we-are-family/895-the-descendants-of-japheth-indo-europeans-and-western-civilization of Japheth’s presumed wide-ranging Indo-European influence:


Japheth is the Father of the Europeans and the Indians (of India, not America)


To begin with, it is well known that Japheth’s name has been preserved in both branches of the Aryan family, which very early split into two major divisions and settled in Europe and India. The Greeks, for example, trace themselves back to Japetos. In Aristophanes’ The Clouds, Japetos is referred to as one of the Titans and the father of Atlas. Japetos was considered by the Greeks not merely as their own ancestor but the father of the human race. According to their tradition, Ouranos and Gaia (i.e., Heaven and Earth) had six sons and six daughters, but of this family only one – Japetos by name – had a human progeny. He married Clymene, a daughter of Okeanos, who bore him Prometheus and three other sons. Prometheus begat Deukalion who is, in effect, the “Noah” of the Greeks, and Deukalion begat Hellen who was the reputed father of the Hellenes or Greeks. If we proceed a little further, we find that Hellen himself had a grandson named Ion; and in Homer’s poetry the Greeks were known as Ionians.


Meanwhile, the Indian branch of this Aryan family also traced themselves back to the same man. In the Indian account of the Flood, “Noah” is known as Satyaurata, who had three sons, the eldest of whom was named Jyapeti. The other two were called Sharma and C’harma (Shem and Ham?). To the first he allotted all the regions north of the Himalayas and to Sharma he gave the country to the south. But he cursed C’harma, because when the old monarch was accidentally inebriated with strong liquor made from fermented rice, C’harma had laughed at him. In primitive Aryan speech the title Djapatischta means “chief of the race,” a title which looks like a corruption of the original form of the name “Japheth.” We know little about Japheth from Scripture, except that in Hebrew his name means “fair.” We know much more about his seven sons (see Appendix 11).


Out of the spreading of Japheth’s seven sons, there emerges a reasonably clear picture in which a single family beginning with Japheth multiplied in the course of time and peopled the northern shore of the Mediterranean, the whole of Europe, the British Isles and Scandinavia, and the larger part of Russia.


The same family settled India, displacing a prior settlement of Hamites who had established themselves in the Indus Valley. Isolated groups of this same people seem to have wandered further afield towards the East, contributing to small pockets of Japhethites which, in course of time, were almost, if not wholly, swallowed up by the Hamites. It is possible that some of them contributed characteristics found in the people of Polynesia, and it is conceivable that in the Ainu of northern Japan there is a remnant of Japhethites.


Noah had said that God would enlarge Japheth (Genesis 9:27). It seems that this enlargement began very early in Japheth’s history, but it has been a continuing process and occurring in every part of the world, with the exception of the Far East. The children of Japheth have tended to spread and multiply at the expense of the Shem and Ham families. This enlargement did not mean that Japhethites were the first to migrate far and wide, for wherever they have spread, whether in prehistoric or historic times, they have been preceded by even earlier settlers whose racial origin was not Indo-European. This pattern of settlement of the habitable areas of the world has had a profound significance in the development of civilization, a significance which is considered in some detail in another Doorway Paper.


It has been established by many lines of evidence that the actual names provided in Genesis 10:1-5 were indeed those of real people, whose families carried with them recognizably clear recollections (though often in corrupted form), of their respective forebears, so that they have survived to the present day, still bearing the kind of relationships that are implied in this ancient Table of Nations. And even the patriarchal name is often unmistakably preserved!




Moses and Cecrops

Published November 22, 2018 by amaic
Related image


“Just as Moses was the “legislator of the Jews” so the Greek myths tell us,

that it was Cecrops who first gave the people of Athens their laws”.

 John R. Salverda


Taken from:



Jerusalem’s History as Athenian Myth


What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? After even a cursory examination of the two, it is hard to deny that the founding “myths” of Athens share many curious and intricate coincidences with Jewish history and the symbolisms of Jerusalem. For as the founding myth of Athens goes; Cecrops (herein presented as the Athenian version of Moses), lead the Athenians up out of the land of Egypt.

He took a colony out of the Egyptian city of Sais, (see the Scholiast on Aristophanes Plutus 773). Diodorus tells us, “the Athenians, they say, are colonists from Sais in Egypt, and they undertake to offer proofs of such a relationship; for the Athenians are the only Greeks who call their city “Asty,” a name brought over from the city Asty in Egypt. Furthermore, their body politic had the same classification and division of the people as found in Egypt.” (Diodorus Siculus book 1 Chapter I.28.4). Similarly from Plato, as his ancestor Solon was told by the Priests of Egypt, “At the head of the Egyptian Delta, where the river Nile divides, there is a certain district which is called the district of Sais, and the great city of the district is also called Sais, and is the city from which Amasis the king was sprung. And the citizens have a deity who is their foundress: she is called in the Egyptian tongue Neith, which is asserted by them to be the same whom the Hellenes called Athena. Now, the citizens of this city are great lovers of the Athenians, and say that they are in some way related to them.” (Plato Critias). Just as in the story of Moses leading the twelve tribes to the promised land, so the Greek myth of Cecrops has him leading his people to the area of Athens and dividing the land into twelve districts. Strabo tells us that, “Cecrops first settled the multitude in twelve cities,” (Geography 9. 1. 18 – 20). Notice here not only the division into twelve but also Strabo’s reference to “the multitude” that Cecrops was accredited with settling at the colony of Athens (Sais = Zoan = Tanis = Tanit = Athena = Zion). It’s not my contention that there were two groups, both sharing the stories of Moses and coming out of Egypt, one going to Jerusalem and the other going to Athens, for it is more probable that colonists from Palestine (not necessarily Judeans) brought the stories of Moses to Athens long after the exodus, and even after Jerusalem had been established for a while. For it is not just the story about coming up out of the land of Egypt that they share.


Another example of how Cecrops was like Moses, can be seen in the writings of Pausanias, who says, “For Cecrops was the first to name Zeus the Supreme god, and refused to sacrifice anything that had life in it, but burnt instead on the altar the national cakes which the Athenians still call pelanoi.” (Description of Greece 8. 2. 2-3).# Thus even a kind of monotheism such as that which was advocated by Moses, who was the first to name Yahweh (Ex. 3:14), had [its] parallel in the Greek myth of Cecrops (however corrupt, he advocated Zeus as the “supreme god”). Notice also the bit about the “national cakes” in regards to Moses setting up the festival of the unfermented cakes. Just as Moses was the “legislator of the Jews” so the Greek myths tell us, that it was Cecrops who first gave the people of Athens their laws. Moses also wrote the universal founding story in the book of Genesis …


Damien Mackey’s comment: My own view is that Moses, substantially the author of the Pentateuch, only edited, not “wrote” the Book of Genesis. See e.g. my:


Tracing the Hand of Moses in Genesis







John Salverda continues:


… and it is evident that the Athenians were well aware of it, because it is used liberally, as I will demonstrate, in the foundation myths of Athens. Some even say that Cecrops invented writing, another allusion to Moses who is sometimes said to have invented the alphabet.


Cecrops was an anguipede (serpent footed,) this is noteworthy because wayward Jews blasphemously pictured Yahweh, the God of Moses, as an anguipede (This is such an outrageous claim that I implore the reader to look it up on his own. Simply search the term on the internet, there are dozens of sites anxious to malign the Jews for this particular idolatrous blasphemy.). Furthermore, don‘t let the fact that the history of Athens is full of serpents throw you off, for (besides the serpent stick carrying Moses), each of the twelve tribes of Israel had its own leader at the Exodus, and the tribal chief of Judah, was a man named “Nahshon,” which is the usual Hebrew word for “serpent.” So, while it was Moses who led the tribes up out of Egypt, it was this Nahshon (serpent), who led the specific tribe of Judah, the founders of Jerusalem, at the Exodus. ….


The Greek myths tell us that it was Cecrops who invented marriage (instituting monogamy), while among the Hebrews it was Moses who outlined the institution of marriage when he compiled [sic] the story of Adam and Eve in the book of Genesis … 2:23,24 (And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be as one flesh.). The Greek myths tell us that Cecrops was the first to recognize patriarchal paternity (Egypt was a matrilineal society). While Moses wrote [sic] Genesis 3:16 (Unto the woman he said, …thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.) in order to redefine the roles of men and women for the Israelites as opposed to the custom of their previous Egyptian overlords ….


The Garden of Eden had two trees and a fountain, they are mentioned all together at the same place in the narrative, “And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.” (Genesis 2:9,10). Many people think that the scriptural creation story was originally two stories rolled into one, but perhaps there were originally three or four (or even more) sources and it was Moses whose task it was to compile them into a single account. The story of Moses includes an outline of his “sin” for which he was precluded from entering his own “Eden,” a land flowing with “milk an[d] honey” the “promised land” because he had struck a rock with his staff and produced a fountain. The Greek myth about the founding of Athens contains a very similar motif when it comes to the contest between Poseidon and Athena, “the Sea-God standing, striking the rough rock with his tall trident, and the wounded rock gushing sea-brine, his proof to clinch his claim. Herself (Athena) … from the earth struck by her spear, she shows an olive tree,” (Ovid, Metamorphoses 6. 70 ff). …. In the contest between Poseidon with his miraculous fountain, and Athena, the well known goddess of “knowledge” (of “good and evil?”), with her miraculous tree, we have a kind of doublet with the myth of Pallas verses Athena, as to which version of the maiden would supersede. Was it going to be the fountain (of youth?), or the tree (of eternal life)? Apparently it would be the tree. The result of “picking” the tree was a massive flood. In the book of Genesis Moses tells us that there was a kind of contest between God and the Serpent as to whom mankind would obey. The people were allowed complete freedom of choice, in picking of the tree, mankind decided on the Serpent. God eventually brought the flood. According to Moses, a dove delivers to Noah, the olive branch in spite of the flood. The dove is symbolic of “the woman” delivering her seed, and in Greek mythology it is the totem bird of Hera (Her Latin name, “Juno” is the usual Hebrew word for “dove.”) the parthenogenic mother of Hephaestus, while the branch of the olive tree turns out to be symbolic of the Messiah. Logic propels us to conclude that in the parallel Athenian version of the tale, Athena represented the Serpent, while Poseidon represented God. In the Scriptural book of Genesis, of course, choosing the Serpent was a mistake and a promise was made to correct the error at a later date by means of the Messiah (a promise that was symbolized by the olive branch and as the seed of the Woman).


Now, it is not my intention to equate Athens with Eden, although the temptation is strong to do so (“Athens, a town said to be the first established in the world.” So says Pseudo-Hyginus, Fabulae 164), and I would not be averse to the suggestion that the names of the two places have a common ancestor. My point is that the two places share similar stories because the Athenian story tellers were from Israel and were well aware of the stories of Jerusalem and that Cecrops was actually the Athenian version of Moses, the stories that Cecrops told were very similar to the stories that Moses wrote. Specific motifs and themes that we usually associate with the writings of Moses in Genesis and Exodus were carried by Hebrews who migrated to Greece and set up Athens as a local rival to Jerusalem, (as they had done back home at Bethel and Dan) thus they turn up in the Greek myths as the foundation stories of Athens, this is the simplest explanation for the phenomenon. Some may even have been Judeans who had originally come to Thebes in Boeotia with Cadmus and then moved to Athens at a later date. Indeed, if the Greeks knew of Moses as Cecrops, and used the Hebrew alphabet, then there is no reason why they shouldn’t know something about what Moses wrote, such as the Theogony of Genesis and the story of Eden. After all, they do seem to have known quite a bit about Moses and not only mere generalities, but even down to intricate details of theological doctrine.


The olive tree is the well known symbol of the Jewish nation (Rom. 11:17-26), more particularly the olive branch is the symbol of peace (shalom), and is incorporated into the name of the capital city of the Jews, Jeru-“salem,” featured herein as the original concept of the Greek city Athens, which is also symbolized by the olive tree in the Greek myths. The symbolism of the olive branch is included in the writings [sic] of Moses, delivered by the “dove” to Noah as the remedy for the flood, some take it as the symbol of the Messiah (Christos “anointed” with oil, olive oil). (not to mention the, very ancient, Zodiacal character of Virgo who carries the “branch”) Athena (called Athena-Parthenos, meaning “the virgin”) was a female personification of the city state of Athens, “the virgin citadel of Cecrops” (Valerius Flaccus, Argonautica 5. 646 ff), in the same way that (the Virgin) Zion was a female personification of Jerusalem. “The virgin, the daughter of Zion, … the daughter of Jerusalem” (Isa. 37:22). ….




The people of Athens were a special breed, they had superior conditioning during their early developmental stage, by virtue of their ancient religion. The culture and institutions that were advanced by them were instrumental to the evolution of civilization in general and of free societies everywhere. What religion shaped this remarkable populace? They thought the people of their city to be the most ancient of all civilizations (Everyone else were considered to be “barbarians” even the Egyptians).


They believed that they had been tested at the foundation of their civilization by a great and jealous god as to whom they should worship, instead of the god they chose a serpent woman and her tree, making her their goddess of knowledge. This was done by the free choice of a woman. For their insubordination they endured a great flood sent by the angered god. They spent some time in Egypt, and considered themselves to be part of a great multitude that was lead up out of the place by a famous ancestral law giver. He taught them to worship the highest god, instituted patriarchal monogamy, invented writing and began an annual festival of cakes. He divided them into twelve groups and settled them in their new land. They had with them … an ark that contained the promise of an immortal king as cult object. They were warned not to look upon the secret contents, under penalty of death, but they had disobeyed. They set the capitol of their land at a city, represented by the olive tree (the symbol of peace), with a mountain, upon which they built their holy temple (the Parthenon, named for the “virgin,” upon the Acropolis). They placed in their temple their extraordinary ark. This city became the seat of wisdom for their nation. Do these themes sound familiar? How many intricate, particular, distinctive motifs does one need to see matched up in a series, before it is admitted that they add up to be no mere coincidence?

…. As heirs to the legacy of Athens it is no wonder that so many western nations are predisposed toward Christianity, this predisposition is a feature of their ancient cultural development. As they were familiar with their own ancient religion, a production of Judaism, they were well prepared to accept Christianity, which is in many respects, the evident culmination of that same religion, Judaism.