Dried-up branch of the Nile ran alongside ancient pyramids and capital of Memphis

 

 

“The discovery may explain why pyramid fields were concentrated along this strip

of desert near the ancient Egyptian capital of Memphis, as they would have been easily accessible via the river branch at the time of their construction”.

 

Sean McShee  

 

A new branch of the Nile discovered in Egypt - Africa, Middle East, News, Uncovering the Past, World

 

A new branch of the Nile discovered in Egypt

 

By Sean McShee  | July 10, 2024

 

TWH –  The science journal, Communications Earth, and Environment, published evidence of an ancient, now dried-up and silted-over branch of the Nile. The research is from the Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of North Carolina – Wilmington. The authors of that study, Eman Ghoneim et al., named this branch the “Ahramat Branch.” In Arabic, “Ahramat” means “pyramids.” The discovery may explain why pyramid fields were concentrated along this strip of desert near the ancient Egyptian capital of Memphis, as they would have been easily accessible via the river branch at the time of their construction.

 

During the age of pyramid building, construction supplies moved along this branch. That waterway also brought people to perform the rituals of the Cult of the Dead Pharaoh. Ghoneim and her colleagues found that many of the pyramids had causeways ending at the proposed riverbanks of the Ahramat Branch, suggesting the river was used for transporting construction materials.

 

The Ahramat Branch helps to explain why the Egyptians built the pyramids where they did.

 

The height of the water in that branch varied over time, as did the locations where the pyramids were built. The distance between the banks of that branch and the pyramids also varies.

 

Ghoneim et al. discussed the changes in land and water in North Africa. These changes influenced the Ahramat as well as ancient Egypt.

 

The Cult of the Pharaoh

 

No pyramid was merely the beautifully decorated final resting place of a dead Pharaoh. Pyramids formed parts of ceremonial complexes, which were key elements of the Cult of the (Dead) Pharaoh. Next to the pyramid stood the mortuary temple, where the Pharaoh’s cult continued after death. Egyptians built valley temples on waterways, and a causeway linked the valley temple with the mortuary temple.

 

Many of these causeways ended at and ran at right angles to the bank of the Ahramat Branch. Ghoneim et al. argued that the valley temples functioned as river harbors.

….

“The Ahramat Branch borders a large number of pyramids dating from the Old Kingdom to the 2nd Intermediate Period and spanning between Dynasties 3 and 13.” via Communications Earth, and Environment

 

Climate change in ancient North Africa

 

As the last Ice Age ended around 10,000 B.C.E., [sic] sea levels rose, and the area now known as the Sahara began to transform from an arid desert to a savannah-like environment with large river systems and lake basins. Scientists have labeled this period as the African Humid Period (12,500 to 3000 B.C.E.).

 

….

 

The Old Kingdom of Egypt began around 2700 B.C.E. [Mackey: More like 2000 BC]

 

The Great Sphinx and Pyramids of Gizeh (Giza), 17 July 1839,

by David Roberts [public domain

 

The Ahramat Branch

 

The Nile had a much greater water volume during the African Humid Period, which lessened during the Old Kingdom. This period saw the Nile frequently branching off, including the Ahramat Branch. As northeastern Africa became more arid, the Nile and its branches carried less water. The desert expanded, water levels dropped, and some branches dried up.

 

In the developed world, rivers seldom run free and are often managed, like the Colorado River, which functions as a de facto water management system. The developed world keeps tight control over waterways. Before humans had such control, rivers meandered, branched off, flooded, and changed course naturally.

 

The Ahramat Branch was not a small creek. Before humans began to control rivers, their length, depth, and width varied significantly.

 

Mackey: For the massive technological and infrastructural innovations, dams and waterways, created during the time of Joseph of Egypt’s Famine, see e.g. my article (esp. Part Two):

 

Imhotep Enigma, his pharaoh was not Djoser, and proof for Egypt’s Third Dynasty Famine

 

(1) Imhotep Enigma, his pharaoh was not Djoser, and proof for Egypt’s Third Dynasty Famine

 

Ghoneim et al. reported that the Ahramat had a depth between 2 and 8 meters (6.6 to 26.2 feet), a length of 64 kilometers (39.8 miles), and a width between 200 to 700 meters (656.2 to 2,296.6 feet).

 

Egyptian civilization developed in the context of declining rainfall, which meant less water in the Nile and its branches. As the Sahara grew larger, the risk of sandstorms increased, causing branches of the Nile to silt up. Its banks grew more solid, and marshlands disappeared. The Nile itself and its branches began to move eastward, marking the beginnings of the Old Kingdom ….

 

From west to east, Egypt can be described as three regions: the Western Desert Plateau, the Nile floodplain, and the Eastern Desert. The Western Desert Plateau lies between the western border and the Nile floodplain, which bisects Egypt and provides the main water source. The Eastern Desert lies between the Nile floodplain and the Red Sea.

 

The Ahramat Branch flowed between the Nile and the Western Desert Plateau. According to Ghoneim et al., the volume of water in the Ahramat varied over time. When it carried more water, it overflowed its main banks and covered more ground. The distance between the Ahramat and the pyramids under construction also varied.

 

When the water in the Ahramat rose higher, the Egyptians built the pyramids further west. When the water fell lower, they built the pyramids closer to the Ahramat Branch.

There is no consensus on why the Old Kingdom collapsed. One theory suggests that failures of the Nile to flood adequately over several years led to famine, which in turn led to the collapse of the Old Kingdom.

 

Soil cores extracted from the area around Memphis show 3 meters (9.8 feet) of sand, likely deposited by sandstorms from the growing desert. This sand would have pushed the Nile and its branches eastward, potentially overwhelming the Nile’s low-lying branches.

 

Like political boundaries, rivers can change. In 2007, John K. Hillier et al. estimated that at Luxor in southern Egypt, the Nile had migrated 2 to 3 kilometers (1.2 to 1.9 miles) per 1,000 years.

 

Two factors drove the eastward migration of the Nile and its branches: continued desertification of the Sahara, which increased the amount of windblown sand, and a low volume of water in the river and its branches, which caused more silting. When sandstorms and low water occurred together, the process accelerated. Additionally, northern Egypt sits on a fault line and is prone to earthquakes. Over time, fault line movements caused a relative tilt downwards to the northeast, contributing to the drying up of the Ahramat Branch.

 

The Ahramat Branch disappeared during the New Kingdom, roughly 1550 to 1070 B.C.E. [sic].

 

An early photograph of the Great Pyramid,

taken by Frédéric Goupil-Fesquet in 1839 [public domain]

 

The zone of interest

 

In ancient Egypt, the major cities and monuments straddle the banks of the Nile. The ancient Egyptians built their monuments at the margins of the Nile floodplain. As the volume of water in the Nile and its branches changed, so did those margins.

 

Eman Ghoneim et al. examined a zone of interest west of the Nile, extending from the Lisht Pyramid complex northward to the Giza Pyramid complex. This zone contains the largest concentration of pyramids (31) in Egypt. The Egyptians built these pyramids from the Old Kingdom to the Second Intermediate Period, roughly from 2700 to 1650 B.C.E.[sic]. Memphis, the capital of the Old Kingdom, is located on the Nile across from this zone. Until now, the reason for this dense concentration had never been clear. The Ahramat Branch would have provided transit for building those ceremonial complexes.

“Many of us who are interested in ancient Egypt are aware that the Egyptians must have used a waterway to build their enormous monuments, like the pyramids and valley temples, but nobody was certain of the location, the shape, the size or proximity” to the pyramids, says lead author Eman Ghoneim in a statement. “Our research offers the first map of one of the main ancient branches of the Nile at such a large scale and links it with the largest pyramid fields of Egypt.”

 

The Ahramat branch could have provided transport to major pyramid sites. Those sites include the Giza, Abusir, Saqqara, Dahshur, and Lisht pyramid complexes. That article quoted lead archaeologist Ghoneim. She said the Nile served as a “lifeline in a largely arid landscape.” It provided both sustenance and easy transport of goods and building materials. She continued “For this reason … most of the key cities and monuments were in close proximity to the banks of the Nile and its peripheral branches.”

….

 

 

Middle Bronze I nomads came up from the south hence they could not have been Abraham’s family

 

 

by

 Damien F. Mackey

  

“On the basis of my research, I would suggest that they were a people

who migrated slowly, from the south or southwest,

into the Central Negev of Palestine”.

 Dr. Rudolph Cohen

 

What Dr. Rudolph Cohen wrote here, in his article:

Home > Magazines > BAR > July/August 1983

 

The Mysterious MBI People

Does the Exodus tradition in the Bible preserve the memory of their entry into Canaan?

 

is an improvement, both geographically and archaeologically, on the views of the American rabbi-archaeologist, Nelson Glueck - who had believed that the nomadic Middle Bronze I (MBI) people belonged to the age of the patriarch Abraham - and of those who have identified them as the family of Abraham. Their progression into the Negev from the S or SW is geographically opposite to that of the Abraham-ites, who had entered the land of Canaan from the north, coming from Haran (from the NE).

 

Moreover, the MBI sites are far too substantial and widespread to represent the incipient Abrahamic family.  

 

Dr. Cohen wrote:

 

In his Negev surveys, Glueck found that small MBI settlements had flourished all over the Central Negev, while the area was largely uninhabited during the prior and following periods. …. Since Negev sites like Beer-Sheva and Gerar figure prominently in the patriarchal narratives, Glueck concluded that this age must have been that of the patriarchs and that the MBI people included the patriarchal Hebrew tribes. Glueck’s hypothesis was soon adopted by Albright in his famous and controversial essay, “Abram the Hebrew.” …. 

Albright argued in this essay that the Biblical stories concerning the patriarch had their natural setting in the wide-ranging donkey caravans that conducted trade in the ancient Near East in MBI, which he dated to the early second millennium B.C.

 

The gross mis-dating of Palestinian archaeology – almost a millennium too early – by W.F. Albright and Fr. Louis-Hugues Vincent (OP), had brought the MBI people into chronological range of Abram (Abraham).

 

Dr. Cohen, while rejecting Glueck’s Abraham hypothesis, will, in his article, date the MBI to that approximate early era, to “… 2200 B.C. to about 2000 B.C.”. Yet, despite that, Dr. Cohen was able to convince Australian tour guide, Dr. David Down - who had correctly dated the MBI nomads to “about 1405 BC” - that the two were on the same page. Thus Dr. David Down (“Egal and the Exodus”):

Archive: Egal and the Exodus

 

It all started the previous year when I talked with Dr Rudolph Cohen, then head of the Israel Antiquities Authority, who holds the same view as I do on the identification of the Middle Bronze I people with the Israelites who invaded Palestine under Joshua about 1405 BC.

 

Drs. Down and Cohen were not entirely saying the same thing, however.

How could they have been, if one (Down) had accepted the MBI as the Exodus Israelites according to a close biblical estimation (1405 BC), whilst the other (Cohen) had dated those same people to half a millennium or more earlier?

 

What Dr. Cohen and Egal Israel are really saying, as one finds with deeper probing, is that the biblical Israelites are a dim memory of the real, historical MBI people. These experienced Israeli archaeologists never appear to have (had) any intention whatsoever of re-adjusting the MBI to where Dr. David Down knows they actually belong, to “about 1405 BC”.

 

I have to say at this stage that those archaeologists, who, using the same chronological system as Dr. Cohen and Egal Israel, outright deny that the Exodus ever happened, that Joshua ever existed, biblical minimisers such as emeritus professor Israel Finkelstein and his allies, are the more logical.

 

They know that there is nothing in their (albeit faulty) c. 1400 BC period that would accord with the Joshuan Conquest of Canaan. And they are prepared to admit it - whereas Dr. Cohen (and, presumably, Egal Israel) pushes the distant memory line.

 

Let us follow Dr. Rudolph Cohen through parts of his article, with some comments added wherever deemed appropriate:

 

….

One of the most obscure periods in the history of Palestine is the Middle Bronze I period (commonly referred to as MBI) which extended from about 2200 B.C. to about 2000 B.C. Who were the MBI people? We really don’t know.

 

Mackey’s comment: And you are really going to have no hope of finding out if you mis-date the MBI to c. 2000 BC.

 

On the basis of my research, I would suggest that they were a people who migrated slowly, from the south or southwest, into the Central Negev of Palestine. I would further suggest that the dim, historical memory of their journey powerfully influenced the Biblical author who described Israel’s entry into Canaan. In fact, these MBI people may be the Israelites whose famous journey from Egypt to Canaan is called the Exodus.

 

Mackey’s comment: The Biblical author was influenced by a “dim, historical memory”.

 

On one thing scholars are agreed: The pottery, the settlements, and other aspects of the material culture of the MBI people that have been uncovered over the last 50 years differ significantly from what went before in the Early Bronze period and from what followed in the Middle Bronze II period. The Early Bronze Age (c. 3150 B.C.–2200 B.C.) was characterized by a flourishing urban civilization. The same was true of the Middle Bronze Age II (c. 2000 B.C.–1550 B.C.). In MBI, however, there was a notable absence of urban settlements, although such settlements continued to flourish on the seacoast of Lebanon and Syria.

 

Mackey’s comment: Just the scenario that one would expect from a newly-arrived nomadic people.

 

….

Nelson Glueck, the American rabbi-archaeologist, believed MBI was the age of the patriarch Abraham.

 

In his Negev surveys, Glueck found that small MBI settlements had flourished all over the Central Negev, while the area was largely uninhabited during the prior and following periods.² Since Negev sites like Beer-Sheva and Gerar figure prominently in the partriarchal narratives, Glueck concluded that this age must have been that of the patriarchs and that the MBI people included the patriarchal Hebrew tribes. Glueck’s hypothesis was soon adopted by Albright in his famous and controversial essay, “Abram the Hebrew.”³ ….

 

….

 

I have been studying the MBI sites in the Central Negev for almost two decades now. The result of this study can, I believe, elucidate some of the outstanding issues. My own conclusion is that the MBI culture must be differentiated from those both preceding and following it. MBI is, in this sense, intermediate. But I also agree with Dever that some MBI pottery types represent a continuation of Early Bronze types. In this sense I see clear connections between the MBI and the Early Bronze Age which preceded it. But other new aspects of MBI culture, including burial customs and social structure, imply a new ethnic element.

 

Thus, the MBI culture is also intrusive; migrating peoples who destroyed the existing urban centers must be involved.

 

Mackey’s comment: This reads like a description of the Joshuan Conquest, the “new ethnic element”.

 

But this new ethnic element was neither Amorite nor “Kurgan” peoples who supposedly came from the north and east. In my view, the new MBI population came from the south and the Sinai, the route of the Israelites on that journey known as the Exodus. This is a new hypothesis published here for the first time. I think the latest evidence supports it. Let us look at this evidence, especially the geographic and archaeological discoveries of the last five to ten years.

 

Literally hundreds of MBI sites have been surveyed in the Central Negev¹⁰; many have been recently excavated. As a result, certain generalizations can now be made. The MBI sites in the Central Negev were regularly established on the summits or slopes of high hills, and sometimes on comparatively low hills. Rarely are remains of settlements found in valleys. The sites are widely scattered throughout the Central Negev. Nevertheless, there is a large concentration of sites along the geomorphic line that runs from the Kadesh-Barnea region to north of Dimona. ….

….

 

In 1973, I conducted three weeks of further excavations at this site. …. I was principally concerned with clarifying the relationship between the two strata uncovered by Kochavi and with determining whether a pre-MBI settlement had occupied the site. ….

….

We were able to determine almost the entire settlement groundplan: it consists of some 150 circular rooms. The basic building type is a unit comprising round and rectangular dwelling rooms and smaller installations arranged around a common central courtyard.

 

A single room can serve as an example of the Be’er Resisim groundplan. It is round (about ten feet across) with a central pillar that apparently supported the roof. The roof itself was formed by spanning wooden beams radially from the top of this pillar to the encircling walls, and then placing flat stone slabs over the scaffolding. The slabs were covered with mud or lime. Scattered on the floor made of small stones and beaten earth were typical MBI potsherds. Beneath this floor-level, on the natural rock, we found sherds from the Early Bronze Age II in a thin ash layer, again a critical finding. We found rooms like this, with minor variations, over and over again. Between the units were open-air enclosures used principally for food preparation, as we know from the remains of cooking pots and animal bones, mostly sheep and goat.

 

Apart from pottery, the other artifacts included grinding stones (sometimes of Aswan granite), fragments of ostrich egg shells, Red Sea conches (and the ornaments fashioned from them), “Canaanean” blades … and innumerable flint chips, and (in one building) a hoard of two copper ingots and a copper dagger. Smaller individual buildings as well as cairns (stone piles) were excavated in the area.

 

Mackey’s comment: Note the Egyptian elements, Aswan granite, ostrich shells.

 

….

The basic architectural arrangement, comprising round and rectangular rooms around a common central courtyard, repeats that found in the other two major sites and is generally characteristic of the Middle Bronze Age I. The excavations conducted here also confirm a general pattern I had previously noted from other excavations I conducted at MBI sites. …. The MBI structures had been erected over the remains of EBII settlements.

….

Who were these MBI people? How is their culture to be understood? I would like to suggest an answer.

….

 

The MBI peoples apparently had few technical traditions of their own and adapted those they found in use among the settled population they conquered. Naturally, they adapted the EBII forms to their own way of life, and the result was the characteristic MBI vessels, which recall the earlier models but employ different techniques and decoration.

This hypothesis, of course, contradicts the prevailing assessment, which describes the MBI sites in the Central Negev as a movement that came from the north. It is interesting, however, to note that this migratory drift, as I have reconstructed it, bears a striking similarity to that of the Israelites’ flight from Egypt to the Promised Land, as recorded in the book of Exodus. The concentration of MBI sites in the relatively fertile district east of Kadesh-Barnea recalls the tradition that the Israelites encamped near this oasis for 38 of their 40 years of wandering after leaving Egypt (Deuteronomy 1:46). If the EBII communities were still flourishing in the Negev and Sinai at the time of this MBI incursion, then the capital city of EB Arad with its satellites in the desert no doubt formed a kind of league like that of the Canaanite king of Arad, described in Numbers 21:1, and like that of the Amalekites in Exodus 17:8–13. Both no doubt offered fierce resistance to the northward-advancing MBI Israelites. The establishment of the MBI settlements directly over the ruins of the EBII–EBIII sites in the Central Negev is consistent with the tradition that the Israelites dwelled in the area previously inhabited by their Amalekite foes (Deuteronomy 25:17–19). The northeastward migration of the MBI population into Transjordan has parallels in the Biblical recollection that the Israelites remained in Moab before crossing the Jordan River and laying siege to Jericho (Deuteronomy 3:29). In this connection, it is interesting to note that Early Bronze Age Jericho was destroyed by a violent conflagration, and the site was thinly reoccupied by MBI newcomers, who were apparently unaccustomed to urban dwellings.

 

In the central and northern parts of Israel, the EBIII urban culture flourished. The MBI invaders in the south overwhelmed this urban Canaanite civilization and destroyed their cities but thereafter persisted in a semi-nomadic way of life. This bears a striking similarity to the tradition of Joshua’s devastating campaign against the Canaanite centers in central Palestine and his ban on rebuilding some of them (e.g., Joshua 8:28).

 

Both Jericho and Ai were fortified cities at the end of the Early Bronze Age. According to the Biblical account, they were both destroyed by the Israelites; God specifically instructed that these cities should not be rebuilt.

 

Interestingly enough, after the EBIII destruction of Jericho and Ai, both cities lay in ruins for hundreds of years.

 

Having successfully taken over Palestine, the MBI tribes were profoundly influenced by the mores of the people they conquered, and many of their artifacts and customs have their origin in the Early Bronze Age.

 

I do not necessarily mean to equate the MBI people with the Israelites, although an ethnic identification should not automatically be ruled out. But I am suggesting that at the very least the traditions incorporated into the Exodus account may have a very ancient inspiration reaching back to the MBI period. ….

 

Mackey’s comment: That “dim, historical memory” again.

 

The Mysterious MBI People - The BAS Library

 

 

Quasi-royal influence of Joseph, Haman, and prophet Daniel, all entitled “Father”

 

by

 Damien F. Mackey

  

Just as Joseph the Dreamer was like the Sun, obfuscating the light of his parents and brothers (Genesis 37:9), so did his quasi-royal power, and that of Haman and Daniel, at times, even seem to overshadow, or usurp, that of the Pharaoh/king.

  

This is based on my most recent article:

 

King Nabonidus may have thought of wise Daniel, Nabu-balatsu-iqbi, as his “father”

 

(7) King Nabonidus may have thought of wise Daniel, Nabu-balatsu-iqbi, as his "father"

 

It was customary for ancient kings to refer to their wise mentors and counsellors, their second-in-command, as “Father”.

 

Here, I just want to reflect upon the enormous power and/or influence exerted by three high officials known as “Father”: viz. Joseph of Egypt; Haman; and the prophet Daniel.

 

Just as Joseph the Dreamer was like the Sun, obfuscating the light of his parents and brothers (Genesis 37:9), so did his quasi-royal power, and that of Haman and Daniel, at times, seem even to overshadow, or usurp, that of the Pharaoh/king.

 

Joseph

 

Joseph, son of Jacob, was apparently, in his character and temperament, rather different from the extremely mild Moses (Numbers 12:3): “Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth”.

 

Moses, of many different historical guises (alter egos), had tasted total power as Pharaoh - as Userkare of Egypt’s Sixth Dynasty - but decided that he did not want that (cf. Hebrews 11:24-25), and so he abdicated.

 

Joseph, also of many different historical guises (alter egos), ruled as a virtual Pharaoh, for instance, as Den (Udimu) of Egypt’s First Dynasty, who bore a royal cartouche.

 

On this, see my article:

 

Joseph also as Den, ‘he who brings water’

 

(11) Joseph also as Den, 'he who brings water'

 

And as Ankhtifi, the saviour of Egypt from a protracted Famine, Joseph even seemed to have excluded Pharaoh entirely. 

 

Previously I wrote on this (and note how dramatically he contrasts with the mild Moses):

 

Just who was this incredible character like no other, the mysterious Ankhtifi?

 

I asked this question right at the end of my recent article:

 

Egypt’s high official, Ankhtifi, outboasts even great Senenmut

 

(4) Egypt’s high official, Ankhtifi, outboasts even great Senenmut | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

 

Who, indeed, was Ankhtifi, a high official of Egypt, seemingly a quasi-Pharaoh (see “ruled like a pharaoh” below), who, in his Autobiography, did not even bother to observe standard Egyptian protocol by mentioning the current Pharaoh?

Which means that Egyptologists cannot be exactly sure when Ankhtifi lived.

 

Bearing a host of impressive titles, Anhktifi - or whoever wrote his Autobiography - boasted of his having been like no other man ever born:

 

“I am a man without equal …. I am the front of people and the

back of people because (my) like will not exist; he will not exist.

(My) like could not have been born; he was not born”.

 

Could Ankhtifi have been the renowned Joseph, who likewise was front and centre involved in a terrible Famine?

Certainly Ankhtifi’s claim to have been the greatest ever to have been born seems to be echoed in the sage Sirach’s short praise of Joseph (Sirach 49:15):

 

“Nor was anyone ever born like Joseph …”.

Haman

 

Joseph, who was righteous, pure and honourable, and a faithful servant of the Lord, may also have inherited some of his father Jacob’s cunning, and that’s alright (Matthew 10:16): ‘Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves’, was nothing, however, like the conspiratorial Haman, and his perhaps even shrewder wife:

 

Haman and his shrewd wife, Zeresh, remind us of Ahab and wife, Jezebel

 

(4) Haman and his shrewd wife, Zeresh, remind us of Ahab and wife, Jezebel

 

Right at the beginning, the machiavellian Haman had been involved in a conspiracy against King Ahasuerus (Xerxes) that was foiled by Mordecai. And this was one of the reasons for Haman’s fierce resentment against Mordecai. Haman had been planning to overthrow the Medo-Persian kingdom and return it to the Babylonians.

Some texts wrongly say “Macedonians” (Esther 16:13-14):

 

For with certain new and unheard of devices he hath sought the destruction of Mardochai [Mordecai], by whose fidelity and good services our life was saved, and of Esther the partner of our kingdom, with all their nation:

Thinking that after they were slain, he might work treason against us left alone without friends, and might transfer the kingdom of the Persians to the Macedonians.

 

Haman had weasled his way into respect and had thus completely captivated the admiration and hearts of the King and the people (vv. 10-12):

 

Now that you may more plainly understand what we say, Aman [Haman] the son of Amadathi [Hammedatha], a Macedonian [sic] both in mind and country, and having nothing of the Persian blood, but with his cruelty staining our goodness, was received being a stranger by us:

And found our humanity so great towards him, that he was called our father, and was worshipped by all as the next man after the king:

But he was so far puffed up with arrogancy, as to go about to deprive us of our kingdom and life.

 

This “father” of the Medo-Persians even authored a conspiratorial edict (decree) on behalf of the king, who gave Haman his signet ring (3:8-10):

 

Then Haman said to King Xerxes, ‘There is a certain people dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom who keep themselves separate. Their customs are different from those of all other people, and they do not obey the king’s laws; it is not in the king’s best interest to tolerate them. If it pleases the king, let a decree be issued to destroy them, and I will give ten thousand talents of silver to the king’s administrators for the royal treasury’.

So the king took his signet ring from his finger and gave it to Haman son of Hammedatha, the Agagite [Captive], the enemy of the Jews.

 

Contrast this with, the albeit shrewd, Joseph, who greatly respected his superiors and who would do nothing dishonourable against them, e.g. in the case of Potipher’s wife.

 

Joseph, was highly honoured by the ruler just as Haman would later be, but Joseph’s exaltation did nothing to harm the country in which he abode as a foreigner, unlike the foreign Haman, who intended to use his power to bring down the King and the Jews.

 

Daniel

 

The wise and holy Daniel was historically (as Nabu-balatsu-iqbi, see article above) called “father” by the eccentric and superstitious king, Nabonidus (Nebuchadnezzar).

 

So wise was he (cf. Ezekiel 28:3: “Are you wiser than Daniel? Is no secret hidden from you?”), having not only interpreted the King’s Dream, but having actually recalled it for the King (Daniel 2), that King Nebuchadnezzar fell down and virtually worshipped Daniel.

 

Once again, as with Joseph and Haman, the superior-ranked ruler was lowering himself before the inferior-ranked official.

 

Daniel 2:46-47:

Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell prostrate before Daniel and paid him honor and ordered that an offering and incense be presented to him. The king said to Daniel, ‘Surely your God is the God of gods and the Lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries, for you were able to reveal this mystery’.