Friday, March 20, 2015

King Ahab according to Ginzberg: Legends of the Jews


Taken from:
….
 
In power and wealth, Ahab, king of Samaria, outstripped his friend Jehoshaphat, for Ahab is one of that small number of kings who have ruled over the whole world. (31) No less than two hundred and fifty-two kingdoms acknowledged his dominion. (32) As for his wealth, it was so abundant that each of his hundred and forty children possessed several ivory palaces, summer and winter residences. (33) But what gives Ahab his prominence among the Jewish kings is neither his power nor his wealth, but his sinful conduct. For him the gravest transgressions committed by Jeroboam were slight peccadilloes. At his order the gates of Samaria bore the inscription: “Ahab denies the God of Israel.” He was so devoted to idolatry, to which he was led astray by his wife Jezebel, that the fields of Palestine were full of idols. But he was not wholly wicked, he possessed some good qualities. He was liberal toward scholars, and he showed great reverence for the Torah, which he studied zealously. When Ben-hadad exacted all he possessed his wealth, his wives, his children he acceded to his demands regarding everything except the Torah; that he refused peremptorily to surrender. (34) In the war that followed between himself and the Syrians, he was so indignant at the presumptuousness of the Aramean upstart that he himself saddled his warhorse for the battle. His zeal was rewarded by God; he gained a brilliant victory in a battle in which no less than a hundred thousand of the Syrians were slain, as the prophet Micaiah had foretold to him. (35) The same seer (36) admonished him not to deal gently with Ben-hadad. God’s word to him had been: “Know that I had to set many a pitfall and trap to deliver him into thy hand. If thou lettest him escape, thy life will be forfeit for his.” (37)
 
Nevertheless the disastrous end of Ahab is not to be ascribed to his disregard of the prophet’s warning for he finally liberated Ben-hahad, but chiefly to the murder of his kinsman Naboth, whose execution on the charge of treason he had ordered, so that he might put himself in possession of Naboth’s wealth. (38) His victim was a pious man, and in the habit of going on pilgrimages to Jerusalem on the festivals. As he was a great singer, his presence in the Holy City attracted many other pilgrims thither. Once Naboth failed to go on his customary pilgrimage. Then it was that his false conviction took place a very severe punishment for the transgression, but not wholly unjustifiable. (39) Under Jehoshaphat’s influence and counsel, Ahab did penance for his crime, and the punishment God meted out to him was thereby mitigated to the extent that his dynasty was not cut off from the throne at this death. (40) In the heavenly court of justice, (41) at Ahab’s trial, the accusing witnesses and his defenders exactly balanced each other in number and statements, until the spirit of Naboth appeared and turned the scale against Ahab. The spirit of Naboth it had been, too, that had let astray the prophets of Ahab, making them all use the very same words in prophesying a victory at Ramothgilead. This literal unanimity aroused Jehoshaphat’s suspicion, and caused him to ask for “a prophet of the Lord,” for the rule is: “The same thought is revealed to many prophets, but no two prophets express it in the same words.” (42) Jehoshaphat’s mistrust was justified by the issue of war. Ahab was slain in a miraculous way by Naaman, at the time only a common soldier of the rank and file. God permitted Naaman’s missile to penetrate Ahab’s armor, though the latter was harder than the former. (43)
 
The mourning for Ahab was so great that the memory of it reached posterity. (44) The funeral procession was unusually impressive; no less than thirty-six thousand warriors, their shoulders bared, marched before his bier. (45) ….

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Colossal pharaoh statues of Amenhotep III found in Egypt’s temple city Luxor

Tourists and journalists walk past a newly-displayed statue of pharaoh Amenhotep III in E

Tourists and journalists walk past a newly-displayed statue of pharaoh Amenhotep III in Egypt's temple city of Luxor.Source: AFP

Egyptian archaeological workers stand next to a newly-displayed alabaster head from an Am

Egyptian archaeological workers stand next to a newly-displayed alabaster head from an Amenhotep III statue in Egypt's temple city of Luxor.Source: AFP

ARCHAEOLOGISTS have unveiled two colossal statues of Pharaoh Amenhotep III in Egypt's famed temple city of Luxor, adding to an existing pair of world-renowned tourist attractions.
The two monoliths in red quartzite were raised at what European and Egyptian archaeologists said were their original sites in the funerary temple of the king, on the west bank of the Nile.
The temple is already famous for its existing 3400-year-old Memnon colossi — twin statues of Amenhotep III whose reign archaeologists say marked the political and cultural zenith of ancient Egyptian civilisation.
“The world until now knew two Memnon colossi, but from today it will know four colossi of Amenhotep III,” said German-Armenian archaeologist Hourig Sourouzian, who heads the project to conserve the Amenhotep III temple.
The existing two statues, both showing the pharaoh seated, are known across the globe.
The two restored additions have weathered severe damage for centuries, Ms Sourouzian said.
“The statues had lain in pieces for centuries in the fields, damaged by destructive forces of nature like earthquake, and later by irrigation water, salt, encroachment and vandalism,” she said, as behind her excavators and local villagers washed pieces of artefacts and statues unearthed over the past months.
“This beautiful temple still has enough for us to study and conserve.”
One of the “new” statues — its body weighing 250 tonnes — again depicts the pharaoh seated, hands resting on his knees.
It is 11.5 metres tall, with a base 1.5 metres high and 3.6 metres wide.
Archaeologists said with its now missing double crown, the original statue would have reached a height of 13.5 metres and weighed 450 tonnes.
The king is depicted wearing a royal pleated kilt held at the waist by a large belt decorated with zigzag lines.

AFP

....

Taken from: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/colossal-pharaoh-statues-of-amenhotep-iii-found-in-egypts-temple-city-luxor/story-e6frg6so-1226862911031




Monday, March 17, 2014

Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky’s 600 Year Shift Strengthened




From: http://www.conservapedia.com/Jehoahaz_I


….

The monarchy period of Israel and Judah can be firmly dated as contemporary with the 18th and 19th dynasties of Egypt, which conventional historians have placed six centuries too early. This historical revision was first suggested by Immanuel Velikovsky, and much ridiculed, but has since been confirmed beyond doubt by revisionist scholars such as Damien Mackey[10].

….
For more up-to-date sites now regarding this study, check out:



Description of our AMAIC sites

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Gods, Heroes and Tyrants: Greek Chronology in Chaos




By Emmet Sweeney

Is it possible that the history of ancient Greece as found in the textbooks is seriously misdated? Emmet Sweeney is not the first to make such a proposal. That honor goes to Immanuel Velikovsky, whose series Ages in Chaos (1952) held that the whole of ancient Near Eastern history before the classical age was a fabrication.

Velikovsky identified Egyptian chronology as the source of the problem; and indeed the chronology of early Greek history, during the so-called Mycenaean period, was constructed along the lines demanded by Egyptian history. And, in a multitude of ways, legend and tradition agreed. For example, Homer's Iliad is full of references to the Phrygians, who were evidently close allies of the Trojans. Indeed, so intimate is the connection that we might suspect the Trojans themselves of being a branch of the Phrygian nation. Yet Phrygia, it is known, did not exist until the eighth century BC, when the Moschians, or Bryges, a Thracian people, migrated across the Bosphorus and settled in Asia Minor. Greek tradition is explicit that Priam, king of Troy during the famous siege, was a contemporary of Gordius, the first Phrygian king and founder of the capital city Gordion.

In this volume Sweeney explores the contradictions and "coincidences" that support a whole new view of ancient history.

Much of Greek myth is about the natural events of 850 BC and natural events which preceded them. This being the case, it seems reasonable to assume that the inhabitants of the region at the time were most probably at least in part ancestral Greeks. The culture of these Early Helladic folk was maritime and warlike. They raised great fortifications around many of their settlements settlements which tended to lie along the coast. They were already familiar with tin-bronze, which speaks of trading relations with Atlantic Europe.

When considering the source of the military threat against which the Early Hellads raised their huge coastal fortifications, we need to think of Atlantic Europe and Atlantic North Africa, where a mighty seafaring culture, contemporary with Early Bronze Age Greece, is also attested. And this of course brings us into altogether deeper water, in more ways than one.

....

Monday, February 17, 2014

Amenhotep III Shared Power With Akhnaton

 
 
CAIRO (AFP).- Egypt's antiquities ministry on Thursday revealed what it called conclusive evidence that revolutionary pharaoh Akhenaten shared power with his father.


Scholars had long debated whether Akhenaten, who tried to revolutionise ancient Egyptian religion, had shared power with his ailing father Amenhotep III.


The evidence came from the tomb of a pharaonic minister in the southern city of Luxor, inscribed with the cartouches of both pharaohs.


It was traditional for a minister's tomb to be adorned with the cartouche of the ruler.
The inscriptions found in the minister's tomb by an Egyptian-Spanish team dated back to a religious celebration marking Amenhotep III's 30th year in power, roughly eight years before his death and Akhenaten's ascension ....


....


Monday, January 27, 2014

On A Revisionist Methodology Using Alter Egos




Damien Mackey:
 
Yes ... I love alter egos. Presuming that they have some substance to them.
I believe that one of Velikovsky's really rock solid achievements was to identify the two EA Amurru kings with biblical Ben-Hadad I and Hazael.
The Glasgow School (when the British revisionists were really getting somewhere, but then unfortunately 'died') considered this to be a compellingly firm foundation (with Dr. Bimson even extending it to include the later Ben-Hadad as well).
I made this one of the very bases of my postgrad. thesis.
And I extended Abdi-ashirta (= Ben-Hadad I, a la Velikovsky) to equate to Mitannian Tushratta (= Abdu-ashratta). After all, we can't have two potent kings, perfectly contemporaneous according to the experts, running riot over the same territories and never clashing, now can we?
Why?
Because it is the one and the same Syro-Mitannian king.
Tushratta's access to the statue of Ishtar at Nineveh made him then possibly also the formidable Ashurnasirpal II, considering that Mitannian territory also encroached on Assyria.
This Ben Hadad I was an absolute master king, with 32 other kings in train. Way bigger than Hammurabi (Solomon) and Iarim-Lim (Hiram). His army was 120,000 strong, the same as Shalmaneser III's.
Now, isn't that interesting?
Rib-Addi complained that he (as Abdi-ashirta) was an aspiring king of Mitanni and Kasse. I believe that he ultimately mastered all of these.
 
....

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Comparisons between Elijah and Jonah




Taken from:

....


The conductor of this symphony has all of his pieces in place. The genre is satire, the satire is signaled by irony, and we know that he has a propensity to rework earlier Old Testament narratives. Let’s listen now as Jonah faces this music. The narrator begins in 1:1 by placing Jonah in the eighth century, possibly as a contemporary of Amos and Hosea; even the Rabbis are unanimous in identifying Jonah with the prophet Jonah mentioned in 2 Kings 14:25. With this connection to 2 Kings 14:25 Jonah appears as the last in the sequence of prophets in the Northern Kingdom; Ahijah (1 Kings 11:29-39; 14:1-18), Jehu (1 Kings 16:7-12), some unnamed prophets (1 Kings 20:13-22, 28), Micaiah ben Imlah (1 Kings 22) and Elijah and Elisha (1 Kings 17 – 2 Kings 13).



Because Jonah comes in the sequence after Elijah and Elisha many phrases from its narrative find their closest biblical parallels in these narratives about the two great prophets from the North. An account involving a great fish (2:1) as well as a small worm (4:7) would not have been out of place in the Elijah/Elisha cycle. These narratives in Kings recount encounters between prophets and ravens (1 Kings 17:4-6) and bears (2 Kings 2:23-25). The narrative of Jonah could have easily been placed after the reference to Jonah son of Amittai in 2 Kings 14:25 and not interrupt the narrative flow of 2 Kings to any great degree. In this way we are invited to compare and contrast Jonah with Northern prophets, especially with Elijah.



In another way, the "wa-yehi" of Jonah 1:1 (“and it came to pass”) also links the narrative with similar events that involve creation in 1 and 2 Kings, a section of the Old Testament that contains a high concentration of prophetic miracle stories. Even a representative list is impressive. Ravens bring food (1 Kings 17:1-8); bread and oil multiply (1 Kings 17:9-16); fire and rain appear (1 Kings 18); wind, an earthquake, and fire are present (1 Kings 19:11-12); a lion kills a man (1 Kings 20:35-36); fire comes down (2 Kings 1:10, 12); the Jordan is parted, a whirlwind carries Elijah to heaven (2 Kings 2:1-14); water is purified (2 Kings 2:19-22); bears kill young boys (2 Kings 2:23-24); oil is multiplied (2 Kings 4:1-7); stew is purified (2 Kings 4:38-41); bread is multiplied (2 Kings 4:42-44); and an ax-head floats (2 Kings 6:1-7).




The Jonah narrative, with its miraculous events involving the storm, the great fish, the qiqayon plant, the worm and the scorching east wind fit well within 1 and 2 Kings with their numerous stories that describe Yahweh as one who controls creation.

To review up to this point, Jonah and Elijah are both from the Northern Kingdom, their ministries involve animals and both experience the miraculous intervention of Yahweh. If we add to this list the fact that the phrase in Jonah 1:1 (“now the word of Yahweh came”) also introduces Elijah in 1 Kings 17:2, 8; 21:17, 28 then we are subtly led to this conclusion; one of the goals of the Jonah narrative is to compare the prophet from Gath-hepher with Elijah.



More specific – and indeed more satirical – connections between Jonah and Elijah begin in Jonah 1:2 where Yahweh calls Jonah to,“arise, go” to Nineveh. This call to go to a foreign land is paralleled only in 1 Kings 17:9 where Yahweh commands Elijah also to “arise, go to Zarephath which is in Sidon.”



Usually Yahweh’s word is the perfect performative, where to speak is to create. The God who says “Let there be light” and “it was so” (Gen. 1:3), commands Elijah to “Arise go to Zarapheth” (1 Kings 17:9) and Elijah“arises and goes,” (1 Kings 17:10). Following this normal biblical pattern we expect the Jonah narrative to continue, “So Jonah got up and went to Nineveh.”But, instead, Jonah says nothing to Yahweh and rises to flee. It’s as though outside his door Jonah hangs a large sign with the words, “Do Not Disturb!”Jonah is certainly no Elijah!



In Jonah 1:3 the prophet flees from the presence of Yahweh. In a prophetic context, the phrase "from the presence of Yahweh” occurs primarily in connection with Elijah (1 Kings 17:1, 18:15) and Elisha (2 Kings 3:14, 5:16). The Deuteronomistic historian uses this phrase to identify these prophets as Yahweh’s servants who hear his word and execute his commands. Closely linked with this is the prophet standing in Yahweh’s heavenly council to perceive the divine word. Though Yahweh’s presence is not explicitly mentioned in the expression of this concept, it would certainly seem to be implicit (cf. Jer. 23:18, 22; 1 Kings 22:19). This means that whereas Elijah faithfully stands in the presence of Yahweh and is obedient to his bidding, Jonah seeks to escape this presence – so much so that for emphasis. the phrase "from the presence of Yahweh" is used twice in 1:3. This repetition is necessary in order to build the following chiasmus.

A. But Jonah arose to flee toward Tarshish from the presence of Yahweh

B. he went down to Joppa

C. and found a ship

D. going to Tarshish

C.’ he bought the ship

B.’ and boarded it

A.’ to go with them toward Tarshish away from the presence of Yahweh



What the words proclaim the structure subverts. Jonah is trapped, with no way out! The irony is that the presence of Yahweh surrounds Jonah, even in his flight. This irony signals satire; Jonah’s actions are foolish, indeed!



It is important to note, however, that not all of the satirical irony in the narrative uses Elijah as its foil. One example will suffice. Irony that leads to a satirical understanding of Jonah is also located in the phrase “a ship going to Tarshish” (1:3). Ships going to Tarshish are well-known in the Old Testament. First Kings 22:2 and 2 Chron. 20:35-37 report how Jehoshaphat made “ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir for gold; but they did not go, for the ships were wrecked at Ezion-geber.” Psalm 48 praises the God who “by the east wind did shatter the ships of Tarshish” (v. 8) and this is done in such a way as to indicate that the tradition is well known. In Isaiah 23:1, 14 the ships of Tarshish are exhorted to “howl because their stronghold has been devastated.” Finally, in Ezek. 27:25-26 Tarshish ships “fall into the heart of the sea.”



Taking these texts together it appears as though Tarshish ships function like a “banana-skin” tradition. A “ship going to Tarshish” culturally translates as “the Titanic going out on her maiden voyage.” The analogy is almost exact, for Tarshish ships are proud, noble structures (cf. Isa. 2:16 as a symbol of everything that is “high and lifted up” against Yahweh), carrying precious cargoes, and they are generically programmed to be “shattered by the east wind” and to promptly “sink into the heart of the sea.” This means that at the outset of his scheming to flee from Yahweh, Jonah is doomed to fail!



Jonah appears again as an “anti-Elijah” when we consider that in 1 Kings 19 Elijah runs – not because he begrudges Yahweh’s gracious characteristics, as does Jonah (cf. 4:2) – but because he is on Jezebel’s hit list. At this point Yahweh’s question to the defeated Elijah is, “What are you doing here?” (1 Kings 19:9). This is very close to the captain’s anxious cry in Jonah 1:6, “What are you doing in a deep sleep?” Jonah’s “deep sleep” goes far beyond the exhausted sleep of Elijah when he is on the run from Jezebel (cf. 1 Kings 19:5 and the words “and he laid down and slept”). All of the special care with which Yahweh takes care of Elijah – a plant to shade him (1 Kings 19:4]), angels to accompany him (1 Kings 19:5) and ravens to feed him (1 Kings 19:6) –find connections in Jonah, in even more miraculous forms. The irony is that Elijah’s death wish comes after his success on Mt. Carmel in 1 Kings 18 which prompts the death threat of Jezebel (1 Kings 19:2). On the other hand Jonah’s exhaustion comes after fleeing from the presence of Yahweh – the very presence Elijah is running toward (1 Kings 19:8)! These elements magnify the differences between these two prophets, and further diminish the stature of Jonah.



But a closer look at Elijah’s death wish demonstrates further satire when it is compared with Jonah 4:3 where this pouting prophet asks Yahweh to take his life. David Daube analyzes every instance of a wish for death or act of suicide/killing in the Old Testament. Of interest here that he designates the requests made by Moses, Elijah, Jeremiah and Jonah as the tradition of “the weary prophet.” But Jeremiah’s so-called request for death is in reality a wistful (and futile) yearning that he should never have been born (Jer. 20:14-18) and not a desire that his life come to an end. Consequently, it should be categorized with Job 3:2-7 as a curse of life rather than as a request for death. This leaves the requests of Moses, Elijah and Jonah in a group for consideration.



In 1 Kings 19, in his flight from Jezebel, Elijah comes to Horeb and begs Yahweh to kill him (v. 4). Elijah’s motivation appears to be twofold: he is a failure as a prophet and he is the only true follower of Yahweh left. Not only does Elijah overlook Obadiah and the hundred Yahwistic prophets still in hiding (1 Kings 18:3-4), but also that there are 7,000 people left in Israel who have not worshipped Baal (1 Kings 19:18). In response, Yahweh commissions Elijah to anoint Elisha as his successor (v. 15).



In contrast, in 4:3 with the words “Yahweh, take my life from me” Jonah strikes a noble pose by echoing the prayer of Elijah in 1 Kings 19:4 where he says, “Yahweh, take my life”. But instead of continuing, “for I am no better than my fathers” Jonah adapts Elijah’s words to, “for my death is better than life”. This satire of Jonah is based upon the fact that Elijah, wearied with his endless struggle with Baalism, is convinced that he will not succeed where his fathers had failed. He feels that it is time to join them in death. On the other hand, Jonah is disappointed with the very success of his mission! Jonah has Elijah’s depression without Elijah’s excuse!



The immediate divine response to both requests for death made by Moses and Elijah is a diminishment in prophetic authority. Moses’portion of his divine authority is divided among the seventy elders (Num. 11:16-17). Elijah’s office as prophet is shared with Elisha (1 Kings 19:19-21). The most significant shared feature is the fact that these entreaties for death are denied by Yahweh. Jonah’s requests for death in 4:3, 8, therefore, hint at an imminent reduction in Jonah’s authority and status vis-à-vis Yahweh’s prophet.
Like Elijah before him, who sits under a broom tree and prays to die at a time of crisis (1 Kings 19:4), later in chapter four Jonah experiences a similar loss of confidence under his qiqayon plant. Also like Elijah who experiences a revelation of Yahweh on Mt. Horeb, Jonah will also receive a revelation in 4:10-11.



Only two other prophets ever explicitly receive Yahweh’s word outside the boundaries of the Promised Land: Elijah at Mt. Horeb (1 Kings 19:8-9, 15-18), and Ezekiel by the River Chebar in Babylon (Ezek. 1:3). When Yahweh extends the revelation of his word to Jonah in this “extra-terrestrial”way, the prophet is unmoved by this act of kindness. Jonah hears only that his anger has not been an appropriate response.



On the other hand, Elijah travels to Horeb and has his dramatic encounter with Yahweh who speaks to him from the “soft murmuring sound” (or “still, small voice,” 19:12). The contrast couldn’t be any more definite – Elijah at Horeb, the ancestral locale of revelation, speaking as a faithful emissary with Yahweh and Jonah petulantly bickering with God about his personal discomfort outside of the Promised Land.



In both 1 Kings 19 and Jonah 4 – by means of his creation –Yahweh attempts to edify his prophet. In Elijah’s case the prophet finally understands that Yahweh’s work will not be by wind, earthquake or fire (1 Kings 19:11-12). Rather, Yahweh will accomplish his great purposes through a “gentle whisper” (1 Kings 19:12), that is to say, through the political and prophetic affairs of Israel and Aram (1 Kings 19:15-18). In Jonah’s case – after everything Yahweh has done to him and for him by means of a fish, his “second chance” (cf. 3:1) and the qiqayon plant – his lack of responsiveness is shocking.



The intertexts we have explored between the Elijah and Jonah invite a comparison of the two, and it is thus. If Elijah is the most daring, courageous, victorious Yahwistic prophet in Israel’s history (cf. e.g., Malachi 3:23) – indeed one of the major fulfillments of “a prophet like me [Moses]” (Deut. 18:15) – then Jonah is certainly the antithesis of this mighty hero of old. When compared to Elijah, the narrative of Jonah is a well orchestrated symphony of satire.

....